OKLO - Oklo Inc.

Operator: Thank you for standing by. My name is Tina, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Oklo Third Quarter 2025 Financial Results and Business Update Call. It is now my pleasure to turn the call over to Sam Doane, Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Sam Doane: Good afternoon, and thank you, operator. Welcome, everyone, to Oklo's Third Quarter 2025 Earnings and Company Update Call. I'm Sam Doane, Oklo's Director of Investor Relations. Joining me today are Jake Dewitte, Oklo's Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer; and Craig Bealmear, our Chief Financial Officer. Today's accompanying slide presentation is available on the Investor Relations section of our website. Before we begin, I'd like to remind everyone that today's discussion, including our prepared remarks and the Q&A session that follows, will include forward-looking statements. These statements reflect our current views regarding trends, assumptions, risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed today. We encourage you to review the forward-looking statements disclosure included in our supplemental slides. Additional information on relevant risk factors can also be found in our most recent filings with the SEC. Please note that Oklo assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law. With that, I'll now turn the call over to Jake Dewitte, Oklo's Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer. Jake? Jacob Dewitte: Thanks, Sam. The first half of this year brought an incredible wave of momentum across the advanced nuclear sector from new federal programs and executive actions to growing customer and investor interest in clean, reliable power. That momentum has continued into the third quarter and is creating a very different environment for deployment than even a year ago. We strongly believe Oklo is uniquely positioned to thrive in this environment. Our mission at Oklo continues to be focused and clear. To deliver clean, reliable, affordable energy at a global scale. We started this company with the belief that Advanced Nuclear Power could play a transformative role in the world's energy future. That meant rethinking everything? Are we design reactors, how we license and feel them and how we operate them and engage customers. That same vision continues to guide us today and it remains fully aligned with where we believe policy, technology and customer demand are headed. Our competitive advantages come from the intersection of several core strategies. Our business model, our scalable design and our proven technology. First, our build-own-operate model allows us to sell power directly to customers under long-term contracts. That creates recurring revenue and streamlines the regulatory process by keeping ownership and operational control within Oklo. Second, our small scalable design means we can deploy assets quickly and incrementally, matching customer demand while leveraging existing industrial supply chains and factory fabrication. That reduces on-site construction risk, lowers cost and supports faster rollout. And third, our liquid metal [ stadium ] cool technology is built on a foundation of more than 400 combined reactor years of operating experience worldwide, including the experimental [ breeder reactor 2 ], which operated successfully for 3 decades in the United States. That operating record is one of the most tested, demonstrated and validated in advanced nuclear history, and it gives us deep confidence in the performance, safety and reliability of our design. It's also the reason we can move directly into commercialization without the need for costly time-consuming demonstration plans. Oklo was building on that proven foundation to become the hub for metal fuel and fast reactor innovation, integrating design, licensing, fuel supply and recycling into a unified platform. This gives us a significant flexibility across fuels, [indiscernible], recycled material and down-blended alternatives and positions Oklo at the center of how this next phase of Advanced Nuclear Power will scale. Additionally, Oklo's work across areas needed to deploy its reactors to position the company to benefit from capabilities, including products and services from fuel fabrication recycling and isotopes to go along with power and heat sales from its reactors. Together, these advantages position Oklo to deploy at speed and scale with the model built for long-term growth and leadership in advanced nuclear energy. We have continued to make meaningful progress this quarter across every part of the business, from licensing and project execution to fuel development partnerships and the customer pipeline. On the regulatory front, we were selected for 3 projects under the Department of Energy's new Reactor Pilot Program, or RPP, giving Oklo access to Department of Energy authorization pathways that accelerate deployment time lines and complement our ongoing NRC work. And we submitted our principal design criteria topical report to the NRC and received notice of acceptance in just 15 days, about half the time typically expected. NRC also indicated that the draft evaluation is expected in early 2026 which would be less than half the traditional review time line. And just before the RPP announcement, Oklo also completed a readiness assessment with the NRC for the Phase 1 of its [ coal ] application, which found no gaps to application acceptance for review. We also broke ground on the Aurora INL, marking the start of physical construction activities. We also advanced plans for Atomic Alchemy Pilot Project under the RPP. Finally, we successfully completed fuel assembly flow testing, demonstrating progress in the fabrication and handling systems that will serve many Oklo powerhouses. In fuel and recycling, we announced Oklo's Advanced Fuel Center up to $1.68 billion investment that anchors our long-term fuel supply chain and were selected for the Department of Energy's Advanced Nuclear Fuel line pilot program, which accelerates U.S. fuel fabrication capacity. We achieved a key regulatory milestone with the Department of Energy's approval of the Nuclear Safety Design Agreement, or NSDA for the Aurora fuel fabrication facility. The NSDA, the first approved under the DOE's fuel line pilot projects was completed in under 2 weeks and demonstrates a new authorization pathway that can help unlock U.S. industrial capacity, strength in national energy security and accelerate domestic fuel production under the executive order, deploying advanced nuclear reactor technologies for national security. The approval reflects the strength of our technical submissions and proactive DOE engagement and builds on our Aurora INL groundbreaking to advance an integrated model of fuel production, plant construction and power delivery. We also strengthened our partnership with Idaho National Laboratory through a new agreement with Battelle Energy Alliance, the labs management and operations contractor. The collaboration focuses on advancing fuel and materials research that supports Oklo's and other companies' commercial deployments and takes advantage of Aurora INL's unique ability to generate real-world data during operation, including fast neutrons for testing and research. That data will help us characterize materials faster, characterize fuels faster, improve designs more efficiently and continue driving innovation across the nuclear technology landscape. In other words, this partnership is about expanding the Aurora INL's mission to include fast neutron radiation capabilities. These are capabilities that have been lacking in the U.S. for decades. We signed new international partnerships with European nuclear companies Blykalla and newcleo to advance joint technology and field manufacturing capabilities and demonstrate our emerging technical leadership in this space. On the customer pipeline side, we're evaluating potential power sales with the Tennessee Valley Authority as part of our Tennessee Fuel Center initiative and we're continuing to advance discussions with both previously announced and new customers as we expand our commercial pipeline across data centers, utilities and defense markets. We are also exploring potential fuel offtakes with the Tennessee Valley Authority as part of our Tennessee Fuel Center as well. And financially, we closed the quarter with a strong balance sheet, approximately $1.2 billion in cash and marketable securities with cash burn tracking in line with expectations. Following the close of the third quarter, we also filed a new shelf registration to maintain flexibility and access to capital markets as we scale. Taken together, these milestones reflect the execution momentum behind Oklo's potential for near-term success, licensing, acceleration, supply chain buildout and commercial traction all living in parallel. This quarter marked a major milestone for Oklo with our selections under the Department of Energy's reactor pilot program. The [ RPT ] was established earlier this year following new executive actions that directed [ UE ] to take a leading role in advancing next-generation reactor deployment as part of the broader U.S. energy renaissance. Nuclear power is a federal priority with strong bipartisan support, reflecting the shared recognition that Advanced Nuclear Energy is essential to meeting America's energy security and economic objectives. Oklo received 3 of the 11 granted awards, 2 led by Oklo and 1 by our subsidiary, Atomic Alchemy. The awarded projects include [ local ] Aurora INL, our first powerhouse, atomic Alchemy Pilot plant for radioisotope production and Oklo's Pluto, a test reactor supporting advanced fuel and component development. Participation in the reactor pilot program gives us access to a Department of Energy Authorization pathway, aligning our projects with federal review and creating the potential to accelerate construction and operation time lines. Just as importantly, the RPP provides a venue for generating operating data that will help derisk commercial licensing for future powerhouses, strengthening our overall regulatory foundation. This selection positions Oklo's one of the first advanced reactor companies moving from design to build under DOE oversight, reinforcing that the momentum behind nuclear energy in the United States is broad-based, durable and growing. The DOE's authorization pathway represents one of the most important policy shifts we've seen for advanced reactors in decades, expanding regulatory tools without reducing safety expectations. For Oklo, it effectively provides a structured approach and process to begin constructing our first powerhouse under DOE oversight while maintaining full alignment with NRC standards. The DOE pathway enables faster demonstration of clean power while maintaining the same rigorous safety expectations and provides an opportunity for a rapid transition to an NRC license for full commercial operation. Here's what changed. In May, new executive actions established a clear DOE authorization process for first-of-a-kind nuclear plants, a process that now complements rather than replaces traditional NRC licensing. Within months, we moved to qualify our Aurora INL powerhouse under that framework. We expect to finalize our other transaction authority or OTA agreement and have approval of our Nuclear Safety Design Agreement, or NSDA, with the DOE by the end of the year. So here's how it works. DOE will authorize construction and initial operations under its modernized framework, which allows us to begin building while the longer commercial NRC transition proceeds in parallel. We don't need full operating approvals to finalize construction, which reduces idle time without compromising safety. Once the initial data is collected, the project can then transition to NRC oversight. This approach builds on DOE's decades of experience managing nuclear facilities with an exceptional safety record from naval propulsion to national laboratory programs. It doesn't lower the bar. It simply puts the right reviewers in the right place. From a broader perspective, this model has the potential to unlock U.S. industrial capacity, strengthen national energy security and create a repeatable template for future advanced reactor deployment. Importantly, DOE and the NRC are complementary, not competitive. Their teams have a long history of collaboration, and we expect continued coordination throughout this process to ensure a smooth handoff when conversion occurs. For investors and customers, this change hopefully means less time line risk, better capital efficiency and earlier validation of cost and performance. The bottom line is that DOE authorization derisks the Aurora INL regulatory path and allows Oklo to focus on building and operating powerhouses while maintaining the same safety rigor and establishing a scalable modern pathway for the next generation of advanced reactors. As we pursue authorization under the DOE, we're maintaining steady momentum with the NRC to prepare for full commercial licensing. This is a parallel engagement strategy, not competing reviews, but coordinated progress that lets us move faster while maintaining regulatory rigor. Our work with the NRC remains focused on 2 priorities: first, completing ongoing pre-application reviews and topical reports for the Aurora INL and future sites; and second, leveraging data from DOE authorized operations to further inform NRC licensing for the broader commercial fleet. In practice, this means we'll finalize DOE authorization documentation and begin Aurora INL construction and operations under DOE oversight while continuing NRC pre-application work for follow-on deployments. The learnings from real-world performance data, fuel behavior and operating experience will feed directly into the NRC's combined license process, which we expect could compress the time line from the Aurora INL 2 fleet deployment. We expect to submit licensing actions next year to support construction for subsequent sites, and our goal is to use operating data from the Aurora INL to strengthen each subsequent submission. This strategy ensures that as DOE authorizations advance early construction and operation, the NRC pathway continues in parallel, creating a repeatable data supported model for commercial powerhouse deployment. We expect the result to be a clear regulatory sequence, build and operate under DOE, then transition to NRC oversight. Acting on lessons learned, we will demonstrate a replicable commercial licensing framework for the next generation of Oklo powerhouses. Idaho National Laboratory, we've officially broken ground on our first Aurora powerhouse, marking a major milestone in Oklo's transition from design and permitting to active construction. As mentioned, we're progressing under DOE's reactor pilot program, which provides federal oversight and coordination as we move from preparation to build. [indiscernible] has mobilized major equipment to the site and earthworks began October 27 to be followed by controlled blasting in mid-November, targeting full excavation in early January. For Oklo, this is a defining moment. It represents the shift from planning to physical build with the same discipline and execution framework that will carry through our future projects. This first site establishes the template for our [indiscernible] powerhouses demonstrating our ability to execute as we move toward operations. With construction now underway at INL, we're also making strong progress on the procurement and supply chain front, securing the long lead components and supplier commitments that are scheduled on track. This quarter, we completed major procurements for in-vessel and ex-vessel handling machines primary and intermediate sodium pumps, the reactor trip system and fuel assembly nozzle fabrication. These are some of the most technically significant systems in the powerhouse and having them under contract early locks in pricing time lines and fabrication slots with qualified vendors. It also demonstrates the maturity of our supply chain, a key differentiator for Oklo, showing that we can sort of put components through proven industrial partners rather than relying on bespoke first-time suppliers. We are procuring these components in a dynamic and continually evolving environment. I mean fluctuating tariffs, supply chain pressures and inflation. These challenges make procurement especially challenging. But our business model and the repeatability of our asset deployment plans will allow us to learn from our experience over time, even if costs are higher or there are other unexpected developments that impact our first few powerhouses. We have the opportunity to iterate and improve as we scale up our operations to ultimately build a reliable and cost-effective supply chain. It is also worth noting that the future reactor deployments may benefit from a reduction in costs compared to the Aurora INL in part due to the required additional fuel and core testing capabilities. This progress builds real confidence in our ability to execute efficiently and scale repeatedly as we move from this first powerhouse to a broader fleet under the DOE's reactor pilot program and future commercial deployments. Our wholly owned subsidiary, Atomic Alchemy also achieved a major milestone this quarter with its selection under the Department of Energy's reactor pilot program. The selection makes the Atomic Alchemy pilot facility eligible for DOE authorization, creating a faster pathway to construction and operations. The pilot facility is designed to prove isotope production validate supply chain readiness and derisk the deployment of a larger commercial scale VIPR facility. In the near term, the team is finalizing [ dely ] authorization documentation and advancing site selection and procurement with the intent to be operational by mid-2026. Over the medium term, Atomic Alchemy will begin at a separate lab scale facility, production and initial isotope sales, creating an early revenue stream while expanding commercial and operational experience. Longer term, the focus shifts to securing an NRC license for full-scale VIPR facility, scaling to multiyear offtake agreements and carrying forward the procedures and quality assurance systems, proven in the pilot facility to streamline future deployment. What's important here is that Atomic Alchemy isn't just an adjacent business. It's a strategic extension of Oklo's technology platform. The business creates near-term production revenue potential and represents a paradigm shift in an underserved high-potential market. The Atomic Alchemy VIPR Reactor or Versatile isotope production reactor is also quite a bit different than Oklo's Aurora. The VIPR reactor is designed to produce isotopes and therefore produce neutrons. It is an open water cool type reactor that is not pressurized and uses conventional 17x17 pressurized water reactor fuel bundles fueled with LEU at a shortened type. This means the reactors can be built and supplied quickly and produce a variety of isotopes that serve health care, defense and industrial applications. Isotopes are, generally speaking, vastly undersupplied in the U.S. and can play a similar role to critical minerals in terms of national resilience and security. Our unique and differentiated approach to fuel brings together several complementary sources to cover near, mid- and long-term needs. Near term, we're drawing on DOE materials like [ EBR 2 ] fuel and potentially plutonium-based feedstock to fuel early units. Midterm, our partnerships with Centrus, Hexium and others expand fresh HALEU [indiscernible] and reduce single vendor risk. Longer term, our Tennessee Advanced Fuel Center positions us to recycle and fabricate our own fuel domestically at scale from used fuel inventories. Taken together, this strategy reduces cost and schedule risk strengthens U.S. energy resilience and ensures we can keep building regardless of how the enrichment market evolves. Fuel remains one of the most important inputs for advanced nuclear power and one of the most complex to forecast right now. The reality is that the cost environment for HALEU and related materials looks very different today than it did in 2024. Tariffs, supply chain constraints, inflation and [indiscernible] sanctions have all changed the market dynamics. The global investment landscape is still shifting and so are the pricing assumptions that come with it. This is challenging work, and we're owning it. We're building the most resilient, diversified fuel strategy in the sector because we know fuel optionality will determine who scale successfully in the years ahead most quickly. We don't yet know where HALEU costs will ultimately land. But what we do know is that Oklo has more pathway than flexibility than other companies in the space. We'll continue refining our cost models and expect to share more detailed updates next year as the pricing picture becomes clear, but the takeaway today is straightforward. Fuel markets are changing and Oklo is built to adapt, especially in the current fuel environment with additional government materials becoming available to serve as bridge fuel supplies. We think it's useful to spend a little time eliminating HALEU's supply chains and how they work. The current models in the U.S. and in the world, generally speaking, involve several steps starting with your [indiscernible] mining to then [indiscernible] to then conversion, to the enrichment, to then [indiscernible] conversion and then ultimately to fuel fabrication. Next-generation models might change this significantly. This is one of the reasons why we take a multipronged approach in partnering with HALEU providers, not just to work with those operating today in the supply chains that fit today's models, but also for next-generation technologies that have the potential to have lower capital and operating costs that can simplify the processes and offer value chain consolidation and operate more flexibly, which can all together mean opportunities for lower cost HALEU. And beyond HALEU, Oklo's also taking a multipronged approach for sourcing fuel both in the near term as well as the long term. We discussed this a little bit already, but there are several major pools of material to think about for fueling our reactors going forward. For one, there are significant government uranium reserves. Some of this material stands in highly enriched form and can be downloaded into fuel for reactors. Some of it might also be in prior or previously irradiated fuel that can be recovered and then produced in the fuel for reactors. That is where we're getting the first 5 tonnes of fuel for our first plant, 5 tonnes to fuel produced from EBR-II fuel that has been recovered and downblended to make fuel suitable for use in our Aurora plan. An important feature about some of that material is that it carries impurities because it's the time in a reactor. Those impurities do not necessarily make it suitable for all reactors to be able to use it, but our reactor by being a fast reactor and by being designed to be versatile and its fuel can use it. Additionally, the government has significant reserves of plutonium that it is now making available as a bridge source of fuel for commercial power plants. This is significant because the government recently announced up to 20 tons being made available in tranches, that could be made into about 180 metric tons of Aurora fuel. This is a massive bridge supply of fuel that can get us beyond not just our first few plants, but out into our first 10 to 20 plants within an opportunity to scale beyond that with commercial enrichment sourcing as well as recycling. And the way this works is by taking the plutonium and blending it with unenriched uranium to make a fuel that can be used in our reactors. That negates and avoids the need for any enrichment and can accelerate time to market as well as reduced total capital investments needed to actually produce fuel for our plants. We are exploring the opportunities to use this material given that it can be a significant bridge to future supplies. Those future supplies really comprised of 2 main approaches is how we think about it. There are the conventional enrichers that, in many cases, are already producing LEU and are either actively or exploring expanding production into HALEU as well as advanced enrichers that bring forward different technologies and centrifuges that have unique upside and potential but may, in some cases, stand lower on the technology readiness development spectrum. But these technologies offer opportunities for value chain consolidation, lower cost of production, lower cost of operation and ultimately, the ability to use lower-cost feedstocks. This can ultimately translate to lower cost HALEU at scale as well. And ultimately, recycling is a key part of our fuel strategy because of how significant it is in unlocking significant reserves of fuel. I use that term duplicity on purpose, significant because it is hard to overstate how much material there is in the U.S. that can be made into fuel. The reason this is the case is because reactors in general, only use a few percent of the fuel in one path. So today's reactors, for example, only use about 5% of the fuel in a single path through the reactor. That means the use fuel that's discharged or often refer to as waste actually has about 95% of its fuel remaining. With our recycling technologies, we can tap into that, pull that material out and reuse it as fuel in our reactors. We can also recycle the fuel from our reactors as well as other advanced reactors that will likely get built. This positions Oklo well to have a long-term, very durable supply of fuel going forward. Continuing on recycling. One of our biggest advancements this quarter was the announcement of our Advanced Fuel Center in Tennessee, beginning with the fuel recycling facility located at Oakridge. This is the first privately funded recycling facility of its kind in the U.S., representing an investment of up to $1.68 billion in creating more than 800 permanent jobs. In addition to the fuel recycling facility, this investment is expected to include other Oklo assets, such as one or more [ POWERHOUSE's ] and a fuel fabrication facility. The facility has another layer of vertical integration to Oklo's business, enabling us to convert use fuel into new metal fuel for our powerhouses. It strengthens U.S. capability and gives Oklo more supply chain control on our path to scale. We're tracking towards an initial production ramp-up in the early 2030s with regulatory engagement already underway through the NRC pre-application process. We're also working with the Tennessee Valley Authority on potential collaboration around used nuclear fuel feedstock transfer as well as power generation from are powerhouses. This project isn't just about fuel supply. It's about creating a durable domestic foundation for advanced nuclear power. It anchors Oklo's long-term fuel strategy and positions Tennessee as a national hub for clean energy manufacturing and innovation. In parallel, there's growing federal support for advanced fuel recycling. Just last week, the Senate Energy and Public Works Committee announced the Nuclear Refuel Act of 2025, which proposes updates to the Atomic Energy Act to provide regulatory clarity for licensing advanced fuel recycling facilities. If enacted, this legislation could further streamline the licensing process for our Tennessee facility. Building on the momentum from the Tennessee Fuel Center, we were also selected by the Department of Energy for the Advanced Nuclear Fuel Line Pilot Program. This program is designed to accelerate construction and operation of domestic fuel fabrication facilities, strengthening U.S. capability and ensuring that advanced reactors like ours have a reliable long-term supply of fuel. Under this initiative, DOE awarded 3 Oklo led fuel-related projects, allowing us to build and operate facilities that directly support our powerhouse deployments and complement the work underway at our Advanced Fuel Center and Aurora INL fuel fabrication facility. The Fuel Line Pilot Program nears the intent of the reactor pilot program to create alternative pathways for advanced nuclear deployment that move faster, streamline reviews and leverage private investment alongside federal oversight. For Oklo it does 3 important things. It presents an opportunity to secure near-term fuel for early [ PowerHouses ], producing one of the biggest bottlenecks facing the industry. It reinforces U.S. manufacturing and fuel independence supporting the national effort to rebuild the [indiscernible] nuclear capacity and it stacks directly with our Tennessee facility, creating a vertically integrated ecosystem for recycling and fabrication and deployment. Together, these programs, the reactor pilot and fuel line pilots form the backbone of a modern U.S. new [indiscernible] strategy. And Oklo's one of the few companies positioned across both with the capabilities to deliver on near-term milestones while building the infrastructure for the long term. With that, I'll pass it to Craig to share progress on our strategic partnerships and financials. Craig? Richard Bealmear: Thanks, Jake. As Jake mentioned, Oklo is leading the advanced nuclear effort here in the United States but we are also experiencing growing international momentum around fast reactors and metal fuel technology. This quarter, we signed new transatlantic partnerships with Blykalla and newcleo, 2 European companies advancing fast reactor and fuel fabrication technologies. These collaborations strengthen our supply chain strategies, expand our technology base and align with broader trends across both the United States and Europe for a renewed commitment to nuclear innovation, manufacturing and partnership. With Blykalla, we entered into a joint technology development agreement to collaborate in key areas where there's mutual benefit such as balance of plant components, regulatory learnings and fuel strategy. We also co-led their recent funding round building across Atlantic partnership that benefits both companies. With newcleo, we've launched a strategic partnership to develop advanced fuel fabrication and manufacturing infrastructure in the United States under domestic oversight. Newcleo could invest up to $2 billion through an affiliated vehicle to expand U.S. capacity and support our metal fuel platform. Taken together, these collaborations represent the next step in Oklo's evolution and could help us accelerate cost reduction, leverage international capital and extend our reach into markets where demand for advanced nuclear power is growing rapidly. Oklo is combining proven fast reactor technology with a global ecosystem of partners suppliers and investors who are equally focused on delivering scalable, zero-carbon baseload power. I'll now provide a summary of our financials. Oklo's third quarter operating loss was $36.3 million, inclusive of noncash stock-based compensation expense of $9.1 million. Oklo's loss before income taxes in the third quarter was $29.2 million, which reflects our operating loss adjusted for net interest income of $7.1 million. On a year-to-date basis, when adjusting for noncash stock-based compensation charges, changes to working capital and deferred income tax benefits, the cash used in operating activities equates to $48.7 million. We still expect on a full year basis, our cash used in operating activities to be within our guided range of $65 million to $80 million that we disclosed at the start of this year. In addition, to build on earlier discussion point in this company update, we have started to make modest capital investments in 2025, which include advancing deployment of activities at INL for our Aurora powerhouse and fuel fabrication facilities as well as for the reactor pilot programs for which we have been selected. The reactor pilot program not only includes work in our power and fuel businesses, but also the award received by Atomic Alchemy. This spin has been enabled by various accelerators we have seen across the business in 2025. Finally, in the third quarter, we successfully completed an at-the-market fundraising program generating $540 million in gross proceeds, providing the company with additional cash on hand to deliver our enhanced growth agenda. As a result of the capital raise, we ended third quarter with approximately $1.2 billion in cash and marketable securities on our balance sheet. As we wrap up, I want to connect the key themes you've heard today to what makes Oklo a compelling investment opportunity. We are now executing not theorizing on Advanced Nuclear Power. Our proven fast reactor technology is designed for speed, simplicity and scalability. And our first powerhouse at INL is under construction. We've built a fully integrated fuel strategy that few others can match. From early access to fuel for the Aurora INL powerhouse, to fabrication under the Department of Energy's field line pilots to long-term recycling through our Advanced Fuel Center in Tennessee. We have based our strategy on feedstock integration and multiple long-term fuel cycle delivery pathways that should provide cost stability and supply security as we grow our fleet. Our radioisotope business has a high-margin adjacent revenue stream that leverages a similar technology base, regulatory pathway, facilities and core competencies to further diversify our earnings potential. And our build-own-operate model creates recurring revenue through long-term power contracts, driving margin visibility and capital efficiency. Finally, our growing customer pipeline for power spans data centers, defense, utilities and industrials confirmed strong durable demand from what we are building. In short, Oklo is delivering on its plans, proven technology, a differentiated field strategy global partnerships and a business model designed to scale. We're executing today and positioned to lead the next era of clean, reliable energy. Operator: We are now ready to take questions. Our first question comes from the line of Ryan Pfingst with B. Riley. Ryan Pfingst: Just want to make sure I'm clear on the DOE authorization. Does the INL plant shifting to the DOE pathway, change your requirement to submit a [ cola ] with the NRC for that project? Or is that something you still have to do? And has the government shut down impacted your ability to do that at all? Jacob Dewitte: Thanks for the question. I think -- so yes, we no longer need to do a [ colo ], right? So we're going through the DOE authorization process, which is inherently quite different. So we don't have to do that anymore. At the end of the day, to build. At the end of the day, we'll still do some kind of combined license type application to the NRC, Part of it is being a little bit redefined and developed based on even just this MOU signed between the NRC and DOE, which was a pretty big deal just last week or the week before. It sets the stage for how the facility would then become a commercial operating NRC license plans at some point after we get through some of the initial startup and operational kind of frame or [indiscernible] paradigm, I should say. But yes, now it's just through a different DOE process. What's huge about this, is this -- this is a muscle that if you think about it, there's 3 major agencies have, right, to do nuclear authorization on permitting. Obviously, the NRC then the Department of Energy and then the Department of War. And those 3 agencies have those abilities. DOE and DOW haven't really used those very much recently, but they have that history. And so they are like they've used them and they