Annual Report (foreign Private Issuer) (40-f)

Share Name	Share Symbol	Market	Type
Denison Mines Corp	AMEX:DNN	AMEX	Common Stock

Share Name

Share Symbol

Market

Type

Denison Mines Corp

AMEX:DNN

AMEX

Common Stock

	Price Change	% Change	Share Price	High Price	Low Price	Open Price	Shares Traded	Last Trade
	0.00	0.00%	2.11				10	10:44:15

Price Change

% Change

Share Price

High Price

Low Price

Open Price

Shares Traded

Last Trade

0.00

0.00%

2.11

10:44:15

Annual Report (foreign Private Issuer) (40-f)

12/03/2015 5:07pm

Edgar (US Regulatory)

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 40-F

(Check One)

[ ]	Registration statement pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

[X]	Annual report pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the fiscal year ended: December 31, 2014

Commission file number: 001-33414

DENISON MINES CORP.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Ontario, Canada
(Province or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

1090
(Primary standard industrial classification code number)

98-0622284
(I.R.S. employer identification number)

Atrium on Bay, 595 Bay Street, Suite 402, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2C2; Phone number: 416-979-1991
(Address and telephone number of registrant’s principal executive offices)

CT Corporation System
111 Eighth Avenue
13^th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone number: 212-894-8800

(Name, address and telephone number of agent for service in the United States)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Not applicable.

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Common Stock without par value.

Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act: Not applicable.

For annual reports, indicate by check mark the information filed with this form:

[X]

Annual Information Form

[X]

Audited Annual Financial Statements

Indicate the number of outstanding shares of each of the issuer’s classes of capital or common stock as of the close of the period covered by the annual report: 505,868,894 Common Shares

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by filing the information contained in this form is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). If “Yes” is marked, indicate the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with such rule.

Yes [ ] No [X]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13(d) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant has been required to file such reports); and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements in the past 90 days.

Yes [X] No [ ]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit and post such files). Not applicable

Yes [ ] No [ ]

DOCUMENTS FILED PURSUANT TO GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

In accordance with General Instruction B.(3) of Form 40-F, Denison Mines Corp. (the “Company” or the “Registrant”) hereby incorporates by reference Exhibits 99.1 through 99.3 as set forth in the Exhibit Index attached hereto.

In accordance with General Instruction D.(9) of Form 40-F, the Company has filed written consents of certain experts named in the foregoing Exhibits as Exhibits 99.4 through 99.23, as set forth in the Exhibit Index attached hereto.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Certain of the information contained in this Annual Report on Form 40-F, including the documents incorporated herein by reference, may contain “forward-looking information”. Forward-looking information and statements may include, among others, statements regarding the future plans, costs, objectives or performance of the Company, or the assumptions underlying any of the foregoing. In this Annual Report on Form 40-F, words such as “may”, “would”, “could”, “will”, “likely”, “believe”, “expect”, “anticipate”, “intend”, “plan”, “estimate” and similar words and the negative form thereof are used to identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements should not be read as guarantees of future performance or results, and will not necessarily be accurate indications of whether, or the times at or by which, such future performance will be achieved. Forward-looking statements and information are based on information available at the time and/or management’s good-faith belief with respect to future events and are subject to known or unknown risks, uncertainties and other unpredictable factors, many of which are beyond the Company’s control. These risks, uncertainties and assumptions include, but are not limited to, those described under the section “Risk Factors” in the Company’s Annual Information Form for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (the “AIF”), which is filed as Exhibit 99.3 to this Annual Report on Form 40-F, and could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those projected in any forward-looking statements.

The Company’s forward-looking statements contained in the exhibits incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 40-F are made as of the respective dates set forth in such exhibits. In preparing this Annual Report on Form 40-F, the Company has not updated such forward-looking statements to reflect any subsequent information, events or circumstances or otherwise, or any change in management’s beliefs, expectations or opinions that may have occurred prior to the date hereof, nor does the Company assume any obligation to update such forward-looking statements in the future, except as required by applicable laws.

RESOURCE AND RESERVE ESTIMATES

The terms “mineral reserve”, “proven mineral reserve” and “probable mineral reserve” are Canadian mining terms as defined in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (“NI 43-101”), which references the guidelines set out in the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (the “CIM”) Standards on Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves, adopted by the CIM council, as may be amended from time to time by the CIM. These definitions differ from the definitions in Industry Guide 7 (“Industry Guide 7”) under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Under Industry Guide 7, mineralization may not be classified as a “reserve” unless the determination has been made that the mineralization could be economically and legally produced or extracted at the time of the reserve determination.

In addition, the terms “mineral resource”, “measured mineral resource”, “indicated mineral resource” and “inferred mineral resource” are defined in and required to be disclosed by NI 43-101; however, these terms are not defined terms under Industry Guide 7 and normally are not permitted to be used in reports and registration statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or the “Commission”). Investors are cautioned not to assume that any part or all of mineral deposits in these categories will ever be converted into reserves. “Inferred mineral resources” have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and great uncertainty as to their economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under Canadian rules, estimates of inferred mineral resources may not form the basis of feasibility or pre-feasibility studies, except in rare cases.

Accordingly, information contained in this Annual Report on Form 40-F and the documents incorporated by reference herein containing descriptions of the Company’s mineral deposits may not be comparable to similar information made public by U.S. companies subject to the reporting and disclosure requirements under the United States federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.

CURRENCY

Unless otherwise indicated, all dollar amounts in this Annual Report on Form 40-F are in United States dollars. The exchange rate of Canadian dollars into United States dollars, on December 31, 2014, based upon the noon buying rate payable in Canadian dollars as certified for customs purposes by the Bank of Canada, was U.S. $1.00 = CDN$1.1601.

TAX MATTERS

Purchasing, holding, or disposing of securities of the Registrant may have tax consequences under the laws of the United States and Canada that are not described in this Annual Report on Form 40-F.

DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

A. Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

The Company maintains disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the Company’s filings under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), is recorded, processed, summarized and reported in accordance with the requirements specified in the rules and forms of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or the “Commission”). The Company carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of its management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of the Company’s “disclosure controls and procedures” (as defined in the Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(e)) as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based upon that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2014, are effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Registrant in reports it files or submits under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms and is accumulated and communicated to the Registrant’s management, including its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

The Company’s disclosure controls and procedures are designed to provide reasonable assurance of achieving their objectives and, as indicated in the preceding paragraph, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer believe that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures are effective at that reasonable assurance level, although the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer do not expect that the disclosure controls and procedures or internal control over financial reporting will prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived or operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. The Company will continue to periodically review its disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting and may make such modifications from time to time as it considers necessary.

B. Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

The Company’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining an adequate system of internal control over financial reporting. Internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of the Company’s financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards. Management conducted an assessment of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on the framework established by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission on Internal Control — Integrated Framework (2013). Based on this assessment, management concluded that, as of December 31, 2014, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting is effective.

C. Report of the Independent Auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

The effectiveness of the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014 has been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent auditor, as stated in their report included with the Registrant’s Audited Financial Statements, which are an exhibit to this Annual Report on Form 40-F.

D. Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

There was no change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the twelve month period covered by this Annual Report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

The Company is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (the “TSX”) and is required to describe its practices and policies with regard to corporate governance with specific reference to the corporate governance guidelines of the Canadian Securities Administrators on an annual basis by way of a corporate governance statement contained in the Company’s Annual Information Form or Information Circular. The Company is also listed on the NYSE MKT LLC (the “NYSE MKT”) and additionally complies as necessary with the rules and guidelines of the NYSE MKT as well as the SEC. The Company reviews its governance practices on an ongoing basis to ensure it is in compliance with the applicable laws, rules and guidelines both in Canada and in the United States.

The Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) is responsible for the Company’s corporate governance policies and has separately designated a standing Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee. The Board has determined that the members of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee are independent, based on the criteria for independence and unrelatedness prescribed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Section 10A(m)(3), and the NYSE MKT.

Corporate governance relates to the activities of the Board, the members of which are elected by and are accountable to the shareholders, and takes into account the role of the senior officers who are appointed by the Board and who are charged with the day to day administration of the Company. The Board is committed to sound corporate governance practices that are both in the interest of its shareholders and contribute to effective and efficient decision making.

BENEFIT PLAN BLACKOUT PERIODS

Not applicable.

AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL EXPERT

The Company’s Board of Directors has determined that all three members of its Audit Committee (Ms. Catherine Stefan, Mr. Brian D. Edgar and Mr. William A. Rand) are audit committee financial experts, within the meaning of paragraph 8(b) of General Instruction B of Form 40-F, and are also independent within the meaning of United States and Canadian securities regulations and applicable stock exchange requirements. A description of the education and experience of these persons is set forth in the table below:

	Education & experience relevant to
Member Name	performance of audit committee duties

Catherine J.G. Stefan,	•	Chartered Professional Accountant (Ontario)
Chair of the Audit	•	B.Comm
Committee	•	Held position of Chief Operating Officer of O&Y Properties Inc.,
		President of Stefan & Associates and Executive Vice-President of Bramalea Group, Chair, Tax Committee of the Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies (CIPREC).

Brian D. Edgar	•	Law degree, with extensive corporate finance experience
	•	Held positions of Chairman since 2011 and President and Chief Executive Officer of a public company from 2005 to 2011.
	•	Has served on audit committees of a number of public companies

William A. Rand	•	B.Comm (Accounting)
	•	Two law degrees, with extensive corporate finance experience
	•	Has served on audit committees of a number of public companies

Through such education and experience, each of these three members has experience overseeing and assessing the performance of companies and public accountants with respect to the preparation, auditing and evaluation of financial statements, and has: (1) an understanding of generally accepted accounting principles and financial statements; (2) the ability to assess the general application of such principles in connection with the accounting for estimates, accruals and reserves; (3) experience preparing, auditing, analyzing or evaluating financial statements that present a breadth and level of complexity of accounting issues that are generally comparable to the breadth and complexity of issues that can reasonably be expected to be raised by the Company’s financial statements; (4) an understanding of internal control over financial reporting; and (5) an understanding of audit committee functions.

The SEC has provided that the designation of an audit committee financial expert does not make him or her an “expert” for any purpose, impose on him or her any duties, obligations or liability that are greater than the duties, obligations or liability imposed on him or her as a member of the Audit Committee and the Board of Directors in the absence of such designation, or affect the duties, obligations or liability of any other member of the Audit Committee or Board of Directors.

CODE OF ETHICS

The Company has adopted a code of ethics that applies to the Company’s directors, officers and employees, including the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, principal accounting officer or controller, persons performing similar functions and other officers, directors and employees of the Company. A current copy of the amended code of ethics is on the Company’s website at http://www.denisonmines.com. In the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, the Company has not made any amendment to a provision of its code of ethics that applies to any of its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, principal accounting officer or controller or persons performing similar functions that relates to one or more of the items set forth in paragraph (9)(b) of General Instruction B to Form 40-F. In the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, the Company has not granted a waiver (including an implicit waiver) from a provision of its code of ethics to any of its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, principal accounting officer or controller or persons performing similar functions that relates to one or more of the items set forth in paragraph (9)(b) of General Instruction B to Form 40-F.

PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES

The following table discloses the fees billed to the Company by its external auditor during the last two financial years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013. Services were billed and paid in Canadian dollars and have been translated into U.S. dollars using an average CAD$/US$ annual exchange rate of $1.1045 for 2014 and $1.0298 for 2013.

Periods Ending	Audit Fees(1)	Audit Related Fees (2)	Tax Fees (3)	All Other Fees(4)
December 31, 2013	$295,401	$121,134	$0	$123,373
December 31, 2014	$309,371	$136,411	$0	$9,507

Notes:

(1)	The aggregate fees billed for audit services of the Company’s consolidated financial statements.
(2)	The aggregate fees billed for assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of the Company’s financial statements and are not disclosed in the Audit Fees column. Fees relate to reviews of interim consolidated financial statements and specified audit procedures not included as part of the audit of the consolidated financial statements.
(3)	The aggregate fees billed for tax compliance, tax advice, and tax planning services, such as transfer pricing and tax return preparation.
(4)	The aggregate fees billed for professional services other than those listed in the other three columns. For 2014, “All Other Fees” relates to the Company’s acquisition of International Enexco Limited. For 2013, “All Other Fees” relates to the Company’s acquisitions of JNR Resources Inc., Fission Energy Corp. and Rockgate Capital Corp.

The Company’s audit committee mandate and charter provides that the audit committee shall (i) approve, prior to the auditor’s audit, the auditor’s audit plan (including, without limitation, staffing), the scope of the auditor’s review and all related fees, and (ii) pre-approve any non-audit services (including, without limitation, fees therefor) provided to the Company or its subsidiaries by the auditor or any auditor of any such subsidiary and shall consider whether these services are compatible with the auditor’s independence, including, without limitation, the nature and scope of the specific non-audit services to be performed and whether the audit process would require the auditor to review any advice rendered by the auditor in connection with the provision of non-audit services.

The following sets forth the percentage of services described above that were approved by the audit committee pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(i)(C) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X:

	2013	2014
Audit Related Fees:	100%	100%
Tax Fees:	100%	100%
All Other Fees:	100%	100%

OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS

The Company’s off-balance sheet arrangements at December 31, 2014 are as follows:

In connection with the Company’s sale of its U.S. Mining Division to Energy Fuels Inc (“EFR”) on June 29, 2012, the Company remained a guarantor under a sales contract assigned to EFR. The sales contract requires deliveries of 200,000 pounds of U₃O₈ per year from 2013 to 2017 at a selling price of 95% of the long-term U₃O₈ price at the time of delivery. Should EFR not be able to deliver for any reason other than “force majeure” as defined under the contract, the Company may be liable to the customer for incremental costs incurred to replace the contracted quantities if the unit price of the replacement quantity is greater than the contracted unit price selling amount. EFR has agreed to indemnify the Company for any future liabilities it may incur related to this guarantee.

The Company has agreed to indemnify EFR in connection with ongoing litigation between Denison Mines (USA) Corp (“DUSA”) (a company acquired by EFR as part of the sale of the U.S. Mining Division) and a contractor in respect of a construction project at the White Mesa mill. This matter was heard before an arbitrator in November, 2013 and a decision in favour of DUSA was granted in January 2014. The Company does not expect to recover a material amount of damages related to this issue.

TABULAR DISCLOSURE OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS

At December 31, 2014, the Company had a reclamation liability of $17,659,000, consisting of $11,234,000 for Elliot Lake obligations, $6,406,000 for the McClean Lake and Midwest joint ventures obligations and $19,000 for other obligations. The Company maintains a trust fund equal to the estimated reclamation spending for the succeeding six calendar years, less interest expected to accrue on the funds, in respect of its liability for Elliot Lake. At December 31, 2014, the balance in the trust fund was $2,068,000.

In addition, the Company’s contractual obligations at December 31, 2014 are as follows:

						After
(in thousands)		Total	1 Year	2-3 Years	4-5 Years	5 Years

Debt Obligations	$	39	30	9	-	-
Operating lease
and other obligations	$	473	269	186	18	-

IDENTIFICATION OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE

The Company has a separately-designated standing audit committee established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Exchange Act. The committee members are Ms. Catherine J. G. Stefan and Messrs. Brian D. Edgar and William A. Rand. For further information on these members, see discussion above under “Audit Committee Financial Experts.”

INTERACTIVE DATA FILE

An interactive data file is not yet required to be filed since the Company prepares its financial statements in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards.

NYSE MKT CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

The Company’s common shares are listed on the NYSE MKT. Section 110 of the NYSE MKT Company Guide permits the NYSE MKT to consider the laws, customs and practices of foreign issuers in relaxing certain NYSE MKT listing criteria, and to grant exemptions from the NYSE MKT listing criteria based on these considerations. An issuer seeking relief under these provisions is required to provide written certification from independent local counsel that the non-complying practice is not prohibited by home country law. A description of the significant ways in which the Company’s governance practices differ from those followed by domestic companies pursuant to the NYSE MKT standards is as follows:

Board Composition: The NYSE MKT requires that a listed company have a Board of Directors consisting of at least a majority of members who satisfy applicable independence standards under Section 803 of the NYSE MKT Company Guide (the “NSYE MKT Independence Standard”). The Company’s Board is currently composed of eight members, five of whom qualify as independent under the NYSE MKT Company Guide and who meet the NSYE MKT Independence Standard, namely Ms. Stefan and Messrs. Craig, Dengler, Edgar and Rand. Denison’s remaining three directors do not satisfy the NYSE MKT Independence Standard, being Messrs. Hochstein, Lundin and Park.

Shareholder Meeting Quorum Requirement: The NYSE MKT minimum quorum requirement for a shareholder meeting is one-third of the shares issued and outstanding and entitled to vote for a meeting of a listed company’s shareholders. The TSX does not specify a quorum requirement for a meeting of a listed company’s shareholders. The Company’s current required quorum at any meeting of shareholders as set forth in the Company’s by-laws is two persons present, each being a shareholder entitled to vote at the meeting or a duly appointed proxyholder for an absent shareholder so entitled, holding or representing in aggregate not less than 10% of the shares of the Company entitled to be voted at the meeting. The Company’s current quorum requirement is not prohibited by, and does not constitute a breach of, the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) (the “OBCA”), applicable Canadian securities laws or the rules and policies of the TSX.

Proxy Solicitation Requirement: The NYSE MKT requires the solicitation of proxies and delivery of proxy statements for all shareholder meetings of a listed company, and requires that these proxies be solicited pursuant to a proxy statement that conforms to the proxy rules of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company is a foreign private issuer as defined in Rule 3b-4 under the Exchange Act, and the equity securities of the Company are accordingly exempt from the proxy rules set forth in Sections 14(a), 14(b), 14(c) and 14(f) of the Exchange Act. The Company solicits proxies in accordance with the OBCA, applicable Canadian securities laws and the rules and policies of the TSX.

Shareholder Approval Requirements: The NYSE MKT requires a listed company to obtain the approval of its shareholders for certain types of securities issuances. One is the sale of common shares (or securities convertible into common shares) at a discount to officers or directors. The TSX rules require shareholder approval for the issuance of shares to insiders in private placements where insiders are being issued more than 10% of the presently issued and outstanding shares. The NYSE MKT also requires shareholder approval of private placements that may result in the issuance of common shares (or securities convertible into common shares) equal to 20% or more of presently outstanding shares for less than the greater of book or market value of the shares. There is no such requirement under Ontario law. The TSX rules require shareholder approval for private placements that materially affect control, or where more than 25% of presently issued and outstanding shares will be issued at a discount to market. The Company will seek a waiver from the NYSE MKT shareholder approval requirement should a dilutive securities issuance trigger such NYSE MKT shareholder approval requirement in circumstances where such securities issuance does not trigger a shareholder approval requirement under the rules of the TSX.

The foregoing are consistent with the laws, customs and practices in Canada.

In addition, the Company may from time-to-time seek relief from the NYSE MKT corporate governance requirements on specific transactions under Section 110 of the NYSE MKT Company Guide by providing written certification from independent local counsel that the non-complying practice is not prohibited by its home country law, in which case, the Company shall make the disclosure of such transactions available on its website at www.denisonmines.com. Information contained on, or accessible through, our website is not part of this Annual Report.

The Registrant has elected not to adopt Section 805(c) of the NYSE MKT Company Guide applicable to charters and independence of Compensation Committees of U.S. domestic issuers. As a foreign private issuer, the Registrant is not required to comply with these rules.

MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURE

Not applicable.

UNDERTAKING AND CONSENT TO SERVICE OF PROCESS

A. Undertaking

The Company undertakes to make available, in person or by telephone, representatives to respond to inquiries made by the Commission staff, and to furnish promptly, when requested to do so by the Commission staff, information relating to: the securities registered pursuant to Form 40-F; the securities in relation to which the obligation to file an Annual Report on Form 40-F arises; or transactions in said securities.

B. Consent to Service of Process

The Company has previously filed with the SEC a Form F-X in connection with its common stock. Any change to the name or address of the Company’s agent for service shall be communicated promptly to the SEC by amendment to the Form F-X referencing the file number of the Company.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Exchange Act, the Company certifies that it meets all of the requirements for filing on Form 40-F and has duly caused this Annual Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereto duly authorized.

Registrant: DENISON MINES CORP.

By: /s/ Ron F. Hochstein
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date: March 12, 2015

EXHIBIT INDEX

99.1	Annual Information Form for the Year Ended December 31, 2014
99.2	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition for the Year ended December 31, 2014 (Exhibit 99.3 of the Registrant’s Form 6-K furnished to the Commission on March 6, 2015)
99.3	Consolidated Audited Financial Statements for the Years Ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 (Exhibit 99.2 of the Registrant’s Form 6-K furnished to the Commission on March 6, 2015) together with the Independent Auditors’ Report thereon
99.4	Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
99.5	Officers’ Certifications Required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
99.6	Officers’ Certifications Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code
99.7	Consent of Roscoe Postle Associates Inc.
99.8	Consent of Leo R. Hwozdyk, P.Eng.
99.9	Consent of Thomas C. Pool, P.E.
99.10	Consent of Richard E. Routledge, M.Sc., P.Geo.
99.11	Consent of James W. Hendry, P.Eng.
99.12	Consent of Luke Evans, M.Sc., P.Eng.
99.13	Consent of Hrayr Agnerian, M.Sc. (Applied), P. Geo.
99.14	Consent of William E. Roscoe, Ph.D., P.Eng.
99.15	Consent of Geostat Systems International Inc.
99.16	Consent of Michel Dagbert, P.Eng.
99.17	Consent of GeoVector Management Inc.
99.18	Consent of Allan Armitage, Ph.D., P.Geol.
99.19	Consent of Alan Sexton, M.Sc., P.Geol.
99.20	Consent of CSA Global (UK) Ltd.
99.21	Consent of Malcolm Titley, B.Sc. (Geology and Chemistry), MAusIMM, MAIG

Exhibit 99.1

Denison Mines Corp.

2014 Annual Information Form
March 5, 2015

Contents
About this AIF	1
About Denison	4
Developments over the Last Three Years	7
The Uranium Industry	11
Denison’s Operations	14
Mineral Properties	21
Mineral Exploration	65
Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures and Protocols	74
Manager of UPC	81
Denison Environmental Services	81
Environmental, Health and Safety	81
Government Regulation	83
Risk Factors	87
Denison’s Securities	96
Denison’s Management	98
Legal and Regulatory Proceedings	104
Material Contracts	104
Names and Interests of Experts	107
Additional Information	108
Audit Committee Mandate	A
Glossary of Terms	B


ABOUT THIS ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

This annual information form (“AIF”) is dated March 5, 2015. Unless stated otherwise, all of the information in this AIF is stated as at December 31, 2014.

This AIF has been prepared in accordance with Canadian securities laws and contains information regarding Denison’s history, business, mineral reserves and resources, the regulatory environment in which Denison does business, the risks that Denison faces and other important information for Shareholders.

This AIF incorporates by reference:
•	Denison’s management discussion and analysis (“MD&A”) for the year ended December 31, 2014, which is available under the Company’s profile on SEDAR (www.sedar.com) and on EDGAR (www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml) as an exhibit to the Company’s Form 40-F.
•	Denison’s audited consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2014, which are available on SEDAR and EDGAR as an exhibit to the Company’s Form 40-F.

Financial Information
Unless otherwise specified, all dollar amounts referred to in this AIF are stated in United Stated dollars. References to “CAD$” mean Canadian dollars.

Financial information is presented in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board.

Caution about Forward-Looking Information
This AIF and the documents incorporated by reference include forward-looking information within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and similar Canadian legislation, concerning the business, operations and financial performance and condition of Denison.

The use of words and phrases like "anticipate", "continue", "estimate", "expect", "may", "will", "project", "should", "believe", “plan” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking information.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

Forward-looking information involves known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results or events to differ materially from those anticipated in such forward-looking statements. Denison believes that the expectations reflected in this forward-looking information are reasonable, but no assurance can be given that these expectations will prove to be correct. Forward-looking information should not be unduly relied upon. This information speaks only as of the date of this AIF, and Denison will not necessarily update this information, unless required to do so by securities laws.

Examples of Forward-Looking Information
This AIF contains forward-looking information in a number of places, such as in statements pertaining to:

	•	Denison’s estimates of its mineral reserves and mineral resources
	•	Denison’s expectations regarding the toll milling of Cigar Lake ores
	•	Denison's capital expenditure program, exploration and development expenditures and reclamation costs
	•	Denison’s expectations of market prices and costs
	•	the supply and demand for uranium (“U₃O₈”)
	•	possible impacts of litigation and regulatory actions on Denison
	•	Denison’s exploration and development plans and objectives
	•	future royalty and tax payments and rates
	•	Denison’s expectations regarding raising capital
	•	Denison's expectations regarding additions to its mineral reserves and resources through acquisitions and exploration
	•	the receipt of regulatory approvals, permits and licences under governmental regulatory regimes

Material Risks
Denison's actual results could differ materially from those anticipated. Management has identified the following risk factors which could have a material impact on the Company or the trading price of its Shares:

	•	the speculative nature of exploration and development projects
	•	failure to realize benefits from transactions
	•	Denison’s inability to expand and replace its mineral reserves and resources
	•	the imprecision of mineral reserve and resource estimates
	•	the impact of uranium price volatility on the valuation of Denison’s mineral reserves and resources and the market price of its shares
	•	public acceptance of nuclear energy and competition from other energy sources
	•	volatility in the market price of the Company’s shares
	•	the risk of dilution from future equity financings
	•	reliance on other operators
	•	uncertainty surrounding Denison’s operations in foreign jurisdictions
	•	property title risk
	•	competition for properties
	•	global financial conditions
	•	the ability of Denison to meet its obligations to its creditors and the uncertainty of funding

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

	•	uncertainty as to reclamation and decommissioning liabilities
	•	technical innovation rendering Denison’s products and services obsolete
	•	liabilities inherent in mining operations and the adequacy of insurance coverage
	•	delays in obtaining permits and licences for development properties
	•	difficulty complying with changing government regulations and policy, including without limitation, compliance with environment, health and safety regulations
	•	potential claims of Canada’s First Nations people
	•	dependence on key personnel
	•	potential conflicts of interest for the Company’s directors who are engaged in similar businesses
	•	limitations of disclosure and internal controls
	•	the potential influence of Denison’s largest Shareholder, Korea Electric Power Corporation (“KEPCO”).

The risk factors listed above are discussed in more detail later in this AIF.

A Note for US Investors Regarding Estimates of
Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources

This AIF uses the terms “measured”, “indicated” and “inferred” mineral resources. United States investors are advised that while such terms are recognized and required by Canadian regulations, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission does not recognize them. “Inferred mineral resources” have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and as to their economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under Canadian rules, estimates of inferred mineral resources may not form the basis of feasibility or other economic studies.United States investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of measured or indicated mineral resources will ever be converted into mineral reserves. United States investors are also cautioned not to assume that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource exists, or is economically or legally mineable.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

About Denison

Denison is engaged in uranium exploration and development. The registered and head office of Denison is located at Suite 402, 595 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2C2, Canada. Denison’s website address is www.denisonmines.com.		In this AIF, Denison or the Company means Denison Mines Corp., Shareholders means holders of Denison’s common shares and Shares means Denison’s common shares.

At the end of 2014, Denison had a total of 88 active employees which were divided among the Company’s business as follows:
•	60 (9 hourly) in Canada
•	5 in Mongolia
•	13 in Mali
•	10 (5 hourly) in Zambia.

None of the Company’s employees are unionized.

Denison is a reporting issuer in all of the Canadian provinces. The Shares are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (“TSX”) under the symbol “DML” and on the NYSE MKT under the symbol “DNN.” Computershare Investor Services Inc. acts as the registrar and transfer agent for the Shares. The address for Computershare Investor Services Inc. is 100 University Avenue, 9th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5J 2Y1, Canada, and the telephone number is 1-800-564-6253.

The Shares are registered under the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Denison files periodic reports with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Formation of Denison
Denison was formed by articles of amalgamation as International Uranium Corporation (“IUC”), effective May 9, 1997 pursuant to the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) (the “OBCA”). On December 1, 2006, IUC combined its business and operations with Denison Mines Inc. (“DMI”), by way of arrangement under the OBCA (the “IUC Arrangement”). Pursuant to the IUC Arrangement, all of the issued and outstanding shares of DMI were acquired in exchange for IUC’s shares. Effective December 1, 2006, IUC’s articles were amended to change its name to “Denison Mines Corp.”

Prior to July 2012, Denison was engaged in the exploration, development, mining, and milling of uranium and vanadium, with projects in the United States, Canada, Zambia and Mongolia. At the time, Denison's principal assets included 100% ownership of the White Mesa Mill in Utah and 22.5% ownership of the McClean Lake uranium mill in Saskatchewan.

On June 29, 2012, Denison sold its shares in certain subsidiaries, which owned all of the Company's mining assets and operations located in the United States ("U.S. Mining Division"). The sale was carried out by way of a plan of arrangement between Denison and Energy Fuels Inc. ("EFR"). After completing the various steps in the plan of arrangement, Denison shareholders retained their interest in Denison and received 1.106 common shares of EFR for each Share held in Denison.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

By completing the transaction with EFR, Denison transformed its business to focus on its uranium exploration and development projects in Saskatchewan, Zambia and Mongolia. In 2013, through its acquisitions of JNR Resources Inc. (“JNR”), Fission Energy Corp. (“Fission”) and Rockgate Capital Corp. (“Rockgate”) and in 2014 through its acquisition of International Enexco Limited (“IEC”), Denison has increased its project portfolio in Canada, primarily in the Athabasca Basin, and expanded its position in Africa by acquiring interests in uranium exploration properties in Namibia and Mali.

Denison also continues to be engaged in mine decommissioning and environmental services through its Denison Environmental Services (“DES”) division.

Denison also participates in a toll-milling arrangement through the McClean Lake joint venture (“MLJV”) whereby ore is processed for the Cigar Lake Joint Venture (“CLJV”) at the McClean Lake mill.

Denison’s wholly owned subsidiary, DMI, is also the manager of Uranium Participation Corporation (“UPC”), a publicly traded company listed on the TSX under the symbol “U”, which invests in uranium oxide in concentrates and uranium hexafluoride.

	Denison’s Key Assets Today:

	•	A 22.50% interest in the McClean Lake uranium processing facility and uranium deposits in northern Saskatchewan.

	•	A 25.17% interest in the Midwest uranium project, including the Midwest and the Midwest A deposits in northern Saskatchewan.

	•	A 60% interest in the Wheeler River project which includes the Phoenix deposit and the newly discovered Gryphon zone.

	•	An extensive portfolio of exploration and development property interests in the Athabasca Basin including: Moore Lake (100%), Waterbury Lake (60%), Hatchet Lake (58.06%), Crawford/Bachman Lake (100%), Bell Lake (100%) and Mann Lake (30%).

	Beyond Canada, Denison owns the Mutanga uranium project in southern Zambia, the Falea uranium, silver and copper project in Mali, and interests in mineral exploration properties in Namibia and Mongolia.

Denison’s Structure
Denison conducts its business through a number of subsidiaries. The following is a diagram depicting the corporate structure of Denison and its active subsidiaries as at December 31, 2014, including the name, jurisdiction of incorporation and proportion of ownership interest in each.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

Denison also owns a number of inactive subsidiaries which have no liabilities or assets and do not engage in any business activities.

Some of the Company’s Canadian uranium exploration properties are held directly by the Company or indirectly through DMI, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. DMI holds a 22.5% interest in the McClean Lake project and a 25.17% interest in the Midwest project, both of which are operated by Denison’s joint venture partner, AREVA Resources Canada Inc. (“ARC”), a subsidiary of the AREVA Group. DMI also holds a 60% interest in, and is the operator of the Wheeler River project, host of the Phoenix deposit and the Gryphon zone, as well as interests in other exploration properties in the Athabasca Basin. Denison’s 60% interest in the Waterbury Lake project is held indirectly through its wholly owned subsidiary, Denison Waterbury Corp.

In 2014, Denison carried out an internal reorganization of its interests to consolidate its African holdings under its single wholly-owned Canadian subsidiary, Rockgate. Denison’s Mutanga project in Zambia is held through Denison Mines Zambia Ltd, which is wholly owned by Denison Mines (Bermuda) I Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rockgate. Denison’s interest in the Falea project in Mali and the Dome project in Namibia are also held indirectly through Rockgate and its subsidiaries.

The Company’s interest in the Gurvan Saihan Joint Venture (“GSJV”) in Mongolia is held through Denison Mines (Mongolia) Ltd, which is wholly owned by Denison Mines (Bermuda) I Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

Developments over the Last Three Years

2012...
An application for judicial review of the decision to renew the McClean Lake Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (“CNSC”) licence initially made in 2009 by the Athabasca Regional Government (“ARG”) was finally resolved. The ARG challenged the legality of the renewed licence primarily on the basis of issues related to the Federal and Provincial government’s duty to consult with aboriginal people. The Canadian Federal Court dismissed the application in 2010; however ARG filed a notice of appeal. In 2011, the Federal Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed ARG’s appeal. ARG did not appeal this decision, ending the matter in 2012.

In March, the Company acquired an additional 15% interest in the GSJV in Mongolia. The interest was previously held by a Russian party, Geologorazvedka, and was obtained for cash consideration and a release of the partner's share of the unfunded joint venture obligations. The Company now holds an 85% interest in the GSJV and has been in discussions with the Mongolian Government regarding its ownership interest in the GSJV.

In June, Denison and EFR completed a transaction whereby EFR acquired all of the shares of certain Denison subsidiaries which held its U.S. Mining Division in exchange for the issuance of 425,440,872 common shares of EFR to Shareholders (the “EFR Arrangement”). For each Share held, Shareholders received 1.106 shares of EFR while still retaining their interest in Denison.

In conjunction with the EFR Arrangement, Denison amended and extended its existing credit agreement with the Bank of Nova Scotia (the “Credit Facility”) to provide Denison with a revolving term loan for up to $15,000,000 until June 2013. To secure the facility, Denison provided a guarantee and pledge of all of the shares of DMI.

In August, the Canadian Federal Minister of the Environment approved the Midwest Project Environmental Assessment, paving way for mining of Midwest ores by conventional open pit mining methods.

The CNSC authorized the amendment of the operating licence for the McClean Lake mill, in which Denison holds a 22.50% interest, permitting an increase in the annual production from 8.0 million pounds U₃O₈ to 13.0 million pounds U₃O₈, and receipt and processing of ore slurry from the McArthur River Mine.

In October, Denison closed a private placement (the “2012 Offering”) of 4,145,000 Shares, at a price of CAD$1.69 each, issued on a “flow-through” basis under the Income Tax Act (Canada). The 2012 Offering raised aggregate gross proceeds for the Company of CAD$7,005,050.

By the end of 2012, Denison completed another significant exploration program in the Athabasca Basin, including over 28,000 metres of drilling at Wheeler River. Reporting strong intersections at the Phoenix uranium deposit, Denison commenced preparation of updated mineral resource estimates for the property. The Company also reported a total of 18,160 metres of drilling on the Mutanga Project in Zambia during the year. Drilling in 2012 in Mongolia totaled 29,600 metres, divided equally between the Urt Tsav and Ulzit licence areas.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

2013…
In January, updated estimates of mineral resources for the Phoenix deposit as at December 31, 2012 were received from Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. (“RPA Inc.”), which was retained to independently review and audit the mineral resources in accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101. For the Phoenix deposit, indicated mineral resources were estimated at 52.3 million pounds U₃O₈ (the Company’s share, 31.4 million pounds U₃O₈) from 152,400 tonnes at an average grade of 15.6% U₃O₈ and inferred mineral resources were estimated at 7.6 million pounds U₃O₈ (the Company’s share, 4.6 million pounds U₃O₈) from 11,600 tonnes at an average grade of 29.8% U₃O₈ based on a cut-off of 0.8% U₃O₈.

On January 31, Denison completed the acquisition of JNR by acquiring all of the common shares of JNR in exchange for 0.073 of a Share of Denison per common share of JNR (the “JNR Acquisition”). As a result, an aggregate of 7,975,479 Shares were issued in exchange for all JNR common shares held by JNR shareholders. With the closing of the JNR Acquisition, Denison was able to consolidate its partial ownership of several properties with JNR's interests to become the 100% owner of five mineral exploration properties in the Athabasca Basin (including the high priority properties of Moore Lake and Bell Lake), and also acquired interests in six other properties located in the Athabasca Basin, one property located in Saskatchewan outside of the Athabasca Basin, and two properties in Newfoundland.

In April, Denison completed the acquisition of Fission by way of plan of arrangement (the “Fission Arrangement”), which included Fission’s 60% interest in the Waterbury Lake uranium project, its interests in all other properties in the eastern part of the Athabasca Basin, Quebec and Nunavut, as well as its interests in two joint ventures in Namibia. Pursuant to the Fission Arrangement, for each common share of Fission held, Fission shareholders received 0.355 of a Share, a nominal cash payment of CAD$0.0001 and one common share of a newly incorporated exploration company, Fission Uranium Corp (“FCU”). As a result, an aggregate of 53,053,284 Shares were issued in exchange for all Fission common shares held by Fission shareholders. Unexercised Fission options were exchanged for options to acquire Shares of Denison (the “Fission Replacement Options”). With completion of the Fission Arrangement, the holders of Fission warrants were entitled to receive, upon the exercise of their warrants (the “Fission Warrants”), the number of Shares of Denison and FCU which the warrant holders would have been entitled to receive as a result of the Arrangement, if immediately prior to the effective date, the warrant holders had exercised their warrants.

In May, Denison completed a private placement offering (the “2013 Offering”) of 11,500,000 Shares, at a price of CAD$1.30 each, issued on a “flow-through” basis under the Income Tax Act (Canada). The 2013 Offering raised aggregate gross proceeds for the Company of CAD$14,950,000.

In June, the Company extended the maturity date of its $15,000,000 Credit Facility to January 2014.

In September, estimates of mineral resources for the J Zone deposit at the Waterbury Lake project were received from GeoVector Management Inc. (“GeoVector”) which was retained to independently estimate the mineral resources in accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101. The mineral resource at the J Zone is estimated to be 291,000 tonnes grading 2.00% U₃O₈ containing 12,810,000 pounds of U₃O₈ (the Company’s share, 7,686,000 pounds). All of the mineral resource is classified as indicated and is reported above a cutoff grade of 0.1% U₃O₈. In September, Denison also filed a new technical report for the Mutanga project in Zambia following a request by the Ontario Securities Commission. See “Mineral Properties – Mutanga”.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

Also in September, the Company commenced a takeover bid to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Rockgate in exchange for Shares of Denison (the “Rockgate Offer”). Pursuant to the Rockgate Offer, Rockgate shareholders received 0.192 of a Share for each Rockgate share tendered. The Rockgate Offer expired on December 6, 2013, with Denison having acquired approximately 89.7% of the outstanding Rockgate shares. Immediately after the expiry of the offer, Denison announced that it would acquire the remaining Rockgate shares by plan of arrangement (the “Rockgate Arrangement”) at the start of 2014. By December 31, 2013, an aggregate of 20,131,665 Shares were issued in exchange for Rockgate shares tendered under the Rockgate Offer.

In December, Denison signed an option agreement for the Jasper Lake property with Strateco Resources Inc. (“Strateco”). Under the option, Denison granted Strateco the option to earn up to a 60% interest in the Jasper Lake property, which is the amalgamation of four Denison properties formerly known as Jasper Lake, Minor Bay, Ahenakew Lake and North Wedge, in the eastern Athabasca Basin of Saskatchewan. This option was subsequently assigned to SeqUr Exploration Inc. (“SeqUr”) in 2014.