do have continued oversight of the programs, but they're using them now a lot more. And this, by the way, wasn't just something that happened overnight. Like this goes back to the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act, NEICA that was passed into law in 2018 that's at the stage of this. It was just following the executive orders that really supercharge this effort. And DOE has really leaned into it, and it's kind of empowered that ability to do these things. What's cool about it, is it changes the cadence compared to what the NRC had. The industry framework said, you have to do a lot of upfront licensing work before you can build and operate the plant meaningfully. Part of why we're able to break ground and move into meaningful construction is because the DOE process gives you the flexibility to build while you're going through the different steps of basically authorization up until leading fuel and turning it on. And that gives you a lot more flexibility to just move into a build mode and iterate a lot faster. Something that I think is really important and that you see in pretty much every other industry. So in many ways, it has taken off a huge run of the regulatory risk has changed the paradigm that we can build in parallel and is open the path for a different kind of approach. And remind you, the Department of Energy has a long history of doing regulatory oversight and authorization of setting fast tractors like we're developing, they were the ones that provided the regulatory authorization for EBR-II for [ FFTS ] and continue that oversight into operations. They know how to do this better than probably anybody. So it's a really great kind of fit. We looked at this pathway as it existed before back in the past but it wasn't in any way modernized. And then since NEICA pass and then following the EOs, it has been, which made a ton of sense then for us to move into that space. Not to mention kind of the enhanced work between the NRC and DOE to obviously leverage this. The interesting thing is, right, DOE reviewers, NRC reviewers as well. They would all also use our national laboratory experts in this country, one of the key kind of things we have in the country. And what's great about that is that actually means that there's going to be residual expertise and experience gained through [indiscernible], are approaching us through DOE that will also help us in the NRC space. So it's a huge kind of change in many, many positive ways that is going to let us move faster to build and turn on the plant and also then convert over to commercial operations and scale from there. Doesn't take away NRC licensing. It just changes the cadence to kind of accelerate the ability to get something built and get into NRC licensing in the commercial space in a meaningful way, which is really, really accelerative for us. Ryan Pfingst: Got it. Appreciate that detail Jake. And then my second question, I've asked you this one before. But curious if your thinking has changed regarding order conversion from pipeline to more of something firm? And if it's starting to make more sense to try to lock in a PPA with a customer as we get closer to '26, '27 and ultimately, that first plant being built? Jacob Dewitte: Yes. Well, our view has always been find and build the right partnerships and deals with customers and takes time to do that in the most constructive way possible for the company and not necessarily rush into PPA timing but rather build better offtake structures because doing this inherently is not the same exact thing as sort of just doing a power offtake purchase from like a solar project, which is what much of the I would call it legacy conventional PPA structure has been built for. There's a lot of room to be also more creative. And that opens the door to do a lot of things that are important for frankly, derisking a lot of things for us that the off-takers are also incentive aligned to do with us. So yes, I mean, we've continued to develop customers in the market, and we continue to do that here and that is part of kind of our intentional cadence and strategy to do that. And I think as we work towards what we're executing against we expect to be able to kind of mature those in the places that do make sense for everybody to kind of build a really constructive usual relationship that is part of an offtake agreement that also helps derisk some of the stuff today into that for them, for their power offtake that's pretty powerful. So that's kind of where our focus -- I shouldn't say kind of that is where our focus has been for the last over 12 months or so. And we're continuing on that pace because that's what the market is quite supportive and receptive to and we expect that to continue and position us well so that going into the next year and beyond, we'll start converting those into that kind of -- those kinds of structures as it works. Each of these different off-takers and groups is going to have different knobs and levers and things to turn that work better for them, respectively, than maybe their peers or competitors. So we got to make sure we were kind of with the right ones that can kind of lean into this in the right ways in cadence and then focus on moving that into the kind of execution phase. So that's how we think about that. I think 1x factor that's interesting is part of the executive order structure includes the government's ability to be -- and also as we've seen in their policy actions, and I think as we hear about policy actions that are still developing around the AI side of things, enhancing the ability for them to be host and/or even some kind of middlemen or some kind of enabling structure for data center development at DOE sites. So this is still developing and speculative in many ways but there's some interesting potential based on what the EO is put into law, put into executive action that could enable sort of interesting structures too, to expand deployments under the DOE authorization that are providing to the government for their own use cases as they think about critical resource needs and critical capability needs, resource needs, meaning AI and compute needs. So it's kind of cool to see what that might look like, too, which is interesting. So that's probably the biggest shift that a lot of this has opened the door for. Otherwise, we've continued to work at pace in saying, hey, let's find the most constructive way to work with our customers and ultimately convert them forward based on what -- how we can work together and what we can do to sort of more or less guarantee success in this project in a beneficial way. Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs. Tyler Bisset: This is Tyler Bisset on for Brian. Wanted to follow up on a prior question. I just wanted to confirm, are you guys still targeting commercial operations at INL to commence between late '27 and early '28 or the shifting to the DOE pathway, accelerate that time line? And it sounds like full activation is targeted for early January. So what are the next sort of milestones we should be watching out for that supports that time line beyond January? Jacob Dewitte: Yes. I mean this is what's really exciting about the reactor pilot program. It opens the door for quite a bit of different ways of doing things and thinking about things in terms of cadencing these milestones. So a couple of big things to pull back. We have 3 pilot programs awarded to us. We talked about those a little bit in earnings. One as you were, I know the other is for the [indiscernible] pilot prototype production reactor. That is on pace for that plant and specifically in place to turn on in June, July of next year, 2026. It's incredible, it's awesome, it's really cool to see how that's progressing. So that's a pretty big set of milestones alone to achieve that. So obviously, we'll continue to update the market as we hit milestones on that front as we execute into that. Then there's the Pluto reactor, which is basically plutonium fuel testing reactor that will have a continued set of milestones as well. That bridges well into serving both research and development purposes for us to serve that for the government. We announced earlier today partnering with Idaho National Laboratory, the Battelle Energy Alliance about providing fast neutron radiation capabilities. Pluto will kind of expand on that capability set, but that has an incremental set of milestones that will march forward about moving towards basically [indiscernible] driving fuel systems and critical assemblies and test reactors that are happening on a pretty fast time scale as well that we'll continue to update the market over the course of the next 6 -- well, the next 3, 6, 9, 12 months out. And then back to part of where your question was on the Aurora INL plant. The authorization path that's important here it allows us to move into the construction activity much more quickly, so we can start building the plant. We broke ground in September. We're moving into major excavation work here coming up shortly and then moving through the full-scale procurement and activities as we speak, including something we've already done, so we're ramping forward into. That is going to be pretty important for us to be able to turn that plant on. We are still targeting in the '27, '28 time lines for that plant to commence operations to turn on and go. There are some things that might be accelerative to benefit that but some of that can also just help take out or accommodate some slack and other things in the system. It's just important that you can move fully into the build stage so that you can move through these things more iteratively. And then on top of that, the key thing that's enabling all of this is the ability to actually like fabricate fuel to put into these reactors. And that's a critical part of the supply chain that we've been focused on for a very long time. And with the reactor pilot program and then the associated fuel pilot program allows us to move into. And as we talked about and we announced earlier today, we see some pretty sizable milestones there in a really compressed time window and illuminate objectively how clearly beneficial these things are for us. We are building a fuel fabrication facility to make fuel for Aurora plant in Idaho, where you can partner with the government, we're using existing building in Idaho National Laboratory to do that. That building needs to have some refurbishment and then have equipment go into it. That building going through the traditional kind of legacy DOE because it's the DOE facility. DOE authorization path before the executive orders, we were moving at a pace that was in the order of like 2 years to kind of get close to a milestone that then when we reset the process under the pilot program, starting from 0 there. Grant, we had some work done so we can kind of copy-paste over that, but we moved in 2 weeks to hit this significant milestone that is now allowing us to actually do the construction work there and sell equipment and fabricate fuel much more quickly. So there's clear benefits that we're seeing that we are going to be in pace to have things moving faster and be able to deploy in term at plant on. I will caveat that, that plant in Idaho, it is not going to be selling commercial power to the grid under the authorization. That's not what is intent is. You might be able to do some work selling into not just power, but a radiation services to the lab complex and the Department of Energy as part of the authorization. But the point is we get this built more quickly, get the initial operational experiences and everything else, and then we can take that path over to the NRC. And as indicated by the expanded MOU, signed the MOU signed by DOE and NRC just in the last week or 2, they made it clear that the NRC is going to build on the DOE work for that. So we expect -- look, there's some new work, obviously, to do that kind of thing, but it's supportive that they're already getting in front of that. Part of why they're looking at that as to build off the success that we can do under the DOE. And again, the feature DOE have compared to the NRC. The NRC has been doing a lot of work to get ready to the license advanced reactors. DOE has been licensing in tractors for a long time. So they already have those muscles internally, now they're just using them a little bit differently, externally, and that's hugely beneficial because then NRC going to be able to build off on reference testing. So it kind of keeps the same pace and cadence of operations for what we're trying to do for the Aurora plant but opens the door for accelerated milestones on that. And then additional accelerated milestones for other things going on. Analyst: Awesome. Super helpful. And then really appreciate the incremental details around the 20 tons of plutonium reserves potentially being made into 180 tons of Aurora fuel. Can you help me understand what underpins that conversion math or your assumptions because that was a lot more than what we were estimating. And then is this an opportunity for your fuel recycling facility? Or would processing this material require a separate NRC license facility? Because it sounds like that fuel source could accelerate your deployment schedule. Jacob Dewitte: So one of the things that we got -- I love that question for so many reasons. And I'm sure some folks are probably going to be a little nervous going to spend the whole time getting into the technical details, which I'll try not to because [indiscernible] a pre-recorded practice sessions we were thinking about getting really, really deep on all this. Let me rephrase that. I was just doing that because this is one of my favorite things technically. So to answer your question, Yes. So the key thing about plutonium right, is it's an incredibly useful fissile material as a fuel source. In other words, if you think about HALEU is 19, it's up to 20% less than 20% rich [indiscernible] the balance here in [ 2028 ]. And the fast reactor, pretty much all the [ isotopimplitonium ], but especially the stuffing available, which is mostly [ 239 ] with some [indiscernible] [ 40 and 41 ] in there. But that material, it's a great bridge fuel because it can be a direct replacement for the [ U-235 ] without needing any enrichment right [indiscernible]. So you blended in with uranium. And in our case, you have in zirconium obviously making toll-fuel, but you just blended [indiscernible] with uranium to make a HALEU equivalent [indiscernible]. Now the thing about plutonium is it's an even better fuel than uranium. So you need less of it to get commensurate performance. So on average, and it depends by the variations in flavors in the fuel, but on average, if you basically it's about 11-or-so percent equivalent. So about 11% or so plutonium is equivalent in our reactors and behavior and performance to about 19 -- just under 20% [indiscernible] uranium. So that's where that conversion in math comes from. So that's why it's such a potent fuel form, so to speak. So that's pretty cool. That's obviously very accelerated for a lot of things. And for that facility, that's one of the things that was encompassed in the pilot program, the fuel pilot program awards and being able to do that kind of work there. at an initial stage on initial scale. So it may, at the end of the day, convert over to a larger scale kind of commercially licensed facility, but to get through some of the initial sources of that material and initial supplies, assuming that that's fully made available and we have access to [indiscernible] on that, then we have the DOE fuel pilot program selections to support that. It's hard to overstate the significance of the government moving this material away from a $20-plus billion taxpayer funded liability to bury it literally mix it with [indiscernible] sand and burying the desert in New Mexico versus making it available to be a bridge fuel for the advanced reactor industry. And completely changes the [indiscernible] where you knew longer or feel constrained because of that. It's huge, and what's significant about that, obviously, is not just that you can build more reactors sooner but that means you can scale more powerful and significant orders to the enrichment market as well as what we're doing on the recycling side. It's incredible. It is absolutely incredible. So for me, like that was one of the most exciting things to have happened this year because of what that catalyzes for building more things sooner without like having to be dependent on other factors. And then instead using that basically the ability to build more plants to convert to more fuel orders to then help scale that fuel supply side more quickly. So for a long time at Oklo, we've been working to advocate for government bridge fuel supplies as a key enabler to kick start the commercial fuel supply chain. And I think we're seeing that really take root and open the doors for that to move in a totally different way. Yes, seriously. It's a really, really significant policy move to enabling the deployment of more nuclear power quickly, more quickly. And I'll just add one little piece for that. Like not all reactors and fuel fabrication approaches and benefit from plutonium the same. It has different characteristics to it. We just know it works really well in fast tractors because we spend a lot of time developing and researching it for that. So that obviously is part of the benefit of fast reactors and their ability to be quite fuel-agnostic and feel flexible. Operator: Your next question is from the line of Vikram Bagri with Citi. Ted: It's Ted. I wanted to ask about the Pluto test reactor. So it looks like it's going to be deployed after the first reactor at INL. Is this going to be the template for all the future reactors? And what are the differences to Aurora? Is it only that it's going to be run on plutonium? Should we also assume a 75-megawatt size for it? And then just lastly, what are the main learnings that you hope to obtain from this test reactor? Jacob Dewitte: Yes. It's a great set of questions. So basically, it's a little bit different as bespoke to enable the accelerated sort of fast neutron radiation testing capabilities at a system like that can afford. That's important for a couple of reasons. Like part of what we've talked about is at the company right? If you think about what Oklo does, obviously, the reactor part is what people focus a lot on. We sell power, we sell heat. We have these other parts of the business that we had to build to deliver into that [indiscernible] fabrication, which will help us, obviously, make fuel for our reactors, potentially for others, too, which is part of what some of the investments in partnerships, which we announced this quarter touched on. Additionally, we talked about recycling, which is great because we can make fuel for ourselves as well as potentially for others and sell various materials and isotopes coproducts from that as well as possibly recycling services, all great. And then obviously, the isotype side of the business, which is specifically focused on that. Part of the reactor part of the story, though, and also somewhat ties over to the isotope side is we are a fast tractor, we use fast. We make fast [indiscernible]. We will have [indiscernible] terms to help test and characterize materials and fuels. That is not a capability that we've had in this country in 30-plus years. And it's not a capability that the Western world has had in a similar time frame, so like in 20 years or so. So it's an important thing that we're bringing to bear. The government set forward on building a big dedicated test reactor, but it was a government program. So it actually had a lot of sort of challenges around it. What we're doing with Aurora plant and our ability to do that and therefore, also offer that as a potential revenue-generating aspect of the company, which is hey, we have [indiscernible], we can provide rate-easing capabilities, not just for our own use but for others as well as what we're doing on the Pluto side, which expands that and gives us that cadence of experience in a plutonium-based system is pretty accelerative to opening the door for moving into better deals and different materials and expanding the fuel performance envelope so that we can maximize what we do. We're in a good spot to be able to build and operate, that's great, but there is going to be so much more we can get out of these materials with more end fuels in terms of timing the reactor and just ultimately better economic performance with more data that we can generate using us. So that was part of the incipient to look at doing the Pluto test reactor. It's a smaller system. It's not producing electric power. It's a primary job. I mean as of now, its primary job is focused on making fast neutron. And it's a culmination of activity so I think of it more as a program than just a single reactor that will involve taking simpleton critical, getting some experience doing that with our national lab partners, doing some work around the [indiscernible] handling and management and then moving that into obviously the full scale like Pluto reactor. The reactor will be smaller in its power production and will also be optimized these plutonium. These plutonium is inherently in the nuclear space, higher worth to use that terminology fuel means we can actually use less overall fuel if we concentrate up the plutonium a bit more, which is what generally speaking process reactors have done. So that means we can kind of use a higher loading of plutonium total less -- total fuel mass, get more thermal power out of it, and therefore, more neutrons to test things with it. And it's a pretty favorable thing to do with that. But the system will give us a very significant amount of repetition about doing the actual work around plutonium fuel fabrication going forward. The fuel will look, generally speaking, very similar to the Aurora fuel, if we use plutonium in it. In terms of form factor and pipe, it would just use a lower amount of plutonium in it because we have -- what we're designing to in the oral plan is going to be interchangeable between HALEU, [indiscernible] fuel and transgenic [indiscernible] fuel. And that means you kind of dilute the plutonium more compared to what Pluto will do. When you think about Pluto as a program, it's the cadence to build on top of the fuel [indiscernible] fuel fabrication piece in physical plutonium-reactor part. So over the course of the next year, we're gaining experience with plutonium criticality and work around that. and then we'll move that into the next up of actually building the plants going forward. Those are high-level kind of perspectives on where it goes, but it's a pretty significant enabler for getting those repetitions in our belt and start fueling Aurora plants with plutonium bearing fuel. Now just to put a number on this, like the thing that's really powerful about moving in this space, like building out these fast neutron radiation capabilities, yes, it opens the door to do additional things for radiation services. You tend to do some additional isotope production using different material types. And yes, it's important because it helps us with ourselves as well as other companies can come to us or government programs should come to us and either rent or buy radiation type time, radiation time or similar types of kind of exposure in the environment to help bring some materials that are quite mature, but need a little bit more to go over the finish line that are inherently basically economically better than what we have to use based on what the experiences are today. Those are still great because we can make that work. But that looks -- this is a platform for R&D and margin improvement. There's one way to think about it. So anyway, that's kind of the cadence of how we see things. Got it. That's super helpful. And then I just had one follow-up. On Slide 9, it mentions the breakdown of CapEx by components. And I think it's lifted by number of components. Are you able to share just directionally what that is in dollar terms? Jacob Dewitte: Yes. I mean, I guess I'll kind of hand this over for Craig, if you want to kind of answer some of it, and then I can chime in. Richard Bealmear: Yes. So I think directionally, we would expect the dollars to be similar to the components. In terms of an actual dollar breakdown, we're still refining a lot of our cost estimates now that we've got [indiscernible] onboard and now that we're deepening some of our procurement activities, and we'll probably have more to share on that going probably into 2026. Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Jed Dorsheimer with William Blair. Jonathan Dorsheimer: I guess first, I don't know if Jake want this or Craig, but just if you could talk a little bit about backlog. I think it was 14 gigawatts, has that changed at all? And maybe just a little bit of color on the discussions that you're having. Is it mostly utility? Is it mostly hyperscaler? Just that breakdown, if you would. And then I have a follow-up. Richard Bealmear: Yes. Jed, I can take that. So I'd say the 14 gigawatts is still predominantly made up of data center and hyperscaler customers. I think I mentioned to you last time we were on the phone. We've also got other potential customers in the mix that aren't identified customers as part of that 14 gigawatts that could maybe even cause that number to go up. I know the bigger question is, when do you convert that into a PPA. And I'd say we are [indiscernible] on that, with pace and urgency and actively exchanging term sheets. I never want to promise an exact date on when we might announce something because it takes Oklo to be on the same page with the customer. But I'm really pleased with kind of how those commercial discussions are progressing. And not just on the PPA price, but I think we're also seeing good traction on -- similar to what we were able to achieve with [ Equinix ], which was a prepayment for power. We're also progressing conversations with customers that could convert into prepayment for power or prepayment for fuel or some other asset-oriented contribution to the deal itself. Jonathan Dorsheimer: Got it. That's helpful. Just along those lines, the discussions does as Atomic Alchemy in having that standing up a fueling recycling, even if that's in the future, has that kind of moved some of those discussions along from a supply chain risk? And -- sorry yes, that's... Richard Bealmear: Well, I would say Atomic Alchemy is probably -- the types of conversations we're having around feedstock for isotope production taking customer discussions into contract conversion. The steps are the same, but it's definitely with different counterparties on both the feedstock side, the supplier vendor side and all of that. But I think we are excited around the tremendous progress that the team is making around the reactor pilot program that Atomic Alchemy was awarded. And in addition, we're also making good progress on the lab scale facility that will be down the road at INL. And I think, as I've said earlier, there is the possibility for the lab scale project that we could be generating revenue and gross margin. It's going to be in the single million dollars, not anything bigger than that, and it won't be exactly ratable. But we're excited about what we might be able to do to actually turn some of that -- the lab scale facility, especially in the gross margin in the first half of next year. Jonathan Dorsheimer: Got it. And then just one for Jake. If I just look at using an EBR for isotope production and isolation, do we need to wait until you get the VIPR up for sort of an [indiscernible] tailoring? Or can that be done in between? I ask because [indiscernible] is really well suited for cobalt and Lutetium, which are being used for sort of the radioisotope or radiopharma market right now? And just curious on the EBR side, whether or not you need that tailored reactor before you can do that or if there's an in-between? Jacob Dewitte: Yes, it's a good question. I mean there's a couple of steps actually to parse that out. So one, there are some things we can do in the near term without a reactor in terms of isotope sort of consolidation and recovery that we are making progress we talked about any update towards in Idaho, where you'll be able to actually have infrastructure and facility capabilities to actually do some of that work and start producing some of the isotopes from those kinds of sources. But for sort of the most meaningful, and that's great because we get some practice repetition, maybe help accelerate revenue which is cool. But at the end of the day, it helps position us with experience to then move into the next stage, which is where the reactors really unlock significant differentials in performance. And yes, [indiscernible] do that. They're also not in the U.S. And there's a pretty important focus on these production capabilities being in the U.S., not even in our nearest neighbors, right? And so -- and [indiscernible] limited. They can do some things pretty well but they can do everything very well. And the [indiscernible] production reactor design is designed to do pretty much most everything pretty well that you can do with thermal neutron key caveat. So the nice thing about that reactor is we'll have its prototype up running by the middle of next year. It uses standard pressurized water reactor fuel bundles that are just shorten in height at commercial scale. And that's often instilled with LEU. And it's part of what we were drawn to with this business was it wasn't trying to design because some of the margins and the numbers that these radios isotopes bringing to you. Have drawn some folks in the field to look at really exotic reactors because you can pay for it because of that. So you kind of build like a Formula 1 custom reactor to produce these isotopes when maybe all you need is like a [ 4 to 50-year ] something, something to that. It doesn't have to go quite as fast or be quite as exotic and therefore, way cheaper and easier to build. And that was one of the things that really attracted us to Atomic Alchemy, is we were working with them. So that's one of the features here is what that will enable. But then there's the other part, which is some isotope, really I would say you best produce, if not uniquely produce in a fast spectrum environment, you need fast neutrons to really do that. And that's where being able to harvest some of the fast neutrons in our fast reactors will unlock those capabilities pretty attractively and then tie that in to the Atomic Alchemy kind of sales channels and global productization and sales channels. And that's a pretty cool feature set that we'll be able to have. If you look back in the analyst history, the [indiscernible] facility, one of the reactors from which we derive our legacy as a reactor that our Chief Technology Officer has been Chief Technology Officer, spent a lot of time at had quite cool set up to do a bunch of fast neutron like isotope production work, like a ton and pretty attractive economics to go with it. And that was in a somewhat constrained way of thinking about it. And then on top of that, the Russians have been significant players in the isotope market at a global scale because they've been using our fast neutron capabilities to do that, too. So it's a pretty significant game changer that does diversify away from capabilities that you can't do with just thermal [indiscernible] reactors. But at the end of the day, those are pretty important things. One other thing I'll just throw out that we've talked a little bit about, but it's important to kind of illuminate to go back to the VIPR reactor, one of the things that's designed for is also being able to do silicon radiation which is, generally speaking, the or one of the gold standards for achieving silicon doping right? If you do phosphorus like type vapor deposition or infusion, it's kind of limited in wafer thicknesses and other things like that. Neutrons permeate the material much more uniformly and will then transmute and make that phosphor [indiscernible] happened naturally, and it's a pretty attractive thing. That capability used to be used when it existed in the way because the ability to do that radiation kind of on the way. So we're also -- that's one of the cool things about VIPR, it could do stuff like that too, right? So a lot of flexibility that you couldn't otherwise do without a system design that be versatile in nature. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Jeffrey Campbell with Seaport Research. Jeffrey Campbell: Congratulations on all the progress. I hadn't planned this one, but I found the last discussion brief as many. So Jake, let me just ask, when you get around to trying to do isotope radiation with an Aurora, are you going to be able to do it in a way that won't interrupt your fuel cycle? You mentioned the Russian reactors, it has kind of a peculiar fuel cycle that allows it to go in periodically and do the irradiation. And of course, they can't do it without any interruption. But typically, reactors have to match their refueling cycle with their radiation. So I'm just wondering if you think about that? Jacob Dewitte: Yes, it's a great question. By and large, like the focus of those reactors is really power production, but some of the flexibility that will be afforded to us by, for example, the word, Idaho as well as the Pluto reactors will give us a lot more flexibility to do more work around those things. So think of it more as imagine some like 4 normal commercial optics, we want to harvest on those neutrons because it makes sense we're going to have to fit it into the power cadence because that's the primary driver. But we'll have some flexibility and some other reactors that will give us more flexibility to kind of match that accordingly because we're going to be doing other testing work. So there's going to be some interesting planning in coordination like it is for other test reactor or radiation and test reactors to sort of optimize to that and do the trade-offs. But generally speaking, yes, for the vast majority of the focus, if we're going to use any of their fast neutron capacity, would be largely skewed towards minimizing, if not completely avoiding interference on the power operation schedule, while there will be a couple that we'll have more flexibility that we can kind of optimize to on the isotope side if it makes sense to do so. So it's kind of one of those acknowledgments of yes, we're going to have to look at possibly parsing some of the asset operation schedules, if it makes sense to do, and that's the key question is if it makes sense to do. Jeffrey Campbell: Okay. Yes, that makes sense. The other question I wanted to ask you is, if you could give us any update on your proposed natural gas or Aurora partnership with Liberty Energy. Liberty has recently spoken about it at a high level, and they seem to indicate they've been aimed towards large projects. I wondered if there's been any diminished appetite on Oklo side as its progression to Aurora construction has accelerated? Jacob Dewitte: Yes. I think in general, we still see it as a pretty powerful bridge. I think we've seen now several other groups be talking at a broad thematic about the gas to nuclear [ camo ] and bridging capabilities and features that offers. So we continue to see that as a positive thing in different customer discussions. I think what we see in general though, and this is a bit anecdotal. So take it for that. But I think some of the near-term focus and priorities at the moment is around utilizing stuff that's basically on grid to be the nearest term operation will kind of preference, where that will be a key enabler for getting some stuff built or powering [indiscernible] already being built and filling in the power to either meet additionality goals or other kind of feature sets that this can do. And then that is in parallel happening, but just the temporal nature of the project planning isn't kind of followed by the benefits of being able to bring gas into enable power at a site for either a colocation or near location or even behind the meter approach that gas [ Canadian ] will pretty successfully. So I mean it's still a pretty powerful feature in market conversations and discussions. But I think at the end of the day, like I don't think there's much diminishment on it. I think if anything there's a lot of validation that it's valuable and it's a future and it continues to kind of evolve and progress. One of the challenges I think we see in the commercial markets. I don't know if you call it a challenge, but one of the things we've observed is a lot of focus on the hyperscalers has been on the energy objectives they have over the next -- on multi-month scale time frames, right? Maybe that [indiscernible] to 24 months or less but like stats where they're obviously really, really focusing most of their activities is making sure they're in a good position for all of what they need them. And they're increasingly looking at the longer-term views, just given how constrained the power markets are as a whole, realizing they need to expand those horizons and that systematically continue to see evolve and gas as an ability to bring power to a facility or site sooner is pretty powerful. I still think -- I'll say that I still think that the understanding of the benefits that making fuel government fuel availability, like was it increasing government fuel availability like the plutonium side, which can be quite accelerative to building new [indiscernible] plants faster and more plants fasters. It's still being digested in the market. So like that may have an ability to help show a path to bringing nucleon even sooner, and that's, I think, pretty potent. And I think it's still very early innings for folks understanding of what that means given the nature of it's still pretty fresh. Jeffrey Campbell: Yes, that makes sense. But at least I wasn't completely irrational. So I appreciate the color. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Derek Soderberg with Cantor Fitzgerald. Derek Soderberg: Just one question for me. Is there a level of prepayments you need to make to secure some of these long lead time items in either the nuclear, nonnuclear supply chain? And wondering if you can quantify how much capital it will require to just ensure access to those long lead time items as you scale? Richard Bealmear: I can take that one. So like we're currently working on progressing I don't want to mention the vendor specifically, but some of the other supply chain partnerships we've already announced, and there might be some form of a prepayment, but it's in the -- it's in that 10% range. So it's a number, but it's not significant. And I think one of the reasons, though, that we're so glad about the success we've had around the capital raise is that we can -- we don't need to have capital be a constraint that if we find an opportunity and it makes sense in terms of the returns to do a prepayment because we can get a better price point on the asset, then we can go forth and do that. Operator: Your next question is from the line of Sherif Elmaghrabi with BTIG. Sherif Elmaghrabi: Just a 2-parter on the fuel line pilot at INL. Do you have a target online date? And then the facility was also selected for a DOE program, which you mentioned. And I'm wondering if there's an economic opportunity there as soon as the facility comes online or if that's also something that needs NRC approval to monetize? Jacob Dewitte: Yes. So I just want to understand the Aurora plant, so that is going through DOE authorization to get built and turned on initially and get through some of the initial operational cycles. And then the intent is to move that over into a commercially operating space. I will flag like moving that over to [indiscernible] license is the most likely path. It's not impossible, though, that given some of the dynamics of what's happening on the DOE side that there might be pathways to kind of sell into the government that could exist. We're not planning that that's exactly where it is, but that is something that has been and it was in the EOs and that might be something that does evolve, but the plan is to convert that over to a [indiscernible] that experience you gained. Were sitting to the day is great because you point to real data with the real plant and just move some of that stuff pretty constructively forward. The Atomic Alchemy plant in Texas, the intent we have on there is to primarily be serving where DOE is. It's not impossible that we go convert it over to a license as well. There's some optionality potentially there. But the general view is keep the DOE facility get the experience of living running it, giving some radiation work, provide them some support to DOE emissions and possibly opening the door for other things. But at the end of the day, that's kind of how we see that and that similarly is kind of how we think about the Pluto reactor as well. Again, it's possible that there's a feature set to convert many of these facilities or convert these to energy license, all of them to energy licenses, that's a possibility, but the general [indiscernible] is we kind of see the Aurora now being the one that would make the most sense to do that with the other 2, not necessarily, but it depends on some factors that may evolve. One other thing I'll flag is coming out of the executive orders, one of the things that's mentioned and clearly defined in there, just to highlight is the fact that DOE authorization or DOE authorized facilities can support and provide clinical product right? Whether that be power or heat or isotypes, or whatever it is, to the Department of Energy use cases, that can then by how these things are defined can be and proceed and be built like -- sorry, things that do that work can be under basically authorized under DOE authorization. And that could mean, for example, we are in a position where we build more plants under DOE authorization because they're serving DOE. So that could be something that also occurs. There's nothing firm on that, but just given that the EOs put that out there and it does open the door for the possibilities that, that might be something else. The nice thing and the key thing here that's so important for why we felt confident and excited to move in this pathway that's accelerative is because it's clear that the understating view, we are working well together and working together to, I would say, be efficient in how work done by one will be complementarily kind of informative to the other. And that's an important kind of capability set. And again, that's evidenced pretty clearly by the recent MOU between DOE and NRC which is supportive of the fact that getting DOE authorization and going through the technical work to do that will be constructive in NRC either licensing in version and or, I should say, really and future NRC license applications for future commercial plans. Operator: And our final question comes from the line of Craig Shere with Tuohy Brothers. Craig Shere: What are the prospects for rounding up remaining fuel needs to maximize your made in INL powerhouse to 75 megawatts? And if you don't have it upfront as you commence operations, the later get NRC approval and can commence full commercial sales. At that time, could you refuel to maximum capacity? Jacob Dewitte: Yes. Although given the recent activities and traction around a multitude of kind of fuel policy arrangements as well as what we're seeing in the commercial fuel supply markets. I think we feel increasingly confident that we'll be able to have the fuel needed to run that facility if not immediately at the onset and full power pretty close to the immediate onset of full power. Not that this is the plan because we feel, again, increasing confidence that there's going to be extra HALEU that we can use for that facility from actually a variety of sources, which is the diversity sources as part of the confidence the inspiration of the company. The other part of it is we can in that reactor if we needed if we were able to get, for example, access to some of that plutonium piece stock, make that into fuel that could be located in commingled with the reactor fuel there. It just means some assemblies would have sound-bearing fuel, some would just be [indiscernible] fuel and you can design it to work just fine in that configuration manner. And given that, that material exists in a pretty much ready to fabricate form, it gives us a lot of confidence in how that can actually kind of proceed. So that's how we see that kind of playing out. Craig Shere:Great. And last for me. To the degree you start employing, which sounds like a great opportunity, this plutonium mix to help bridge quicker plant deployments. Does that have any implications on NRC regulatory process? Do they have to shift because of the new fuel mix and having some plutonium in there? Does that have any proliferation concerns of any kind? Jacob Dewitte: Yes, it's a great good question. There are some inherent things that are a little different. To go back in the history of this plutonium kind of its legacy and policy history. The President's executive orders directed 34 tonnes that was slated for diluted disposed to be made available for reactors [indiscernible]. Before the program of diluted disposed, which is are we going to spend $20-plus billion of tax rate money to just blend the stuff up to [indiscernible] sand and bury it. The program before that was actually fabricated into fuel as part of a joint treaty with Russia at the time for stockpile reduction. And the plan was to take that material fabricated into fuel for light water reactors and then use one reactor what was called the [ MAX ] program and the facility in South Carolina to do that. That program -- you could spend a long time and for time sake, I'll keep it very simple and a little bit simplistic. That program had significant struggles because plutonium fuel and light water reactors while very doable is inherently something very different than what we do as a country here. So the infrastructure to do all that wasn't necessarily in place because plutonium does behave notably differently in a slow neutron reactor than a fast reactor. It's still behave differently the uranium and the fast reactor, but the difference is more amplified and accentuated in the thermal spectrum or slow neutron reactor, especially water cooled reactor. And it wasn't something the utilities were really one thing. Fuel markets were not constrained. It was not something that there was a market for. And it was a [indiscernible] government run approach where the facility got way out of controlling costs and everything else because it wasn't mainly driven by a kind of a more, I would say, entrepreneurial or enterprising kind of dynamic. So the recommended options, the best path coming out of that program basically not being in a spot to not proceed was to actually the technical analysts were to say, okay, the best thing would be to put it in fats factors. But we don't have any fast reactors. So the next best option is just to dilute and dispose it. Well, now we're going to have fast reactors, right, based on what we're doing. So our view is, hey, this is great because [indiscernible], there are other companies developing reactors and other things that can use this material, and there is a fuel crunch. So now we're in a different world or how they think about that. That facility that I talked about under the light water [ MAX ] program was actually going through and have gone through a -- like all of that was set up to be under NRC per view, generally speaking. And so there's a lot of infrastructure in place and experience around that. So there are some differences with things you need to do on the regulatory side for this. But it's not -- it's generally speaking pretty well known. But what's really powerful too, is that DOE spending kind of with the [indiscernible] program to include the fuel pilot program to help fuel these reactors under the pilot program. They also are sending their authorization capabilities, and they are the ones that already oversee from a [indiscernible] and authorization perspective [indiscernible] work. So it's great to be able to kind of tie in with that. And we've been expanding our partnerships with some of the national labs who have experience doing all that work. So it kind of helps us drive and build out that expertise set in partnership with the experts that we have in this country and kind of accordingly kind of be able to scale that forward. So that's like -- that's how this core sort of charts. I've got some things that are a little bit different than the earnings side, but nothing significantly departed and stuff that's largely like noble manageable. I mean again, there's controls and elements to it. But generally speaking, this is -- this has a history and [indiscernible] behind it in a multitude of way between DOE and NRC. Where there is -- and to your other part of the question, where there is kind of an exciting opportunity around this, is the story in the conversation around proliferation. And I say that because the kind of only way to permanently destroy plutonium out of this universally sufficient. So by putting it in the reactors, you're visioning it and you're trying to get into 2 [ fission ] products that like stars have a really hard time synthesizing through Super Novas and to back into plutonium. So that's a [indiscernible] way of saying like this is a pretty good way to get rid of it and generate power in doing so and solve a fuel crunch while doing so. So if anything, our view is pretty strongly is you obviously apply all the relevant state-of-the-art. And this is something we've leaned into because of our work and recycling in other fields. Applying state-of-the-art capabilities on safeguards and security around managing this material from receipt into fabrication and then into reactors and then in the reactors you're just [indiscernible] in it. So it's actually a pretty cool setup and something that as a country we were due to do. There are some, I would say, predicts out there, mostly just pretty clear antinuclear. [ ADVOCATE ] to have said, "Oh, this is a [indiscernible] concern." I've never understood that because destroying plutonium I think is the best way to get rid of it. Isn't objectively the best way to get rid of it. So yes, it's just a pretty elegant solution to actually get rid of the material. I think what it really distill that was just like, oh, this is different, and then it's just change. It takes a little bit of time [indiscernible] and people like makes a lot of sense. The other concern is like well, we'll incentivize other countries to do the same, which I would also argue, well, I think if we incentivize other counties to destroy their plutonium that's also kind of a feature in the [indiscernible] world. So not necessarily the worst thing on that front. And then I think what's important, too, is this is legacy material from [ weapons ] program. As we think about the future and recycling, you're not separating out pure plutonium using state-of-the-art technology, which again gets back to how I think at a policy level, we should be thinking about leading in the world stage. If we, as a country, are as what we announced in Tennessee, recycling material in a manner that does not ever produce pure separated plutonium instead produces uranium transuranic mix that's [indiscernible]. That's that's a good spot to kind of lead from. And so that's kind of how I think about the space. Operator: And with no further questions in queue. I will now hand the call back over to Jake Dewitte, CEO and Co-Founder of Oklo. Please go ahead. Jacob Dewitte: Thank you. Thank you all for joining in today. We appreciate it. There's -- this is the second call since the executive orders were signed. The first call since we had the reactor pilot program and fuel pilot program selection. So it has significantly changed how we think about the regulatory landscape and the regulatory strategy we're employing accordingly. It's significant in its accelerated features but also in its regulatory derisking features. This aligns pretty well with what we're also seeing in the policy landscape driving sort of a continued focus and effort on modernization not just the Department of Energy, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Our work with the NRC has not stopped. It still continues. But now it gets the benefit and the accelerating benefit of working with the Department of Energy and the National Laboratory ecosystem that supports this, that will help NRC reviews and generally seeking, enable a world where NRC reviews will be accelerated and made more efficient and generally speaking, improved by the experience is already done by the DOE. DOE have a tremendous track record of safely authorizing and reviewing and overseeing nuclear facilities. And the NRC and DOE, don't forget were born from the same entity, the Atomic Energy Commission. And so there's a lot of kind of common threads. They worked together for a long time, and we're happy to see that, that's kind of continuing and in some ways, they're even getting closer again to work together. And I mean that in a constructively independent way where NRC can use DOE's best resources and information because one of the best ways you can do safety analysis and safety oversight is good understanding of what the system is you're overseeing and leveraging our nation's leadership, technically speaking, that the DOE has, the national labs have to help support that. It's a pretty powerful combination. So I like to think that we're now kind of moving into this next chapter of this new wave of nuclear that's leveraging the best features of government to its maximum ability and that's a benefit for all of us. Additionally, the opportunities around making more fuel sources available. For example, this plutonium material as well as continued traction and efforts to stand, to build out and invest in and expand the uranium's fuel supply chain are pretty accelerative because the bridge fuel opportunities that the plutonium gives us is a game changer and building more reactors more quickly and using that to help accelerate the investment and development of the uranium enrichment market. Uranium enrichment is radically undersupplied in this country, practically meaning like 18%, 20%. We need more of it for just our existing plants. And we also needed, of course, where we're making less than 1 time a year, but for HALEU. And so things we can do to help signal more powerful optics orders and investments and therefore, expansion in the HALEU side, supported by building more reactors sooner using bridge fuel is pretty accretive to realizing more fuel supplies and to use maybe a bit of a silly term, dual leadership in [indiscernible] because back in the 1980s, we as a country, had more fuel production capacity, meaning conversion enrichment, de-conversion fabrication in the rest of the world combined. And now we definitely don't. So a big opportunity for how that's proceeding. And bridge fuels are a really important piece of that. And then on the reactor front, one of the great things about the pilot program and the benefits there is an ability to move into building a big thing that we have long thought from policy would be very supportive of nuclear is to move the front-loaded paperwork to be developed largely or largely as in parallel as possible with the actual building of facilities so that you can do the kind of learning of building while you do the regulatory work so that you know what you're building on to and you know what your licensing. But also you can have a build and then you get the final authorization before you actually load the fuel and actually run the plant. And the DOE pathways allow us to do that. So we can accelerate time lines. And it's bringing forward an ability to start going from -- going from greenfield and the design of a reactor to turning reactors on. And what looks like it's going to be less than 12 months for at least what we're doing on the Atomic Alchemy side as well as some other companies that are pursuing this that were selected under the program. That's as someone said recently, kind of Manhattan project level speed of being able to do these things. And that's a real feature to moving all of this excitement and enthusiasm into real-world application and the iterations that come from being able to build and build more quickly. So this is a bit of a dream set of scenarios that I think [ Carolyn ] and I long dreamed about when we were starting the company, and it's all coming together in a very, very accretive time for us, not just to be positioned to take advantage of it because of where we are as a company and the maturity we have but also the resources we have to bring to bear to it. So we're very excited that we are selected for 3 of those reactor pilot programs as well as the fuel line programs and executing on that as we also scale forward with additional customer development and future sites and deployment opportunities. So thank you all. Operator: Thank you again for joining us today. This does conclude today's conference call. You may now disconnect.

Operator: Good day, everyone, and welcome to Oklo Second Quarter 2025 Financial Results and Business Update Call. At this time, I would like to hand the call over to Mr. Sam Doane, Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead, sir. Sam Doane: Thank you, operator. Good afternoon, and welcome, everyone, to Oklo's Second Quarter 2025 Earnings and Company Update Call. I'm Sam Doane, Oklo's Director of Investor Relations. Joining me today are Jake Dewitte, Oklo's Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer; and Craig Bealmear, our Chief Financial Officer. Earlier today, following the close of markets, we released our second quarter 2025 financial results. Today's accompanying slide presentation is available on the Investor Relations section of our website. Before we begin, I'd like to remind everyone that today's discussion, including our prepared remarks and the Q&A session that follows, will include forward-looking statements. These statements reflect our current views regarding trends, assumptions, risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed today. We encourage you to review the forward-looking statements disclosure included in our supplemental slides. Additional details on relevant risk factors can also be found in our most recent filings with the SEC. Please note that Oklo assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law. With that, I'll now turn the call over to Jake Dewitte, Oklo's Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer. Jake? Jacob Dewitte: Thanks, Sam. We're starting today's update by highlighting a wave of federal actions that are accelerating momentum behind advanced nuclear technologies and how Oklo is extremely well positioned to benefit. Over the past quarter, we've seen exceptional policy movement from sweeping executive orders to major legislation and national infrastructure strategies. Together, these actions reflect a coordinated federal push to speed up deployment of advanced nuclear technologies, strengthen domestic fuel supply chains and enhance U.S. energy independence. For Oklo, this shift is highly beneficial. These aren't just favorable signals, they're concrete steps that support faster licensing, faster deployment and better project economics for first-of-a-kind deployments. The next few slides will unpack the most significant drivers, the executive orders, the One Big Beautiful Bill and the Federal AI action plan, all of which align directly with Oklo's licensing strategy, customer partnerships and long-term cost advantage. The executive order signed earlier this year marked a historic shift in federal policy toward advanced nuclear. These executive orders build on legislation from the last Congress and administration to clearly recognize civil nuclear energy as a national and economic security priority. That designation alone reshapes the policy landscape and unlocks access to key government assets, including alternative fuel materials that do not require further enrichment. When used in advanced reactors like Oklo's, these material stockpiles could be made into fuel for more than 3 gigawatts of powerhouses. Just as important, these orders direct the DOE and NRC to move faster, streamlining regulatory reviews, reforming reactor testing and targeting 3 operational advanced reactors by July 2026. It's rare to see this level of alignment across permitting fuel access and deployment. The executive orders go beyond signaling support. They include clear directives that align directly with Oklo's strategy. First, they revitalize the domestic nuclear fuel supply chain with a specific emphasis on recycling. Oklo is one of the few fast reactor companies positioned to use downblended alternative fuel materials, which don't require enrichment. This fuel, combined with the industry- leading advances we are making in fuel recycling can give us a significant structural advantage. Second, the orders prioritize deployment of reactors at national security locations, including AI data centers and defense sites that aligns with where our customers are heading and where our small scalable powerhouse designs excel. Third, the orders mandate licensing reform, capping fees and setting an 18-month review window for new reactors. That level of regulatory clarity and speed will accelerate Oklo's path to market and strongly supports our combined license strategy. And finally, these orders direct DOE to accelerate reactor testing and target 3 operational advanced reactors by July 2026. That's an aggressive timeline and one Oklo could qualify to help deliver on. The One Big Beautiful Bill signed into law in July delivers a suite of policy wins that are directly aligned with Oklo's business model. First, it preserves robust investment and production tax credits through 2033 that then phase out through 2036. These credits improve our project economics and offer additional certainty for early-stage deployment. Second, the bill strengthens the loan program's office, establishing the energy dominance financing program. This is important because it provides access to long-term capital for projects that can't yet tap traditional debt markets like first-of-a-kind deployments. Third, it accelerates NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act reviews by setting strict deadlines for environmental assessments and impact statements. That helps reduce permitting delays and improves timeline confidence across our project portfolio. And finally, the bill allows for 100% bonus depreciation for assets that begin construction by 2029 and are in service by 2033. That gives us the ability to capture meaningful tax benefits as we build out fuel and manufacturing capabilities. The federal government's AI action plan also released in July as a major new dimension to the demand landscape for advanced nuclear. The plan calls for a rapid expansion of AI infrastructure, including high-security data centers and resilient domestic energy systems to support them. It explicitly recognizes that achieving AI dominance requires building new sources of reliable, dispatchable power like advanced nuclear reactors. Our powerhouses are uniquely suited for this use case, delivering distributed baseload power that can be co-located with mission- critical AI workloads. The policy also calls for streamlining permitting, deregulation and expanded workforce training to support infrastructure deployment. As AI infrastructure scales, we expect both commercial and policy momentum behind advanced nuclear to continue building, and Oklo is focused on delivering power solutions that meet that need. With that context, I'll turn it over to Craig to walk through how our mission, model and design choices are translating into real execution advantages. Richard Craig Bealmear: Thank you, Jake. Our mission at Oklo has always been clear to deliver clean, reliable and affordable energy at a global scale. Our co- founder started this company with the belief that advanced nuclear could play a transformative role in the world's energy future. That meant rethinking the entire model from how we design reactors to how we license, fuel and operate them. That vision continues to guide us today, and it's now clearly aligned with where policy, technology and customer demand are headed. Moving to the next slide. Oklo's competitive edge comes from the intersection of 3 key strategies: our business model, our sizing philosophy and our technology. First, we build, own and operate our powerhouses, selling power under long-term contracts. That creates recurring revenue and enables us to move more efficiently through the regulatory process. Second, our small scalable design allows us to deploy assets quickly, match customer demand in an incremental fashion and significantly tap into existing supply chains with factory fabrication, which reduces site complexity, cuts cost and supports faster rollout. And third, our technology is based on proven liquid metal fast reactor designs with over 400 reactor years of operating history behind it worldwide. That gives us a deep technical foundation with built-in performance and safety benefits. Importantly, it enables us to move directly into commercialization without the need for a costly and time-consuming demonstration plant. And finally, I really can't emphasize this point enough. It provides flexibility for Oklo to use fresh HALEU, recycled fuel and down blended alternative fuel for our powerhouses. Together, these advantages position us to deploy at speed and scale with a structure built for long-term growth. This past quarter, we made meaningful headway across all elements of our milestone framework from licensing and project execution to field development, customer growth and strategic partnerships. We advanced our NRC engagement, completing Phase 1 pre-application readiness and saw our licensed operator topical report formally accepted for review. We also took another step towards deployment at scale by selecting Kiewit as our lead constructor for the first Aurora powerhouse at INL. On the customer front, we expanded our pipeline of commercial opportunities with both the Department of Defense and Liberty Energy and advanced our corporate development efforts through agreements with Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power and Vertiv. We also remained disciplined on spend, keeping our cash burn in line with expectations and ending the quarter with a strong balance sheet. I'll now hand it back to Jake to walk through the progress we made this quarter across our licensing project and commercial front. Jake? Jacob Dewitte: Thanks, Craig. We continue to make meaningful progress this quarter across our regulatory priorities. We completed Phase 1 of the NRC readiness assessment for the Aurora INL combined license application. The NRC found no significant gaps that would bar acceptance for review, reinforcing our readiness to submit Phase 1 of the application, which we expect to file in early Q4 after incorporating NRC feedback. We also had our license operator topical report accepted for review. This is an important part of our repeatable deployment strategy. It proposes licensing operators by Aurora technology rather than by site. Once approved, this report can be referenced in future applications, streamlining regulatory timelines and supporting scalable deployment. We're also seeing continued tailwinds across the regulatory landscape. The NRC recently accelerated Terra Power's review timeline by 6 months and introduced new fee reforms, reducing licensing costs through waivers and lower hourly rates. These changes further reinforce the momentum we're seeing and could benefit Oklo's licensing path going forward. And finally, recognizing that there's a lot to track on the regulatory front, we launched a public regulatory dashboard on our website that provides a transparent view of our progress across powerhouses, fuel and radioisotope licensing, helping keep all stakeholders informed as we move forward. Fuel is one of the most important inputs for advanced nuclear, and it's one of the areas where Oklo has built a significant strategic advantage. Our design enables a differentiated fuel strategy built around 3 complementary sources: access to government stockpiles, commercial supply partnerships and long-term recycling capabilities. This approach provides greater flexibility, cost control and resilience than traditional fuel models. First, we were awarded 5 metric tons of high-assay low-enriched uranium or HALEU from the Department of Energy in 2019 for our first powerhouse at INL, and we're uniquely positioned to utilize additional government fuel stockpiles made available under recent executive orders, including enriched uranium and plutonium-based materials that don't require further enrichment. These stockpiles, effectively waste materials that would otherwise be destined for costly disposal programs can instead be turned into a productive asset for clean energy by Oklo. Second, we're working with enrichers such as Centrus and Hexium to meet both near-term and long- term commercial HALEU needs. Centrus supports early deployment with available domestic supply, while Hexium's next-generation atomic vapor laser isotope separation or AVLIS enrichment technology could enable lower cost scalable production over time. And third, our fast reactors can use recovered nuclear material from both today's nuclear fleet and future advanced reactors, positioning us to recycle fuel over time and build a vertically integrated long-term supply model. Together, these efforts form a comprehensive and resilient fuel strategy, one that supports near-term deployment, while building long-term supply independence. As mentioned, fuel is a critical enabler for advanced nuclear deployment. That's especially true for HALEU, which comes with its own cost dynamics. Enrichment is measured in SWU or separative work unit and so are its costs. Cost of enrichment are actually driven by both ore and enrichment process efficiency. Producing 1 kilogram of HALEU requires roughly 35 to 60 SWUs plus 30 to 50 kilograms of natural uranium depending on market conditions that can create a wide range of cost outcomes. That said, Oklo's design and business model position us well for this market. We benefit from needing consistent high-volume fuel across many small units. That matches well with enrichment module capacities and allows us to scale demand over time. Smaller cores also mean more units in the field, creating steady annual uptake that supports long-term supply agreements. We're also watching next-generation enrichment closely. Laser-based approaches like Atlas could unlock more cost-effective batch-friendly production over time. Our engagement with Hexium positions us to benefit as that innovation matures. In short, we're managing HALEU costs in the near term, while building a supply model that reduces volatility and lowers long- term fuel