By the end of 2013, Denison proved to be one of the most active exploration companies in the Athabasca Basin. The Company completed 54,840 metres of diamond drilling, plus large programs of geophysical surveying and line cutting on 14 properties in the Athabasca Basin. Denison reported several high grade intersections at the Phoenix deposit on the Wheeler River property including drill hole WR-525 which intersected 43.8% U₃O₈ over 12.0 metres for a grade times thickness product (“GT”) of 525.6 %m, the highest GT of any hole drilled to date on the Wheeler River property. Additionally, low grade mineralization was intersected in a new area of interest on the Wheeler River property, the 489 Zone.

2014…
In January, Denison acquired the remaining 10.3% of the outstanding shares of Rockgate by way of the Rockgate Arrangement, making Rockgate a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. Through the acquisition of Rockgate, Denison added $15.3 million in cash and investments, and bolstered the Company’s African portfolio of assets by adding the 100% owned Falea project located in Mali to the Company’s portfolio of assets, in addition to Rockgate’s 100% interests in other properties in Mali and Niger. Pursuant to the Rockgate Offer and the Rockgate Arrangement, an aggregate total of 22,444,287 Shares were issued to Rockgate shareholders.

Also in January, Mr. Eun Ho Cheong, KEPCO’s representative on Denison’s Board, resigned and was replaced by Mr. Tae Hwan Kim.

At the end of January, the Company amended and extended the terms of its Credit Facility to January 31, 2015.

When the Company acquired the Dome project in Namibia through the Fission Arrangement, it became a party to an earn-in agreement with Rio Tinto Mining and Exploration Limited (“Rio”) pursuant to which Rio could have earned a majority interest in the project over time. In March 2014, Rio terminated its option to earn an interest in the project after having spent approximately $1.5 million in exploration expenditures by the end of 2013. Denison assumed operatorship at that time. Expenditures incurred by Rio also had the effect of diluting another party with an interest in the Dome project to 10%. Denison now has a 90% interest in the project.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

Also in March, Denison announced the discovery of a new zone of mineralization at Wheeler River, named the Gryphon zone. The discovery resulted from an intersection of high grade, basement hosted uranium mineralization returning 15.3% U₃O₈ over 4.0 metres in an area three kilometres northwest of the Phoenix deposit. Shortly after its initial discovery, Denison announced a second intersection of high grade, basement hosted uranium mineralization returning 21.2% U₃O₈ over 4.5 metres. The Gryphon zone would become the focus of further drilling for the balance of the year.

In June, Denison completed the acquisition of IEC, which included IEC's uranium exploration assets in the eastern part of the Athabasca Basin in Saskatchewan, consisting of a 30% interest in the Mann Lake property and a 20% interest in Denison's Bachman Lake property. The acquisition of IEC was completed by way of plan of arrangement (the "IEC Arrangement"). As a result of the IEC Arrangement, Denison acquired all of the issued and outstanding IEC shares that it did not already own, while certain non-Canadian assets were spun out to a former subsidiary of IEC ("IEC Spinco"). Under the IEC Arrangement, each IEC share was exchanged for 0.26 of a Denison Share, one common share of IEC Spinco, and one-half of a IEC Spinco warrant to acquire an additional IEC Spinco share at a price of $5.00 for six months. The expiry of outstanding IEC stock options was extended to 90 days from closing and outstanding warrants were automatically exchanged for warrants of Denison and IEC Spinco.

Also in June, an updated mineral resource estimate for the Phoenix deposit at the Wheeler River project was received from RPA Inc. which was retained to independently estimate the mineral resources in accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101. The total indicated mineral resource estimate increased from 52,300,000 pounds of U₃O₈ to 70,200,000 pounds of U₃O₈ (the Company’s share, 42,100,000 pounds) based on 166,400 tonnes of mineralization at an average grade of 19.13% U₃O₈. The total inferred mineral resource is now estimated to be 1,100,000 pounds of U₃O₈ (the Company’s share, 700,000 pounds) based on 8,600 tonnes of mineralization with an average grade of 5.80% U₃O₈. See “Mineral Properties – Phoenix”.

In August, Denison completed a private placement offering (the “2014 Offering”) of 9,257,500 Shares, at a price of CAD$1.62 each, issued on a “flow-through” basis under the Income Tax Act (Canada). The 2014 Offering raised aggregate gross proceeds for the Company of CAD$ 14,997,000, which will fund its Canadian exploration programs through to the end of 2015.

Construction and commissioning activities continued at the McClean Lake mill through the summer. In September, the McClean Lake mill was officially restarted and leaching of McClean Lake ore slurry commenced. Ore from the CLJV was introduced into the mill circuit towards the end of September, leading to the production of the first packaged uranium from CLJV ore in October. Production for 2014 amounted to approximately 344,000 pounds U₃O₈ for the CLJV and approximately 112,000 pounds U₃O₈ (Denison’s share, 25,000 pounds U₃O₈) for the MLJV. The Company’s share of toll milling revenues from processing Cigar Lake ore at the McClean Lake mill during the fourth quarter of 2014 totaled $111,000. See “Denison’s Operations – McClean Lake – Cigar Lake Toll Milling.”

In November, Peter Longo joined Denison as Vice President, Project Development with responsibility for advancing the Wheeler River project to the next phase of development and working closely with ARC on the McClean, Midwest and SABRE projects.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

During 2014, Denison continued to be one of the most active exploration companies in the Athabasca Basin. The Company completed 52,300 metres of diamond drilling on properties that it operates and participated in an additional 15,500 metres on joint ventures operated by others. A large amount of geophysical surveying was also completed to ensure a continuous pipeline of drilling targets is maintained.

Events this Year
In January, David Cates, formerly Vice President Finance & Tax and Chief Financial Officer, was appointed President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company. The appointment increased the scope of the operational management responsibilities included in Mr. Cates' portfolio of responsibilities. Ron Hochstein continued as Chief Executive Officer.

Also in January, Mr. Tae Hwan Kim, KEPCO’s representative on Denison’s Board, resigned and was replaced by Mr. Joo Soo Park.

At the end of January, the Company extended its Credit Facility to January 2016, increased the maximum credit provided under the facility to CAD$24,000,000 and amended certain other provisions.

In February 2015, SeqUr notified the Company that it intends to terminate its option to earn an interest in the Jasper Lake property.

The Uranium Industry

As a result of the Fukushima Daichii nuclear incident that occurred in March 2011, nuclear reactor programs around the world were impacted in varying degrees including the shutdown of all 54 reactors in Japan, the planned phase out of nuclear power in Germany and the pause in nuclear plant construction in China to reassess plant and safety system designs. The nuclear industry is beginning to show signs of recovery however with the planned restart of a limited number of reactors in Japan expected in 2015, the resumption of the Chinese nuclear program, and the announcement of new build programs in the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia. Nuclear power is one of the few options available to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions while providing or displacing other forms of base load power generation.

Uranium prices over the past year fell to levels not seen since 2005. Uranium producers responded to some degree to the downturn in uranium price with the shutdown, or scaling back, of production at numerous operations; but production was still greater than demand, as suppliers continued to produce and sell into higher-priced long term contracts.

Although uranium production is currently greater than demand, the long term growth projections for the nuclear industry combined with the depletion of uranium resources in operation today, means that new production sources must be brought on stream, and higher uranium prices are necessary to justify the construction of these facilities.

Uranium Demand
The World Nuclear Association reports that there are 437 nuclear reactors operable in 30 countries as of January 1, 2015. These reactors can generate 377.7 gigawatts of electricity and supply approximately 11% of the world's electrical requirements. At the present time, 70 nuclear reactors are under construction in 14 countries with the principal drivers of this expansion being China (27 reactors under construction), Russia (9), India (6), South Korea (5) and the United States (5), which together have a total of 52 reactors under construction. Based on the most recent statistics from the World Nuclear Association, there are a total of 253 reactors that are either under construction, or planned around the world.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

According to the International Energy Agency’s “World Energy Outlook 2014” global nuclear power capacity is projected to increase by over 60%, from 377.7 gigawatts to over 620 gigawatts in 2040. Of the growth in nuclear generation, China accounts for 45% while India, Korea and Russia collectively make up a further 30%. Ux Consulting Company, LLC (“UxCo”), in its “Uranium Market Outlook – Q4 2014” (the “Q4 Outlook”), estimated that, by 2030 uranium demand will grow to 266.0 million pounds U₃O₈ from 167.5 million pounds of U₃O₈ in 2014.

Primary Uranium Supply
Due to the falling uranium price in 2014, uranium production declined year over year from 154.3 million pounds U₃O₈ in 2013 to 146.0 million pounds in 2014, which is a reversal of the increasing production trend seen over the past several years. For the period of 2004 to 2014, annual uranium production has increased from about 100.0 million pounds U₃O₈ to 146.0 million lbs in 2014. The primary source of the increase has been Kazakhstan, where production has increased from 9.7 million pounds in 2004 to 59.3 million pounds in 2014.

UxCo has estimated in its Q4 Outlook that existing mine production plus new planned and potential mine production will increase primary uranium supply from 146.0 million pounds U₃O₈ in 2014 to 187.9 million pounds U₃O₈ in 2025. Kazahstan is expected to continue to be one of the principal drivers for the increase in primary mine production and is projected to increase production by about 8% between 2014 and 2025. Two major production centres are projected to be Cigar Lake in Canada, which began production in 2014, and Husab in Namibia, which is being built by a Chinese utility as a source of captive supply and is projected to start production in 2016. For other projects to move forward to meet the production forecasts, uranium prices will need to increase appreciably to support their higher cost production profiles and the significant capital expenditures that will be required.

Secondary Uranium Supply
Primary mine production supplies approximately 85% of current demand. The balance of demand is supplied from secondary sources such as commercial inventories, reprocessing of spent fuel, sales by uranium enrichers and inventories held by governments, in particular the U.S. Department of Energy.

Excess commercial inventories, which were once one of the major sources of secondary supplies during the period from the early 1970s to the early 2000s, have largely been consumed; however, as a result of the shutdown of the German nuclear program and the continued shut down of the Japanese nuclear fleet, commercial inventories could become more of a factor. A larger source of secondary supplies continues to be government inventories, particularly in the U.S. and Russia. The disposition of these inventories may have a market impact over the next 10 to 20 years, although, the rate and timing of this material entering the market is uncertain.

Reprocessing of spent fuel is another source of secondary supply but is expected to satisfy only 3% to 4% of demand. Expansion of this secondary source would require major investments in facilities which could only be supported by a significant increase in long-term uranium prices.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

UxCo expects that secondary sources of supply will fall from 2014 levels of 44.7 million pounds per year to 27.9 million pounds U₃O₈ per year by 2025.

Uranium Prices
Nuclear utilities purchase uranium primarily through long-term contracts. These contracts usually provide for deliveries to begin two to four years after they are signed and provide for delivery from four to ten years thereafter. In awarding medium- and long-term contracts electric utilities consider, the producer’s uranium reserves, record of performance and production cost profile, in addition to the commercial terms offered. Prices are established by a number of methods, including base prices adjusted by inflation indices, reference prices (generally spot price indicators, but also long-term reference prices) and annual price negotiations. Contracts may also contain annual volume flexibility, floor prices, ceiling prices and other negotiated provisions. Under these contracts, the actual price mechanisms are usually confidential.

Long-term demand is affected in a large part by utilities’ uncovered requirements. Uncovered demand is projected to increase significantly over the period of 2016 to 2018. UxCo estimates that uncovered demand in 2015 is only 6.7 million pounds U₃O₈, but is expected to increase to 17.6 million pounds U₃O₈ in 2016 and up to 49.4 million pounds in 2018, which should result in increased contract activity in 2015 and into 2016.

The long-term price is published on a monthly basis and began the year at $50.00 per pound U₃O₈. It declined to $44.00 per pound U₃O₈ at the end of July 2014 and then rose to $49.00 per pound U₃O₈ at the end of the year. Long term contracting volumes were up compared to 2013, but were still much lower than those seen over the past ten years.

Electric utilities procure their remaining uranium requirements through spot and near-term purchases from uranium producers, traders and other suppliers. Historically, spot prices are more volatile than long-term prices. The spot price began the year at $34.50 per pound U₃O₈. It rose to $35.50 per pound U₃O₈ during the beginning of the year and then declined to $28.25 per pound U₃O₈ by May 2014. The last time the uranium price was at these levels was April, 2005. The spot price started to climb again later in the summer months and ended 2014 at $35.50 per pound U₃O₈. The spot price continued to rise steadily during the first two months of 2015 and was last quoted at $39.25 per pound U₃O₈ on March 2, 2015.

Competition
The uranium industry is small compared to other commodity industries, in particular other energy commodity industries. Uranium demand is international in scope but supply is characterized by a relatively small number of companies operating in only a few countries. Production by four producers accounted for approximately 64% of the estimated world production in 2014. In total nine producers represent 87.6% of the world’s production. The industry is also geographically concentrated with about 73% of the world’s production coming from only four countries: Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia and Niger. Kazakhstan is the largest producer, with production of approximately 41% of the total primary production in 2014.

Marketing Uranium
Denison has historically sold its uranium under a combination of long-term contracts and spot market sales. The long-term contracts had a variety of pricing mechanisms, including fixed prices, base prices adjusted by inflation indices and/or spot price or long-term contract reference prices. Time of delivery during a year under long-term contracts is at the discretion of the customer, so the Company’s delivery obligations would vary markedly from quarter to quarter. Spot sales are priced at or near published industry spot prices.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

In June 2012, Denison sold its principle uranium production source, the U.S. Mining Division. For the first six months of 2012, approximately 77% of Denison’s total sales volume was sold under long-term contracts, with the remainder sold in the spot market. The long-term contracts were also sold with the U.S. Mining Division and as a result, the Company currently has no long-term contracts in place.

Denison’s Operations

McClean Lake
McClean Lake is comprised of several uranium deposits and a state of the art mill located on the eastern edge of the Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan, approximately 750 kilometres north of Saskatoon. McClean Lake is owned by Denison (22.5%) and its joint venture partners, ARC (70.0%) and OURD Canada Co., Ltd. (“OURD”) (7.5%) . ARC is the operator/manager of the facility. Denison, ARC and OURD also jointly own the nearby Midwest project, although ownership percentages are slightly different. See “Mineral Properties – Midwest.” It is planned that the Midwest ore will be milled at the McClean Lake mill.

Development of the McClean Lake project began in March 1995. Construction and commissioning were completed in 1997. The JEB deposit was mined out and the ore stockpiled. The JEB pit was then converted in 1999 into the JEB Tailings Management Facility (“TMF”). The McClean Lake mill began production of uranium concentrates in 1999, processing ore from the JEB deposit. The first ore was fed to the mill on June 22, 1999 and commercial production was achieved on November 1, 1999. The mill operated until the end of June 2010 producing approximately 49.9 million pounds U₃O₈ when it was placed on stand-by due to a lack of ore.

In 2014 the McClean Lake mill re-commenced operations with the delivery of ore shipments from the Cigar Lake Mine, owned by the CLJV and operated by Cameco Corporation (“Cameco”).

McClean Lake Mill
The McClean Lake mill is specially designed and constructed to process high grade uranium ores in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. The mill uses sulphuric acid and hydrogen peroxide leaching and a solvent extraction recovery process to extract and recover the uranium product from the ore. In addition to the mill facility, other infrastructure on the site includes a sulphuric acid plant, a ferric sulphate plant, an oxygen plant, an electricity transmission line tied into the provincial power grid, a 14 megawatt back-up diesel power plant, warehouses, shops, offices and living accommodations for site personnel. Mill facilities are currently being expanded from a capacity of 13.0 million pounds U₃O₈ per year to approximately 24.0 million pounds per year to enable processing of 100% of ore production from the Cigar Lake mine. Construction of the expansion is expected to be completed by the end of 2015 and is being fully funded by the CLJV.

In 2014 the McClean Lake mill re-commenced operations and processed over 456,800 pounds of U₃O₈ with a 97.5% recovery rate. Re-start of the mill proceeded smoothly with no significant production problems. Mill feed consisted of a blend of Cigar Lake ores and stockpiled Sue B and SABRE ores. As Cigar Lake production ramps up, it will displace McClean Lake ores allowing for more consistent mill feed and eliminating operational challenges associated with ore blending.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

Mining
McClean Lake consists of nine known ore deposits, five of which have been mined out with some of the ore still stockpiled on the surface.

The first ore body, JEB, was mined from 1997 to 1999 and the ore was stockpiled. Mining of the Sue C ore body was completed in February 2002, and all of the ore was stockpiled on the surface. Mining was then suspended until the third quarter of 2005 when mining began on the Sue A, Sue E and Sue B deposits. Mining was completed at Sue A in the first quarter of 2006, at Sue E in the first quarter of 2008 and at Sue B at the end of 2008. Exploration activities for expansion of the known deposits and identification of new deposits are ongoing. See “Mineral Exploration – McClean Lake.”

Low-grade special waste from the mining of the JEB, Sue C, Sue A, Sue E and Sue B deposits has been disposed of in the mined-out Sue C pit. In the future Cigar Lake special waste will also be disposed of in the Sue C pit. By agreement between the CLJV and the MLVJ, costs to upgrade the Sue Water Treatment Plant and costs to dewater the Sue C pit for Cigar Lake special waste will be shared 50/50 between the CLJV and the MLJV.

Operations
The table below shows the operating statistics for McClean Lake over the last five years.

	2014	2013	2012	2011	2010
Ore Milled (thousand tonnes)	8.4	-	-	-	97
Average Grade (% U₃O₈)	2.85	-	-	-	0.80
MLJV Production (thousand pounds U₃O₈)	112.4	-	-	-	1,731
Denison’s share MLJV Production (thousand pounds U₃O₈)	25.3	-	-	-	389
Toll Mill Production (thousand pounds U₃O₈)	344.4	-	-	-	-

During the first six months of 2010, the mill processed stockpiled ore from the Sue E, Sue B, Sue A and McClean North deposits. The mill stopped processing new ore feed at the end of June of 2010 and the final circuit clean out was completed in October 2010. The mill was put on care and maintenance through the remainder of 2010 and remained on care and maintenance until resumption of operations in September 2014. The mill began processing a blend Sue B and ore from the SABRE program and then began to blend in Cigar Lake ores. The mill shut down in late December for a maintenance shutdown over the Christmas period.

Approximately 90,700 tonnes of Sue B and SABRE (see “Operations - Surface Access Borehole Resource Extraction Mining Program”) ore at an average grade of 0.38% U₃O₈ remain on the stockpile.

For information pertaining to taxes and royalties, see “Government Regulation – Canadian Royalties” and “Government Regulation – Canadian Income and Other Taxes.”

Tailings Disposal
The disposal of mill tailings in an environmentally acceptable manner has led to advances in the design and construction of new tailings management facilities. In the state-of-the-art TMF, tailings are deposited subaqueously in a paste form from a barge. This procedure minimizes tailings segregation, eliminates concerns of freezing and dust generation, and controls radiation and radon emissions from the pond. This facility has been designed to receive tailings from processing high-grade Midwest and Cigar Lake ores in addition to tailings from the McClean Lake deposits.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

In 2013, the TMF Optimization project was completed, which provides additional tailings capacity by increasing the efficiency of the currently licensed tailings space. This project entailed sloping of the TMF walls and placement of a bentonite liner and provides several years of tailings capacity based on current projected throughputs. A second project called the TMF Expansion is currently underway and when completed will provide an additional 25 years of tailings capacity. This project entails expanding the TMF above the currently licensed elevation and will require the submittal of an amendment to the operating licence. The environmental, engineering and licensing work are underway.

Property
All of the surface facilities and the mine sites are located on lands owned by the Province of Saskatchewan. The right to use and occupy the lands was granted in a surface lease agreement with the Province of Saskatchewan. The original surface lease agreement of 1991 was replaced by a new agreement in 2002. This new surface lease is valid for a period of 33 years. Obligations under the surface lease agreement primarily relate to annual reporting regarding the status of the environment, land development and progress made on northern employment and business development. The McClean Lake surface lease covers an area of approximately 3,677 hectares.