exposure. Oklo's fuel strategy isn't just well designed. It's being executed today to support rapid deployment and long- term resilience. We've secured HALEU from DOE for our first commercial unit and our fast reactors are uniquely capable of using down-blended uranium and plutonium-based fuels, stockpiles that would otherwise be slated for disposal. With recent policy changes unlocking access, we can fuel dozens of early units from existing government material. We're also executing on commercial partnerships, Centrus for long-term HALEU and Hexium for long-term innovation. Their Atlas technology could materially improve enrichment economics over time. And our fuel strategy doesn't stop at procurement. We're building towards recycling. Oklo's reactors are designed to run unrecovered fuel, supporting a close fuel cycle and long-term resilience. This isn't just a vision for the future. We're operationalizing the strategy now with a model designed to scale. There's a growing consensus that nuclear power is fundamental to the country's energy future, but historically, costs and time delays have held it back. Nuclear power is already the most land and material-efficient energy source, but decades of legacy design, complex safety systems and custom-built construction have driven up both costs and timelines. At Oklo, one of the reasons we're in a strong position today is the disciplined approach we've taken to design and cost engineering from the outset. Our liquid metal sodium cool design enables inherent and passive safety, reducing the number of safety grade systems we need. That simplifies our architecture, streamlines regulatory reviews and lowers both capital and operating costs. We've also minimized the physical footprint of each powerhouse and designed around supply chain scalability, leveraging conventional components and proven industrial partners. In the next few slides, we'll talk through how these choices translate to faster and more cost-effective deployment, starting with our supply chain and system architecture. This is where our design and supply chain strategy come together to deliver real execution benefits. Roughly 70% of our powerhouse components are sourced from nonnuclear supply chains, industrials, energy and chemicals, for example. These sectors offer mature, scalable manufacturing capabilities that we can tap into today at lower cost and with shorter lead times than traditional nuclear fabrication. This isn't just about lowering cost. It's about reducing schedule risk as well. By designing around standardized shippable components like the reactor module, steam generators and power conversion system, we simplify installation, support parallel builds and minimize on-site construction complexity. We've also reduced the number of safety-grade systems by designing for inherent and passive safety. That helps streamline procurement and reduces the regulatory burden on our supply chain. Our preferred supply agreement with Siemens Energy is a great example of this strategy in action, and we continue to build out that ecosystem with more partnerships to come as those deals reach commercial readiness. These decisions help us scale faster, deliver sooner and meet the needs of customers who value both certainty and speed. We're also pleased to announce that we selected Kiewit as the lead constructor for the Aurora INL powerhouse. Kiewit is one of the most experienced engineering and construction firms in the country with deep expertise in complex energy infrastructure, including nuclear projects. Their capabilities go beyond construction. They also bring integrated procurement as well as asset and component fabrication capabilities that align well with our modular repeatable design approach. We've entered into a master services agreement with Kiewit intended to support the full scope of design, procurement and construction for the Aurora INL project. Preconstruction activities are scheduled to begin this quarter, including site mobilization, early procurement and groundwork. We're targeting a preconstruction groundbreaking in late Q3. This partnership and these efforts help ensure we're positioned to deliver our first powerhouse on a realistic executable schedule with commercial operations targeted between late 2027 and early 2028. In parallel, Atomic Alchemy, our radioisotope business has also begun site characterization work on its commercial isotope production facility at INL and submitted its materials license application through the NRC for its demonstration facility, continuing momentum on facility development for domestic radioisotope production. The demonstration facility will also produce revenue- generating isotopes, marking an early step toward commercial operations. We also signed a memorandum of understanding with Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power, one of the largest and most experienced nuclear operators and builders in the world. The agreement is focused on exploring opportunities to collaborate across a range of areas, including project development, licensing, manufacturing and supply chain coordination. This partnership reflects a shared interest in deploying advanced reactors globally and in continuing to drive innovation across the nuclear value chain. It also aligns with our broader strategy of forming international partnerships that can support commercialization and accelerate deployment. As part of our work with data center customers, we also announced a joint development agreement with Vertiv, a leader in data center infrastructure. The partnership focuses on co-developing integrated power and cooling solutions that take advantage of our ability to co-locate power generation and compute infrastructure. With Vertiv, we're building smarter nuclear power systems for compute- intensive infrastructure that could be a huge win for our customers. Vertiv will use steam from our powerhouses to drive chillers, improving the overall energy efficiency of the data center. This helps reduce total energy costs and allows customers to streamline infrastructure with a single integrated solution. It's a strong example of how we're working directly with customers and infrastructure partners to deliver tailored solutions at the core of their operations, not just selling power, but operating integrated value where it matters most. We continue to have active discussions with other commercial partners and suppliers to round out our deployment ecosystem, ensuring we can deliver scalable energy infrastructure with speed, reliability and efficiency. With that, I'll hand it over to Craig to expand on our commercial momentum and walk through the financial and customer updates from the quarter. Richard Craig Bealmear: Thanks, Jake. One of the partnerships we're very excited to highlight this quarter is our work with Liberty Energy. Liberty was an early investor in Oko while we were still a private company and former CEO, Chris Wright, served on our Board prior to his appointment as the United States Secretary of Energy. We are excited that there continue to be opportunities to collaborate with Liberty in a meaningful way. This partnership is designed to solve a very real customer challenge, how to access reliable power now with a clear path to zero carbon baseload power over time. Together, we have the potential to offer a fully integrated solution that starts with Liberty's gas generation and load management platform that can transition to Oklo's nuclear powerhouses as they come online, providing a faster path to clean energy. This is a strong validation of Oklo's business model. It demonstrates how our powerhouses can integrate with existing infrastructure to deliver a phased approach that's flexible, financeable and customer aligned. Customers get the uninterrupted energy today and a long-term certainty around clean baseload power. And together, we're building a joint commercial platform designed to scale. We are finalizing the commercial structure of the partnership and believe this is a scalable blueprint for high-power demand sectors that prioritize reliability and long-term energy certainty. We were also selected by the U.S. Air Force as the intended awardee for what would be a first advanced vision deployment at a U.S. military installation. Under the terms of the Notice of Intent to Award or NOITA, Oklo was identified as the successful awardee to design, construct, own and operate a powerhouse that would deliver both electricity and heat under a long-term purchase agreement. This represents a major milestone both for Oklo and for the broader advanced nuclear sector. It reflects growing recognition of the role nuclear power can play in national security and energy resilience, particularly at distributed and remote sites where reliable power is mission critical. Oklo is actively working with the U.S. Air Force and Defense Logistics Agency, or DLA, on next steps, and we look forward to providing further updates as the process advances. I will now provide a summary of our financials. Oklo's second quarter operating loss was $28 million, inclusive of noncash stock-based compensation expense of $11.4 million. Oklo's loss before income taxes in the second quarter was $24.3 million, which reflects our operating loss adjusted for net interest income of $3.8 million. On a year-to-date basis, when adjusting for noncash stock-based compensation charges, changes to working capital and deferred income tax benefits, the cash used in operating activities equates to $30.7 million. We still expect on a full year basis, cash used in operating activities to be within the guided range of $65 million to $80 million that we disclosed at the start of this year. In addition, based on our earlier discussion points in this company update, we now see an opportunity to potentially accelerate some modest CapEx investments from 2026 into 2025, which could include advancing deployment activities at INL before year-end, progressing fuel supply and fabrication activities in response to the executive orders and other activities to deploy powerhouses beyond INL. We also completed a successful marketed first follow-on equity transaction on June 12, generating $460 million in gross proceeds, providing the company with additional cash on hand to deliver our enhanced growth agenda. And as a result of the capital raise, we ended second quarter with approximately $683 million in cash and marketable securities on our balance sheet. To wrap up, I want to briefly highlight why we believe Oklo is one of the most compelling opportunities in the advanced nuclear industry. We're deploying proven fast reactor technology in a compact, scalable format designed to reduce cost, complexity and deployment timelines. We are vertically integrated across power generation, fuel recycling and radioisotopes, unlocking multiple high- value revenue streams. Our business model is built around long-term power sales, delivering recurring revenue, margin visibility and customer stickiness. We are pursuing superior economics through standardized design, repeatable deployment and recycled fuel that drives long-term capital efficiency and competitive levelized cost of energy. Our 14-gigawatt pipeline spans data centers, defense, utility and industrial customers, reflecting strong and growing demand. And we've developed a streamlined licensing strategy aligned with our business model backed by regulatory expertise, a repeatable collo path and accelerating federal tailwinds. At its core, Oklo is more than a technology company. We're building an energy platform to serve the world's next era of growth. Thank you for your time. Operator, we are now ready to take questions. Operator: The first question today comes from Jeffrey Campbell from Seaport Research Partners. Jeffrey Leon Campbell: Congratulations on all the multifaceted progress. Regarding pressurized water reactor fuel, current law appears to dictate that the DOE cannot take title to utility stent fuel until a permanent disposal site is designated. What's your take on how this might be amended to support Oklo's future recycling effort? And I ask this question in the atmosphere of the significant nuclear power push that's been coming from the executive orders and the deal to fiddle. Jacob Dewitte: Yes. Thanks, Jeff. It's a good question. So, as the law stands and the policy stands, there's nothing that gets in the way of us being able to work with utilities and the government to take the material and actually recycle it. The main challenge is, generally speaking, having the infrastructure facility to do it. There are some logistical dynamics about what's the best and most efficient path given kind of the nature of the situation, which is that -- by definition, the Department of Energy is supposed to be disposing of this material in a repository that is not happening. So, the Department of Energy is reimbursing effectively the utilities for holding a material on site because they fail to meet their duties under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. That said, we have a great opportunity to help address a lot of that. And it kind of hits on 2 fronts, right? Like the biggest thing for us is it allows us to deal with fuel supplies. I mean used fuel is effectively 90-plus percent unused fuel. And with recycling, you can actually tap into and harness that material and use it. That's a massive reserve of material. And very importantly, advanced recycling techniques like what we're doing, coupled with a fast reactor like what we're doing, enable you to do that in a very cost transformative way. The paradigm that has largely existed in the academic sphere has suggested nuclear recycling is economically challenging, that maybe arguably has some legs to stand on in the era of much lower fuel costs and when you're trying to produce a fuel that today's light water reactors can use, which requires a much higher purity fuel form, that's not the case with a fast reactor. You can tolerate a much lower sort of purity fuel form. In other words, you can have all the transuranics mixed up together and comingled. The implication then is therefore a lower cost facility, which then you're amortizing a lower cost over more fuel throughput, which means the actual fuel produced from recycling will be a much lower cost even we think, than fresh fuel, like considerably less. So that's a pretty attractive paradigm for that alone, especially given that when we look at how do you meet the order book and how do you scale into the opportunity, tapping into recycling is a massive upside. But it also helps change the paradigm around waste management considerably, right? So, you're taking a material, you're reducing volume substantially. You still produce, no matter what you do, some high-level radioactive waste that will need some form of disposition. But you change the characteristics of it radically in recycling. Generally, you shorten the half-life to be something that decades away in several hundreds of years, not hundreds of thousands of years and you change the nature of the form factor because you reduce the volume, but you can also then co-alloy these fission products to things that you need to dispose of with things like glasses or metals or things like that, all of which open up much more different -- well, you have just a much larger diverse set of opportunities and options for disposal and disposition, which is great because you can create a much more, I would say, community-oriented kind of consent-based siting approach for how you dispose of this, not to mention interim storage becomes a lot more palatable because of the nature of the material and having less volume. That said, some utilities have a different push and pull to get this done sooner than later. Others are sort of taking a little bit of a more, I would say, conservative approach waiting for some of these infrastructure plays to come out to bear. In other words, let us build -- waiting for us to build and start operating before they're going to want to jump into something. But we're finding some constructive engagement with folks to figure out how do you actually find the optimal path to move this material over to us to then be able to fuel it and find the right sort of pathway that manages the different stakeholders, right, from a risk and sort of title perspective in the best way. There is a reality that what we're doing is also a pretty considerable service to managing these fuel to the government who has the title to dispose of it for the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. And therefore, has some benefits that are pretty helpful there. Not to mention, there are some other things we can do, right? We can take some of those fission products that will be disposed of. There are some industrial medical applications for some of those. And I think another kind of key part of this is the fact that really reducing the volume really changes how we think about this stuff. And then I think from the utility side, the most interesting fuel for us to start with is actually the freshest fuel out of the reactor. In other words, the stuff that's in the pools today, not the stuff in the casks. That stuff is also interesting, but if we had to pick and choose, we'd pick the pools stuff first, which is great because that's where the most kind of constrained pressure is in storage. So all in all, like I actually think that on the heels of the executive order, which make it clear that this is going to be a direction that we move into, it builds on work that came from the Biden administration. And before that, from Trump 1, we find that we're in a spot to be executing fully and to actually developing out the right sort of plan to site, locate, build this facility and start receiving and actually recycling material and producing fuel. All that does take time. We've been at the pre-application and site selection work for a long time here, but it's all lining up for us to be kind of accelerating to move a little bit faster, especially given how much it unburdens us on the fuel side. Jeffrey Leon Campbell: No, that's great color. And we could also add that the taxpayers are currently paying for the storage of the fuel. So there might be an argument there as if there's any resistance to moving that waste towards Oklo. I just wanted to ask you, sticking with fuels. Can you provide some color on the recently announced Atlas effort? It appears Hexium is most focused on Atlas for lithium to produce Tritium at this time. So I was interested to hear how the shift to uranium might be accomplished. I mean I'm aware of the history of Atlas, I mean what's specific to Hexium, how we move them to uranium. Jacob Dewitte: Yes. I'll just give you a little more color for everyone's benefit. Jeff, talking about Atlas, it's atomic vapor laser isotope separation. It's one of the more promising techniques for isotope separation using some pretty cool technology. I mean, like you combine lasers, isotope separation, it's pretty cool stuff. But it has significant improvements in efficiency, cost and operational characteristics that generally speaking, suggest a lower levelized cost of separative work unit or levelized cost of enrichment unit than centrifuges do in the current paradigm, which has significant upside for reducing the overall cost of fuel delivered to our systems. The techniques used for Atlas can be tuned for a number of different isotopes and Hexium initially was starting to focus on looking at some of the work with lithium just given some of the dynamics that they saw with opportunities for that. But they also saw the opportunities in uranium part of the reason that bringing them in markets and help them sort of move that technology forward. They come out of the same -- in many ways, the origination of a lot of this technology was focused on enrichment capabilities for things like uranium, so the ability to use it for that as well as some other, by the way, stable isotopes that are relevant to the medical isotopes part of the business that we have. They all kind of are actually complementary. So that's part of how we're looking at these partnerships is the ability to produce isotopes in high-purity forms for different use cases. Obviously, the big attractive one is enriched uranium for fuel, but there's also important aspects about producing higher-quality targets with enriched isotopes for radiation and Atomic Alchemy facilities or even just selling the products themselves. So that's an area where we continue to be engaged and focused on in finding the right ways to partner and kind of deepen the partnerships we have in those spaces. Again, sort of at the high level, enrichment is, I think, at this place where we're, for the first time, seeing a pretty significant -- let me rephrase this, first time in a little while, probably in the last 20 years that we're seeing a pretty significant pressure of new technology coming forward because of technology R&D, coupling with an opportunity in the market with this massive demand for new enrichment capacity that's bringing forward new and more innovative approaches that have the potential to significantly change cost curves. Atlas has a long history behind it. And I would argue the large -- largely the reasons it didn't get commercialized on the first go where the market was pretty soft, uranium demand back in the '90s. It wasn't clear if those investments were going to be worthwhile. And then the other factor is, we've gotten a lot better at laser techniques like a lot better technologically in the last 30 to 40 years. So, it's really changed the paradigm to make it an interesting time now for this, which is why we're at that opportunity, while also continuing to engage with folks who are working with more established center use technologies like Centrus. Operator: The next question comes from Sherif Elmaghrabi from BTIG. Sherif Ehab Elmaghrabi: On the deal with Liberty, I imagine some of those customers are members of that 14-gigawatt pipeline that you've got. But it's interesting on the revenue side, could Oklo start recognizing revenues sooner, say, when those projects are seeing gas -- generating power from gas? Richard Craig Bealmear: I can take that. So, it's still early days for how we turn that agreement into an actual set of commercial terms and conditions with our customers, and I'm not really at liberty to no pun intended to say who we're progressing those discussions with. But yes, you're correct. If there was a mechanism whereby we participated in early power sales, and that could potentially lead to revenue recognition for the company. Sherif Ehab Elmaghrabi: Okay. Interesting. And Jake, one more. In your prepared remarks, you mentioned that you guys have one of the only reactor designs that can run on down blended fuel. Can you just speak to why that is? I thought that was pretty interesting. Jacob Dewitte: Yes. It's a great question. I think it kind of has a bunch of details into it that obviously I can like to get into. But for times like, I'll be a little brief. There's kind of a couple of ways to look at it, right? So down blended high enrich uranium that's fresh, highly enriched uranium, by and large, is probably going to be useful for most everyone. That said, there's not a lot of that material that's coming available. The material we're seeing is typically stuff that's either going to have been rejected for prior use because of some level of impurity contamination or because it was already irradiated in reactors. In both cases, especially in the latter, you build up isotopes in the nuclear space, we call those the isotopic vectors, but isotopes of uranium that are not conducive to use in reactors that use moderators and slow the neutrons down. I think pretty much any reactor that uses TRISO fuel or graphite moderators or water is equivalent, they can't really use those very well without significant neutron penalties because of the nature of some of those isotopes, whereas in a fast spectrum reactor, it's really not that significant. It's even a penalty at all, so you can handle those materials. Furthermore, the other aspect that's interesting here is another source of this material is the excess plutonium inventories that for the President's executive orders are being made available to industry. That's a sizable opportunity that's honestly, I think, kind of hard to overstate because of the potential implications it has. We're talking about that material could be made into hundreds of thousands of kilograms of HALEU equivalent material. But the nature of that material is heavily biased towards, I would call it, a more streamlined usage and designed to accommodate in fast neutron reactors. And the reality gets into a lot of details, but plutonium-based fuels have a long history of sort of their usage in fast reactors. They also have usage in water-cooled reactors and can be used but there doesn't exist the fuel fabrication infrastructure to support that. And it's a lot more complicated from a reactor -- let me rephrase it. It can be a lot more complicating with the core design and reactor design from what we do today. The French obviously do this, the Japanese have done it, it's solvable, but it introduces a change that isn't exactly the most -- isn't one that I'd say today's operating plants are rushing into necessarily, given that fresh LEU is a superior fuel form. And part of the reason is just because plutonium has a very different -- it's much more absorbing of neutrons, both to fission and to just capture than uranium 235 is the low energy spectrum. It's also in the higher energy spectrums, but that delta causes a lot of localized kind of dynamics that you really have to account for and manage against a light water reactor. Again, doable. But in a fast reactor, it's just frankly, easier to achieve and accommodate. And also the fuel fabrication for plutonium bearing materials using the fuel, which is like what we use can just be done in a way that from a facility design and management perspective, generally speaking, has just simpler considerations than around, for example, fabricating into oxide fuel for light water reactors. So there's a lot of nuance around it, but it's one of the key things that's pretty attractive and differentiating for us. And we see those materials as being pretty valuable and the opportunity to sort of bridge us you use those materials in the near term that then help us alleviate the demand need for HALEU in the very near term, which then gives us a lot more grace as those supply chains build up so that we can start shipping fuel and reactors more quickly as a result of that. So that's one of the things we're working towards and are excited about on the heels of those executive orders. Operator: J. Dorsheimer from William Blair has the next question. Jonathan Dorsheimer: Jake, first question for you is just as you look at your pipeline and as you look at the opportunities and conversations, I'm curious how you're thinking about the opportunities behind the meter versus front of the meter is there seems actually to be almost more excitement behind the meter around data center build-outs. And so I'm just curious how your -- how you would think of the power generation domestically split between those 2? And then I have a follow-up. Jacob Dewitte: It's a great question and what we see is it's evolving pretty considerably and kind of just goes at the pace of different opportunities and different announcements of kind of everything from policy to build-outs to actual projects. So, I think what we're finding is paper, I would say the bias is majority focused on behind-the-meter applications and opportunities. But the practical reality of getting to that seems to focus probably more near term on some front-of-the-meter deployments before that happens. And what I mean by that is I think it depends, right, because we are in conversations, we were talking about Liberty have the nature of both of those happening. It's just that delivering kind of the right suite, which is part of why the partnership with Liberty is so important, delivering the right suite of options to deliver power at that reliability and availability rate. I'm confident that in time, nuclear can demonstrate and validate it and do that. But to start with, like it's just a little bit more economically challenging to do it on a pure nuclear solution versus having a diversified fuel source. So long story short, I think we're finding that in many ways, the behind the meter is more elegant on paper and makes a lot more sense. But in some of the near-term actual deployment realities and implications, being grid tied and connected to it is helpful. Now I'm sorry, Jed, I'm probably over- interpreting towards more -- when I say behind the meter, being I'm saying truly behind the meter with like minimal expectation of the grid. I think where you're behind the meter and you're connected to the grid, that is kind of probably that near to midterm sweet spot while all these things evolve. But I do think there's, generally speaking, some degree of preference there, but we also see, in some cases, the front of the meter has some high value in certain markets. But I feel like I'm just kind of giving you a long rambling answer to say we're seeing it's a mix and it varies heavily by state, by location, by customer, but it does feel like probably the weight of it prefers a behind the meter offering in time. Jonathan Dorsheimer: Yes, you hit on it. I mean I think the hybrid was really what I was getting after. It seems to be where most of the demand is developing right now around SMR. So that's why I was asking. As my follow-up, just shifting gears on the radiopharma market, it's about a $30 billion opportunity. I'm just curious, is there a -- and growing, I should say. As you look at the isolation of particular isotopes, obviously, small quantities can sell for a tremendous amount of money. Are there specific isotopes that you have an inherent advantage or moat around given your processing capability that you're going to be focused on? I'm just curious as those might be specific to certain drugs or applications. Any more details around that would be helpful. Jacob Dewitte: Yes, I love it. It's awesome. And we have -- there's so much more that will be unfolding going forward on this because you are nailing exactly it, which is how do we prioritize select and where are the ones we have sort of unique advantages into. So, starting at a high level, like what we see is there are some near-term opportunities on a couple of sort of isotopes that we're going through looking at what those markets like -- and kind of the supply chain pieces are to prioritize as part of some of our pilot efforts that are happening out in Idaho right now. But then from there, we see a pretty significant scaling advantage, and we're looking at ways to get engaged in and possibly even opportunities to maybe invest into the supply chain or at least partner in the supply chain to sort of enhance what we see as some of the moats that we can build and have in terms of some of the production of either sourcing of stable isotopes or just rocked targets. But I think at the -- at scale, so I'm kind of giving you a little bit of an answer of come back again because we're going to have a lot more as it comes. But I think at scale, the other thing we see is that part of the angle of why we're attracted to Atomic Alchemy, it's kind of twofold integration. One is the benefit of being able to pull stuff out from recycling where we do have some isotopes that are going to be made in bulk quantities, things like Stronium 90 in particular, but there's a bunch of others that have interesting potential industrial applications that are -- could be unlocked at scale in a voluminous way based on what recycling can tap into, which is a pretty cool space to be in. So, there's that kind of piece. And there is some a lot of those isotopes are generally going to be longer-lived isotopes that are held up in the waste because most of this waste has been decaying for some time. So, there's that part and unlocking some of the things you can do with those that right now, frankly, don't really exist. And that's one of the hard things, but cool things about this is some of the stuff we're going to pull out and going to be able to pull out. People haven't even bothered to look into the use of it because it's just not available to even research with or study very much, so they don't prioritize it. But we expect this first to nucleate an entirely different ecosystem and philosophy around research and development around different isotopic uses because of all of a sudden it becoming available. And then additionally, there's a direct production kind of on a specific basis of radiating targets and producing that material, which is part of what we were attracted to Atomic Alchemy's Viper reactor design to do, given that we see it as one of the sort of most cost attractive options we've ever seen, where it's kind of a -- I'm going to use a very blunt kind of analogy, it's not maybe the best, but like instead of building -- designing and building a custom Formula 1 race car to produce some of these isotopes that's extremely expensive, but can produce some of these isotopes and the cost of those isotopes actually can justify doing so. So, it's fun from a technical perspective for sure. It makes the deployment development everything really, really hard on those, which is why a lot of these reactors haven't been built. Instead, Atomic Alchemy took an approach saying, "Hey, let's just build like a Ford F-150 version of a reactor that does the job, maybe it's not as fast as some of these other things, but it's totally buildable, suppliable today, and you can build a lot more of them and just have -- make neutrons more cheaply than maybe anything else to irradiate these materials and produce them. So that then allows us to tap into those known isotope fields with a potential vector being more cost competitive than what exists or just lower cost of production, frankly, than what exist. That said, I think those markets seem to be in many ways today in an inelastic state of demand. So, you just keep supplying and they're going to take as much as you get, but there's also the case where having that capacity and that flexibility and that versatility of different isotopes can actually open the door to do more things. So I'm kind of giving you a non-answer, Jed, but it's partly because we'll have more to talk about there soon, but also part of this is actually looking at what this opens the door to incentivize and create an ecosystem that thinks more broadly out of the mindset of abundance of different isotopes that right now, people can't even think about using. So, there's the usual players, but I think there's a lot more that could be coming in the horizon because now we can focus on how we can actually produce those and not be as scarcity limited as we have been. So yes, I think it's -- like you said in your comments, it's that size market and I think growing. I think that's one of the things we see as a way to unlock even more growth is by sort of bolstering production and availability of a much more diverse set of radioisotopes, but then we'll get more use cases of them because people will bother to actually invest and use them, which you can think about creates a really cool ecosystem to be a pretty significant part of. So that's part of how we see that playing out. Operator: The next question is from Ryan Pfingst from B. Riley Securities. Ryan James Pfingst: First, could you give us a sense of potential timing around Eielson project milestones