Mill Licence
The McClean Lake site is operated under various permits, licences, leases and claims granted and renewed from time to time, all of which are currently in good standing. On July 25, 2005, the CNSC issued Mine Operating Licence, UMOL – MINEMILL – McCLEAN.02/2009 (the “Mine Operating Licence”) for a four-year term which expired on May 30, 2009. In September, 2008 ARC submitted the renewal application for a ten year licence to operate the McClean Lake mill. On June 30, 2009, the CNSC renewed the Mine Operating Licence for a period of eight years. In addition to renewal of all previously licensed activities, the new licence authorizes mining of the McClean North deposits using hydraulic borehole mining methods (SABRE) and included the care and maintenance activities at the Midwest site. Consequently the CNSC revoked the previous Midwest Uranium Site Preparation Licence. See “Denison’s Operations - Midwest Project Development” and “Operations - Surface Access Borehole Resource Extraction Mining Program”.

Environmental
The McClean Lake mill re-commenced operation in 2014. During the year there were three reportable spills, all of which were minor in nature and were successfully remediated with no impact to the environment.

Cigar Lake Toll Milling
In 2002, Denison and its partners entered into an agreement with the CLJV to process Cigar Lake ore at the McClean Lake mill. Pursuant to that agreement, all Cigar Lake ore was to be leached at the McClean Lake mill with the pregnant aqueous solution being divided between the McClean Lake and Rabbit Lake facilities for processing into uranium concentrates. In order to process this Cigar Lake ore, an expansion of the McClean Lake mill was required. The expansion and modifications of the McClean Lake mill to raise its capacity to 13.0 million pounds U₃O₈ were completed in 2008 and all costs were paid for by the CLJV.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

As a result of delays in the startup of Cigar Lake and the exhaustion of permitted ore deposits at McClean Lake, the McClean Lake mill was placed on stand-by at the end of June of 2010. Under the Cigar Lake toll milling agreement, the CLJV funded virtually all of the McClean Lake stand-by costs. The relative proportion of the stand-by costs paid by each party was calculated on the basis of the percentage of mineral reserves between the McClean Lake and Cigar Lake joint ventures.

In 2011, the CLJV and the MLJV agreed to amend the toll milling agreement. Under the new milling arrangement, the McClean Lake operation is expected to process and package 100% of the uranium produced from the Cigar Lake mine. To accommodate the annual production of 18.0 million pounds U₃O₈ from the CLJV, the mill is being expanded to an annual capacity of 24.0 million pounds from the current licensed capacity of 13.0 million pounds. All costs for the expansion of the McClean Lake mill and a portion of the TMF Optimization and TMF Expansion (See “Denison’s Operations - McClean Lake - Tailings Disposal”) are paid for by the CLJV.

Surface Access Borehole Resource Extraction (SABRE) Mining Program
The SABRE (previously known as the Mining Equipment Development) program is developing a viable alternate mining method combining surface drilling and borehole mining technology. The system is projected to have low capital costs and a number of benefits including safety, ease of licensing and a small environmental footprint.

Hydraulic borehole mining is a technique used to extract materials through a small access borehole, typically less than one-half of a metre in diameter, resulting in a very small disturbance to the surface. A mining tool containing a high-pressure water jet nozzle is lowered through the access borehole in the overburden and sandstone to the mineralized horizon. The high-pressure water jet is used to cut or erode the mineral-bearing ore and create a slurry, enlarging the hole to three to four metres in diameter. The slurry is sent to surface using a slurry pump or an air lift system. On the surface, through a series of vibrating screens and settling ponds, the water is separated from the cuttings and returned back to the hole. Each mined out cavity is backfilled after completion with a cemented mixture in the mineralized horizon, and with unmineralized drill cuttings in the remainder of the hole through the overlying sandstone and glacial overburden layers.

In 2012, a two hole test program was completed on the McClean North deposit. Between 2007 and 2012, approximately 2,400 tonnes of ore was recovered through various SABRE test mining programs, a portion of which was fed to the mill in 2014. As of the end of 2014, there is approximately 534 tonnes of SABRE ore yet to be processed at an average grade of 4.78% U₃O₈.

In 2013, further evaluation of the 2012 program results and the initial planning for the next phases of the SABRE program were carried out, including the preliminary evaluation of the application of SABRE for mining the Midwest and Caribou deposits. After the completion of several significant milestones in 2012 and 2013, a decision was made in late 2013 to suspend the SABRE program in 2014 in response to the low uranium price environment. In 2015 SABRE activities will focus on upgrading down-hole sonar capabilities with the objective of improving surveying of cavity dimensions and mining performance.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

McClean Lake Underground Project
An internal study evaluating the feasibility of mining of the McClean North, Caribou and Sue D deposits via conventional underground methods was completed in 2012.

The McClean North Deposits, discovered in the 1980’s, consist of a series of mineralized pods located approximately 165 metres below surface. These deposits were included in the 1991 McClean Lake feasibility study and are part of the approved 1991 McClean Lake Environmental Assessment. The Sue D deposit, discovered in the 1990’s, is located approximately 90 metres below surface and the Caribou deposit, discovered in the 2000’s, is located approximately 110 metres below surface. For further descriptions of the McClean North, Sue D and Caribou deposits see “Mineral Deposits – McClean Lake”.

Access to the deposits will be via a ramp from the existing SUE B open pit. This access approach allows development to proceed through stable ground conditions which positively affects costs, schedule and environmental impacts. Underhand cut and fill mining method using pastefill as backfill is planned to be employed to maximize recovery of the high value ore under poor ground conditions. Water management is a critical aspect of the design which led to the incorporation of a freeze wall surrounding the McClean North and Caribou deposits. Production mining will be completed via mechanical excavation (i.e. roadheader) due to the ore grades and the corresponding risk of high radiation exposures in McClean North and Caribou deposits, whereas a traditional drill and blast method will be used for Sue D. An average production rate of 270 tonnes per day is expected.

Mining recovery of 95% and a mining dilution factor of 20% have been assumed. The summary of the projected mine production by deposit is shown in the following table.

Summary of Mine Production by Deposit

	Ore Production	Grade	Minable Metal⁽¹⁾
Deposit	(Tonnes)	(%U₃O₈)	(M lbs. U₃O₈)
Sue D	97,519	0.99	2.14
McClean North	204,326	2.26	10.19
Caribou	34,696	2.05	1.57
Total	336,541	1.87	13.90

Notes:
(1) Minable metal is presented on a 100% basis.

Mine ventilation will be provided by four vent raises from surface excavated using blind boring or raiseboring methods. Mine dewatering systems will be designed for 170% of anticipated inflows. A second independent system of the same capacity is planned to be on stand-by and will have a design capacity of 270% of the potential estimated uncontrolled water inflows. All mine water will report to the Sue Water Treatment Plant. The nearby Sue C open pit provides emergency water storage.

Ore will be transported to the existing JEB Mill where no modifications are required to process the ore. Mill recoveries are predicted to be in the 97% range. Tailings and waste will be disposed of in the existing TMF. Construction of additional infrastructure is minimal due to the use of existing facilities.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

The McClean North, Sue D and Caribou deposits are anticipated to produce approximately 13.5 million pounds U₃O₈ over a five year mine life following a three year development and construction period.

The 2012 internal study estimated the capital cost of the project at CAD$267.3 million and the mine, mill, site support, transport and other operating costs at CAD$24.01 per pound U₃O₈.

A production decision has been deferred due to the low uranium price environment.

Midwest
The Midwest project, owned 25.17% by Denison, 69.16% by ARC and 5.67% by OURD, is host to two significant uranium deposits: the Midwest deposit, discovered in 1978; and the Midwest A deposit, which was discovered in 2004/2005.

Midwest is located approximately 15 kilometres from the McClean Lake mill where the Midwest ore would be processed. See “McClean Lake.”

Deposits
The Midwest deposit (see “Mineral Properties – Midwest”) will be the first to be mined. Various studies since its discovery in 1978 have examined the feasibility of mining by open pit, underground and SABRE methods. Mining by open pit has been selected as the currently preferred method.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

Following the significant increase in the price of uranium starting in 2003, exploration resumed in an area about 3 kilometres northeast of the Midwest deposit. This work led to the discovery of the Midwest A deposit as well as a number of other significant mineralized zones. See “Mineral Exploration – Midwest.”

Development
In December 2005, the project description for the development of the Midwest deposit was submitted to the CNSC, the Environmental Assessment Branch of Saskatchewan Environment and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. This project description contemplated the Midwest deposit being mined by open pit and a further expansion of the McClean Lake mill.

The development of this deposit will involve draining the Mink Arm of the South McMahon Lake to construct an open pit mine. Other deposits and extensions located to the north, south and in the basement could be developed once the pit nears completion. Ore from this deposit would be trucked over a dedicated haul road to the McClean Lake mill.

In November 2007, the Midwest joint venture partners made a formal production decision to proceed with development of the Midwest deposit. The capital cost, including surface facilities, the water treatment plant, the haul road and the related mill expansion, was estimated at approximately CAD$435 million. Expenditures were estimated to be as follows: CAD$75 million for the water treatment plant, CAD$115 million for de-watering wells, CAD$100 million for infrastructure, CAD$35 million for mobile equipment and maintenance facilities, CAD$100 million for modification to the mill and CAD$10 million for miscellaneous capital expenses.

In November 2008, the Midwest joint venture partners announced that the development of the Midwest project would be delayed for an indefinite period. The delay was the result of the global economic climate, delays and uncertainties associated with the regulatory approval process, increasing capital and operating costs and the depressed state of the uranium market. Based on an update of the capital cost estimates completed in 2008, the capital cost increased approximately 50% from the previous estimate of CAD$435 million. Efforts to optimize the project will continue, and the status of the project is expected to be reviewed every six months.

In September 2011, the final version of the Midwest Project Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) was submitted to provincial and federal governments. The Comprehensive Study Report was drafted by the CNSC and circulated for federal, provincial and aboriginal review. In September 2012, the Midwest EIS was approved.

The project has remained on care and maintenance throughout 2013 and 2014 and will remain on care and maintenance in 2015.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

Mineral Properties

Steve Blower, P.Geo., the Company’s Vice President Exploration, who is a “Qualified Person” in accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101, is responsible for the mineral resource estimates for the Company’s properties in Canada, Zambia, Mali and Namibia and all disclosure of scientific or technical information concerning mineral projects in those countries in this AIF.

Terry Wetz, P.E., the Executive Director of the GSJV, who is a “Qualified Person” in accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101, is responsible for the mineral resource estimates for the Company’s properties in Mongolia and all disclosure of scientific or technical information concerning mineral projects in that country in this AIF.

Summary of Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources
The following tables show the Company's estimate of mineral reserves and mineral resources as of December 31, 2014. NI 43-101 requires mining companies to disclose mineral reserve and resource estimates using the subcategories of proven mineral reserves, probable mineral reserves, measured mineral resources, indicated mineral resources and inferred mineral resources. Denison reports mineral reserves and mineral resources separately.

Proven Mineral Reserve Estimates

Company

100% Basis

Share

Pounds of

Tonnes

Grade

U₃O₈

Project/Deposit

(,000)

% U₃O₈

(,000)

McClean - Ore Stockpile

90.7

0.38

761

171

Measured Mineral Resource Estimates⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾

Company

100% Basis

Share

Pounds of

Tonnes

Grade

U₃O₈

Project/Deposit

(,000)

% U₃O₈

(,000)

Mutanga - Mutanga

1,880.0

0.048

2,000

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

Indicated Mineral Resource Estimates⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾

				Company
	100% Basis			Share
			Pounds of	Pounds of
	Tonnes	Grade	U₃O₈	U₃O₈
Project/Deposit	(,000)	% U₃O₈	(,000)	(,000)

McClean - Caribou	39.5	3.13	2,700	600
McClean - Sue D	122.8	1.05	2,800	600
McClean - McClean North	206.9	2.75	12,500	2,800
Midwest - Midwest⁽³⁾	354.0	5.50	42,900	10,800
Midwest - Midwest A	464.0	0.57	5,800	1,500
Wheeler - Phoenix	166.4	19.13	70,200	42,100
Waterbury – J Zone	291.0	2.00	12,800	7,700
Mongolia - Hairhan	12,261.0	0.07	19,800	16,800
Mutanga - Mutanga	8,400.0	0.031	5,800	5,800
Total Indicated Mineral Resources				88,700

Inferred Mineral Resource Estimates⁽¹⁾⁽⁴⁾

				Company
	100% Basis			Share
			Pounds of	Pounds of
	Tonnes	Grade	U₃O₈	U₃O₈
Project/Deposit	(,000)	% U₃O₈	(,000)	(,000)

McClean - Sue E ⁽⁵⁾	483.4	0.69	7,300	1,600
McClean - Sue D	24.2	0.39	200	0
McClean - McClean North	3.3	0.79	100	0
Midwest - Midwest	25.0	0.80	400	100
Midwest - Midwest A	9.2	21.23	4,300	1,100
Wheeler - Phoenix	9.0	5.8	1,100	700
Mongolia - Hairhan	5,536.0	0.05	5,800	4,900
Mutanga - Mutanga	7,200.0	0.021	3,300	3,300
Mutanga - Dibwe	17,000.0	0.023	9,000	9,000
Mutanga – Dibwe East	39,800.0	0.032	28,200	28,200
Mutanga - Mutanga Ext	500.0	0.034	400	400
Mutanga - Mutanga East	200.0	0.032	100	100
Mutanga - Mutanga West	500.0	0.034	400	400
Total Inferred Mineral Resources				49,800

Notes:
(1)	Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. No mineral reserves have as yet been defined.
(2)	The measured and indicated mineral resources were estimated at various cut-off grades. They are:

•	McClean Lake:	0.10%	U₃O₈
•	Caribou:	0.35%	U₃O₈
•	Midwest:	0.30%	U₃O₈
•	Midwest A:	0.05%	eU (0.059% eU₃O₈)
•	Phoenix:	0.80%	U₃O₈
•	J Zone:	0.10%	U₃O₈
•	Mongolia:	0.02%	U (0.024% U₃O₈), minimum thickness of 2.0m
•	Mutanga:	0.01%	U₃O₈

(3)	The Company's share of the indicated mineral resources at Midwest also contains 4.35% nickel (8.55 million pounds) and 0.34% cobalt (0.68 million pounds).

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

(4)	The inferred mineral resources were estimated at various cut-off grades. They are:

•	McClean Lake:	0.10%	U₃O₈
•	Midwest:	0.30%	U₃O₈
•	Midwest A:	0.05%	eU (0.059% eU₃O₈)
•	Phoenix:	0.80%	U₃O₈
•	Mongolia:	0.02%	U (0.024% U₃O₈), minimum thickness of 2.0m
•	Mutanga:	0.01%	U₃O₈
	Dibwe, Dibwe East:	0.01%	U₃O₈
•	Mutanga Extension
	East and West:	0.02%	U₃O₈

(5)

The operator conducted confirmatory drilling on a portion of these mineral resources outside the designed pit and late in 2006 submitted a preliminary analysis detailing an inferred mineral resource of 2 million pounds on a 100% basis in this area, as compared to the 7.3 million pounds that Scott Wilson Roscoe Postle Associates Inc. (“Scott Wilson RPA”) has estimated. Scott Wilson RPA has not re-estimated the mineral resource using the new drill information.

The mineral reserve and mineral resource information shown above is as reported in the various technical reports prepared in accordance with NI 43-101 and discussed in greater detail in this section of the AIF, except summary information above on Denison’s mineral reserve estimates was prepared from the year-end stockpile survey reported by ARC, the operator of the McClean Lake joint venture.

The tables below detail the changes to the Company’s mineral reserve and mineral resource estimates from the financial year ended December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2014.

Change to Denison’s Share of Proven Mineral Reserves
(in thousands of pounds U₃O₈)

		2014
		Additions
Reserves	December 31, 2013	(Deletions)	December 31, 2014

McClean – Ore Stockpile	197	(26.0)	171

Change to Denison’s Share of Mineral Resources⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾
(in thousands of pounds U₃O₈)

		2014
	December 31,	Additions	December 31,
Resources	2013	(Deletions)⁽³⁾	2014

Wheeler - Phoenix
Indicated	31,000	11,100	42,100
Inferred	4,600	(3,900)	700

Notes:
(1)	Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. No mineral reserves have as yet been defined.
(2)	Inferred mineral resources have a greater amount of uncertainty as to their existence and as to whether they can be mined economically. It cannot be assumed that all or part of the inferred mineral resources will ever be upgraded to a higher classification.
(3)	Additions or deletions of mineral resources include reassessment of geological data and new or updated technical reports.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

McClean Lake
Property Description and Location
The McClean Lake project is owned by Denison (22.5%) and its joint venture partners, ARC (70.0%) and OURD (7.5%) . ARC is the operator/manager of the project. Denison, ARC and OURD also jointly own the nearby Midwest project. Mineralization mined at Midwest is planned to be milled at McClean Lake.

The McClean Lake facility is located approximately 26 kilometres west of the Rabbit Lake mine and approximately 750 kilometres north of Saskatoon.

The mineral property consists of four mineral leases covering an area of 1,088 hectares and 13 mineral claims covering an area of 3,111 hectares. The right to mine the McClean Lake deposits was acquired under these mineral leases, as renewed from time to time. Mineral leases are for terms of 10 years with the right to renew for successive 10-year periods provided that the leaseholders are not in default pursuant to the terms of the lease. The terms of the four mineral leases must be renewed between November 2015 and August 2016. A mineral claim grants the holder the right to explore for minerals within the claim lands and the right to apply for a mineral lease. Title to the mineral claims is secure until at least 2023. It is expected that the leases will be renewed in the normal course, as required, to enable all the McClean Lake deposits to be fully exploited.

For additional information on mineral leases, mineral claims and surface leases. See “Government Regulation – Land Tenure.”

The uranium produced from the McClean Lake deposits is subject to a uranium mining royalty in Saskatchewan in accordance with Part III of The Crown Mineral Royalty Regulations. See "Government Regulation - Canadian Royalties.” In addition, a royalty of 2% of the spot market price on all U₃O₈ produced from the Sue E deposit is payable to the previous owner of a portion of the deposit.

Accessibility, Climate, Infrastructure and Physiography
Access to the McClean Lake site is by both road and air. Goods are transported to the site by truck over an all–weather road connecting with the provincial highway system. Air transportation is provided through the Points North airstrip about 25 kilometres from the project site.

The nearest permanent community is Wollaston Post, about 50 kilometres from the property. Workers commute to and from the site by aircraft landing at Points North then by bus to the site. While at the site, workers reside in permanent camp facilities. Personnel are recruited from the northern communities and major population centres, such as Saskatoon, and normally work one week on and one week off.

Site activities are carried out all year, despite the cold weather during the winter months. Mean daily temperatures range from –25°C in January to +15°C in July. The average length of the frost–free period is about 90 days.

Water for industrial activities is obtained from one of the many lakes that surround the area. Electric power is obtained from the provincial grid with stand–by power available as required.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

All tailings from the McClean Lake processing facility are deposited in the TMF. In addition, the TMF has been designed to receive tailings from the processing of the high–grade Midwest and Cigar Lake ores.

The terrain at McClean Lake is typical of the Athabasca Basin area with glacial drift features following northeast–southwest trends to produce sand and gravel ridges. These ridges are surrounded by low–lying ground which is often water logged and dominated by muskeg. Small ponds and lakes cover over 25% of the area. Jack pine and spruce, rarely more than 10 metres high, are the predominant trees. Surface elevations range from 400 to 500 metres above sea level.