or maybe just how licensing and development might differ for projects located on military or defense installations like that one? Jacob Dewitte: Yes. It's a fascinating question because the reality is all shifted a lot on the heels of the executive orders being signed. Obviously, a strong focus on those was leveraging defense use cases and accelerating defense use cases. This is a great one of those. But it does set the stage for some interesting things to be supportive of either more streamlined or potentially, I would say, more like focused and therefore, potentially faster reviews on the environmental and fighting aspects of this. The Air Force has pursued through the Eielson project, and they want -- they want us to get an NRC license for this plant. So that's the general plan. Of course, they also have the capability of the Defense Department to authorize on their own. So should that be something they want to do for other deployments or in different cases or even do different things, they have that optionality, which is kind of cool. That said, the nature of that facility and working in Alaska is, of course, interesting and unique. And so, we're going through the aspects of actually getting all of that work in motion and the siting work to then sort of come forward with what the timelines and the various details of that are going to look like with respect to like application submission timelines, wind of expect to break ground, do all that kind of stuff. Given that you have a short construction window, given all of those factors, it's obviously very seasonal. It's like we have to kind of play with and optimize against those. So, what we expect at the moment is going forward, we'll be able to get into the more detailed site work and everything we would need to do really next summer and then the schedules will kind of anchor in accordingly from there. But it's all actively developing as part of this path. And I think the Air Force has said this a couple of times in a couple of ways, but I think of it as the pathfinder aspect of this. They see huge opportunity for what nuclear can do to bolster their mission capabilities. And I think what they want to see is how we can or what they want to do is be able to work with the industry to find ways to deliver that in different models of what that needs to look like. One of the things you're constrained by any time you're working with the government is their contracting structures and mechanisms. And so also in addition to working with those and finding the right pathways for that to do the things that they want to see happen. A heavy amount of focus from Defense Energy in the past has been using defense land to build renewable projects that are effectively shipping off the grid. Maybe the defense department is benefiting some from that, but this is different, right? This is internal facing and so prioritized. I mean, it's cool, it's a little different, but pretty cool, but also opens the door for just the combination of different approaches of how we optimize that. And additionally, it's not just electricity they're buying, there's a lot of steam that they're buying from our plants, too. So, what that means is if you think about what a nuclear system is, it's primarily producing heat. Typically, you produce that -- you turn that heat into electricity. But in this case, you siphon off some of that heat before it gets turned into electricity and actually use it to heat infrastructure. And that has obviously a lot of value for a lot of reasons. So especially up in Alaska. So, it's a little bit of a -- it's developing and we're working through all those pieces, and we'll continue to keep sort of the market updated as that progresses. But that's how it's sitting -- basically how it's progressing and how it's sitting up now. Ryan James Pfingst: Yes. I appreciate that, Jake. And then for my second question, shifting away from the federal side to commercial customers. How should we think about LOI to order conversion at this stage? Does the Liberty collaboration and some of the other partnership announcements you've made recently accelerate when we might see a firm order with one of the data center customers that's in your pipeline today? Jacob Dewitte: Yes, I'll start with a little bit and then ask Craig to jump in as well. But I think in general, it's supportive in opening up different apertures of the conversations. But as we've said generally in the past, what we find is the demand isn't going anywhere. The opportunity in the market is pretty significant. The details are then figuring out the right ways to constructively build long and deep partnerships that really manage kind of the various aspects of these projects and the deployment realities in a much more sustainable and scalable way than just rushing into a PPA to make it sound kind of a little bit simplistic in how I answer that. But that is kind of the reality, which is we continue to keep these conversations at pace, and we continue to find a lot of enthusiasm and excitement. It really just seems to be as we kind of progress these things, the opportunity space of what's possible in terms of deepening and strengthening ties is looking at all parts of sort of the ecosystem to be supportive of our success and also, honestly, candidly, the success of the nuclear industry as a whole. And we're excited about the positioning we have to kind of help lean into that. But yes, I mean, on the Liberty side, it does help set the stage for doing some things a little more, I would say, well, a little different cadence in Tempo in some cases where you have that gas infrastructure. And what we continue to see is that the focus tends towards nuclear is a long-term solution, gas having a lot of opportunity in the near term. And really a cool thing for us is, we've been kind of pioneers in that bridging gas to nuclear on a new capacity, new deploy perspective. And I think we're seeing how that kind of unlocks thinking about different sites and different cadencing in different ways. But yes, so I'd say it does help. It kind of changes some of how we kind of cadence and tempo some of these customer discussions. But at the same time, we're still kind of focused on the macro, trying to make the most of the opportunity, if that makes sense through kind of the right partnerships. I've talked for a long time, though, Craig can add some more detail and color. Richard Craig Bealmear: Yes, I would just say partnerships take time. And because we're trying to do things beyond just optimizing on a PPA price, I think it will take us a little bit longer to get things in place, but for all the right reasons. Our business development team stays quite busy and is traveling quite a bit, and they're keeping the legal and finance team quite busy as well. So, I think we're moving things. And it also a little bit goes back to Jed's earlier question around -- I think it's safe to say that the interest in front of the meter feels like it's grown a lot in the last 12 months. And I think that's also where we're trying to be customer responsive as we progress those customer discussions. And as I think I've said, Ryan, probably on earlier calls, we're entertaining prepayments like what we did with Equinix, things we might do at the asset level investment. And so there's a whole host of avenues of things that we're exploring with our customer base at the moment. Operator: The next question comes from Derek Soderberg from Cantor Fitzgerald. Derek John Soderberg: My congrats as well on the capital raise. I'll just keep that one question here. Jake, in the prepared remarks, you mentioned TerraPower's regulatory timeline. I think you said it's sped up by 6 months. I was wondering what the reason for that was? What did that entail? And are you already seeing some tangible benefits from the executive orders on regulatory timelines? Could Oklo see a sizable timeline shift forward as well? Jacob Dewitte: Yes, I appreciate the question. I think that's one of the exciting things is we've seen the NRC be quite responsive and take an approach lines that reflects clearly what the policy objectives and goals of this administration are to move those things more quickly based on what they did with TerraPower. And we're similarly seeing benefits. It's interesting when we went public, when you kind of had a review path of 24 to 36 months to then the ADVANCE Act capping things and the different contingencies around the 25-month period to now saying it's 18 months, like it's pretty great. That's helpful. That said, there's still, I think, various things and then and what we're seeing in the pre-application space, I think, is constructive to those things. I think it's been interesting because we went through Phase I readiness that helped the NRC map out, especially in the wake of kind of where things are now, how they would plan to do the review, make sure they had all the information they need to do it, which kind of amplifies in some ways the importance of those. We were pretty encouraged as well that we had no sort of significant gaps that were needed there. That's a big win for us and for the NRC, I think. So, at the end of the day, we feel pretty good about where that positions us on that part. Still a lot more work to do, but that's good. And then looking at the next phase in Phase II and that progressing, I mean, I think it will be very clearly aligned to say, okay, let's make sure we have a very strong like angle on how we get through the actual licensing steps and process in that 18-month window, which is just great for everybody, right, because it accelerates things for us. There are other aspects that play though, we have to be mindful of just the realities that can perhaps raise the bar a little bit on the front end of what's on the acceptance side and how the NRC plans. We want to be mindful of that. Obviously, part of why we're doing readiness assessments is to manage that, but that can be something that affects those timelines and how we think about making sure we're submitting something that's in the best sort of position for everybody. And then additionally, one of the things that we're pretty intrigued by is how the EOs are setting the stage for completely different licensing pathways, which is pretty powerful given that there's still a lot of moving parts at the NRC front, but opening the door for things that might be doable under Department of Energy authorization that could accelerate timelines considerably for a number of things. That's pretty dang exciting, too. So, we're engaging in those to look at ways that might accelerate our ability to bring something online. There is a path potentially to having a regulatory review done under the Department of Energy, build the plant, turn it on. And then after you've kind of done that initial work, you can transition to the facility. These are things that haven't really been done before, but that's kind of the beautiful thing about today. We're actually reinvigorating the whole ecosystem to think outside of the boxes and the shells that we as an industry have thought in for the last candidly, 50-plus years. So now there's like so much more potential on the table about, hey, what could we do? What could this look like? Like there's no reason that can't necessarily be done. Maybe that's a faster way to get some first plants built. Maybe that's a faster way to get through [Technical Difficulty] first licensing challenges and hurdles. So, there's not a clear answer yet because we're still not even 3 months out from those, but we're working through both sort of all parallel paths that we can to sort of optimize against what makes the most sense, not just from a time perspective, but from a time and from a scalable and deployable perspective to kind of enable us to try to get more plants built sooner and faster. And so, when I think about things simplistically, the executive orders really drive more aggressive timeline schedule, which is great. That means you kind of take some of that permitting challenge and risk of timing risk to a different level, right? So, it's a different kind of -- you got a lot of risk reduced just by that. But then additionally, you have a totally different change of kind of the fuel side because of what's happening in the EU to make more fuel available from this excess plutonium material that could support dozens of reactors being built without needing any HALEU like that's huge because that helps set the market for us to then build more plants, have stronger partnerships with HALEU providers to then get to those HALEU kind of production goals at the right pace and scale. So, like it's a very, very supportive ecosystem right now that's really changed the equation from where we were just 3 months ago, frankly. Operator: The next question is from Craig Shere, Tuohy Brothers. Craig Kenneth Shere: Hopefully, some quicker ones for me. So, do you have a timeline or road map for announcing PPAs on your INL plant? Do you have line of sight on sufficient fuel for full 75 megawatts there at this point? And given government support with rejected plutonium fuel that you say can support a lot. At this point, once you get past initial regulatory hurdles, could we see multiple powerhouses all announced at once? Jacob Dewitte: Yes, good questions. Yes, we continue to move through. We're finding that there is more interest in power from the Idaho plant from different folks and then different ways, not to mention the other benefits we get from it. Part of what's beautiful about that plant is the benefit to provide fast neutron radiation capabilities. We're continuing to explore different ways that we can partner with government and other things -- other groups and focus on industry and academia, leverage some of the positions we have there, utilize some of that. Additionally, part of the -- what we're doing with Vertiv is setting the stage to build a pilot thermal-based cooling system at that plant and demonstrate that which is great. That's getting some interest from different folks to come in and be part of that. So, we're finding it's probably going to be a mix of offtake and use case, and that's what's been important about how we structured that is to be flexible. I guess I would say I've long bet that there would be a lot of demand for that power, and we're seeing that that's definitely the case. So, how we structure it, again, gets back to the prior conversation of what Craig was saying, looking at the right ways and making sure we're doing all the things that get the most for sort of where everyone wants to be and how to structure it in the right ways. But the main value to me in that plant is getting it built, but it's obviously great that we can do additional things with it like we're showing. And having a diversity of use cases like we're showing is pretty important, too, because you find different ways to get different partners to the table in meaningful ways, too. Bridging from that to the fuel piece, yes, we are uniquely positioned with those 5 tons of material that's awesome. We would like to have some more to run that plant in a normal way all the way up to 75 megawatts and it's pretty clear that there's a number of sources. It hasn't been finalized what we're going to do with that, but there is way more material. So, we're working through the different logistics about how and what the right sources and cadencing is going to be for those with in mind -- well, let me rephrase while maintaining in mind the other part of what you said, which is setting the stage for multiple announcements kind of at once. I think one of the things that we see that is exciting about fast reactors and recycling is the ability to effectively tap into known reserves of heavy metals and power the entire planet's energy needs for basically the durable lifetime of the planet. It's a bold aggressive thing to do, but physics in many ways is for that. So, building out the right pieces of infrastructure to actually realize that is something that we've long been motivated, driven by and dream of. So, part of that includes getting the right pieces in place to build a lot more plants a lot faster, right? And that's what we can do on the heels of the EU announcements. So, I think what we see is, generally speaking, working towards what the next plants are going to be and figuring out the right partners that we can have at the table to make those [indiscernible] to next. And then most of our conversations after the sort of Idaho and Airport pieces, those become larger campuses with more plants at them. So that's kind of how we explore that. So, yes, I mean, all of that has set the stage very favorably for that. But again, we could run it and have something more quickly, but leave some significant things off the table, which we think is the less optimal thing to do than build the right partnerships that help us really be successful in delivering all these things we want to do, which also, by the way, is what's so exciting about nuclear today, of building the right kind of dynamics and partnerships to do this. And one of the nice things about our model of designing owning and operating, we have a very clear sense and insight factors we need to drive and manage our that when we find partners who can lean in to help us with those can do so in the most accretive ways. It's a lot simpler. This is a crude analogy, but to kind of have a 2-body problem like that in that sense than it is to have a multi-body problem where you might have a utility in between a developer or even both or all of those in between and trying to figure out and solve for the different pain points has it just kind of complicates the deals in the space of operation. So, it's helpful for us that we kind of have this approach. Now I will say another thing we're seeing, though, and is a possibility always been the case from onset for the business. I think we've long been convicted that utilities aren't really going to be interested nor are they really the right ones to move forward on first-of-a-kind deployments for these kinds of technologies. But they can be very useful partners in some cases where you build and develop yourself unlike we're doing, we make this easier, you could turn the -- flip the asset over to them, you could sell the assets to them, right? That is a possible thing that can be done and something that was kind of baked into some of the story -- not stories, but conversations that [ Carolyn ] and I had before we founded the company way back when. So, I think it all the stage for some pretty accretive dynamics for how it's all come together to, I would say, make nuclear pretty like clearly inevitable is how I would characterize it for my opinion. Operator: Eric Stine from Craig-Hallum is next. Eric Stine: Hey, Jake and Craig, just want to sneak in a few here at the end. So, the topical report accepted by NRC, I mean, is there a way to think about the timing of that process? I know that you're kind of taking a different path. So maybe that's a bit of an unknown, but maybe initial thoughts on how that speeds up the timeline? And then once you get through that, kind of what percentage of the process would that take care of that you then don't have to replicate for each successive deployment? Jacob Dewitte: Yes, I think there's an interesting cadence of tactics and strategy about pre-application and topical reports. I think there can be an appeasement strategy where you feed the NRC just and don't actually move deeply into the licensing space until you spend a lot of time doing all that and be very conciliatory and not be kind of innovative and leaning into the opportunity to do things, especially now a little bit differently. I think that's been the playbook that is kind of how the industry has thought about things before, but hasn't really yielded very many successful results clearly. But what we see is more important to kind of leverage them in a much more strategic way in terms of targeting and achieve beyond just the first plant instead of kind of taking some what a topical report is, is an ability for like you to take an issue or a regulatory issue to the NRC, I'm being obviously a bit simplistic in close deal, but to the NRC and have them do review and issue some kind of safety evaluation report typically out of it, which provides a good precedent to be able to reference going forward in future applications. So in some ways, you're able to do some -- let's like preseason licensing, but where the score actually counts. So maybe better analogies, early season games. I don't know, anyway, the score does count, but you don't get the whole thing at once. It's a great way to like compartmentalize or incrementalize certain things you need to do. It's also a really good way to deal with generic broad cross-cutting issues that might affect fleet-wide considerations, like in our case, are we looking at licensing operators or instead of licensing a single operator to run each individual single reactor, which is the typical model or maybe site, which is a typical model, it's actually a trained operator can run any of the plants of that class anywhere wherever they are. It looks a lot more like how aviation does pipe ratings, right? So instead of having a pilot that can fly one or maybe 2 tail numbers of a specific plane like Airbus or Boeing 737 or A320, like now you instead have -- that would be insane and really inefficient, probably why they don't do it. But when you think about smaller reactors and more of them going to a model where instead, "Hey, no, I can actually fly all A320s or 737s or whatever, bigger plane." That kind of pipe rating similarity is at play here where you can then do that for the whole fleet of reactors. So there's a lot of scalability benefit to that. I think the general time line has been about 12 or so months from that. That does take some of the operational considerations that we will be able to reference some of those with our applications. But what it's really mostly helpful for is actually for the plant second, third, fourth and beyond. That's where it's a lot more helpful, always have been building this kind of thing. It's kind of like when I think about licensing, I think about going back when I was younger playing sports, whether it be soccer or golf or whatever, you don't swing at the ball or hit at the ball or just kick at the ball. You got to kick through, you got to swing through, right? You got to follow through. And that's the same thing here. We're not optimizing for just the first. It's about how we set the stage to hit the things after that. So through the first and beyond. And so that, for example, is a very clear one to do. There's additional things we're working on with the NRC from the preapplication perspective that helps set the stage for that. So we expect, I would say, it's pretty hard to point to a specific point of singular acceleration for the first plant, but it's going to provide significant acceleration for the plants thereafter, which is part of what's so important about this kind of model and how we've kind of taken that approach. And then accordingly, on the tactical aspects, these are all strategic implications in how I think about it. There's some tactical aspects, too, which is maintaining the right momentum with kind of the right review teams and right reviewers at the NRC on different items of interest. And so making sure you kind of have the right content in the right way in the right order to sort of deal with setting the stage for successful review is pretty important to focus on getting the right review and that's how we've tried to approach it. So that's kind of how we've set the stage for executing into that. And I think like doing a custom 52 approach, they're taking a lot [indiscernible] to this, and yes, they referenced the design certification, but there's a lot of one-offs in between them and even differences in how they kind of looked at the actual plant builds on a site-by-site basis to some degrees so that like given what we're trying to do here, that full approach we don't see any significant departure from this. It's not like we're taking a Part 53 licensing approach or something like that. This is a Part 52 combined license. [indiscernible] kind of putting those together. But what's nice about that is you don't have to deal with the pains of regulatory rulemaking, which is what the design certification is. So from an actual administrative perspective, rulemakings are way harder than license issuances from an evolution and development perspective because of what you have to do for rulemaking or how it's typically been done. So like at the end of the day, that's how we saw some of the advantages on that kind of approach to combine those things. [indiscernible] scalability. Like it's really about, again, like subsequent licensing, this industry has done a lot, but we haven't had a lot of subsequent license [indiscernible] did a lot of work because we had a hard time getting through the first plants, right? So now we're looking at seeing those benefits come to bear. And I think that's one of the cool things is the NRC has spent a lot of effort and time to be ready to do that. I mean they did do a lot of that. It just didn't get built, so it's great that we can tap into doing a lot of that as well from a subsequent license application perspective, from the reference license application perspective. Operator: Next up is Max Hopkins, CLSA. Maxwell Ayers Hopkins: To be brief, so you guys mentioned the MOU with KHNP. I want to touch on the supply chain. I guess, as you guys move forward, you said 70% of materials could be nonnuclear. For that 30% of nuclear required components, are you guys looking to Korea more to maybe BWXT in the U.S.? Or is there any focus on kind of those nuclear-specific materials coming down the line? Jacob Dewitte: Yes, it's a great question. And I'll zoom out a level real quick because I think this is kind of a key narrative piece. There's a whole thing about nuclear having been expensive and difficult and those other things for time to build and understand why and where that comes from, the real experience. We've also seen success stories through the things that people like to point to for big plants. But there's another whole vector of attack here, which is what we, I think, as an industry need to think a lot more about, which is how we get back to realizing the true cost potential of nuclear. Look, there's the term I know it's we've used it before. I think it comes out of SpaceX and from Elon Musk, but was the idea of an Idiot Index of what's the ratio of the actual delivered cost of something divided by its actual cost of raw materials. And in nuclear, a lot of times, those are really, really, really high multiples. And a lot of that points to, for a lot of reasons, just kind of how things have been done in the industry, but it's not how they have to be done because, again, nuclear has the fewest material needs per megawatt hour of all energy sources. So there's a lot of room for cost improvement, frankly, just there. And the way I see it and in my experiences, and I think that we've seen at Oklo and what we've tried and designed towards is there's kind of 2 main ways you attack that. One is designing systems that have the passive and inherent safety features that reduce the number of what are called "safety-related or safety grade or nuclear-grade" systems and components. That's one thing, right? And study fast reactors based on what EBR showed, have a good kind of trajectory on hitting those inherent and passive safety features, but then they have a lot fewer things that are required for the safety kind of functions in the plant. The other aspect is how you deliver -- how you actually deliver the parts that need to fall under that kind of oversight or maybe just unique enough because they're only supplied in nuclear, how do you modernize some of that? And there's a whole bunch of opportunity there because in many ways, the nuclear supply chain went out of growth mode by and large, in the '70s and '80s, and it has only now started to come back. But when that happened, we were investing in modernizing the actual processes and procedures and protocols and even just methods of manufacturing and fabrication as well as quality assurance compliance, there wasn't a big impetus to do that. Well, because those changes can be expensive. But we actually have a really big benefit and opportunity to take that and do it differently in a more fresh way today because of how you can work with doing sort of meeting those requirements in a more modern way. If you think about where the world was when those things happened, we were building a lot of Ford Pintos to be candid, right? That was what was going on then you have different level of quality assurance, a different level of expectation at an industrial level. And in fact, I would argue that in many ways, industrial quality assurance has cut up, if not leapfrogged kind of what typical nuclear has been and -- but done so in a much more efficient and effective way. So you can obviously -- and also the pathways by which you achieve the kind of functional outcomes and outputs can be done the same way with like -- with these modern -- I mean, it's not exactly the same, but you can do commercial grade education for these pathways to actually get them to meet what's required in the industry or from the regulatory basis and from a quality control basis. So there's actually a lot of opportunity just from those 2 to drive a total change in cost, which then opens the door for how you think about the suppliers to meet that 30% mix of who fits into this. And yes, some are going to be some legacy, but not large pressurized water reactor. We're not even a small pressurized water reactor, which means we have a very different set of what we can buy and use in the plant. We don't need a pressure vessel because we're not pressurized, right? We can use common alloys of stainless that are used in many other industrial applications that are shown to be compatible in a sodium system. And so you kind of basically partner up and work with different folks, both legacy as well as some newer entrants who want to get into this business and help them kind of meet what's required and do so in a, I would say, a more cost- effective way. So it's kind of an all-in very comprehensive approach on how you attack this problem and do things a bit differently. It's not the best -- it's not always -- it's not the worst always, but it's also not always the best to go to legacy incumbent suppliers because they're used to doing what they've done, trying to get them to modernize can sometimes be challenging. So you find the right ways to work with them, but sometimes it's just better to work with some others. So a big focus has been we have opportunities to partner, obviously, with what's been done. We don't need all the full capacity of what the Koreans can do, but obviously, that means they can definitely do what we need them to do. So there's interesting dynamics there. There's also interesting dynamics about different fabricators [indiscernible]. And we found that some legacy providers and suppliers are really excited about modernizing and they see us as a big pathway to do that because it can help them get experience of doing things in a more modern and efficient way, but then also apply it over the rest of the operations and maybe change their cost curves as well. So like at the end of the day, we see it being pretty attractive to do that and kind of push on that angle of attack. So it's a long-winded answer that's deeply ingrained in Oklo philosophy. And another thing is by building a lot of plants, you can kind of find an approach where maybe you find a couple of different partners for the same system. Maybe not, it just depends, but it gives you that ability to then find the best ways and right ways to partner with folks to be able to buy things from and do so at the right cost or just partner in a way to help them do it with ourselves or us do it, right? So it's a full dynamic about how you attack that problem. But at the end of the day, yes, it's quite helpful that we have, as I like to think about it, the physical cost drivers are generally on our side because we have such a material advantage as the nuclear technology as a whole. And I'll just say like changing that paradigm from a light water reactor, if you're a light water reactor has different complications and challenges. And I would say, in many ways, it can be harder than it is to do it from like an advanced reactor perspective because light water reactors have a pretty specific way of doing things. And if you're going to try to do something differently, given that's the bulk of the plants operating today, there's a lot more inertia that's kind of resistant to that change and/or modernization or even just lack of appetite, a better way to do it than it is if you're a technology that doesn't have that same paradigm and can bridge outside of the sort of incumbent nuclear supply chains effectively. And that's a big feature that sodium fast reactors have -- and in some cases, I think, have a broader envelope of opportunity than kind of any other type of technology because of the material compatibility and the technology kind of the operating temperatures in the history of operation. It's a little hard to do that also with gas reactors, I would contend just because, again, pressurized larger scale volumes, nuclear-grade graphite, all that. It doesn't mean it can't be done. It's just a different attack. Operator: And everyone, at this time, there are no further questions. I would like to hand the conference back to Mr. Jake Dewitte, Oklo's [ Chief Financial Officer ], for any closing or additional remarks. Jacob Dewitte: Yes. Thank you so much, and thank you, everyone, for calling in today. Excited about the last quarter marked for us a pretty sizable change in the entire nuclear landscape, including, frankly, the art of what's possible in the wake of sort of the monumental changes made by President Trump and his executive orders, build on massive changes already in hand that go back to President Biden and the ADVANCE Act and work done around the Inflation Reduction Act to support nuclear and then go beyond back before that to President Trump first term with NICA and NIMA and those bills and then additional executive order signing and then back before that, even the President Obama. I could actually go on for long, but the reality is it's a very exciting time here in that we see a clear setup for a need for what nuclear to offer policy support that helps solve some of the biggest challenges or risk factors, including permitting as well as fuel supplies. So we're excited about watching how those fully unfold. That said, there's still obviously a lot of work to do to capitalize on this. But it's a pretty -- it's frankly, it's a person who grew up in this space and loves this technology and loves this field, it's pretty hard to not find myself sort of pinching myself to make sure this is the reality that we live in that we have such a clear ecosystem of support -- and support in the most meaningful ways possible to actually go to execute on realizing the real promise and potential of the atom. So very excited about that. Very excited about what we accomplished in the last quarter and looking forward to what's ahead because there's a lot more to do. So thank you, guys. Thank you all. Operator: Once again, everyone, that does conclude today's conference. We would like to thank you all for your participation today. You may now disconnect.