History
Canadian Occidental Petroleum Limited ("Canadian Oxy") began exploring for uranium in northern Saskatchewan in 1974 in the area between the Rabbit Lake deposit and the Midwest Lake area where uraniferous boulder trains had been found previously. In April 1977, Canadian Oxy entered into a joint venture agreement with Inco Limited. During a diamond drilling program in 1977, one of the 47 drilled holes encountered encouraging uranium mineralization. During the next two years, extensive exploration work, including airborne geophysics, electromagnetic surveys and diamond drilling were conducted.

Mineralization was discovered at McClean Lake (the McClean North deposit) in January 1979 and follow up drilling later that year confirmed the existence of significant unconformity type uranium mineralization. Subsequent exploration resulted in the discovery in 1980 of the McClean South zone and the JEB deposit in 1982. The Sue deposits were discovered between 1988 and 1991, and the Caribou deposit in 2002.

In 1993, the owners of the Midwest and McClean Lake projects agreed to combine the two projects and develop them as a complementary development. Ownership interests in the respective joint ventures were interchanged, resulting in the Company acquiring a 22.5% interest in McClean Lake.

Geological Setting
The McClean Lake uranium deposits lie near the eastern margin of the Athabasca Basin in the Churchill Structural Province of the Canadian Shield. The bedrock geology of the area consists of Precambrian gneisses unconformably overlain by flat lying, unmetamorphosed sandstones and conglomerates of the Athabasca Group. The Precambrian basement complex is composed of an overlying Aphebian aged supracrustal metasedimentary unit infolded into the older Archean gneisses. The younger Helikian aged, Athabasca sandstone was deposited onto this basement complex. The basement surface is marked by a paleoweathered zone with lateritic characteristics referred to as regolith.

Exploration
Uranium mineralization at McClean North was discovered in January 1979 following extensive airborne electromagnetic surveying and drilling in the McClean Lake area. Further drilling led to the discovery of the McClean South trend in 1980. In the late 1980s, further airborne and ground geophysics, percussion and reconnaissance diamond drilling and delineation diamond drilling were carried out on the McClean North deposits.

Following the discovery of the Sue A deposit in 1988, diamond drilling was continued along the Sue trend leading to the discovery of the Sue E deposit in late 1991; however, it did not undergo development drilling until 2001. Sue D was explored by diamond drilling from the surface from 1989 to 1992 with additional fill-in holes drilled between 1994 and 2001.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

The Caribou deposit was discovered during a winter drilling program in 2002.

Mineralization
Excluding the JEB deposit, which was mined out several years ago and which is now used as the TMF, the McClean Lake mineral resources are located along two "trends" of mineralization, the Sue trend and the McClean trend. The Caribou pod is a singular deposit at this time.

The mineralized zones in the McClean trend occur as sausage–shaped pods straddling the unconformity between the Athabasca sandstones and the crystalline basement. The high grade part of the mineralized pods undulates from 13 metres above to 13 metres below the unconformity contact which is, on average, at a depth of 160 metres below the surface in this area. The host rocks for the mineralization are altered sandstones and Aphebian basement rocks usually altered to clay–rich rocks. There are 11 discrete pods, arranged along two separate but parallel trends (termed the North and South zones) separated by approximately 500 metres. Generally, mineralization in the basement is at the eastern extremity of the combined zone. Uranium mineralization is hosted in hematite altered clay–rich zones in which illite forms massive layers. Uranium occurs as fine–grained coffinite, as veinlets and nodules of pitchblende and as massive masses of pitchblende/uraninite. Highly variable but generally small amounts of nickel arsenides are associated with the uranium.

The deposits of the Sue trend line up along the western flank of the Collins Bay dome. These deposits trend north-south along or near a steeply east-dipping unit of graphitic gneiss within a 4.2 kilometre long basement conductor. Mining has been completed at Sue A, Sue B, Sue C and Sue E. The Sue D deposit lies north of Sue E and south of the Sue C pit along the Sue trend. Uranium mineralization is hosted by faulted/fractured brecciated and altered graphitic paragneiss.

Caribou is an unconformity related deposit similar to such deposits as Collins Bay and Midwest. The Caribou mineralization occurs at 110 metres below surface and consists primarily of uranium oxides (uraninite and pitchblende) with a suite of nickel-cobalt arsenides in a clay-altered matrix within the sandstones and fault breccias in the basement. The mineralization is concentrated along the sub-Athabasca unconformity.

Drilling
As of April 30, 1990, 416 diamond drill holes totaling 81,800 metres had been drilled into the McClean North and McClean South zones.

Sue D was explored by diamond drilling from surface from 1989 to 2001 with 70 holes totaling 13,395 metres drilled.

At Sue E, a total of 135 diamond drill holes have been cored for a total of 23,757 metres. Drill spacing was at 10 metre centres on 12.5 metre lines on all of the above properties. Open pit mining was completed in 2008; however there are mineral resources south of the existing pit wall that could be extracted by underground mining methods.

The Caribou deposit was explored in 2002 with the drilling of 44 diamond drill holes for a total of 7,022 metres. Holes were drilled on 12.5 -metre sections at a spacing of 5 metres.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

Sampling and Analysis
The following description applies to all exploration on the McClean Lake property.

Following the completion of a drill hole, the hole is radiometrically logged using a downhole slim-line gamma probe. The gamma-log results provide an immediate equivalent uranium value (eU₃O₈%) for the hole, which, except in high grade zones, is reasonably accurate. The gamma-log results, however, have not been used for the purposes of estimating mineral reserves.

Sample intervals are generally 500 millimetres long, except where higher or lower grade mineralization boundaries fall within the interval. In that case, two 250 millimetre samples are collected. Flank samples of 1.0 metre are always collected where mineralization is located. A background geochemistry sample is collected every 10 metres down the hole.

All sampled core is split in half, one half retained and the other sent to an independent laboratory. Lost core is not an issue at the McClean project as core recovery has been good. Control samples are routinely assayed with each batch of core samples analyzed.

The mineralization in the various McClean deposits is highly variable in both mineralogy and uranium content. The principal minerals identified in the deposits are pitchblende, uraninite and niccolite. As a result of the highly variable uranium content, a variable density formula was developed for the McClean deposits. This formula was modified over the years to account for the fact that it originally tended to underestimate U₃O₈ content where the U₃O₈ values were associated with high values of nickel and arsenic.

Security of Samples
No opinion can be given regarding security of samples in the mid to late 1970s and the late 1980s other than to indicate that subsequent geological work and all metallurgical and geotechnical work have confirmed the results. All procedures reviewed follow generally accepted industry practice. A good demonstration of the reliability is that JEB and the Sue deposits (A, B, C, and E) have been mined out and more uranium has been recovered into stockpiles than had been estimated from surface drilling.

Mineral Reserve and Mineral Resource Estimates
Estimation procedures have evolved over the years. At the time of the feasibility study in 1990, polygonal methods were used for the JEB, the Sue A, the Sue B, the Sue C deposits and for the McClean zones. Prior to the start of mining at the JEB deposit, the mineral reserves were reevaluated using computerized methods whereby block models were constructed and geostatistical methods were implemented. Much more recently, these figures have been further fine tuned using Whittle pit optimization software. Appropriate tests and audits of the databases on all the McClean deposits have been carried out by qualified Denison personnel. In the case of JEB, Sue C and Sue B, the amount of U₃O₈ recovered into stockpiles was higher than that estimated from surface drilling.

The Company received a technical report from Scott Wilson RPA., now RPA Inc., dated November 21, 2005, as revised February 16, 2006, on its mineral reserves and mineral resources at certain of the deposits at McClean Lake in which it has an interest entitled “Technical Report on the Denison Mines Inc. Uranium Properties, Saskatchewan, Canada” (the “McClean Technical Report”), a copy of which is available on the Company’s profile on the SEDAR website at www.sedar.com. Richard E. Routledge, M.Sc., P. Geo. and James W. Hendry, P. Eng., are the independent Qualified Persons for the McClean Technical Report for the purposes of the requirements of NI 43-101. The mineral resource estimates for Caribou, as reported in the McClean Technical Report, are as shown in “Mineral Properties – Summary of Mineral Reserves and Resources.”

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

In preparing the McClean Technical Report, Scott Wilson RPA reviewed previous estimates of mineral reserves and mineral resources at the applicable properties, and examined and analyzed data supporting the previous estimates, as well as other available data regarding the properties, including extensive information from ARC.

For the Sue E deposit, Scott Wilson RPA constructed a block model using indicator kriging to both map out and geologically constrain mineralized areas. A block that had at least one nearby composite within 10 metres of its centre, and that had composites from at least two different drill holes in its search neighbourhood was classified as part of the indicated mineral resource. The indicated mineral resource was evaluated by Scott Wilson RPA using Whittle economic evaluation software showing that the Sue E pit economics were robust and mineral reserves were estimated. Mining was completed at the Sue E pit during 2008 recovering about 91% of the probable mineral reserves estimated by Scott Wilson RPA. Scott Wilson RPA classified approximately 7.3 million of the pounds outside the current pit as inferred mineral resources. Confirmatory drilling in 2006 by the operator has indicated that this may be reduced to 2.0 million pounds. Scott Wilson RPA has not re-estimated the mineral resources based on this drilling. Denison anticipates that underground mining methods could be used to extract this material.

The mineral resource estimate for the Caribou deposit is based on a block model for which grade was interpolated using ordinary kriging. Since there were no plans for the mining of this deposit at the date of the McClean Technical Report, the economic potential was not evaluated and mineral reserves were not estimated.

The Company received a technical report from Scott Wilson RPA dated March 31, 2006 on its mineral resources at the Sue D deposit entitled “Technical Report on the Sue D Uranium Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate, Saskatchewan, Canada” (the “Sue D Report”), a copy of which is available on the Company’s profile on the SEDAR website at www.sedar.com. Richard E. Routledge, M.Sc., P. Geo. and James W. Hendry, P. Eng., are the independent Qualified Persons for the Sue D Report for the purposes of the requirements of NI 43-101. Scott Wilson RPA carried out an independent mineral resource estimate for Sue D by conventional 3-D computer block modeling. A minimum vertical mining width of two metres was employed with a 0.1% U₃O₈ cut-off.

Due to the significant increase in the price of uranium from 2004 to 2006, Denison requested Scott Wilson RPA to re-evaluate the uranium resources in the McClean North trend that are amenable to other methods of mining. The original McClean Technical Report had only evaluated mineral resources and mineral reserves of the high grade portions under the assumption that they would be mined using a blind shaft mining method. The Company received a technical report from Scott Wilson RPA dated January 31, 2007, on the mineral reserves and resources at the McClean North uranium project entitled "Technical Report on the McClean North Uranium Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate, Saskatchewan, Canada" (the "McClean North Technical Report"), a copy of which is available on the Company’s profile on the SEDAR website at www.sedar.com. Richard E. Routledge, M.Sc., P. Geo. is the independent Qualified Person for the McClean North Technical Report for the purposes of the requirements of NI 43-101.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

The re-evaluation of McClean North was carried out by conventional 3-D computer block modeling. Wire frames were constructed for each of pods 1, 2 and 5. The estimate included internal dilution, but not external dilution, and was carried out at a 0.1% U₃O₈ cut-off. This mineral resource estimate is based entirely on diamond drill information. Block cell dimensions were selected at 8 metre model grid east west x 5 metre model grid north south and a 2 metre bench height or approximately 180 tonnes/block. Scott Wilson RPA constructed a mineral resource wireframe based on kriging, and constructed a special waste wireframe, that generally surrounds the mineral resource wireframe, using similar kriging parameters but with larger search distances. Subsequent to this report, the Company reviewed the block model and estimation procedures and revised slightly the mineral resource estimate for the McClean North deposit.

Midwest
Property Description and Location
The Midwest and Midwest A uranium deposits at the Midwest project are two of several high-grade deposits at or near the contact between the basement complex and the sandstone in the Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan. Midwest is owned by Denison (25.17%) and its joint venture partners, ARC (69.16%) and OURD (5.67%) . ARC is the operator/manager. Denison, ARC and OURD are also the joint venture partners in the McClean Lake joint venture and the owners of the McClean Lake mill where the Midwest ore is planned to be milled.

The Midwest project is located near South McMahon Lake approximately 15 kilometres from the McClean Lake mill. The site is approximately 750 kilometres north of Saskatoon.

Since the completion of the underground test mine at the Midwest deposit in 1988 and 1989, the site has been under an environmental monitoring and site security surveillance program. At present, there is an inactive water treatment plant, two water storage ponds and a core storage area on the site and a dam in the Mink Arm of South McMahon Lake. All of the facilities used in the test mine program and all of the existing surface facilities are located on lands owned by the Province of Saskatchewan. The right to use and occupy the lands was granted in a surface lease agreement with the Province of Saskatchewan. The original surface lease agreement of 1988 was replaced by a new agreement in 2002. This new surface lease is valid for a period of 33 years. Obligations under the surface lease agreement primarily relate to annual reporting regarding the status of the environment, the land development and progress made on northern employment and business development. The Midwest surface lease covers an area of approximately 646 hectares.

The mineral property consists of three contiguous mineral leases covering an area of 1,426 hectares. The right to mine the Midwest deposit was acquired under these mineral leases, as renewed from time to time. The mineral leases are for terms of 10 years with the right to renew for successive subsequent 10 year periods, provided that the leaseholders are not in default pursuant to the terms of the lease. The term of one of the mineral leases expires in December 2023 and the other two expire in December 2018. The Company expects that the leases will be renewed in the normal course, as required, to enable the Midwest deposit to be fully exploited.

For additional information on mineral leases and surface leases, see “Government Regulation – Land Tenure.”

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

The uranium produced from the two Midwest deposits is subject to a uranium mining royalty in Saskatchewan in accordance with Part III of The Crown Mineral Royalty Regulations. See "Government Regulation - Canadian Royalties.” In addition, a portion of Denison's interest in the Midwest project (i.e. 5.5% of the project reducing to 3.44% after payout) is subject to a sliding–scale, gross overriding royalty ranging from 2% to 4% payable to two previous owners of a portion of the Midwest project.

Accessibility, Climate, Infrastructure and Physiography

Access to the Midwest project is by both road and air. Goods are transported to the site by truck over an all–weather road that connects to the provincial highway system. Air transportation is provided through the Points North airstrip approximately 4 kilometres from the project site. The nearest permanent community is Wollaston Post, about 70 kilometres from the property on the other side of Wollaston Lake.

Site activities are carried out all year despite the cold weather during the winter months. Mean daily temperatures range from –25°C in January to +15°C in July. The average length of the frost–free period is about 90 days.

Water for industrial activities is obtained from one of the many lakes that surround the area. Electric power can be accessed from the provincial grid through nearby Points North.

No tailings storage areas are expected to be required at Midwest since it is planned that all Midwest ore will be transported to the McClean Lake mill for processing, with all resulting tailings being disposed of in McClean Lake’s licensed TMF.

Surface facilities and infrastructure at the Midwest project will consist of a water treatment plant and other facilities necessary to support the mining operation and the ore shipment activities. Ample area for these facilities is available on the existing surface lease.

The terrain at Midwest is typical of the Athabasca Basin area with glacial drift features following northeast-southwest trends to produce sand and gravel ridges. These ridges are surrounded by low lying ground which is often water logged and dominated by muskeg. Over 25% of the area is covered by small ponds and lakes. Jack pine and spruce, rarely more than 10 metres high, are the predominant trees. Surface elevations range from 400 to 500 metres above sea level.

History
Initial exploration work in the vicinity of the two Midwest deposits began in 1966. Canada Wide Mines Ltd., a subsidiary of Esso Resources Canada Ltd., was operator of the project from 1968 to 1982. From 1968 to 1975, exploration was carried out on an exploration permit which included the area covered by the current mineral leases. Most of the work was concentrated on the area near South McMahon Lake where uranium mineralized boulders were found. In 1974, the exploration permit was changed to mineral leases.

During the winter season of 1977, one of the holes drilled through the unconformity encountered mineralization. In January 1978, the Midwest deposit was intersected by the first drill holes. During 1978 through 1980, a further 439 holes were drilled (for a total of about 650) to delineate the deposit and to explore the surrounding area of the mineral leases.

In 1987, Denison acquired a 45% interest in the Midwest project and became the operator. An underground test mine program was completed in 1989 which confirmed the results of the surface drilling program and identified a high-grade mineral reserve containing 35.7 million pounds of U₃O₈ at an average diluted grade of 4.5% U₃O₈, mineable by underground methods.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

In 1993, the respective owners of McClean Lake and Midwest combined their interests to make one complementary project with one mill at McClean Lake. In order to accomplish this, a portion of Denison's interest in Midwest was exchanged for an interest in McClean Lake. This transaction, together with several related ownership changes, resulted in Denison's ownership interest in Midwest being reduced to 19.5% and Minatco, ARC’s predecessor in title, becoming the operator.

In 1999, Denison increased its interest in Midwest by 5.50% through the exercise of first refusal rights. With the uncertainty of the timing and costs of the Midwest development and the desire to eliminate the obligation to pay advance and future royalties on production from Midwest, Denison decreased its interest in Midwest from 25% to 19.96% effective March 31, 2001. ARC, the operator/manager of Midwest, also reduced its interest from 70.5% to 54.84% for the same reason.

At the end of 2004, in order to take advantage of rapidly increasing uranium prices, Denison again increased its interest at Midwest, along with its joint venture partners, by buying the 20.70% interest in Midwest then held by Redstone Resources Inc. This purchase permitted Denison to acquire a further 5.21% interest in Midwest, bringing its interest to 25.17% . ARC’s interest increased to 69.16% and OURD’s interest increased to 5.67%.

Exploration activities resumed in 2004 some three kilometres to the northeast of the Midwest deposit to test ground around a historic hole MW338 that had returned an isolated intercept of 3.8 metres at 6.9% U₃O₈. Continuing exploration identified the Midwest A deposit and several other mineralized areas, including the Josie Zone, lying between the Midwest and the Midwest A deposits.

Geological Setting
The Midwest uranium deposits lie near the eastern margin of the Athabasca Basin in the Churchill Structural Province of the Canadian Shield. The bedrock geology of the area consists of Precambrian gneisses unconformably overlain by flat lying, unmetamorphosed sandstones and conglomerates of the Athabasca Group. The Precambrian basement rocks are Aphebian–aged, are termed the Wollaston Group, and are essentially graphitic pelitic metasediments. These pelitic metasediments form a steeply dipping syncline which trends northeast. The basement surface is marked by a paleoweathered zone with lateritic characteristics referred to as regolith.

Exploration
Initial work on the property was a regional airborne geophysical survey, which located conductors below the sandstone cover. Ground prospecting identified a radioactive boulder field, and subsequent drill testing of the conductors located the mineralization in 1978.

After Denison acquired a 45% interest in the project and became the operator in 1987, an underground exploration test mine program was initiated at the Midwest deposit. From the fall of 1988 through April 1989, a 3.7 metre diameter shaft was sunk to a depth of 185 metres on the west shore of the Mink Arm of South McMahon Lake. From a depth of 170 metres, a crosscut was driven a total of 180 metres east. At the end of the crosscut, a blind-hole boring rig was installed to test the unconformity and related mineralization. Blind–hole boring of two 1.2 metre diameter holes through the mineralization was then carried out.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

The two known uranium occurrences in the area (Midwest deposit and Midwest A deposit) lie along a long resistivity low corresponding to a conductor associated with the graphite-bearing gneissic units of the basement. The other exploration tool of choice is rock geochemistry and clay mineralogy in drill hole core samples, mostly to define alteration haloes in the overlying Athabasca sandstone.

Mineralization
The Midwest deposit is sausage–shaped, 215 metres long with two main pods of high–grade mineralization separated by a 50 metre long section of low grade disseminated mineralization, at a depth of approximately 200 metres below surface. The average width is 80 metres with a maximum of 128 metres. Thickness of the zone averages 10 metres with a maximum of 30 metres. Overall, the deposit is high grade at 5.50% U₃O₈. Nickel and arsenic average grades are high, at 4.35% and 5.3% respectively.

The Midwest deposit is representative of typical unconformity style mineralization, whereby 99.5% of the resources are located at the basement sandstone contact either in the basal conglomerate or in the upper basement unit.

Locally, mineralized lenses occur along steep faults above and below the main unconformity mineralization. These are termed "perched" and "deep basement mineralization" respectively.

The Midwest A deposit is located at a depth of between 175 and 210 metres below the surface. It consists of several sub-parallel high-grade mineralized zones. These zones are surrounded by low-grade remobilized and clay-rich mineralization. The mineralized zones also exhibit structurally controlled roots that extend as much as 70 metres beneath the unconformity.

Drilling
Over 650 drill holes have tested the Midwest property prior to 2004, of which 100 surface (and wedged extensions) and three underground holes have been used for resource estimations. Eighty of these are NQ diamond drill holes from the surface, 20 are PQ holes drilled for metallurgical test work, and three are confirmation holes drilled from the underground crosscut. All of the surface holes were geologically and geotechnically logged and sampled by previous owners, while the underground holes were logged and sampled by Denison.

Of the 103 holes used for estimation of the Midwest resources, 22 did not have downhole survey information and therefore were assumed to be vertical. A statistical analysis carried out in 1982 indicated that at the 285 metre level, these supposedly vertical holes could have deviated by as much as 12 metres with an average of roughly five metres. Sensitivity studies have been carried out and indicate that, if the block boundaries remain fixed, the uncertainty in hole location for these 22 holes causes a fluctuation of 8% in tonnes, 5% in metal content and 3% in grade.

The mineral resource estimate for Midwest A is based on 85 core holes drilled between 2005 and 2007, as well as 29 vertical core holes drilled in 1979 and 1980, and in 1989. Additional drilling has been carried out since the date of the mineral resource estimate.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

Sampling and Analysis
Due to the nature of the mineralization, lost core is a significant issue. Lost core ranges between 0% and 50%, with an average core loss of 33% for the drill holes included in the mineral resource estimate for the Midwest deposit. The original owners initiated a convention which is conservative and has withstood many audit procedures over the years. The value assigned to lost core is the lowest assay of recovered material from one of three samples. These samples are: (1) the sample within which the lost core occurs; (2) the sample immediately above the one containing the lost core; and, (3) the sample immediately below the one containing the lost core.

Core recovery from the 2005 to 2007 Midwest A drilling was substantially improved in relation to earlier drilling, with 86% overall core recovery. The sections of poor core recovery occur with more frequency in the sandstone just above the unconformity.

Geochemical rock samples from the 2005 to 2007 drilling were shipped to and analysed by Saskatchewan Research Council Geoanalytical Laboratories (“SRC”) in Saskatoon. Quality control procedures in place at SRC include a systemic insertion of blanks, duplicates and standards. Radiometric data are converted into % eU in a standard manner.

Security of Samples
No opinion can be given regarding security of samples by the previous owners in the mid to late 1970s, other than to indicate that subsequent geological work, and all metallurgical and geotechnical work, including the sinking of a shaft and a test mining program in the late 1980s, have given no cause to doubt the veracity of the samples from which the mineral resource estimations are based. The best confirmation that proper security of samples was maintained is the previously mentioned report on the assay data, where the assay data base was checked at two external labs and found to contain an average variation of only 4% for values greater than 0.5% U₃O₈.

No special security measures have been used for the core samples from drilling since 2005. Samples were transported to the core shack and logging facility in sealed, standard, wooden core boxes, where they were photographed, logged, radiometrically scanned and, in some cases, split or chipped. Bagged samples were shipped to SRC in plastic pails or metallic containers.

Mineral Reserve and Mineral Resource Estimates
From June 1978 to October 1980, there were a total of 13 discrete "reserve estimation" reports published on the Midwest deposit by the previous owners.

The Company retained Scott Wilson RPA to independently review and audit its previously reported mineral reserves and resources in accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101. The Company received a technical report from Scott Wilson RPA dated June 1, 2005, revised on February 14, 2006, on its mineral reserves and resources at the Midwest uranium project entitled "Technical Report on the Midwest Uranium Deposit Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates, Saskatchewan, Canada" (the "Midwest Technical Report"), a copy of which is available on the Company’s profile on the SEDAR website at www.sedar.com. Richard E. Routledge, M.Sc., P. Geo., James W. Hendry, P. Eng. and Luke Evans, M.Sc., P. Eng. are the independent Qualified Persons for the Midwest Technical Report for the purposes of the requirements of NI 43-101.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

In preparing the Midwest Technical Report, Scott Wilson RPA reviewed previous estimates of mineral reserves and mineral resources, and examined and analyzed data supporting the previous estimates, as well as other available data regarding the properties, including extensive information from ARC. For the purpose of the economic analysis for determining open pit mineral reserves for the deposit, Scott Wilson RPA used a 0.3% U₃O₈ mining cut-off, mining costs based on previous actual operating experience at Sue C, historical milling costs at the JEB mill and a uranium price of $23.20 per pound of U₃O₈. Scott Wilson RPA constructed a block model based on a total of 265 surface drill holes. Scott Wilson RPA adopted the ARC unconformity and sandstone mineralization interpretation with some minor modifications. The total mineral reserve in the Scott Wilson RPA estimate is approximately 24% greater than the previously reported estimates due to the addition of the South Extension Zone and increased U₃O₈ grade estimates due to the application of a density weighted methodology. This block model was then used as the basis for evaluation of open pit economics using an industry standard Whittle software analysis program. As a result of increased costs and other economic factors, the Midwest mineral reserves were reclassified to mineral resources in 2008 pending a decision to proceed with the development of the Midwest deposit.

Midwest Mineral Resources ^{(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)}

Company

100% Basis

Share

Category

Tonnes

Grade

Pounds of U₃O₈

(,000)

(% U₃O₈)

(,000)

Indicated

354.0

5.50

42,900

10,800

Inferred

25.0

0.80

400

100

Notes:
(1)	The Midwest Technical Report estimated probable mineral reserves but they were reclassified by the Company to indicated mineral resources in 2008 as a result of the decision not to proceed with the development of the project at that time.
(2)	The cut-off grade for the Midwest indicated mineral resources is 0.30% U₃O_8.
(3)	The indicated mineral resources also contain 4.35% nickel (Company share of 8.6 million pounds) and 0.34% cobalt (Company share of 0.7 million pounds).
(4)	Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. No mineral reserves have as yet been defined.
(5)	Inferred mineral resources have a greater amount of uncertainty as to their existence and as to whether they can be mined economically. It cannot be assumed that all or part of the inferred mineral resources will ever be upgraded to a higher classification.

Geostat was retained to complete an independent technical review of the Midwest A uranium deposit. Geostat’s review was carried out and a report was prepared in compliance with the standards of NI 43-101. The Company received Geostat’s report on the mineral resources of the Midwest A deposit, dated January 31, 2008, entitled “Technical Report on the Midwest A Uranium Deposit of Saskatchewan, Canada” (the “Midwest A Technical Report”), a copy of which is available on the Company’s profile on the SEDAR website at www.sedar.com. Michel Dagbert, P. Eng is the independent Qualified Person for the Midwest A Technical Report for the purposes of the requirements of NI 43-101.

In preparing the Midwest A Technical Report, Geostat delineated mineralized envelopes on drill section planes at 25 metre intervals, mostly based on equivalent uranium grades and a cut-off of 0.05% eU. As a general rule, the mineralized shapes look simple on both extremities of the zone while they seem to have a more complex geometry in the centre part of the zone. In that centre part, a small high-grade pod is defined within the outline of the mineralized zone itself around a few intercepts of significant length and consistently showing high grades, generally above 10% eU.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

Once mineralized solids and the location and cut-off grades of composites within those solids were defined, the next step was to fill the solids with small blocks on a regular grid and interpolate the grade of each block from the grades of composites close to the blocks. Blocks of the current mineral resource model are 10 x 10 x 3 metres and they are oriented along the strike of the deposit. The procedure used calculates the proportion of each mineralized solid in each mineral resource block on the regular grid. Altogether, 1,461 mineral resource blocks have some mineralized material with proportions ranging from 0.6% to 100%, and an average of 47.6% .

Volumes of mineralized material of each solid, obtained by adding block fractions, are reasonably close to the mineralized solid volumes. For the low-grade solids, the interpolation of the uranium grade of the block fraction in a given solid is done with ordinary kriging following search conditions as defined by variography routines. With the above conditions, the grade of all low-grade fractions in the 1,461 blocks can be interpolated. For the high-grade solid (only 73 blocks with some fraction of that material from 0.2% to 49.2%), no local block grade interpolation was attempted. An 18% U fixed value (reasonably close to the average composite grade of 18.6% U) has been assigned to all block fractions. This approach corresponds to kriging with a pure nugget effect variogram.

The mineral resource block model leads to mineral resource estimates provided that volumes are converted into tonnages. Since at this time, there are no density measurements from Midwest A core samples, densities used are based on the density model defined for the nearby Midwest deposit. In this model, fixed densities (from 2.24 to 2.34 tonnes per cubic metre) are assigned to material in given uranium grade categories (from 0 to 6% U), and a fixed density of 2.8 tonnes per cubic metre is used for the high-grade material.

Geostat classified the Midwest A mineral resources as follows:

Midwest A Mineral Resources^(1)(2)(3)(4)

100% Basis

Company

Share

Category

Tonnes

Grade

Pounds of U₃O₈

(,000)

(% U₃O₈)

(,000)

Indicated

464.0

0.57

5,800

1,500

Inferred

9.2

21.23

4,300

1,100

Notes:
(1)	The mineral resource estimates comply with the requirements of NI 43-101 and the classifications comply with CIM definition standards.
(2)	The cut-off grade is 0.05% eU.
(3)	Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. No mineral reserves have as yet been defined.
(4)	Inferred mineral resources have a greater amount of uncertainty as to their existence and as to whether they can be mined economically. It cannot be assumed that all or part of the inferred mineral resources will ever be upgraded to a higher classification.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

Other Midwest Information
For taxes and royalties, see “Government Regulation – Canadian Royalties” and “Government Regulation – Canadian Income and Other Taxes.”

Wheeler River Property

Property Description and Location
Denison has a 60% interest in the Wheeler River Joint Venture consisting of 19 unsurveyed mineral claims totaling 11,720 hectares in northern Saskatchewan. Denison has been the operator since November 10, 2004. The other partners are Cameco (30%) and JCU (Canada) Exploration Company, Limited ("JCU") (10%). There are no back-in rights or royalties applicable to this property. There is an annual requirement of CAD$0.3 million either in work or cash to maintain title to the mineral claims. Based on previous work submitted and approved by the Province of Saskatchewan, title is secure until 2035.

The Phoenix deposit lies within the Wheeler River property located along the eastern edge of the Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan and is located approximately 35 km north-northeast of the Key Lake mill and 35 km southwest of the McArthur River uranium mine.

The map below shows the Wheeler River property and the location of the Phoenix deposit.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography
Access to the Phoenix deposit is by road or air from Saskatoon. The Phoenix deposit is well located with respect to all-weather roads and the provincial power grid. Vehicle access to the property is by the provincial highway system to the Key Lake mill then by the ore haul road between the Key Lake and McArthur River operations to the eastern part of the property. An older access road, the Fox Lake Road, between Key Lake and McArthur River, provides access to most of the northwestern side of the property. Gravel and sand roads and drill trails provide access by either four-wheel-drive or all-terrain-vehicle to the rest of the property.

The climate is typical of the continental sub-arctic region of northern Saskatchewan, with temperatures ranging from +32°C in summer to -45°C in winter. Winters are long and cold, with mean monthly temperatures below freezing for seven months of the year. Winter snow pack averages 70 cm to 90 cm. Freezing of surrounding lakes, in most years, begins in November and breakup occurs around the middle of May. The average frost-free period is approximately 90 days. Field-operations are possible year round with the exception of limitations imposed by lakes and swamps and the periods of break-up and freeze-up.

Average annual total precipitation for the region is approximately 450 mm, of which 70% falls as rain, with more than half occurring from June to September. Snow may occur in all months but rarely falls in July or August. The prevailing wind direction is from the west with a mean speed of 12 km/hr.

La Ronge, roughly 170 km south of the project, is the nearest commercial/urban centre where most exploration supplies and services can be obtained. The operating Key Lake mill complex is approximately 35 km southwest of the property. Personnel working on the project commute from a number of designated communities by air.

Field operations are currently conducted from Denison's Wheeler River camp, three kilometres due southwest of the Phoenix deposit. The camp provides accommodations for up to 35 exploration personnel. Fuel and miscellaneous supplies are stored in existing warehouse and tank facilities at the camp. The site generates its own power. Abundant water is available from the numerous lakes and rivers in the area.

The property is characterized by a relatively flat till plain with elevations ranging from 477 metres to 490 metres above sea level. Throughout the area, there is a distinctive north-easterly trend to landforms resulting from the passage of glacial ice from the northeast to the southwest. The topography and vegetation at the Phoenix deposit are typical of the taiga forested land common to the Athabasca Basin area of northern Saskatchewan. The area is covered with between 30 metres to 50 metres of overburden. The terrain is gently rolling and characterized by forested sand and dunes. Vegetation is dominated by black spruce and jack pine, with occasional small stands of white birches occurring in more productive and well-drained areas. Productive lichen growth is common to this boreal landscape mostly associated with mature coniferous stands and bogs.

History
The Wheeler River property was staked on July 6, 1977, due to its proximity to the Key Lake uranium discoveries, and was vended into an agreement on December 28, 1978 between AGIP Canada Ltd., E&B Explorations Ltd. and Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation, with each holding a one-third interest. On July 31, 1984, each party divested a 13.3% interest and allowed Denison Mines Limited, a predecessor company to Denison, to earn in to a 40% interest.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

In late 2004, Denison entered into an agreement to earn a further 20% interest by expending CAD$7,000,000 within six years. At that time, Denison became the project operator. In 2007, when the earn-in obligations were completed, the participating interests were: Denison, 60%; Cameco, 30%; and JCU, 10%.

The former operator, Cameco, had identified a major geological unit termed the "quartzite ridge" and had noted extensive dravite (boron) alteration in the overlying sandstones. Cameco discovered several uranium mineralized intercepts that occurred in a variety of geological settings throughout the property.

During the initial years of its option, Denison targeted the west area, or footwall side of the quartzite ridge. In 2007, Denison completed a major DC resistivity survey to the north of an earlier Cameco 2003 resistivity survey. Interpretation of the 2007 resistivity survey lead to the recommendation for drilling three holes to test two separate resistivity lows, both interpreted to represent "alteration chimneys" within the Athabasca sandstone.

In the summer of 2008, as a direct result of the 2007 DC resistivity survey along the hanging wall of the quartzite ridge, two drill holes were located 600 metres apart along the same low resistivity trend. This drilling intersected a zone of characteristic sandstone alteration and uranium mineralization linked to unconformity-associated uranium deposits. All drill holes during the summer of 2008 intersected either uranium mineralization or very strong alteration close to mineralization.

Subsequent drill programs conducted during 2009 and 2010 established significant milestones in the advancement of the project in terms of demonstrating continuity and extending the mineralized zone for a strike length of greater than 900 metres. An initial mineral resource estimate was completed at the end of 2010. Aggressive drill programs in 2011 and 2012 successfully added additional mineral resources. In 2013, drilling was completed at the Phoenix deposit, but a large portion of the 2013 Wheeler River drilling program was also allocated to exploration of several other target areas on the property.

Some additional infill drilling was completed at the Phoenix deposit in early 2014, and this work was successful in extending some high grade mineralization into areas previously modeled as low grade. These results, combined with results from 2013 were the catalyst for an updated mineral resource estimate for the Phoenix deposit in June, 2014.

Geological Setting
The Phoenix deposit is an unconformity-type uranium deposit lying along the eastern flank of the Athabasca Basin where undeformed, late Paleoproterozoic to Mesoproterozoic sandstones, conglomerates, and mudstones of the Athabasca Group unconformably overlie early Paleoproterozoic and Archean crystalline basement rocks. The local geology of the Phoenix deposit is consistent with the regional geology.

Uranium mineralization at the Phoenix deposit is of the unconformity-type, associated with the sub-Athabasca unconformity. These are generally interpreted to result from interaction of hydrothermal fluids at the intersection of local and regional faults with the unconformity. Two styles of mineralization have been traced over a strike length of 900+ metres along the Phoenix deposit. These are:

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

	a)	Unconformity-hosted uranium mineralization: This is the most widespread and dominant style of mineralization identified to date and the basis for the mineral resource estimate. Mineralization forms as a sub-horizontal elongate lens that is developed in the lowermost Athabasca sandstone from 390 metre to 420 metre depths immediately above the sub-Athabasca unconformity, or straddling the unconformity and extending downward for several metres into the underlying basement Proterozoic Wollaston Group metasedimentary rocks. In some instances, the main mineralized zone is comprised of one to three (1-3 metre) thin, stacked zones. Uranium mineralization is spatially (and likely genetically) related to a northeast-southwest trending (55º azimuth) fault that dips 55º to the southeast. The structure has been named the WS fault.

		Mineralization is monomineralic uranium as uraninite/pitchblende and may have some relationship to the extensions of the WS fault and its various hanging wall splays; hence, movement on these faults is interpreted to have continued after deposition of the lower members of the Manitou Fall Formation of the Athabasca Group. The WS fault and its hanging wall splays may have been the main conduit for the mineralizing fluids. Values of all accompanying metals are low, particularly in comparison with several other Athabasca Basin sandstone-hosted deposits, which can have very high nickel, cobalt, and arsenic grades.

		Mineralization is associated with extensive clay alteration and varying degrees of silicification and desilicification which affects densities of the lower sandstone. The principal clay minerals are illite, chlorite, kaolinite, and dravite, with alteration focused along structures propagating upward from the WS fault and associated splays, and probably does not exceed 100 metres width across strike, making this a relatively narrow target. The basement in the northeast part of the Phoenix deposit is much more extensively bleached and clay altered than that to the southwest.

	b)	Basement-hosted mineralization: This is the second type of mineralization, occurring along several portions of the Phoenix deposit. Basement hosted mineralization is developed as steeply dipping, discontinuous, thin (1-3 metre thick), parallel to sub- parallel zones along fractures associated with the WS fault for up to 20 metres below the sub-Athabasca unconformity, and vertically below the unconformity-hosted mineralization.

Exploration, Drilling, Sampling and Analysis
Since the discovery of Key Lake in 1975-1976, the Key Lake exploration model has emphasized the occurrence of uranium mineralization proximal to the sub-Athabasca unconformity at locations where graphitic pelite units in the basement meet the basal Athabasca sandstone.The graphitic pelite units are commonly intensely sheared in contrast to the physically more competent rock types that include non-graphitic pelite, semi-pelite, psammite, meta-arkose, or granite gneiss. Airborne and ground electromagnetic systems are commonly used to map conductive graphitic pelite units versus the relatively resistive and non-conductive quartz-feldspathic rock types.