Operator: Thank you for standing by. My name is Jael, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Oklo First Quarter 2025 Financial Results and Business Update Call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speakers' remarks, there will be a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the conference over to Sam Doane, Director of Investor Relations. You may begin. Sam Doane: Thank you, operator. Good afternoon, and welcome everyone to Oklo's first quarter 2025 earnings and company update call. I'm Sam Doane, Oklo's Director of Investor Relations. Joining me today are Jake DeWitte, Oklo's Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, and Craig Bealmear, Oklo's Chief Financial Officer. Before we begin, I'd like to remind everyone that today's discussion, including our prepared remarks and the Q&A session that follows, will include forward-looking statements. These statements reflect our current views regarding trends, assumptions, risks, uncertainties, and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed today. We encourage you to review the forward-looking statements disclosure included in our supplemental slides, which are available on the investor relations section of our website. Additional details on relevant risk factors can also be found in our most recent filings with the SEC. Please note that Oklo assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise, except as required by law. With that, I'll now turn the call over to Jake DeWitte, Oklo's Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer. Jake? Jake DeWitte: Thanks, Sam. And thanks to all for joining us today. We're looking forward to sharing our first quarter update and highlighting the progress we've made since our last update just seven weeks ago on March 24th this year. We continue to see strong momentum across both the industry and the political landscape in support of nuclear energy, and that momentum is accelerating in 2025. The current administration has made it abundantly clear that nuclear is a strategic priority. In a recent letter to the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the President named nuclear energy, AI, and quantum technologies as central pillars in what he called the golden age of American innovation. That message reinforces what we're seeing across policy and regulatory activity. A series of recent executive orders underscores the administration's commitment to nuclear energy, ranging from regulatory reform and streamlined permitting to the creation of a federal task force dedicated to next-generation nuclear deployment. This includes actions to revoke outdated regulatory barriers, declare a national energy emergency to fast track projects, and establish an energy-dominance council focused on accelerating technologies like small modular reactors. Other orders reinforce federal oversight to reduce state-level interference and direct agencies to conduct cost benefit reviews of existing rules. And now, we're seeing signs that the administration may take its support even further. According to recent reporting, several new executive orders are being considered that would aim to quadruple the size of the U.S. nuclear fleet by 2050, declare certain data centers as defense-critical infrastructure, and direct the Department of Defense to take a more active role in nuclear procurement. These drafts also call for a wholesale revision of NRC regulations to streamline reactor approvals and rebuild domestic nuclear fuel supply chains. While still in development, the scope of these proposals signals just how serious the administration is about reestablishing U.S. leadership in nuclear and how aligned that ambition is with Oklo's mission and model. Secretary Wright, a former Oklo Board member, has been one of the most vocal champions of the administration's commitment to expanding and accelerating nuclear deployment. He's made it clear that the U.S. must lead the global push to commercialize advanced nuclear technologies and that the federal government is prepared to support that leadership with urgency and action. We're encouraged to see that level of alignment at the highest levels, especially from someone who knows Oklo's mission and model firsthand. At Oklo, our foundation is built on the belief that advanced nuclear technology can and should play a transformative role in the global energy landscape. When we started this company, we saw an industry that had gone dormant, and we set out to reimagine what the nuclear energy industry could be. That vision continues to guide us, delivering clean, reliable, and affordable energy at scale. As a reminder, our competitive advantage is built on the intersection of three key strategies: our business model, our sizing philosophy, and our technology. First, our build, own, operate business model sets us apart. We sell power, not power plants, under long-term contracts. This structure provides predictable recurring revenue and enables a more efficient regulatory path. Second, our small-scale modern design allows us to deploy quickly and scale flexibly. By leveraging existing supply chains and their factory fabrication, we can meet demand efficiently, reduce on-site complexity, and scale in lockstep with our customers' evolving needs. Third, our proven and demonstrated technology is backed by over 400 reactor-years of operational experience with liquid-metal-cooled fast reactors. This gives us a robust technical foundation with distinct performance and safety advantages. Importantly, it enables us to move directly into commercialization without the need for a costly and time-consuming demonstration plan. Together, these pillars reinforce Oklo's position as a leading next-generation nuclear provider and will enable us to execute with speed, efficiency and confidence. The key differentiator for Oklo is our ability to go straight to commercial deployment. We're not building a demonstration plant. Our Aurora powerhouse is built on mature technology derived from the reactors such as the Fast Flux Test Facility, or FFTF, and the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II, or EBR-II, which operated successfully for over 30 years at Idaho National Laboratory. This isn't theoretical. We're leveraging real validated operating data that's already recognized by the NRC. Importantly, members of our team work directly on both FFTF and EBR-II, bringing deep first-hand experience to the design and deployment of the Aurora. We believe this operational legacy allows us to move with greater speed and confidence through the licensing process and positions us to bring our first commercial unit online in late '27 to early '28. While many advanced nuclear companies are still building one-off demonstrations to validate new fuels or designs, Oklo is already focused on delivering a commercial powerhouse. These early-stage efforts are useful to the ecosystem, but they aren't market-ready. We're taking a fundamentally different path, one that's grounded in experience and optimized for near-term deployment. As we continue to execute on our strategy, we remain committed to keeping the market informed with clear and consistent updates on our progress. Our company updates will continue to be structured around six key areas: project execution, licensing progress, fuel recycling and feedstock, customer pipeline development, strategic partnerships for corporate and business development, and financial updates. Since our last company update just seven weeks ago in March, we have continued progress across key areas of our business, from project execution and licensing to fuel strategy, customer positioning, and strategic partnerships. We advanced field work at key sites, made progress in our NRC engagement, and were selected as a qualified vendor through the Department of Defense's procurement process, strengthening our position to pursue future opportunities with military installation. We are in the process of formalizing new partnerships to support technology development and deployment of powerhouse and radioisotope assets at INL. On the financial front, we remain disciplined and transparent with updates on cash burn, operating expenses, and governance included in today's materials. At Oklo, we're executing against our plan and advancing steadily toward commercial deployment. We have completed a major milestone in preparing our INL site for the Aurora powerhouse. Our team wrapped up a comprehensive drilling campaign involving seismic and geophysical studies at our proposed site at Idaho National Laboratory. The data we gathered will directly support our combined license application to the NRC and represents the final technical siting step ahead of submitting Phase 1 of our application. We also finalized a memorandum of agreement with the Department of Energy and an interface agreement with INL. These agreements ensure that our site development efforts are aligned with environmental standards and DOE coordination. With this complete, we're well-positioned to move into the next phase of licensing and infrastructure development with plans aiming for the plant to begin operations in late '27 to early '28. We recently initiated Phase 1 of the pre-application readiness assessment for our Aurora INL powerhouse, reaching an important milestone in our licensing efforts with the NRC. This process, essentially, addressed rehearsal, enables the NRC and Oklo teams to align on scope and expectations ahead of our formal combined license application submission. The goal is to surface and address feedback early, reduce challenges later, and build confidence and momentum as we move toward our formal COLA submittal. We expect we will soon receive an audit report from the NRC summarizing their feedback and recommendations, which we'll incorporate into Phase 1 of the application. The NRC's feedback will be categorized as follows: Category A, Final Safety Analysis Report, or FSAR, gaps, where information required by regulation may be missing; Category B, items requiring additional information or further clarification or justification is needed; Category C, other observations, suggestions, or potential issues that could affect the efficiency of review if left unaddressed. We have worked diligently with the NRC to ensure a robust and complete application that should reduce Category A observations. However, every observation offers important insight into areas we can further develop to allow for an efficient and timely review of our Phase 1 COLA. We do anticipate some Category A, B, and C items, which is entirely expected and consistent with what other reactor developers have seen. These are clarifications and refinements, not fundamental application content flaws. This is exactly what the readiness assessment is designed to identify, and it helps both Oklo and the NRC get ahead of potential considerations and areas for alignment. Notably, Oklo is using this audit as an opportunity to test several key repeatable licensing pathways and expects valuable NRC guidance on how these novel approaches will best support rapid and cost effective deployment. We're also encouraged by broader efforts at the NRC in modernizing its approach to advance nuclear. For example, the NRC finalized the construction exemption for TerraPower's Natrium plant, allowing construction of its energy island to begin while licensing continues. That decision shows the NRC's increasing embrace of flexible, modern, and risk-informed approaches, setting a precedent that will also benefit a closed deployment strategy. It supports strong alignment with the NRC and will increase predictability and reduce downstream challenges as we move forward. We also continue to make progress on other regulatory funds by nearing the submission of the licensing project plan for our Oklo Fuel Foundry, a key step in the broader fuel strategy and our licensed operator topical report, which has now been submitted to the NRC. The licensed operator topical report outlines a new licensing approach designed specifically for Oklo's Aurora powerhouses. Today, most U.S. nuclear plant operators are licensed for a single plant and must be on-site to perform safety-related actions, a model developed for the traditional light water reactor fleet. Oklo is proposing a different approach. Instead of licensing operators for individual sites, operators would be licensed for the Aurora powerhouse technology itself. This should enable them to monitor multiple powerhouses from a central location and travel between sites as needed. Because Oklo builds, owns, and operates its powerhouses, this licensing strategy is well aligned with its business model and emphasizes efficiency and repeatability. Once approved, the licensed operator topical report can be referenced in future applications, significantly reducing the need to re-review previously approved material. This regulatory efficiency is central to Oklo's plan for scalable deployment across its fleet. By strategically submitting topical reports like this one, Oklo is laying the regulatory foundation for faster licensing pathways that support its broader commercialization goals. Each of these regulatory touchpoints reflects Oklo's proactive approach to licensing and our ability to execute efficiently. Fuel strategy is a key differentiator in advanced nuclear and Oklo is setting a new standard for flexibility and readiness. We're the only advanced nuclear company that has secured and is actively working with HALEU for our first commercial plant. On the commercial side, we've signed an MOU with Centrus, currently the only domestic producer of HALEU, to support our powerhouse deployments with a reliable supply source. And looking ahead, our technology is designed to take full advantage of recycled fuel, and we're actively developing that capability through our in-house fuel recycling program. This three-pronged approach, government awarded material, commercial HALEU access, and future recycled fuel, positions Oklo with one of the most comprehensive and durable fuel strategies in the advanced nuclear sector. It not only strengthens our long-term supply chain, but will also give us a significant cost and commercialization advantage. We were recently selected as one of eight qualified vendors for the Department of Defense's Advanced Nuclear Power for Installations program, or ANPI. This is a significant milestone, not just because it opens near-term opportunities for deployment on military installations, but because it reinforces Oklo's position as a credible go-to solution for energy resilience in high security environments. The program is led by the Defense Innovation Unit, or DIU, which is focused on fast-tracking commercial technologies for national security applications. That means streamlined contracting, faster timelines, and a clear path to scalable deployment. Unlike traditional procurement pathways, ANPI uses a contracting mechanism called Other Transaction Authority, or OTA. This allows for a faster milestone-based approach from early design through prototyping and ultimately can even end with a power purchase agreement. OTA contracts can also draw funding from DIU, any branch of the military, or other federal agencies, giving Oklo a versatile and well-supported path to deployment. For Oklo, this selection validates our technology, aligns with our commercial roadmap, and gives us added momentum with both federal and commercial partners. It's an endorsement that strengthens our position across the board. We acquired Atomic Alchemy earlier this year to expand Oklo's reach into the high-growth radioisotope market, and this company is already delivering. Founded in 2018, Atomic Alchemy is building a domestic and vertically-integrated supply chain for high-value isotopes used in everything from cancer treatments and medical diagnostics to national security and advanced manufacturing. Their proprietary technology, including their Versatile Isotope Production Reactor, or VIPR reactor, is designed specifically for isotope production with a focus on efficiency, scalability, and simplicity. They've already hit key engineering and regulatory milestones and are working closely with Idaho National Laboratory to advance deployment. With strong early customer interest and a proven team in place, Atomic Alchemy gives Oklo a capital-light opportunity to drive near-term revenue and long-term market leadership in an essential and underserved space. Today's radioisotope supply chain is outdated, fragmented, and increasingly unreliable, stretching across multiple facilities, geographies, and transport modes, making it risky, expensive, and slow. Atomic Alchemy flips this model with a vertically-integrated system. The VIPR facility will consolidate reactor operations, processing, and manufacturing at a single site, dramatically increasing efficiency and reliability. This model is not only better suited to meet modern demand, but also allows for global distribution with faster lead times and lower costs. As demand for isotopes accelerates, this supply chain advantage will be a major competitive differentiator. The Atomic Alchemy VIPR platform is designed to support broad radioisotope production as well as radiation capabilities across medical, industrial, defense, and emerging tech sectors. From life-saving cancer therapies and diagnostic imaging to industrial sensors, aerospace applications, and advanced semiconductor manufacturing, these isotopes and radiation capabilities are essential to critical systems in our economy. What makes this solution so compelling is not just the diversity of isotopes and radiation capabilities we can produce, but the scale and reliability our integrated model offers. This is a broad and growing market with unmet demand, and Atomic Alchemy is built to serve it efficiently and at commercial scale. We believe that Atomic Alchemy is executing a smart, multi-project approach to market entry. The first step is a lab-based demonstration project designed to validate the process and generate revenue quickly, potentially as early as 2026. This will involve a low-cost processing infrastructure and customer-ready material using third-party irradiation. The second project is the launch of a fully commercial VIPR facility, a four-reactor site dedicated to direct isotope production. Licensing is expected to begin in 2025 with operations targeted for 2028. That project is expected to be potentially funded off-balance sheet and supported by long-term supply agreements that are already under negotiation. With this roadmap, Atomic Alchemy brings near-term upside, long-term scalability, and significant value to the [indiscernible] platform. Shifting to leadership and governance, we're thrilled to welcome Pat Schweiger as our Chief Technology Officer. Pat brings deep technical expertise across advanced reactor design, plant systems, and regulatory strategy, and a track record of scaling both fusion and fission programs from concept through deployment, including his comprehensive experience working at FFTF while it was operating, which was one of the fast reactors that Oklo builds its design from. He's joining at a pivotal moment to help drive our commercial rollout, bringing the kind of strategic and operational leadership that will accelerate Oklo's next stage of growth. We're excited to have him on the team. We recently announced that Sam Altman has stepped down from Oklo's Board of Directors. Caroline and I first met Sam at a dinner in Cambridge, Massachusetts in April 2013. Since that first chance meeting, Sam has played an instrumental role in guiding Oklo, Caroline, myself, and our vision over the years. Sam has been a mentor, a leader, a supporter, a champion, and a friend since that meeting. Sam invested in the company and joined our Board in 2015, and he helped us grow through challenges and into the incredible opportunities that lay before us. We are deeply grateful for his early conviction, vision, leadership, and support. As we move closer to commercialization, this transition reflects a natural evolution from the company's early stage development into where it is today. We are excited about the growth this represents. And I will now turn it over to Craig. Craig Bealmear: Thank you, Jake. As we move closer to commercialization, this transition reflects a natural evolution from the company's early-stage development into execution. Sam's departure also supports a shift of his role from that of an insider to a potential future commercial partner, removing a possible conflict of interest as we advance potential commercial discussions with OpenAI. Importantly, this change does not affect day-to-day operations. In conjunction with this transition, Oklo's Chief Executive Officer, Jake DeWitte, has assumed the role of Chairman of the Board, providing continuity and clear leadership as we enter this next phase of growth. At our last update just seven weeks ago, we discussed the additions of Dan Poneman and Michael Thompson to the Board. After now Secretary of Energy Wright's confirmation and departure from the Board, we are pleased with how we have grown the Board. The experience and expertise in NRC licensing, fuel supply chains, strategic finance, and technology commercialization that Dan and Michael bring to the Board are great additions to our team. I will now provide a summary of our financials. Oklo's first quarter operating loss was $17.9 million, inclusive of non-cash stock-based compensation expense of $2.3 million. Oklo's loss before income taxes was $14.2 million, which reflects our operating loss adjusted for net interest income of $3.6 million. When adding back non-cash stock-based compensation charges and considering non-cash income tax benefit recorded for the quarter, you get cash used in operating activities of $12.2 million. We believe this puts us on track to deliver on our guided range of $65 million to $80 million for total cash used in operations for full year 2025. At the end of the quarter, cash and marketable securities were $260.7 million. Lastly, we have filed our proxy statement and will be holding our Annual General Meeting on Wednesday, June 04, 2025. To close, I'll briefly highlight why we believe Oklo stands out in the advanced nuclear and energy landscape. We are deploying proven fast reactor technology in a compact, scalable form, reducing cost, complexity, and time to market. Our business model is built around long-term power sales, delivering recurring revenue and strong margins. We look to drive superior economics through repeatable deployment of a common design asset that can be further enhanced with recycled fuel to drive capital efficiency and a competitive levelized cost of energy. Our customer pipeline totals over 14 gigawatts and spans sectors like data centers and defense, proof of strong and growing demand. We've developed a streamlined regulatory strategy backed by years of licensing expertise and a repeatable COLA process aligned to our business model. And finally, we're not just building powerhouses, we're building a platform that integrates generation, fuel recycling, and radioisotope production, unlocking multiple high-value markets. Thank you for joining us today. Operator, we're now ready for questions. Thank you. Operator: Thank you. The floor is now open for questions. [Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Ryan Pfingst of B. Riley. Your line is open. Ryan Pfingst: Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my questions. Jake, you mentioned the recent reports about additional executive actions expected to support nuclear power. It sounds like these could include the DOD taking on a greater role in ordering reactors and installing them on military bases. Can you talk about the regulatory authority for nuclear power that the DOD has today and your thoughts on the Department's ability to potentially accelerate reactor deployments whether through programs like the ANPI or otherwise? Jake DeWitte: Yeah. Thanks for the question, Ryan. I mean, I think, DOD does have authority to regulate nuclear plants on sort of for their use cases and for different opportunities around that. So, we see some interesting angles there. There's been kind of a mixed approach taken in the department, and I think what we've heard about some interest is looking at ways to make sure that they are not going to be held up or held back at all by any kind of -- from their needs sets, from any kind of regulatory permitting issues that could happen outside of sort of their control. Obviously, they have the ability to control it all. So, I think there's some appetite and some potential interest in doing that. That said, their active infrastructure and their capabilities that hasn't been exercised a ton for these kinds of use cases in a while to put it somewhat, I guess, simplistically. So, I think there's some significant opportunities for them to step up and perhaps provide sort of an alternate pathway for some of those use cases, which is I think pretty exciting. Additionally, I think it creates a pretty good dynamic to look at efficiencies where if you are [siting] (ph) these at military installations or other government installations, if you see the broad activities across the government today just trying to find ways to streamline and make the regulatory processes much more efficient and modern and quick and timely, I think you see opportunity for how these activities, these potential activities around sort of expanding DOD roles here could be done. But DOD does have that capability set. They do have that authority. And so, I think it's a matter of looking at how they can sort of best use it to sort of push and accelerate these things. Ryan Pfingst: Great. Appreciate that, Jake. And then, the fuel slide was a helpful reminder of the actions you're taking on that front. Can you give us an update on other parts of the supply chain and your confidence in commencing a fairly near-term construction effort? Jake DeWitte: Yeah. I mean, this is a feature set for -- we've designed two supply chain capabilities and information heavily since the beginning. There's a lot of ways you can design a reactor, a lot of different materials, fuel types, coolants, all sorts of things you can do. Some of which obviously are technologies need a lot more R&D and development before they're ready to go. Some others just need a lot more supply chain development before you can procure the various parts needed in them. In our case, we've designed heavily to leverage what's out there as much as we possibly can. Fuel is obviously the big watch point because that's kind of the biggest, I would say, sort of challenge and opportunity, if you will, that we see. But everything else, we try to leverage existing supply chains from in and also outside of nuclear as much as we can. And that's a real feature to sodium technologies, right? You can use common stainless materials. You can source those from many other industries, from the process side of things. When you look at, like, the steam generation side, that's partly why we partnered up with Siemens, to help drive that last year and kind of accelerate that for them to be able to deliver. And they do that very well, obviously. So, generally speaking, this is a thing that we're going to be sort of pushing forward as we try to accelerate what we can do to actually break ground and start building as quickly as we can. And I think that's something that we see on the supply chain side. Most of the limitations are really centered around fuel, and the other long lead items are looking at 18-month kind of windows. And our ability to then also bring in sort of the order book and backlog that we have behind it helps us sort of be able to actually scale more of that as well. So, when we talk to suppliers, it's not just about one, it's about more, and that kind of motivates the right kind of partnerships, if that makes sense. So that's how we're looking at this and thinking of it. But this avoids some of the challenges you see in the light water space where you need large pressure vessels or forgings that way. Obviously, there's some capacity for that, but there's a lot less of that. So, work done there needs to be done to sort of show that to get in front of that bottleneck and that constraint, given there's only a few places in the Western world that we'll be able to source that from, we as a -- not Oklo, we as America frankly. And so, for us, at Oklo, being able to not require those needs helps us actually diversify away from that, which is super, super helpful. Similarly, on the turbine set, actually something that's a little bit underappreciated. You think about nuclear steam turbine systems, most of those are gigawatt scale systems for light water -- well, most -- all of those are hundreds of megawatts to gigawatt scale systems for light water reactors. And light water reactors operate at a relatively low steam temperature set compared to other power generation technologies. And as a result, like scaling that turbine down to sort of small reactors and smaller for water cooled conditions, not technically challenging, but requires some reasonable non-recurring engineering and sort of tooling costs to set up the infrastructure to actually make those. Whereas our systems operate at those temperature ranges and pressure ranges that look a lot more similar to where a lot of fossil fire plants operate. And that's kind of another feature about non light water systems is you tap directly into some of those supply chains, which is super helpful. And just to kind of, like, emphasize the recent news of what the NRC did with their power is just an extraordinarily important validation of that model that applies also to us, right? Similar technology set shows that you can decouple the steam system, the power side from the reactor side, that opens up so much more flexibility in terms of how you can source, procure, and construct and install. Ryan Pfingst: Great. Appreciate all that detail. I'll turn it back. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Sherif Elmaghrabi of BTIG. Your line is open. Sherif Elmaghrabi: [indiscernible] the fuel MOU with Centrus, can you tell us when you might start taking delivery of that fuel? And is there a date by which you need to firm up that agreement? Jake DeWitte: Yeah. I think just to clarify, right, the first fuel we're getting for our first plant, that was awarded to us through a competitive process by Idaho National Laboratory and the Department of Energy. So that material is all from there. That's for our first plant. Everything with, like, commercial procurement happens for our second and beyond plans, and that's where we're looking at obviously working with Centrus and others. What we see is we're in the process of kind of figuring out the right structures to supply for what we need and kind of the growth and scale. So, I think the idea is, as we look at partnering with different folks on the enrichment side, it's really working to sort of what's the sort of right ramp rates for them and for us given the customer offtakes and how customers might be engaging or not engaging on this is something that we're kind of watching as this develops, and we're helping develop and shape as we speak [life time] (ph). So, we want to start receiving that fuel as soon as reasonably possible, but some of those pieces are going to be the things that we want to put in place to make sure we set the stage for kind of a long-term growth curve up and out. When you look at what our fuel needs are, they're pretty exciting and pretty heavy. But that's great for this enrichers on the supply side, but just structuring the right kind of early deals and then also coupling that with some of these customer bases where we have started customer partnerships where their ability is to sort of come in and help actually potentially, right, support some of the fuel offtake, that's how we're kind of looking at shaping some things right now. A lot of that's still developing, but generally speaking, that's how we're structured on that sense. But it's super, super helpful and important, right? We have fuel. It's actually at Idaho. It's being we're setting up the fuel fabrication capabilities to actually be able to take that fuel and fabricate, put that in our first plant. But that material has all been -- it's all out there. It's all been produced from government reserves and inventories. And that's kind of another key watch point for us is some of the actions that are potentially coming from the government. Ideally, there's a lot that moves forward on the fuel side, and we're really well positioned to be able to benefit from a lot of that beyond just what we already have. Sherif Elmaghrabi: Got it. That's helpful. And sticking with those, I guess, second and later plants, when we talk about the timeline for subsequent COLAs, I think in the past, you said six to 18 months, would that apply to reactors in different sizes, let's say, customer wants to do 75 megawatt design, or is the timeline the same as the first custom COLA that we're doing about to do? Jake DeWitte: Yeah. So, they'll be for the same general plant. What we see is -- the timing is going to depend a little bit, but, I mean, I think it'll be a staggered parallel fashion with the INL plant. The INL plant is a full commercial plant, right? We're building it on a national lab site because there's a lot of benefits of doing it, but it's a full commercial plant. And then, there'll be all these things that happen after that with respect to follow-on plants and follow-on sites that we're excited about how those are progressing and developing. That said, like, I think the timing of those is sort of we see a couple major sites that we've obviously talked about, and we see the different customers that we've announced. And there's the very dynamic market in that sense. So, what we expect is that there'll be some COLA activity that we anticipate submitting additional applications in parallel to all the first ones under review that will see some acceleration benefits, but then the real benefits will really happen on the acceleration of the COLAs after that. We're doing a lot of, like, kind of cutting-edge, leading-edge work with the NRC on doing some of the subsequent licensing at high volume, kind of high rates of deployment. They've been developing activity -- I'm sorry, capabilities and plan [that aligns with] (ph) sort of action around how they're going to review those things going forward. So that we're going to be one of the initial movers and one of the early kind of beneficiaries of those approaches, which is pretty exciting for what that looks like. But kind of that's how we see these things kind of playing out from there. But I think it's entirely likely that by sort of a year from now, we have additional COLAs under review on top of the INL one. Sherif Elmaghrabi: Got it. Thanks, Jacob. I'll turn it over. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Vikram Bagri of Citi. Your line is open. Unidentified Analyst: Hi, it's Ted on for Vik. Thanks for taking the questions. I wanted to ask about the funding needs for the business, just given the larger reactor size that was mentioned last quarter, the growth needed for Atomic Alchemy, potential costs from tariffs, and then also potentially higher HALEU prices than the initial plan. Just wondering whether given all those factors, additional capital will be needed. And if so, when we could expect roughly that might be raised? Craig Bealmear: Jake, I can take... Jake DeWitte: I'll just start really quickly. I think, again, an important point is on the fuel, right? We have the fuel allocated and awarded to us. So that helps a lot with the first plant. And then, as we've looked at things, I'll turn it over to Craig here, but I think that's a big help with respect to how you sort of manage some of the HALEU pricing. But with that, I'll turn it over to Craig for kind of the dynamics on that. Craig Bealmear: Yeah. And just to reemphasize the point the balance sheet got adequate capital on it for the deployment of INL. Now, it was almost two years ago since we announced the leaseback in a year since we closed. And since that time HALEU prices have gone up, as you mentioned, Ted. We've also dramatically grown the order book, and we've now got customers wanting a much higher size powerhouse offering that is more capital efficient, but it is going to cost more capital per unit. And then, we're two years on from the dispatch, which means we're two years on towards [indiscernible] to bring recycling forward. So, we'll want to be positioned such that capital does not become a constraint as we look to progress those growth plans. And we'll make sure that if there is a need to raise capital, we'll do that when the time and circumstances are right so that we can do it in a strategic manner, not a reactive manner. Unidentified Analyst: Got it. Thank you. And I had just one follow-up. On the VIPR facility that was mentioned, could you just elaborate on what the NRC process looks like for that? So, it looks like there'll be a construction permit submitted this year. How does that process differ from the process for the Aurora powerhouse? And then, also just in terms of intensity required with the NRC? And are there any additional costs for that over and above what's provided in the guidance? Jake DeWitte: Yeah. I think, I mean, the licensing process in progress is really centered around a Part 50 license application, which is a bit different. This is a non -- this sounds funny. This is a non-electric power producing reactor. So, it benefits from a different regulatory approach that looks a lot more similar to what university and research reactors look like. So, good news there is there's some benefits that happen from that from an efficiency side, but it is inherently built to a two-step process where you get a construction license and then an operating license. However, given kind of the nature of the review of those systems and that we expect that the construction permit review will happen at first. You'll build significant amounts of the plant and you'll apply for the operating license thereafter. This is similar to the process taken by Kairos, which received their construction permit, and then a couple other active groups that are doing work in the space on that. So that's what the application, like, review process looks like. Again, that's quite different than a Part 52, which is for power reactors, so electric power producing reactors, and doesn't have the repeatability functionality built into it because typically these kind of test reactors or these non-power producing reactors are built around kind of that not needing that repeatability. So, what's kind of neat about it from the Oklo side is we're going to have a lot of experience and expertise around both those processes, and there's some efficiencies that we're looking at seeing as possible benefits to inform sort of future activities around either continued sort of regulatory modernization efforts, as well as potential legislative efforts around applying some of the best practices between the two to each other. And we'll obviously be kind of at the center of that experience set, which is kind of neat actually, but that's how we see those things going. Generally speaking, there's it's considerable -- it's considered to be a simpler, more straightforward process to get a non-power license, right, than a power reactor license just given the relevant hazards around a non -- a low power reactor operating in that kind of environment. So, typically speaking, the regulatory process kind of reflects that. Unidentified Analyst: Got it. Thank you. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Eric Stine of Craig-Hallum. Your line is open. Eric Stine: Hi, Jake. Hi, Craig. Hello? Jake DeWitte: Hey. How's it going? Craig Bealmear: Hey, Eric. Eric Stine: Good. I'm glad. I wasn't sure what was going on there. Hey. So, just curious I know you've done the readiness assessment. You've had quite a bit of interaction with the NRC, but also know the NRC is known for that being a pretty onerous process on the licensing side. So, as you get closer to submitting the COLA, I mean, is your confidence higher, or what has maybe changed in your view, if at all, as to your prospects to move, as you said, into a commercial facility and not having to go through kind of the typical demonstration plant that might have to operate for three, four, five years? Jake DeWitte: Yeah. I mean, I think, generally speaking, so just to be clear, this is a full commercial plant, right? Like, this is a full commercial plant that will operate commercially, produce full power, do all of that. Obviously, it's the first plant, so there's some learnings you both design for and engineer around to be able to accommodate and be able to iterate through. But this is not kind of like a, "Oh, build it, see how it works." No. We're building off of technology that's done that already, right? There's been two noticeable -- notable examples on top of 20-plus reactors from before that around the world built around sodium fast reactor technology showing what works and what doesn't work. And the successes at EBR-II and FFTF are very significant sort of enablers for us to actually be able to take those technologies forward, apply those, right, take those lessons learned, apply them, and basically replicate what was done in many ways because they were so successful. So that's really important, right? I think sometimes the facts and the realities of sort of the history around non-light water reactor technology development is often very underappreciated even in the nuclear industry. And a lot of that's just because a lot of that pioneering work happened between the '60s, '70s, '80s, and '90s, pre-digitization. Actually, I think there's a big part of the story to this, which is a lot of those lessons learned, a lot of the records, all that stuff were written in paper, and put in books, put in binders, put in reports that were literally printed and filed on shelves, like literally. I used to say left on the shelves of history, literally because they were. And that as a result had meant that like accessing all of the wonderful nuggets of information that had been out there about these things, well, it wasn't exactly easy to do unless maybe you're an academia or in the research and development communities, which Caroline and I were. So, we had the benefits of having a lot of the opportunity to see a lot of the amazing things about this technology set and how mature it really was, something that again is vastly underappreciated by and large. And so, that's a fantastic spot to be. Now, one of the things we leaned into very early in the company's history was even starting with our first regulatory interactions, including getting the Department of Energy to help with this and the national labs to help with this -- working with the NRC back in 2016, was actually getting that old information, digitizing it, modernizing it, being able to use it in the regulatory space. And that we set off a bunch of activity and work in 2016 that really is continuing through today that pays significant dividends, right? So that kind of dovetails into your question of, yeah, I mean, generally speaking, as we've seen our engagement with the NRC, we've had 600-plus meetings with them. I mean, we have a huge amount of interactions in history leading up to submitting an application, and being in a position that we feel pretty happy about. So, obviously, we're doing a readiness assessment to make sure that we understand where there might be gaps so that we can work to address those. We've seen that had a lot of success with what TerraPower did. They also did a readiness assessment before they submitted their construction permit and -- or the construction permit application and they've seen that their review has been moving pretty well on pace. I think it's slightly ahead of schedule even. So, that's fantastic. We expect there to be some similar benefits for us. Obviously, each case is a little bit different, but generally speaking, that's why we've been at this for so long. Of all the non-light water companies active today with the NRC, we've had the longest engagement, right, dating back to 2016. And that's a very important thing for us for having sort of that history and that maturity and that kind of credibility and capability accordingly with the regulator. I think the thing that's important is also how we take an approach isn't just about whether or not you get the license, but doing so efficiently and effectively. And I think that's that next level of depth and nuance that I think people are starting to fully understand the importance of, which is not just getting a license. That, I would say is something that's quite doable. It's also doing it efficiently and effectively, so it's scalable. And that's where we spend a lot of time trying to optimize for that. Back in 2019 -- or 2018, when we first piloted an application with the NRC, they said they could review something like that. They thought that that made a lot of sense that we proposed all these novel things. Something they then built a novel review plan based heavily on -- based on doing things, I mean, heavily in-person in 2019. Obviously, when we submit an application for all this in-person review dynamics in 2020, that didn't work out so great given that the pandemic blew a lot of that stuff out. We couldn't have those in-person meetings and dynamics. We had to obviously change course and that became somewhat challenging. But since '22, when we started re-engaging with them in-person and pre-application on this, we've been able to kind of structure around addressing some of these open items and some of these items that we've tried to push the NRC to be forward leaning on. Frankly, we found that there's been a lot of things that they've been pretty receptive to. Still a lot of work. It's not a like, hey, this is going to be a walk in the park. It's a lot of work. There's still a lot of existing inefficiencies, frankly, in the regulatory process, but we couldn't ask for a better setup right now amidst the drive and demand on the AI side, as well as bipartisan level of support coupled with a very -- an administration that's very focused on driving regulatory efficiency throughout the entire ecosystem. So, all in all, it creates a pretty favorable dynamic, I think, for where we sit and how we're seeing this come together. So, I guess, I would say like the pre-application engagement is a way to -- that we've done continually more or less since 2016 and sort of re-upped in '22, if you will, into what we're doing now, like, has been quite, I think, constructive to preparing both parties to be ready for an application. I think some of the feedback we've had from the NRC has largely been around, "Okay, we're really getting ready for you guys to have an application now. We've done all this work, but I think we're getting ready for it." So, we see that. We expect to see how that plays out with the Phase 1 readiness, and then we'll kind of move that to the next steps of the review, hopefully, with some of those efficiencies gained. That doesn't take care of all the bumps and problems. There's still going to be things that come up, of course, but at the end of the day, it gives us a great shot on a lot of those angles. Eric Stine: Yeah, no, that's great color. Thank you. And then, just for my follow up, I mean, should we still think about timing of the actual COLA submission to be, I think in the past you'd said kind of coincide with the ADVANCE Act and the October timeframe? Jake DeWitte: Yeah, that's how we're looking at it. I will say that with all the pending activity around like executive orders and all these other things, there's, I would call it, good uncertainty, because it could motivate some reasons that things might move somewhat faster. But at the end of the day, like, that's how we're seeing kind of the timing evolve here. So, we expect to transition out of the readiness assessment with the feedback we get from that to be able to support us submitting for actually a Phase 1 application in a few months after kind of the feedback from that. And then that would position us to then do readiness on the Phase 2 part. And then, also with the feedback from that position us to be able to submit that sort of in the Q4 timeframe is what we're expecting. Eric Stine: Okay. Thanks a lot. Jake DeWitte: And that would mean full applications then at that point, yeah. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Jeffrey Campbell of Seaport Research Partners. Your line is open. Jeffrey Campbell: Good evening. Jake, on Slides 9... Jake DeWitte: Hey, Jeff. Jeffrey Campbell: Hey. On Slides 9 and 11, the fuel recycling and the feedstock preparing the submission to the licensing project plan for the Oklo Fuel Foundry, I like that name. Can you add some color on how this licensing effort might be different than that for Aurora? What the primary hurdles might be? And what the timing might be like? Jake DeWitte: Yeah, it's a good question. We've been engaged at the NRC on the pre-application activities to submit for large-scale fuel fabrication work that is outside, right? Just to kind of recap, we have fuel from the INL and the Department of Energy for fuel for our first plant. We'll fabricate that fuel at the Idaho National Laboratory. We're building a pilot fabrication facility there. By that I mean we're installing the equipment and existing building. But then, as we grow and we look at sort of this backlog that we've been accumulating, we're working to set up a full-scale fuel fabrication facility on a -- not full-scale, but I call it large commercial scale to help us kind of start to meet that demand set. That follows a different regulatory path than the typical like Part 50, Part 52, because it's just materials handling, it's not reactors. And so, it depends a little bit on the specifics of the site and the infrastructure that we're taking advantage of, but that's something where as we've been engaging with them, you can expect a full sort of application review to be done potentially in the 24- to 30-month time period, possibly as long as 36. It depends on how much infrastructure you need to install. Given the nature of kind of the regulatory environment today, there's some benefits that those timelines might be reduced. I do think there's a general view that this should definitely be done faster than reactors. So, everything that moves those timelines is probably going to help with this. So, that's kind of how we're seeing that progress. But we're going through evaluating different site opportunities accordingly for that. And as those things continue to progress, we'll have good updates for the market and for investors as those come together. But generally speaking, that's how we expect that to go to sort of unlock our ability to scale into the very exciting numbers and customer bases we have. Jeffrey Campbell: Right. And that's very helpful. And the point about being faster than a reactor license certainly makes sense. And my follow up is, is this essentially somewhat similar to the way you've talked about your COLA licenses and having multiple applications, even as you're waiting for INL? Is this already an effort to create a blueprint for potential fuel founders in a variety of locations? And in other words, already thinking about scalability in the fuel foundry in the same way that you're thinking about [indiscernible]? Jake DeWitte: Yeah, it's a great question. It's definitely something we think about here. We aren't baking in necessarily the same scalability, but the lessons learned to apply forward will be helpful. The reason I say that is because, like, we kind of expect this facility to be pretty large to meet a lot of our need sets for a while. And then, beyond that, well, we kind of are looking at how this can be built and done in different places potentially as needed. But generally speaking, like, this is all happening, which is like -- that's a really silly thing to say. This is all kind of progressing in a way to expect to build one, but understand that there might be like scalability for beyond that. So, it's kind of a weird non-answer, but we're saying, yes, there's ability to have a scalability from it, but the infrastructure of the regulations themselves, the actual structure doesn't really allow for that same translatability for repeatability the way the reactors do, because it's not anticipated you'd build many of these. But there's going to definitely be lessons learned and there's things we're trying to do to allow for that where it makes sense to do. But generally speaking, that's kind of a thing that we'll keep watching as we kind of think through and get into the actual licensing process here. But if -- as we think about the opportunity space for the business, it does make sense to think about having multiple locations most likely. But kind of not do all those at once, obviously, but that's stuff that kind of lags by probably by five to 10 year increments as we think about the long-scale growth and potential here. Craig Bealmear: And Jake, I think the other trade-off is size of the facility and the scale economies you may get on one end, but logistics of having -- the difference between having one plant and -- one foundry in one location versus multiple locations, and what it could do around logistics. Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Sameer Joshi of H.C. Wainwright. Your line is open. Sameer Joshi: Hey, good afternoon Jake, Craig. Thanks for taking my questions. First, congrats on all the progress. My question is about the borehole drilling campaign that you just announced this morning. Does this -- I think the press release says that it will inform your detailed engineering design. I'm assuming this engineering design pertains to the building and building stability as against the balance of plant, like the steam generators and the power conversion system that may need any modifications. Will you confirm that? Jake DeWitte: Yeah, the way I understood that was really if we expect to see like what the data does or sort of the insights from the site characterization due to impact sort of the detailed design. Yeah, I mean, generally speaking it's really just to make sure that the site characteristics and where we're exactly going to be building, like we just engineer all the right like structural mechanical pieces in the right ways to support that, that are kind of bounded by how we take that sort of bounded kind of standardized approach as is. That's really how we kind of angle to incorporate that feedback. But it's important to have that information to support then also in the regulatory process, which is kind of why we do it, if that makes sense. Sameer Joshi: Yeah. No, understood. And then, the second question I have is, and maybe this has been discussed in the past, but just I want to make sure I understand. Now that you are in the Phase 1 -- or initiated the Phase 1 of the pre-application readiness assessment, has this phase also included the specific size of the reactor in terms of whether it is 50 megawatts or 75 megawatts, or will this be needed to be included in Phase 2 or the next stage? Just wanted to understand that. Mainly in context of one of the previous questioners who asked if the subsequent COLAs can be of different sizes. So, just wanted to understand the Phase 1, Phase 2, and when you have to specify what the COLA is for, whether it is for 75 or 50 megawatt. Jake DeWitte: Yeah. So, most every -- so pretty much everything we're really doing is at a 75 megawatt size range. That kind of is the generalized design. And then, if we flex down from that, it's just because there's a customer need or specific need to do so, which would then, generally speaking, bound against largely speaking the same analysis and everything else that we do to support the 75. So, really just think of it as a kind of a consolidated single platform that we build off of from the licensing side. Each site, then, if it does change a little bit, it's going to -- obviously each site has to get its own license, but the benefits of sort of the repeatability and scalability because of that approach should hold pretty heavily. Obviously, if we make significant departures by introducing major design changes, that changes some of that, but that's not exactly like in terms of the near-term deployment, that's not what we're intending or planning to do. And that's part of why we made that decision to kind of just centralize and focus around the size range. What that means then is if a customer wants it to be a 60 megawatt variant, then it's the same plant that we're building. We're just basically, as we use the term kind of underrating it and running it at a lower power level and then maybe low then have the ability to potentially increase that power level with more fuel going forward. So that's really how we're trying to approach that. With the Idaho plant, specifically, like that's the same approach we're taking. However, we have a fuel constraint, right? We've been awarded fuel and to sort of best use that fuel, we would be running that plant at less than 75 megawatts, but we're also pursuing options to perhaps get more fuel to run that up at a higher power level. That just depends a little bit on sort of how kind of some of these activities are going to play out with respect to the fuel supplies, especially given the fact that there's another 5 tons of that material that we requested that's available potentially. So, like, some of that material we could use to help us run all the way for a full cycle at the full power level, but that's kind of how we're approaching this right now. But yeah, everything really centralizes around kind of that 75 megawatt level. Sameer Joshi: Understood. May I squeeze in one more for the Oklo Fuel Foundry? Will this facility be also able to handle recycled fuel for the fabrication facility? Jake DeWitte: It's an interesting question. So, what we're talking about with the fuel foundry piece here is specific to fresh fuel fabrication. However, next to, like -- not next to physically, but in terms of in addition to that, we've been ongoing on the regulatory front for, I think, dating back to at this point, 2021 and pre-application preparing for the fuel recycling facility, that fuel recycling facility would also include -- that would include the actual recycling, as well as the fuel fabrication facility for recycled fuel. The fuel foundry we talked about here, that's really specific to fresh fuel. The same techniques and approaches in terms of facility design and process design, generally speaking, will be used to handle recycled fuel. It's still metal, it's still casting based, but it has to be done obviously in a different environment given the nature of the recycled material it's casting. In other words, the transuranic bearing kind of feedstock that we're fabricating the fuel out of. So that's a really important thing here, right? The recycling means you don't need HALEU. You're not using HALEU. You're instead using the transuranics and the uranium from recycling itself. And as a result, the material is more radioactive. It's also thermally hotter. So, you need to fabricate that in a different way or in a different kind of set of constraints, but it sets a really good stage for how we can like apply some of the technologies for it. So, to answer your question, the activities going on the regulatory side for recycling are different than the fuel foundry side, but of course, there's some relations. Sameer Joshi: Got it. Thanks for that color. Operator: Your last question comes from the line of Craig Shere of Tuohy Brothers. Your line is open. Craig Shere: Good afternoon. Thanks for fitting me in. So, let me jump on that same line of questioning. So, what exactly is the CapEx delta between a commercial scale fuel foundry versus recycling facility? And while the licensing for fuel may be quicker than for the plants, the Aurora powerhouses, how long are we talking about constructing a foundry or recycling facility or constructing? Jake DeWitte: Yeah, just a couple of things. So, basically you've got -- if you think about this, right, you have basically two major centers for fuel for Oklo plants going forward. You have one center which is around fresh HALEU. We procure that material and then we fabricate it in our fuel foundries to make fuel to go into our reactors. Then, you'll also have the recycling side that comes in and we'll start to be able to recycle fuel from existing plants that are producing power today as well as Oklo plants, as well as other advanced reactors actually. We can take all that material and recycle it, produce a new feedstock, we can make fuel out of that actual recycling facility and then have that material go fuel some Oklo plants as well. So, generally speaking, like we see those, like, the fuel foundry will most likely come into existence in terms of being operational before the recycling facility, just given the nature of kind of licensing and the technology development and everything else needed for that. And then, from there, we kind of see that staged approach of you get the fuel foundry going, fabricating fuel for our plants, you get recycling, it comes in later, produces fuel. All the benefits kind of play forward in those areas. But generally speaking -- and I'm not saying they're staggered on purpose, it's just kind of the nature of sort of how we think about the infrastructure build out and the planning on that. So, a lot of exciting stuff coming, but generally speaking, it sets the foundation for like things that then allow us to kind of grow and scale. Now, important thing to come from this too. Fuel fabrication is great, allows us to make fuel. Also opens the door for us to look at potential partnerships with others, to make fuel with or for others. Additionally, on recycling, similar kind of thing. So, good nice opportunities to touch in and tie into different pieces there, which is pretty important. If you have a licensed facility to actually fabricate fuel, of which currently in the United States, there's really like -- there's just not -- it's pretty significantly under supplies for advanced reactors. There's just not that much out there. A big opportunity obviously for us to be able to have that facility and perhaps support some other activity that others are doing in addition to what we're doing. So, some cool things all kind of come together on that. And one illusion just points you between both obviously stuff we did earlier in the year, but a couple months ago we obviously announced a partnership with Lightbridge, just kind of an example of how these things kind of can tie together now with the infrastructure facility work we're doing. But generally speaking kind of the focus we have is, okay, we know we're going to -- like, those things support us for after what we have going on right now with Idaho, with the pilot fuel fabrication facility we have there as well as with the first plant we're building there. So that's kind of how we think about sort of the staging and order of operations. Craig, I'm not sure if you want to add anything specific to the commentary around kind of the incremental CapEx, but that's kind of how we're thinking of the phasing and the structure of this. Craig Bealmear: Well, I'd say, Jake, there will be incredible CapEx there, but really, we'll have more to say as we've kind of completed some of this appraised work on both the foundry and the recycling. And so, I think it'd be too early at this point for us to talk about what that could look like. Craig Shere: That's fair. Could we just presume that the recycling takes more capital and longer to construct versus just the foundry? Jake DeWitte: The recycling facility? Craig Shere: Yes. Jake DeWitte: Yeah. I mean, generally speaking, because you're putting in fuel fabrication as well, yeah, it's going to be -- it's going to take longer to build and take more capital, generally speaking, than the fuel foundry will, is how we think about it. Now, the thing with the recycling, though, is you also open up all these massive opportunities for additional potential revenues, right, from additional radioisotope co-product sales, additional uranium sales, additional actual true-bearing fuel feed sales. So, there's a lot of things that kind of come from that too. So, it kind of diversifies that piece, which is something that we're particularly excited about, not to mention the massive savings it gives us compared to fresh fuel, which is pretty huge. But yeah, we expect that to be something that takes longer and will cost more than the fresh fuel foundry. Craig Shere: Great. And my last one, you touched on this a bit in Sherif's questioning, but it kind of feels like the foreshadow new executive orders and Department of Defense involvement to grease the rails on U.S. nuclear could by far be the most meaningful on the fuel side, not government property and other things. Would you agree with that? And if so, what tangible perspective federal steps would you want to see on that front? Jake DeWitte: Yeah, I'll kind of -- I'll give you a long-winded answer to this. But I think it's -- there's a huge amount of like, I'll call it, greenfield opportunity right now in terms of the policy landscape and in terms of the appetite to use, I'll call it, the national resources and assets we have as a country with respect to deployment between significant federal land, like at the Department of Energy, requesting information about how they might be able to support building data centers at existing DOE sites. That could also tie over potentially to benefits of them being able to actually be the regulator on some of those sites potentially. I mean, some of this depends on a lot of moving parts, but that could provide a significant accelerated benefit. At the very least, it provides an interesting competitive alternative dynamic to the NRC, which I think is good, right? Competitive dynamics are kind of good for everybody. So, it's pretty cool. And just for us, one benefit we have, right, like we kind of -- we often have -- we haven't actually talked about this as much as maybe there's some interesting opportunities to do so, but the Department of Energy was going through the process of designing and building out and therefore included their having to prove they're having to go through a regulatory process of their internal regulatory authority and authorization of the sodium-cooled fast reactor for neutron radiation testing purposes. A lot of the work that they did in that process and for that project, the safety evaluations and all those pieces have significant carryover and benefit to us. And as a result, we've seen some of that actually place forward some benefits on the NRC side, because I think generally speaking, it's safe to say that regulators in general, like -- well, I think all of us, it's not just them. It's all nice when you can build off of work that others have done as well, and you don't have to do it all kind of from scratch yourself. So, if that's the case, then as we've seen there, there's some benefits. So, if some of that activity and some of these potential ideas that we've heard kind of circle around and we know there's been appetite in Capitol Hill from conversations and also in different NGOs and think tanks and activities around how to best leverage the regulatory authorities that the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy and the NRC have kind of in a cooperative but also maybe somewhat competitive dynamic, that's pretty favorable. If you think about what we're doing too, at Idaho, we have a great head start on some of these activities given we have a site use permit. We're deep in the process of deploying and developing there. It's also there's an opportunity to perhaps bring in folks like hyperscale partners to there and maybe build more plants there and then have some benefits because we're doing that, whether it be the Department of Energy as a regulating body or some piece like that. Like there's some significant benefits that can kind of come from all those pieces together. Another side of this, look at the work we're doing out that we've -- we announced some time ago, but part of our partnership with Centrus was looking at building two plants, right, to build two plants in Ohio to help support sort of what they're doing. And that has some carry over from Department of Energy, environment management, kind of legacy land that they've been turning over for development. So, a lot of cool opportunities between the different things we've been doing on the DOE and DOD sites. Obviously, our selection and the DIU process is part of the ANPI program. It is also helpful for unlocking some opportunities to provide power direct there, given that AI and energy are considered pretty important things for the national security perspective. There's also opportunities to do stuff at defense land that could be constructive here as well. So, I'm kind of giving you this wraparound answer to say, right now there's a lot of the art of the possible on the table that could be really, really attractive and pretty exciting in an accelerative manner. But we'll see, like all this stuff is actively evolving and it's going to be iterative and dynamic, I think over the next couple of years, frankly, but especially over the next couple of months. So, we're excited to see what might be there and what might happen with this. And we're trying to kind of thread the needle and push where things make the most sense to sort of accelerate getting plants built and scaling accordingly and bringing the right resources to the table, but that would be pretty constructive and helpful. And then, I think another dynamic that ties to that, we talked -- I just talked a lot about siting and regulatory side, but the government also owns a lot of material that could be used as fuel. And ideally, there's some opportunities to sort of accelerate that and build off of what they've already done with us, what they just did in the next round of those things for other companies building kind of small-scale test plants. We're excited about hopefully these things continuing to scale and ramp up for more opportunities there as well. Operator: Thank you. I'd now like to pass the call back over to Sam Doane for a question from Oklo's retail investors. Please go ahead. Sam Doane: Thank you. Yeah, we had one question come through. The question is, can you elaborate on the current stage of your discussions or agreements with data center operators or hyperscale customers? And how these conversations are shaping Oklo's deployment timeline and reactor siding strategy? Craig Bealmear: Yes, I can take that one. So, as we said at our last call that we continue to have active discussions with all of our customers, especially those in the data center space. We are exchanging term sheets, and we're talking about commercial terms. And I think it's really about how do we optimize what we do commercially around, as I hold it three factors, there's power purchase pricing itself, but there's also trying to structure deals with customers that could include some form of investment in Oklo, either kind of a prepayment like what Equinix did, or potentially some sort of like asset level investment, and also just trying to work with customers that can help us share and manage risk better. In addition to one of our new hires that Jake talked about earlier, Patrick, we've also had Mike Donohue join Oklo as the person leading our business development activities focused specifically on our data center solution customers. And I think -- and Mike has been with the company a couple of months, and I think he's kind of reinforced that think about this strategically and do it in a thoughtful manner approach that we've been taking. Now, Jake did talk earlier about the ability for us to file and have more permits on file as the first permit for Idaho site is being reviewed. One thing we do need to have in order to file a permit is to kind of know which -- where we would be locating that site beyond Idaho. So that does kind of become an important step in terms of our contracting strategy, linking into our permitting strategy. But we're making a lot of progress. And I think it's fair to say that our business development team is one of the busier teams in Oklo. Operator: Thank you. That concludes our Q&A session. I'll now turn the conference back over to CEO Jake DeWitte for closing remarks. Jake DeWitte: Great. Thank you all, and thank you for the time as always. I think it's only been about seven weeks since the last call. A lot of different things kind of transpiring in the broader sort of macro environment. And since then, and what we see though is kind of a consistent steady drumbeat on the AI kind of theme around energy need and sort of on the hyperscalers coming to the table and seeing a massive set of opportunities for growth for compute, but massively constrained by power. At a congressional testimony just a few days ago, I guess last week, our former Chairman Sam Altman made it pretty clear that energy is probably one of the best things, and most important things the government can invest in. And I think -- and just generally speaking, be invested into. And so, pretty exciting opportunity space to see all of those come together, and couple that with a broad policy backdrop and an administration that has a heavy focus on driving infrastructure development, growth, investment, and driving the regulatory process to be conducive to that. Also it's a stage for, I think, a lot of things to actually exceed expectations in some ways with the potential of ideas out there, but a lot of challenges obviously against that. However, we're in a different world today than I think nuclear's ever seen before. And coupling our sort of distinction with the business model we afford, our approach in technology, and kind of the integrated model we have, we're starting to see some of the clarity of kind of the alignment of what those things unfold and enable, as well as just generally speaking, the ability to move technology development and deployment more quickly and significantly change the paradigm that has in some ways challenged nuclear, which had a lot of misaligned incentives, had a lot of different parties and transactional dynamics that made nuclear really hard to scale and build. These things are all a different world today. You have some of the biggest companies in the world needing power in almost insatiable amounts, having deep pocketbooks and the ability to support paying prices needed to get early plans built with a clear sort of angle on cost declination beyond that down the road, and then be able to also couple that with best practices from other industries and supply chains to really kind of be able to deliver what nuclear long has in terms of its potential and promise. So, we remain, I think -- the mission here is one that transcends even just kind of the quarterly basis or the yearly basis, but something that we're working to unlock is the actual capabilities afforded by splitting atoms, which when you think about heavy metal reserves that we have in the planet, a couple of the fast reactors and recycling, you can talk about billion-plus year energy reserves available to us with technologies that have quite a bit of maturity behind them. So, we're excited to be working on that and leading the charge on a lot of those fronts and looking forward to the next update here in a few months. Operator: This concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.