However, since the discovery of the McArthur River deposit in 1988, the McArthur River exploration model has emphasized a different association of uranium mineralization and rock type. At McArthur River, one of the most significant rock types in the basement succession is a massive, homogenous, and competent quartzite. Mechanically, particularly compared to the adjacent layered members of the basement stratigraphy, the quartzite is extremely strong, and thus exerts an important control both in basement and post-Athabasca sandstone structural evolution. Both the footwall and hanging wall contacts of the quartzite unit, particularly if these contacts involve highly incompetent rocks such as graphitic pelite, become sites of major thrust, reverse, and strike-slip faults. Although these faults are loci for mineralization; the poor conductivity, low magnetic susceptibilities and specific gravity (density) values associated with the quartzite, as well as other quartz-feldspathic rocks, limits the effectiveness of airborne and ground geophysical methods in mapping these basement units. This is particularly so when they are covered by hundreds of metres of sandstone. Alteration haloes are typically larger than the deposit footprints, and are characterized by changes in mineralogy and major and trace elements. Therefore, lithogeochemistry of drill core samples is also an important exploration method.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

During the period 1978 through 2006, the operator of the joint venture conducted several small regional campaigns of drill testing geophysical anomalies (electromagnetic conductors) located by airborne and ground geophysical surveys over the general Phoenix deposit area. During 2009, three drill programs were carried out, each of which established significant milestones in the advancement of the project. During the winter program, the first indications of significant mineralization came from Hole WR-258, which returned 11.2% U₃O₈ over 5.5 metres from a depth of 397 metres. The summer drill program continued to test the discovery, with hole WR-273 returning a value of 62.6% U₃O₈ over 6.0 metres at a depth of 405 metres. Mineralization was monomineralic pitchblende with very low concentrations of accessory minerals. Most of the mineralization occurs as a horizontal sheet at the sub-Athabasca unconformity where it meets a graphitic pelite unit in the basement. A further drill program in the fall of 2009 established continuity in this high-grade mineralized zone and extended the mineralized zone as a possibly continuous unit for a strike length of greater than one kilometre.

Denison geologists collect a suite of samples from each drill hole for determining the content and distribution of trace elements, uranium, and clay minerals (alteration). Denison obtains assays for all the cored sections through mineralized intervals. All samples for assay or geochemical species determination are sent to SRC in Saskatoon.

Several types of samples are collected routinely from drill core at Phoenix. These include:

•	systematic composite geochemical samples of both Athabasca sandstone and metamorphic basement rocks to characterize clay alteration and geochemical zoning associated with mineralization;

•	selective grab samples and split-core intervals for geochemical quantification of geologically-interesting material and mineralized material, respectively;

•	samples collected for determination of specific gravity; and

•	non-geochemical samples for determination of mineralogy to assess alteration patterns, lithology types and mineralization characteristics.

Selective samples form a quantitative assessment of mineralization grade and associated elemental abundances, while the systematic and mineralogical samples are collected mainly for exploration purposes to determine patterns applicable to mineral exploration. These sampling types and approaches are typical for uranium exploration and definition drilling programs in the Athabasca Basin.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

For additional information on the protocols used by Denison and its consultants in the drilling, sampling and analysis of the Phoenix deposit, see “Mineral Exploration - Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures and Protocols – Athabasca Basin.”

Mineralization
The Phoenix deposit is located at a depth of approximately 400 metres below the surface. Mineralization is monomineralic uranium as uraninite/pitchblende. Values of all accompanying metals are low, particularly in comparison with other Athabasca uranium deposits, which can have very high values of nickel, cobalt and arsenic.

Mineralization and alteration has been traced over a strike length of approximately 900 metres. Since the discovery hole WR-249 was drilled in 2008, two zones (Zones A and B) of high-grade mineralization have been delineated along with two other zones of less well developed mineralization (Zones C and D) which are also less explored.

Hydrothermal alteration around Phoenix is similar to other Athabasca Basin deposits. The sandstones are altered for as much as 200 metres above the unconformity, and exhibit varying degrees of silicification and desilicification (which causes many technical drilling problems), as well as dravitization, chloritization, and illitization. In addition, hydrothermal hematite and druzy quartz are present in the sandstone and often in the basement rocks. Alteration is focused along structures, propagating upward from the WS fault and associated splays, and probably does not exceed 100 metres width across strike, making this a relatively narrow target. The basement in the northeast part of the Phoenix deposit is much more extensively bleached and clay altered than that to the southwest.

Security of Samples
Drill core samples are collected and processed at Denison’s Wheeler River camp facility located on the property, which is off limits to outsiders. Samples are logged, split, bagged and stored in pails by Denison staff at the core preparation facility. Because the mineralized drill cores are classified as hazardous materials and are regulated under requirements governing the transport of dangerous goods, Denison staff have been trained in the proper handling and transport of the cores and deliver them from the core facility directly to the SRC facilities without outside contact.

SRC considers customer confidentiality and security of utmost importance and takes appropriate steps to protect the integrity of sample processing at all stages from sample storage and handling to transmission of results. All electronic information is password protected and backed up on a daily basis. Electronic results are transmitted with additional security features. Access to SRC’s laboratories is restricted by an electronic security system. The facilities at the main lab are regularly patrolled by security guards 24 hours a day.

After the analyses are completed, analytical data are securely sent using electronic transmission of the results, by SRC to Denison. The electronic results are secured using WINZIP encryption and password protection. These results are provided as a series of Adobe PDF files containing the official analytical results and a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet file containing only the analytical results.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

Mineral Resource Estimate

Denison completed an updated mineral resource estimate for the Phoenix deposit in June, 2014. Denison retained RPA, Inc. to independently review and audit the estimate and prepare a technical report in accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101 on the project. The Company subsequently received the report entitled “Technical Report on a Mineral Resource Update for the Phoenix Uranium Deposit” dated June 17, 2014 (the “Phoenix Report”). A copy of this report is available on the Company’s profile on the SEDAR website at www.sedar.com. William E. Roscoe, Ph.D, P. Eng., is the independent Qualified Person for the Phoenix Report for the purposes of the requirements of NI 43-101.

The updated Phoenix mineral resource estimate is as follows:

Phoenix Mineral Resources ^(1)(2)(3)(5)

	Tonnes	Grade	lbsU₃O₈ (,000)	lbs U₃O₈ (,000)
Category	(100% Basis)	(% U₃O₈ )	(100% Basis)	Company’s Share⁽⁴⁾

Indicated	166,000	19.13	70,200	42,100
Inferred	9,000	5.8	1,100	700

Notes:
(1)	Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. No mineral reserves have as yet been defined.
(2)	Cut-off grade 0.8% U₃O₈.
(3)	Mineral resources are estimated with no allowance for mining dilution, mining recovery or process recovery.
(4)	Denison’s share is 60% of total mineral resources.
(5)	Inferred mineral resources have a greater amount of uncertainty as to their existence and as to whether they can be mined economically. It cannot be assumed that all or part of the inferred mineral resources will ever be upgraded to a higher classification.

This mineral resource estimate was carried out on a mix of chemical and radiometric probe data. Although there is a correlation between data, the probe grades tended to be lower than chemical grades and are only used when the drill hole had less than 80% core recovery. Less than 20% of the grade data used in the mineral resource estimate was radiometric probe data.

Waterbury Lake

Property Description and Location
The Waterbury Lake property is located in northern Saskatchewan and is jointly owned by Denison (60 %) and Korea Waterbury Uranium Limited Partnership (“KWULP”) (40 %), a consortium of investors in which KEPCO is included. The Limited Partnership between Denison and KWULP is referred to as the Waterbury Lake Uranium Limited Partnership (“WLULP”). Denison acquired its 60% interest in the WLULP through the Fission Arrangement in 2013.

Waterbury Lake is a 40,256 hectare collection of 13 irregularly shaped contiguous claims and one separate claim in the eastern Athabasca Basin of northern Saskatchewan, Canada. The property is located approximately 12 km north of Points North Landing and 700 km northeast of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

There are no known environmental liabilities associated with Waterbury Lake, and there are no other significant factors and risks that may affect access, title, or the right or ability to perform work on the property.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

All the necessary permits for surface exploration on the property are in place and current. Activities on the project property to date have been limited to resource delineation and gathering of environmental baseline data. The environmental liabilities associated with these activities are consistent with low impact exploration activities. The mitigation measures associated with these impacts are accounted for within the current surface exploration permits and authorizations.

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography
The Waterbury Lake project can be accessed year round by taking Saskatchewan provincial Highway 102 to Southend from La Ronge, then Highway 905 to Points North, which is a privately owned service centre with an airstrip and accommodations available. The nearest community is Wollaston Lake, 57 km directly south east of Points North. During summer drilling campaigns the core camp is most commonly accessed by helicopter based out of Points North. An all season secondary road exists from Highway 905 to the Midwest deposit dam from which a motor boat can be used to access the camp during the summer months. During the winter months the core camp can be easily reached by 4x4 truck using a secondary road that runs north east along Fission claim S-107367 to an ice road which crosses McMahon Lake.

Waterbury Lake lies in a sub-arctic climate region. Winters are generally extremely cold and dry with temperatures regularly dropping below -30° C. The cold temperatures allow for a sufficient ice thickness to support a drill rig generally from mid-January to mid-April. Temperatures in the summer can vary widely with yearly maxima of around 30° C often recorded in late July.

The project area is characterized by gently rolling relief covered by thinly wooded boreal forest. Numerous lakes and ponds generally show a north-easterly elongation imparted by the last glaciation. Broad zones of muskeg are present at low elevations around many of the local lakes. McMahon Lake is one of the largest lakes in the immediate project area and it overlies the J Zone deposit as well as the Midwest and Roughrider deposits. Vegetation is predominantly thinly distributed black spruce, alder and jack pine with lesser birch, while ground cover comprises mostly reindeer lichen and Labrador tea.

History
Strathmore Minerals Corp. (“Strathmore”) acquired a 100% interest in the 13 mineral claims located in Saskatchewan in 2004. During 2007, Strathmore spun out all of their Canadian assets, including Waterbury’s 13 mineral claims into a new company, being Fission. In 2008, an earn-in agreement was signed with the KWULP, whereby Fission granted KWULP the exclusive rights to earn up to a 50% interest in the Waterbury Lake property by funding CAD$14 million of expenditures on or before January 30, 2011. Additionally, Fission retained an overriding royalty interest in the property of 2% of net smelter returns. On April 29, 2010, KWULP had fully funded its CAD$14 million of expenditures and consequently earned a 50% interest in the property.

The earn-in agreement required that on completion of the earn-in period, the joint venture parties agree to form a jointly control limited partnership to hold the property and on August 16, 2010 the WLULP agreement was signed, superseding the original earn-in agreement. WLULP was officially formed December 30, 2010. Fission had 12 months from the completion of the earn-in agreement during which time it could acquire an additional 10% interest in WLULP for CAD$6 million. On April 12, 2011, Fission exercised its back-in option by paying KWULP CAD$6 million, bringing its interest up to 60%.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

The WLULP agreement required that Fission and its partners spend a total of CAD$30 million for exploration and evaluation costs over the next three years, according to their interest in WLULP. The winter 2013 program completed the budgeted three year exploration program. Fission was appointed operator for WLULP.

Exploration
Uranium exploration has been undertaken on the Waterbury Lake property for over 40 years. Numerous and varied programs have been carried out on different portions of the property, including diamond drill campaigns, airborne and ground geophysics, boulder sampling and prospecting.

Airborne radiometric, magnetic and electromagnetic (EM) surveys as well as a hydrogeochemical survey were conducted on Waterbury Lake as early as 1969. Cogema acquired properties in the Waterbury and Henday Lake areas during the late 1980s and carried out an extensive exploration program involving geological mapping, sampling, drilling and geophysical surveys. The latter included airborne EM and magnetic surveys, and ground VLF-EM and gravity surveys.

Following-up on work done by Cogema up until the early 1990s, Cameco acquired properties in the Waterbury and McMahon Lakes area and initially completed geological mapping and sampling programs. This was followed by more geophysical surveys including ground time domain electromagnetic (TDEM), magnetic, gravity and induced polarization (IP) over select targets and drilling throughout the decade.

In 2004, Strathmore acquired the Waterbury Lake property through the staking of 13 mineral claims. During the spring of 2005, an airborne high power time domain electromagnetic (MEGATEM II) survey was completed over the entire property. A total of 1,749 line kilometres were flown. Other work during 2005 included a heli-borne EM survey flown in the spring and a small boulder sampling program in the fall.

Strathmore continued work on the property during 2006 with a ground EM geophysical survey and completing eight drill holes totaling 2,865 metres. In addition, an IP-resistivity survey was competed. This was followed by more ground geophysical surveys in early 2007.

In June 2007 all of Strathmore’s Canadian and Peruvian uranium assets, including the Waterbury Lake Property, were spun out of Strathmore and into Fission. Late in 2007 Fission funded the drilling of eight diamond drill holes totaling 2,222 metres.

In early 2008, five drill holes totaling 1,303 metres were completed and a 594 line-kilometre VTEM airborne magnetic and EM survey was flown. Following this work, soil sampling, ground and airborne geophysical surveys and a 19-hole drill program (7,996 m) were completed between May and August.

In 2009, two drill programs were carried out totalling 10,082 metres in 29 holes.

Two diamond drill programs were completed on the property during 2010. The first was carried out between mid-January and end of March, 2010. During this period 35 diamond drill holes were completed for a total accumulated length (including restarts) of 11,250.0 metres. Several geophysical surveys were also completed during the first three months of the year.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

A second diamond drill program was conducted between mid-July to early September. During this period, 16 holes were completed for a total accumulated length (including restarts) of 5,172.0 metres. Airborne radiometric anomalies delineated from the previous summer were checked in the field during August and early September, and a bathymetry survey of the Discovery Bay/Talisker area was carried out in early October.

A winter 2011 drilling program was carried out between early January and mid-April, 2011. Three diamond drill rigs completed a total of 82 holes for a total accumulated length (including restarts) of 26,300 metres.

Between January and June 2011, several geophysical surveys were conducted on the Waterbury and Murphy Lake Properties. These included 26.4 kilometres of time domain EM survey at Discovery Bay Extension, 25.6 kilometres of time domain EM at Oban and Oban North grids, and 64 kilometres of IP Resistivity and 32.15 kilometres of time domain EM surveys at Murphy-Glen grid.

Two drill programs were completed on the Property in 2012 totalling approximately 39,526 m of core, including 75 holes on the J Zone. The winter 2012 drill program began on January 8 and ended on April 6. A total of 86 holes (32,770 m) were drilled during the program including 49 holes in and around the J Zone. Twenty-six drill holes totaling 8,316 metres were completed in the J Zone area in a summer 2012 drill program.

A total of 68 drill holes and 11 restarts were completed comprising 21,013 meters. All of the winter 2013 drilling was completed in the immediate area of the J Zone deposit to extend the boundaries of the mineralization and infill gaps in the drill pattern.

Following the Fission Arrangement, a summer program of DC-resistivity geophysics (50.4 line kilometres) and diamond drilling (2,350 metres in six drill holes) was also completed in 2013. Work was concentrated on the Aran area and the north rim of the Waterbury Dome. This work was followed by 37.2 line kilometres of DC-resistivity geophysics and 3,100 metres of diamond drilling in nine drill holes in 2014. The primary focus of the drilling in 2014 was the Discovery Bay corridor to the west of the J Zone, and the Oban target area.

Geological Setting
The Waterbury property is located in the eastern portion of the Proterozoic Athabasca Basin. The Athabasca sediments unconformably overlie older crystalline basement complexes and in the project area specifically, the highly prospective Mudjatik – Wollaston Transition Zone (“MWTZ”). The MWTZ marks a gradational contact between bands of Paleoproterozoic metasediments and Archean granitic gneisses of the Mudjatik domain to the west and variably graphitic Paleoproterozoic metasediments and Archean granitic gneisses of the Wollaston domain to the east. The MWTZ currently hosts all producing uranium deposits in the Athabasca Basin including McArthur River and Cigar Lake.

The Athabasca basin in the project area is comprised of several hundred meters of Manitou Falls Formation fluvial, quartz rich conglomeratic sandstone. Basement rocks in the area are dominated by Archean orthogneisses, occurring as large domes, and steeply dipping, locally graphitic, Paleoproterozoic metasedimentary paragneisses to granofels. Directly below the Athabasca/basement unconformity is a zone of paleoregolith which commonly extends for many meters into the basement. The paleoweathered zone typically grades with depth from pervasive hematization into pervasive chloritization and finally into fresh rock. The unconformity surface is relatively flat on a large scale but in the Discovery Bay area local reverse faulting down drops the unconformity to the south-east.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

The Athabasca Basin sedimentary rocks which overlie the Waterbury Lake project area typically range in thickness from 195 to 300 m. The upper portion of the sedimentary package is comprised of the Manitou Falls Collins (MFc) Formation pebbly quartz arenite which grades into Manitou Falls Bird (MFb) Formation pebble bedded quartz arenite at approximately 80m depth. An easily recognizable 5 to 7 m marker conglomerate exists in the MFb sandstone, and a basal conglomerate unit is almost always present directly above the unconformity. In the deposit area, the underlying basement geology is interpreted to be a steeply north-northwest dipping, east-west trending corridor of variably graphitic Wollaston Group metasedimentary gneisses, bounded to the north and south by thick zones of predominantly granitic Archean orthogneiss. The Archean orthogneisses apparently define two large dome structures identified as the north and south side orthogneiss domes. The stratigraphy of the metasedimentary corridor is dominantly comprised of: weakly graphitic cordierite-almandine pelitic gneiss, informally termed the ‘typical J Zone pelitic gneiss’; graphite-sulphide rich pelitic gneiss; cordierite-almandine augen gneiss; and thin lenses of garnetite which appear to be more abundant along the southern edge of the corridor. A thick unit of strongly graphitic cataclasite exists within the graphite-sulphide pelitic gneiss.

Mineralization

The J Zone uranium deposit was discovered during the winter 2010 drill program at Waterbury Lake. The second drill hole of the campaign, WAT10-063A, was an angled hole drilled from a peninsula extending into McMahon Lake. It intersected 10.5 m of uranium mineralization grading 1.91% U₃O₈ including 1.0 m grading 13.87% U₃O₈ as well as an additional four meters grading at 0.16% U₃O₈.

The J Zone deposit is currently defined by 268 drill holes intersecting uranium mineralization over a combined east-west strike length of up to 700 m and a maximum north-south lateral width of 70 m. The deposit trends roughly east-west (80°) in line with the metasedimentary corridor and cataclastic graphitic fault zone.

Mineralization thickness varies widely throughout the J Zone and can range from tens of cm to over 19.5 m in vertical thickness. In cross section J Zone mineralization is roughly lens shaped with a relatively thick central zone that corresponds with the interpreted location of the cataclasite and rapidly tapers out to the north and south. Locally, a particularly high-grade (upwards of 40% U₃O₈) but often thin lens of mineralization is present along the southern boundary of the metasedimentary corridor. Ten meter step out drill holes to the south from these high-grade holes have failed to intersect any mineralization, demonstrating the extremely discreet nature of mineralization.

Uranium mineralization is generally found within several metres of the unconformity at depth ranges of 195 to 230 m below surface. It variably occurs entirely hosted within the Athabasca sediments, entirely within the metasedimentary gneisses or straddling the boundary between them. A semi-continuous, thin zone of uranium mineralization has been intersected in occasional southern J Zone drill holes well below the main mineralized zone, separated by several meters of barren metasedimentary gneiss. This mineralized zone is informally termed the south-side lens and can host grades up to 3.70% U₃O₈.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

The J Zone deposit is generally flat lying (located roughly 200 m below the surface of McMahon Lake) and therefore whenever possible holes have been drilled vertically in order to intersect the ore lenses perpendicularly, thereby giving an approximate true thickness.

Mineral Resource Estimates
The Company retained GeoVector Management Inc. (“GeoVector”) to independently review and audit mineral resource estimates in accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101. The Company received a technical report from GeoVector dated September 6, 2013 on its mineral resources at Waterbury Lake entitled “Mineral Resource Estimate On The J Zone Uranium Deposit, Waterbury Lake Property” (the "J Zone Technical Report"), a copy of which is available on the Company’s profile on the SEDAR website at www.sedar.com. Allan Armitage, Ph.D., P.Geol., and Alan Sexton, M.Sc., P.Geol.,are the independent Qualified Persons for the J Zone Technical Report for the purposes of the requirements of NI 43-101.

J Zone Mineral Resources ^(1)(2)(3)

Company

100% Basis

Share⁽⁴⁾

Tonnes

Grade

Pounds of U₃O₈

Category

(,000)

(% U₃O₈)

(,000)

Indicated

291.0

2.00

12,800

7,700

Notes:
(1)	The mineral resource estimates comply with the requirements of NI 43-101 and the classifications comply with CIM definition standards.
(2)	The cut-off grade is 0.1% U₃O₈.
(3)	Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. No mineral reserves have as yet been defined.
(4)	Denison’s share is 60% of total mineral resources.

For the 2013 mineral resource estimate, a 3D wireframe model was constructed based generally on a cut-off grade of 0.03 to 0.05 % U₃O₈ which involved visually interpreting mineralized zones from cross sections using histograms of U₃O₈. 3D rings of mineralized intersections were created on each cross section and these were tied together to create a continuous wireframe solid model in Gemcom GEMS 6.5 software. The modeling exercise provided broad controls on the size and shape of the mineralized volume.

Based on a statistical analysis of the composite database, no capping was applied on the composite populations to limit high values for uranium. A histogram of the data indicates a log normal distribution of the metals with very few outliers within the database. Analysis of the spatial location of outlier samples and the sample values proximal to them led GeoVector to believe that the high values were legitimate parts of the population and that the impact of including these high composite values uncut would be negligible to the overall resource estimate.

Using waxed core and dry bulk density determinations a formula was derived relating bulk density to grade and was used to assign a density value to each assay. Bulk density values were used to weight grades during the resource estimation process and to convert volume to tonnage.

Uranium grade times density (GxD) values and density (D) values were interpolated into the block model using an inverse distance squared (ID2) algorithm. Block grade was derived from the interpolated GxD value divided by the interpolated D value for each block. Block tonnage was based on volume times the interpolated D value.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

Two passes were used to interpolate all of the blocks in the wireframe, but 99% of the blocks were filled by the first pass. The size of the search ellipse, in the X, Y, and Z direction, used to interpolate grade into the resource blocks is based on 3D semi-variography analysis (completed in GEMS) of mineralized points within the resource model. For the first pass, the search ellipse was set at 25 x 15 x 15 metres in the X, Y, Z direction respectively. The Principal azimuth is oriented at 075º, the Principal dip is oriented at 0° and the Intermediate azimuth is oriented at 0°. For the second pass, the search ellipse was set at 50 x 30 x 30 metres in the X, Y, Z direction respectively. The Principal azimuth is oriented at 075º, the Principal dip is oriented at 0° and the Intermediate azimuth is oriented at 0°.

The mineral resources for the J Zone were classified as indicated based on drill hole spacing and continuity of mineralization. The block model was validated by visual and statistical comparisons of composite grades and block grades.

Mongolia: Gurvan Saihan Joint Venture

On March 13, 2007, Denison filed on the SEDAR website at www.sedar.com an independent technical report entitled “Technical Report on the Uranium Exploration Properties in Mongolia” prepared by Scott Wilson RPA in accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101 with respect to its uranium properties in Mongolia (the “2007 Mongolia Report”). Thomas C. Pool, P.E. and Neil N. Gow, P. Geo. are the independent Qualified Persons for the 2007 Mongolia Report for the purposes of the requirements of NI 43-101.

On March 28, 2011, Denison filed on the SEDAR website an independent technical report entitled “Technical Report on the Hairhan Uranium Property in Mongolia” prepared by RPA Inc. in accordance with the requirements of NI 43-101 with respect to updated mineral resources estimated for the Hairhan project (the “2011 Mongolia Report”). Hrayr Agnerian, M.Sc. (Applied), P. Geo. and William E. Roscoe, Ph.D., P.Eng. are the independent Qualified Persons for the 2011 Mongolia Report for the purposes of the requirements of NI 43-101. Collectively, the 2007 Mongolia Report and 2011 Mongolia Report are referred to herein as the “Mongolia Technical Reports.”

Property Description and Location
Denison has been active in Mongolia for more than 20 years, and initial exploration commenced prior to the promulgation of the law on mineral resources in Mongolia in 1997 (“Mineral Law of Mongolia”). The following details the mineral resources estimated in the Mongolia Technical Reports. The other properties which Denison holds are covered in further detail in the section “Mineral Exploration – Mongolia.”

The GSJV holds four exploration licences that were obtained under an agreement with the Government of Mongolia (the “Mineral Agreement”) prior to the introduction of the Mineral Law of Mongolia. The GSJV licences have an area of 167,260 hectares and are located in the South Gobi region of Mongolia. This area is characterized as desert steppe and supports nomadic herdsmen.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

Properties Obtained Prior to 1997
The GSJV was formed in 1994 by Energy Fuels Nuclear ("EFN"), the Government of Mongolia, and Geologorazvedka, a Russian entity. EFN held a 70% interest in the GSJV, and the Mongolian and Russian participants each held a 15% interest. Denison acquired the assets of EFN, including its interest in the GSJV, in 1997 and is the Managing Director of the GSJV.

The initial properties obtained by the GSJV were granted under a Mineral Agreement with the Government of Mongolia. The Mineral Agreement grants properties exclusively to the GSJV and establishes the fiscal and operating policies under which the GSJV operates. Under the GSJV Founding Agreement:

-	The Government of Mongolia entered into the Mineral Agreement, granting the GSJV exclusive rights and permits to five areas (one area later released) without obligations for further licensing fees. This includes the obligation of the Government of Mongolia to provide all necessary authorizations, permits and licences needed by the joint venture to conduct business.

-	The Russian participant contributed all of the exploration data, records, and information it possessed for the five areas.

-	Denison was obligated to provide 100% of venture funding until the predetermined total had been reached (initially it was $4 million that then changed to $5.1 million).

Subsequent to the formation of the GSJV, Mongolia enacted the Mineral Law of Mongolia. The Mineral Law of Mongolia contains some conditions and provisions that were not consistent with the Mineral Agreement. However, the Mineral Agreement has been recognized as an “International Agreement” under the Mineral Law of Mongolia, and any inconsistencies between the Mineral Law of Mongolia and the Mineral Agreement have, thus far, been resolved in favour of the provisions of the Mineral Agreement.

In July 2009, the Great State Khural (the Parliament of Mongolia) enacted the Nuclear Energy Law of Mongolia (the “Nuclear Energy Law”). The Nuclear Energy Law granted authority to the Mongolian Nuclear Energy Agency (the “NEA”), a new regulatory authority for all uranium and nuclear matters in Mongolia, and created a framework for all aspects of uranium resource development in Mongolia. The Company continued its activities in Mongolia under the authority granted to the NEA. Late in 2014, the Government of Mongolia reorganized, and the NEA was eliminated. Licencing authority was transferred to the Mineral Resources Authority, and the Ministry of Mining now has responsibility for review and acceptance of materials submitted by licence holders seeking to convert exploration licences to mining licences. The final review and approval panel for licensing matters is the Nuclear Energy Commission, which was preserved after the NEA was dissolved. Various other regulatory functions that were under the NEA have been delegated to other previously existing agencies.

A new Mongolian state-owned uranium company, MonAtom LLC (“MonAtom”), was created by the Nuclear Energy Law and has been designated as the Mongolian Government’s participating entity in all uranium projects in Mongolia, and is thus the Mongolian partner in the GSJV.

There are a number of provisions under the Nuclear Energy Law that could have significant adverse effects on the GSJV, including restrictions on the ability of a licensee to transfer its licences or interests in its uranium properties, and the ability of the Government of Mongolia to acquire a 34% to 51% interest in each property at no cost to the Mongolian Government, depending on the amount of historic exploration on the property that was funded by the Government of Mongolia. This share interest would continue to be held by MonAtom. The Company and MonAtom started restructuring the GSJV in March 2012 to meet the requirements of the Nuclear Energy Law. In preparation for this restructuring, the Company acquired the Russian participant’s interest in the GSJV for nominal cash consideration and release of the Russian participant’s share of unfunded joint venture obligations. The Company now holds an 85% interest in the GSJV.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

The GSJV and the Ministry of Mineral Resources and Energy (now the Ministry of Mining) completed the process of extending the terms of the GSJV’s licences in accordance with the Mineral Law of Mongolia and the terms of the Mineral Agreement. The four original GSJV exploration licences remained valid under normal licence provisions until January 2012. Applications for mining licences, including requisite technical reports and data, were submitted to NEA in November and December 2011. In December 2012, the GSJV entered into a Pre-Mining Agreement with NEA, in accordance with provisions of the Nuclear Energy Law and the Mineral Law of Mongolia. This Agreement provides for a period of up to three years following expiration of the term of exploration licences to assess the technical viability of mining on each project and to collect such additional data as may be required to support decisions to initiate commercial development. The GSJV licences continued to be held as exploration licences through 2014 and into 2015. Various agencies of the government of Mongolia continue review of GSJV submittals required to obtain mining licences.

Issuance of uranium mining licences is under the authority of the Nuclear Energy Law; however the timing of mining licence issuance is uncertain.

Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure and Physiography
Mongolia is a large, landlocked country with an area of about 1,566,000 square kilometres. The capital is Ulaanbaatar, which is located in the north central part of the country. Ulaanbaatar is the site of the only international airport in the country. The Trans-Mongolian Railway connects to the Trans-Siberian Railway in the north and the China rail system to the south. Much of the country is open and vehicle access is possible to most of the areas. Distances are large and roads are often poor or non-existent; however, road infrastructure is improving.

The climate in Mongolia is extreme continental. Temperatures are extreme in the winter (down to -50º C) and the summer (up to 40º C). In Ulaanbaatar, July is the warmest and wettest month, with an average temperature of 17º C and an average rainfall of 76 mm, while January is the coldest and driest month, with an average temperature of -25º C and no precipitation. Rainfall and temperature throughout Mongolia are variable depending on elevation.

Historical Exploration
Following approval of the formation of the GSJV in January 1994, work began immediately on a field program in the summer of 1994. The focus of the GSJV exploration was for deposits amenable to in-situ recovery (“ISR”) production methods. The 1994 work consisted of limited delineation drilling at Haraat to expand known resources and to increase confidence in the resources. A small ISR field test was run in 1994 to determine the ISR favourability of the Haraat type mineralization.

In 1996, the GSJV began a major escalation of exploration work. A total of 30,210 metres were drilled, and 6,000 kilometres of gamma spectrometric surveys were run. The largest discovery encountered by the GSJV to that point in time was made at Hairhan. The discovery hole intersected a 14-metre thick mineral zone grading 0.144% U.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

A major part of the 1996 program was the acquisition, assembly, and operation of an ISR pilot plant at Haraat. This plant was a fully integrated facility, capable of producing a final product, although drying and packaging equipment were not included. The testing in 1996 included both a test on mineralization above the water table, as well as a test below the water table, the latter being the normal operating regime for an ISR project. These tests confirmed that hydraulic control can be maintained and that uranium solubilization and mobilization can be controlled.

In May 1997, the Company acquired the assets of EFN including its interest in the GSJV. Work in 1997 expanded beyond the level of 1996, with efforts concentrated on drilling to define mineral resources and to test new exploration targets on the GSJV lands. The bulk of the 1997 drilling was in the Hairhan and Choir Depressions, with a modest amount of initial reconnaissance drilling conducted in the Ulziit Depression. The Ulziit drilling followed gamma spectrometric surveys to identify favourable locales. No ISR testing was conducted in 1997.

Work in 1998 was once again directed toward the objectives of exploration reconnaissance, resource delineation, and ISR testing, with over 50,000 metres of drilling, and the first stage ISR testing at the Hairhan deposit. The Hairhan Depression received the bulk of the exploration drilling effort in 1998. The mineralization depth ranges from 10 metres to 200 metres, with the average depth in the 60-metre to 80-metre range. The Hairhan 1998 test confirmed the leachability of the mineralization at Hairhan.

With the decline of the uranium price, no drilling was conducted during 1999; however, an extensive regional geologic reconnaissance program was conducted. In 2000, the GSJV Managing Director placed the GSJV program on “standby” status.

During 2004 and 2005, the GSJV resumed work and applied for additional exploration licences in six areas. In the Gurvan Saihan depression, previously identified uranium occurrences, as well as additional target areas within the depression, were tested with 159 holes totalling 12,533 meters. Results indicated that uranium mineralization was encountered in a variety of settings, which indicated that additional exploration drilling was warranted.

During 2006, the Company completed in excess of 54,000 metres of drilling, all on new targets which were identified through previous GSJV and Company reconnaissance programs. Based on the generally discouraging results of this drilling, the Company released a number of exploration licences.

Drilling in 2007 exceeded 56,000 metres and concentrated primarily on the Hairhan and Haraat projects to extend and define mineralized trends. Mineralization in the northern portion of the Hairhan deposit was encountered at depths not previously tested.

Activity increased in 2008 and over 72,000 metres were drilled, with the Hairhan and Ulziit projects receiving the majority of the attention. Hairhan drilling concentrated on infill drilling and developing mineral trends in zones below past drilled depths. At Ulziit, large regional programs were carried out to refine targets for detailed follow up drilling.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

Drilling in 2009 was approximately 13,900 metres for fulfillment of annual work requirements for exploration licences and for initial testing of new mineral trends identified in the Choir Depression and at Ulziit.

Drilling in 2010, totaling slightly over 6,500 metres, was limited in scope to focus on essential priorities and to meet annual exploration work requirements. In the Choir Depression approximately 2,000 metres of wide-spaced drilling was directed toward further extension of the new mineralized trend developing along the east margin of the licence area. At Ulziit about 3,500 metres were drilled to test three specific targets, and favorable geology and uranium mineralization were confirmed at one of the three targets. A small volume of drilling was completed on the Gurvan Saihan licence to support finalization of resource estimation in accordance with Mongolian registration standards. From 2011 to 2013, exploration drilling continued. For descriptions of these programs, see “Mineral Exploration – Mongolia”.

Geological Setting
The geology of Mongolia is dominated by the Altaid orogen – an orogenic collage of subduction and accretion terranes that extend from the Ural Mountains to the Korean Peninsula (Yakubchuk et al., 2001, Dejidmaa and Badarch, 1999). This orogen formed between the Neoproterozoic and the Carboniferous. The Altaid rocks of Mongolia lie between the North China Craton and the Siberian Craton.

The Altaid rocks of Mongolia are a mélange of Neoproterozoic basement areas separated by various island arc segments and accretionary wedges. These various sedimentary and volcanic terranes have been intruded by mafic and felsic plutons ranging in age from Cambrian to Mesozoic. Cretaceous and younger basins unconformably overlie the Altaid rocks.

Late Mesozoic extensional basins are a prominent geological and topographic feature of central east Asia. The basins are interpreted as having formed in an intracontinental, back-arc tectonic setting in response to extensional faulting. These basins, likely fault bounded grabens and half grabens, were filled by eroded sediment during the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.

Mineralization
The GSJV licences cover a number of the internal basins, or depressions, located in central Mongolia. All of these depressions appear to have similar geological features.

Depression fill is composed of non-lithified sediments with a total thickness of approximately 1,500 metres. The Lower Cretaceous sediments of the Dzuunbayan Formation are divided into two facies, with the first typically variegated and the second normally grey. The variegated section is comprised of conglomerate, sandstone, and siltstone, and occurs mainly on the margins of the depression. The second facies is comprised of lacustrine sediments, typically clays and argillaceous sandstone, with interbeds of brown coal and disseminated iron sulphides. Mineralization is typically found in sandy and silty units of the Dzuunbayan Formation and is intimately associated with organic enriched sediments. Mineralized bodies occur at the interfaces of oxidized and reduced sediments as well as within completely reduced zones. Mineralization is localized in roll fronts, as strata-bound layers, and as lenses and pods. Mineralization ranges from less than one metre thickness to thicknesses exceeding 20 metres.

Drilling
During the period between 1994 and 1999, a total of 147,058 metres were drilled. The drilling was carried out by Geologorazvedka working as a drilling contractor to the GSJV in the period from 1994 to 1998. In the period from 1994 to 1996, down hole logging was carried out by Geologorazvedka. In the period 1996 to 1998, down hole logging was carried out in-house. Some of the early drilling was logged using Russian equipment, but Mount Sopris equipment was in place relatively early in the program.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

Exploration drilling resumed on GSJV properties in 2005, following the temporary cessation of programs in 2000. Drilling during the period of 2005 to 2010 totalled 247,934 metres, which includes exploration, resource definition, hydrogeological, environmental, and ISR test drilling. Since 2005, down hole logging was carried out by a Mongolian contractor using Mount Sopris equipment.

Sampling Method and Approach
A percentage of the rotary drill holes completed were cored. The purpose of this coring was to provide samples for testing to allow determination of specific gravity and disequilibrium factors for the deposits. Coring also allows analysis of various elements and a check of the reliability of the electric logging equipment.

Samples were selected on the basis of down-hole radiometric surveys, the presence of alteration in the cores, and handheld spectrometry results. Cores were split by hand. Samples ranged in length from 0.2 metres to 0.9 metres, but the bulk of the samples were either 0.2 metres or 0.3 metres. Samples were transported to the camp near Haraat for sample preparation.

Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security
Core samples were crushed in the GSJV camp to -200, +300 mesh size and transported to the Central Analytical Laboratory (“CAL”) of Sosnovgeology, a state geological enterprise in Irkutsk, Russia. CAL is registered by the Russian Federation and is certified to standard N 41083-95. Analyses performed by CAL were carried out at a level suitable for the estimation of mineral resources. Reports translated from Russian indicate that the laboratory maintained internal quality control programs.

Data Verification
Uranium data acquisition for the Hairhan ISR project was focused primarily on gamma logging of rotary non-core drill holes with a small percentage of rotary core holes and accompanying chemical assays of core as a means of validating the gamma logging process. This is a standard means of data verification for such projects.

Other data verification exercises completed by RPA Inc. included: (i) location of drill hole collars in the field; and (ii) manual checking of the algorithm for converting down hole gamma readings to uranium grades.

Mineral Resource Estimates
For the mineral resource estimate, RPA Inc. accepted and used the drill hole database compiled by Denison for its 2010 estimate. Denison carried out a detailed correlation of approximately 520 drill holes within the Hairhan deposit. Correlation of the geophysical logs was accomplished using commonly accepted subsurface exploration methods with a primary emphasis on identifying sands, interbedded shales, and lignites and assigning them “formation” marker designations.

2014 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM

The raw borehole natural gamma data (counts per second or CPS) were processed using the Denison in-house GAMLOG program (based on Scott’s AEC Algorithm), with output generated on 10 cm intervals in percent U. For each mineralized zone and for each drill hole, thickness (“TH”) and grade x thickness (“GT”) were calculated using the following parameters:

Cut-off Grade	0.02%U
Minimum Thickness (TH)	2 metre
Grade X Thickness (GT)	0.04
Waste Thickness	2 metres

	Tonnes	Grade	U₃O₈
Classification	(000s)	(%U₃O₈)	(000 lbs.)
Measured	1,880	0.048	2,000
Indicated	8,400	0.031	5,800
subtotal M&I	10,280	0.034	7,800
Inferred	65,200	0.028	41,400

	100% Basis		Company Share
Category	Tons	Grade	Pounds of U₃O₈
	(,000)	(pounds/ton)	(,000)

Developed	89,200	1.29	115,000
Undeveloped	80,500	1.13	90,000
			205,000

		100% Basis = Company’s Share
Category	Tonnes	Grade	Pounds	Grade	Pounds	Grade	Ounces
	(,000)	(% U₃O₈)	U₃O₈	(% Cu)	Cu	(g/t Ag)	Ag
			(,000)		(,000)		(,000)

Measured	1,390	0.140	4,300	0.197	6,000	79	3,500
Indicated	14,280	0.079	25,300	0.217	68,200	53	24,400
subtotal M&I	15,670	0.084	29,600	0.215	74,200	55	27,900
Inferred	15,350	0.044	15,700	0.240	81,200	18	8,900


Sample #	%U₃O₈	Typical Accuracy
BL-1	0.026	±0.004
BL-4a	0.147	±0.004
BL-2a	0.502	±0.008
BL-3	1.21	±0.02
BL-5	8.36	±0.10
RS2-11	48.0	±0.7

Market Data

News

Trading Tools

Markets

Discover

Hot Features

Follow Feed

Options Flow

Monitor

DNN Denison Mines Corp