Operator: Thank you for standing by. My name is Karen, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Oklo Inc. Fourth Quarter 2024 financial results and business update call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After today's presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. To ask a question, you may press star followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question, you may press star followed by the number one again. I'll now turn the call over to Sam Doane, director of investor relations. Please go ahead. Sam Doane: Thank you, operator, and good day, everyone, and welcome to Oklo Inc.'s fourth quarter and annual company update and earnings call. Joining me today are Jake DeWitte, Oklo Inc.'s co-founder and chief executive officer, and Craig Bealmear, Oklo Inc.'s chief financial officer. Earlier today, after the market closed, we announced our fourth quarter and full year 2024 earnings. You can find our shareholder letter and supplemental slides on the investor relations page of our website. Before we begin, I'd like to remind everyone that our discussion today, including our remarks and the Q&A session, will include forward-looking statements. These statements reflect our current views on trends, assumptions, risks, uncertainties, and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from what we discussed today. We encourage you to review the forward-looking statements language in our shareholder letter and supplemental slides for additional context. You can also find the discussion of relevant risk factors in our most recent SEC filings. Oklo Inc. assumes no obligation to update these statements as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise, except as required by law. With that, I'll now turn the call over to Jake DeWitte, Oklo Inc.'s co-founder and chief executive officer. Jake? Jake DeWitte: Thanks, Sam, and thank you all for joining us today. We're excited to share our quarterly and full-year update and provide insights into Oklo Inc.'s progress over the past twelve months. Oklo Inc. was founded on the belief that there are significant opportunities for advanced nuclear technology. We saw an industry that had stagnated and recognized the need to rethink how new nuclear technologies could be brought to market. We started Oklo Inc. to seize this opportunity and fulfill our mission to deliver clean, reliable, and affordable energy on a global scale. The momentum behind nuclear energy has never been stronger. The new administration has made it clear that nuclear power is a cornerstone of America's energy future, with direct policy actions and public endorsements supporting its expansion. Key voices in government and industry are reinforcing the need for advanced nuclear deployment. Energy Secretary and former Oklo Inc. board member Chris Wright stated that the long-awaited American nuclear renaissance must launch now. He said, we're at the start of Manhattan Project two. It is critical, just like Manhattan Project one, that the United States wins this race. He has emphasized the administration's commitment through financial and regulatory support to enable rapid deployment and commercialization of next-generation nuclear technology. Additionally, President Trump has recently highlighted the advantages of small, scalable nuclear plants. These statements reflect a growing consensus that nuclear is essential for energy abundance and small advanced nuclear reactors provide a practical, cost-effective path forward. The demand for power is growing at an unprecedented rate. While AI-driven data centers are a major contributor, they are not the only source of this growth. This slide shows other sectors, residential, transportation, commercial, and industrial, are also driving sustained energy needs. Total US power demand is projected to grow greater than 160% through 2030, with data centers contributing approximately 31% of this increase. We've demonstrated that Oklo Inc. is uniquely positioned to take advantage of this staggering potential growth. Our build, own, operate model and small scalable powerhouse designs are well suited for a broad range of applications, ensuring we can meet growing energy needs across multiple sectors. At Oklo Inc., our strategy is built on three core pillars that we believe will fundamentally transform how nuclear power is delivered to our customers. First is our business model. We've designed a model that simplifies the process for customers to purchase clean power at scale, eliminating traditional complexities and points of friction. Second is our reactor size. Our small, scalable reactors allow us to achieve greater efficiency while meeting customer demand incrementally. This approach not only optimizes our financial performance by creating a recurring revenue model, but also delivers resilient and redundant power solutions ensuring operational reliability. Finally, our technology sets us apart by utilizing technology backed by centuries of cumulative reactor operation experience. Our use of the plutonium coolant provides significant economic and operational advantages. This technology underpins our ability to deploy advanced new phase solutions that are both efficient and cost-effective. 2024 was a transformative year for Oklo Inc., marked by major commercial, technological, and regulatory milestones. We started the year with a 500-megawatt partnership with Equinix, one of the largest colocation data center companies in the world, supported by a $25 million investment through the form of a prepayment. This really kicked off the partnership wave between nuclear technology companies and the AI data center companies. Building on this momentum, we signed a letter of intent with Diamondback Energy for 50 megawatts, demonstrating an emerging demand for nuclear energy in the oil and gas sector as companies seek long-term sustainable energy solutions to electrify their operations. We also expanded our presence in the data center space, sending a letter of intent with Prometheus HyperScale to deliver 100 megawatts of clean power to generation AI infrastructure. We ended the year by signing what is potentially the largest corporate clean power agreement ever with Switch for 12 gigawatts of power. To put the magnitude of this agreement into perspective, that is equivalent to approximately 1% of the US grid. This is a massive opportunity for us, not just because of the size of the power need, but for the multipronged partnership with Switch to work together to bring nuclear to market at scale. One highlight to me of this partnership is that building data centers had significant similarities to building small reactors. If you think about data centers, they are fixed civil assets into which prefabricated and manufactured components and systems are installed, and electrical and cooling systems are tied together to move power and heat through the system. This has similarities to building small reactors: fixed civil facilities into which prefabricated and manufactured components are installed, electrical and cooling systems are integrated and tied together. Working with Switch's expertise here will likely be accelerated to us, and we are excited about how this will progress. In May 2024, we went public on a New York Exchange under the ticker OKLO, a defining step in our growth. Beyond our commercial success, we made major progress in our regulatory strategy and in building our nuclear technology platform. Our Idaho National Lab or INL powerhouse project remains on track to be the first commercial small nuclear reactor built in the US, with key DOE approvals and an environmental compliance permit secured. Operator: We also advanced our Aurora fuel fabrication facility Jake DeWitte: receiving DOE approval for its safety design strategy to produce advanced reactor fuel domestically. Oklo Inc. was the only advanced nuclear company with high assay low enriched uranium, also known as HALEU, fuel secured for its first deployment. A significant competitive advantage ensures we can move forward without fuel supply chain delays. We also successfully demonstrated our end-to-end fuel recycling process, proving our ability to close a nuclear fuel cycle and leverage both fresh and recycled fuel for long-term sustainability and growth. As we continue to execute on strategy, we remain committed to keeping the market informed with clear and consistent updates on our progress. Our company updates are structured around six key focus areas: project execution, reactor licensing progress, fuel fabrication and recycling, customer pipeline development, strategic partnerships for corporate and business development, and financial updates. The last quarter was marked by major commercial, regulatory, and technology milestones that drive us toward commercialization. To meet increasing customer demand, we expanded our powerhouse offering to support up to 75 megawatts of power output, building on the same design architecture of the 50-megawatt powerhouse to deliver more power without changing our reactor design footprint or regulatory framework. The scalable platform strengthens our ability to serve energy-intensive industries efficiently. On the regulatory front, we continue to advance key approvals with the NRC and DOE, ensuring steady progress towards deployment. We are working with the NRC through a pre-application readiness assessment for our Aurora powerhouse combined license application at Idaho National Laboratory. Commercially, we signed a landmark 12-gigawatt master power agreement with Switch, underscoring the growing demand for reliable carbon-free baseload power and positioning Oklo Inc. at the forefront of the energy transition. We're also strengthening our capabilities through strategic partnerships. Our agreement with Our Power provides near-term natural gas solutions as a bridge to nuclear, offering customers flexible energy options that can accelerate time frames. Additionally, our MOU with Lightbridge explores co-locating commercial fuel fabrication and recycling, reinforcing our long-term fuel strategy. Beyond power generation, we've expanded into the high-value radio market with the completion of our Atomic Alchemy acquisition. We continue to make progress towards near-term radioisotope opportunities and in the regulatory pre-application work to deploy their VIPER reactor. We're also driving next-generation materials innovation through collaborations with the DOE and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. With strong financial positioning, scalable technology, and growing customer demand, we enter 2025 with clear momentum, accelerating toward deployment and cementing Oklo Inc. as a leader in the advanced nuclear space. Over the years, we've made significant progress in refining our powerhouse platform. We initially developed both 15-megawatt and 50-megawatt designs and consolidated our approach around a 50-megawatt architecture. This allowed us to scale power output efficiently by simply adjusting things like fuel load and heat exchangers. With this approach, we can flexibly deliver between 15 megawatts and 75 megawatts from the same design platform, adapting to different customer needs while maintaining a streamlined supply chain and regulatory approach. The decision to scale up to 75 megawatts was driven by demand characteristics from large energy users, particularly data centers. This power range aligns well with the infrastructure of these customers, including at the data hall level. It reduces the number of reactors needed to support gigawatt-scale projects. We anticipate the majority of our plants will operate in the 60 to 75-megawatt range. Importantly, this update does not introduce new technical or regulatory design risk. We're leveraging the same core technology, optimizing it to deliver more power while maintaining the benefits of a compact, repeatable system. By focusing on design, flexibility, scalability, and cost efficiency, Oklo Inc. continues to provide innovative and capital-efficient nuclear power solutions for the evolving needs of our customers. Oklo Inc. continues to make steady progress on the first commercial Aurora Powerhouse at the Idaho National Laboratory or INL. Operator: We are actively engaging with the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission through Jake DeWitte: a pre-application readiness assessment for our Aurora POWERHOUSE combined license application at Idaho National Laboratory. This process enables NRC staff to review and familiarize themselves with Oklo Inc.'s licensing materials ahead of the formal application submission, streamlining regulatory review, and positioning us for an efficient approval process. We have submitted our licensed operator topical report, a key step in enabling our fleet-based licensing approach. This approach lowers costs, accelerates deployment, and enhances operational efficiency. Beyond licensing, we have begun drilling, testing, and site characterization efforts at INL, critical steps toward construction. Backed by a DOE site use permit, the project remains on track for deployment in late 2027 to early 2028. At Oklo Inc., our business model and licensing strategy provide a more streamlined regulatory pathway compared to conventional nuclear approaches. Rather than pursuing separate construction and operating licenses, or obtaining a design certification or DC, which is not a license or permit, to then later license out to customers who then have to obtain the actual commercial permits and/or licenses, we take a direct path by securing a combined license or COL. This single-step approval allows us to build and operate without additional regulatory hurdles. Unlike the DC process, which requires multiple and separate NRC reviews, and unlike the part 50 approach, which requires separate NRC reviews and approvals for construction and operation, the COL includes all key NRC-specific reviews upfront. This integrated approach eliminates duplicative reviews and accelerates deployment. Ultimately, only after completing these regulatory steps can a company be OpCo's approach ensures that we reach those milestones faster and with greater certainty. As I just alluded to, what sets Oklo Inc. apart is our direct-to-COL approach. We secure a combined license in one streamlined process. Others in the industry pursue design certification or construction permits first, requiring separate construction and operating approvals later. We believe this makes our approach faster, more efficient, and more aligned with deployment. Because we build, own, and operate our powerhouses rather than selling designs or licenses, streamlining regulatory approval under a single process makes strategic sense. Securing our first COL will also serve as a reference license for our COL, allowing future applications and SCOL to focus only on site-specific differences, greatly reducing approval timelines. By minimizing those differences, we can gain faster regulatory approvals for each additional plant, enabling rapid scaling. This approach not only simplifies licensing but strengthens our ability to bring advanced nuclear power to market faster and more efficiently than traditional models. Our path with INL paves the way for future sites through subsequent combined licenses, reducing review timelines under the Advance Act and accelerating deployment at scale. Oklo Inc.'s licensing strategy is not just about getting approval; it's about getting to multiple powerhouse deployments, operation, and revenue generation faster than conventional approaches. At Oklo Inc., we have built deep expertise in working with both the NRC and DOE, making significant regulatory progress as we move toward deploying our first commercial Aurora powerhouse. We completed key pre-application work with the NRC, including safety analysis, operational programs, and environmental findings. Additionally, we submitted fleet-based license operators and staffing methodology topical reports, important milestones that enable a standardized fleet-wide staffing model. Unlike traditional nuclear plants, which require site-specific operator licensing, our approach improves efficiency, reduces costs, and accelerates deployment. Alongside our energy progress, we are working closely with the DOE since our first commercial powerhouse will be deployed at the Idaho National Lab. We finalized the memorandum agreement with DOE, granting Oklo Inc. access to begin critical site investigations, a major step that allows us to conduct essential groundwork to prepare for construction. With this approval, we have begun site characterization activities, including drilling to study soil and rock conditions. Looking ahead, we are advancing the quality assurance program description for design, construction, and operations, which is currently in progress. These milestones reinforce Oklo Inc.'s strong regulatory momentum and clear path to deployment. Each step moves us closer to our goal of delivering advanced nuclear power through a streamlined, efficient regulatory approach. Additionally, the NRC is actively advancing the implementation of the Advance Act, which is modernizing the regulatory landscape for Advanced Nuclear. A key component of this effort is a significant reduction in licensing fees, making regulatory processes more accessible and cost-effective for advanced reactor developers. The NRC has proposed cutting the hourly rate by nearly 55% for advanced reactor applicants. This change, set to take effect on October 1, 2025, directly lowers the financial burden of licensing. Securing fuel is a critical priority for Oklo Inc., and we continue to make strong progress. We have successfully secured fuel for our first core load at INL through a competitive process and are expanding access for future deployments. Our MOU with Centrus establishes a long-term Halo supply, ensuring a scalable domestic source. It is important to highlight that Centrus is already producing Halo today and continues to scale their production. Beyond securing fuel, we are also collaborating with Lightbridge, who's developing next-generation light water reactor fuels. We are exploring opportunities where Lightbridge could manufacture their fuel at our fuel fabrication facility, given we are both fabricating the pallet fuel forms. Furthermore, we are working together on our recycling activities and evaluating the benefits of recycling used Lightbridge fuel into our reactors. With that, I'll turn it over to Craig for customer development, atomic alchemy, and financial update. Craig Bealmear: Thank you, Jake. Oklo Inc.'s powerhouses are purpose-built to meet the growing energy needs of numerous customer segments, including AI data centers. As Jake has already highlighted, our 50-megawatt design now offers the flexibility to deliver up to 75 megawatts of power, demonstrating our modular power offering can scale with customer demand, enabling Oklo Inc. to meet higher customer capacity with fewer deployments. We expect Oklo Inc. Powerhouses to have construction timelines of 18 months, providing a very competitive time-to-market option for nuclear reactors. And our cost-oriented design and engineering provide customers with competitive pricing. Oklo Inc. is capable of providing data centers with high reliability through the development of redundant powerhouse facilities and can deploy multiple powerhouse facilities to a single site that matches the phased deployment approach of data center campuses. Finally, Oklo Inc.'s small land footprint enables the company to pursue a colocation model that provides customers with greater site flexibility than competing alternatives. Moving to our next slide, I would like to highlight two product features that are really resonating with data center customers: phased deployment and reliability. The first product feature that our large customers like about Oklo Inc.'s powerhouse approach is the ability to build and deploy multiple small powerhouses in parallel rather than relying on a single large-scale plant with long lead times. This phased and modular expansion capability allows us to better align with specific customer timelines and capacity returns. Our data center customers absolutely love the safe scaling capabilities of multiple reactor projects. Moving to the next slide, I will talk about the second product feature that resonates with our data center customers, which is our ability to build in redundant powerhouses to achieve greater than 99% reliability. Reliability is critical for AI-driven data centers, which operate 24/7 and require constant, uninterrupted power. Even brief outages can result in significant data loss, service disruptions, and financial consequences. Unlike large-scale reactors that can experience complete shutdowns for maintenance, our modular powerhouses are designed so that routine or even unexpected maintenance on one unit does not impact overall system performance when there are more than one facility built on-site. This built-in redundancy can enable behind-the-meter operations as well as reducing the size of the customer's interconnect with the grid. I would now like to talk about our relationship with Switch. Our product market fit with the data center industry continues to be validated through major customer announcements. In December 2024, Oklo Inc. announced it had secured one of the largest corporate power agreements in history, a 12-gigawatt master power agreement with Switch, to be deployed through 2044. For context, this is equivalent to 1% of the US grid capacity. Switch is a leader in designing, building, and operating cutting-edge modular and scalable data centers. Their facilities support the most demanding AI, cloud, and enterprise clients, requiring reliable and sustainable power solutions. Switch has been a leader in clean power procurement and believes nuclear is critical to the future of AI data center development and operation. This agreement is an example of putting a master partnership agreement in place and is the result of extensive collaboration to understand Switch's needs and tailor a solution that ensures long-term energy reliability. It underscores Oklo Inc.'s role in powering next-generation data infrastructure while establishing a significant long-term revenue stream. The August delivery of this partnership lays the foundation for broader collaboration, aligning Oklo Inc.'s investment strategy, government and public affairs efforts, and supply chain optimization efforts to support large-scale deployment with a strategic customer. We often get asked why Oklo Inc. hasn't signed our purchase agreements or PPAs. The answer is that Oklo Inc. is taking a measured approach to reduce risk to the company and get the most attractive terms for the company and our investors. We are looking to implement a comprehensive risk-mitigated strategy for customer acquisition and project execution. On the previous slide, I talked about the master power agreement or MPA that we have in place with Switch. Today, we are signing MPAs with customers that establish a framework for the overall partnership. Once a master power agreement is established, we use it as a platform for multiple partnership elements, which include power sales, corporate and asset investment, supply chain optimization, and public relations and permitting. The master agreement also establishes the starting point for PPA negotiations. MPAs start to define potential target sites or regions, total and phased power delivery, timing of capacity additions, and a pricing range. With this framework established, Oklo Inc. can begin site feasibility analysis with customers and start specific PPA negotiations. In addition, the structure lives and iterates as the market evolves. And it's not limited to customers. We are applying this structure with parties across our value chain, from fuel supply to component manufacturing, creating a repeatable and scalable model for asset deployment. That should enable Oklo Inc. to move quickly while maintaining capital efficiency. As a result of our efforts over the last 18 months, Oklo Inc.'s customer pipeline has expanded significantly, driven primarily by growing data center demand. We signed agreements across key customer segments, with demand shifting towards our 75-megawatt powerhouse offer to meet large-scale AI-powered needs. Our pipeline has grown from 700 megawatts at the announcement of our business combination with Alt C to over 14 gigawatts today, supported by major customers like Equinix, Prometheus, Switch, and Diamondback Energy. As demand accelerates, we continue to advance discussions with additional customers to further expand our pipeline. I'd now like to talk about our partnership with Our Power. Oklo Inc. and Our Power are partnering to bridge the gap between today's power needs and the transition to advanced nuclear. This phased model ensures data centers secure reliable power now while seamlessly moving towards a clean, long-term energy solution. The approach has three phases. Phase one, immediate power deployment. Our Power's natural gas generators should be in a position to be deployed within 24 months to meet urgent demand opportunities. Phase two, transition to advanced nuclear. As Oklo Inc.'s Aurora powerhouses come online, they will integrate into these sites, delivering new clean baseload power. Phase three, long-term energy resilience. Over time, Aurora Powerhouses will become the primary energy source, with Our Power generators shifting to an auxiliary power delivery role. This enhances grid stability, allowing Our Power to act as a good grid citizen with Oklo Inc., supplying surplus power when needed. This approach meets urgent power needs today while enabling a clean, scalable, energy future. We have successfully closed the $25 million acquisition of Atomic Alchemy. This transaction marks Oklo Inc.'s strategic expansion into the high-growth radioisotope market. We view this as an extremely attractive bolt-on acquisition that enhances Oklo Inc.'s nuclear technology platform and diversifies our customer base to include critical industries such as space, defense, industrial applications, medical diagnostics, and semiconductor manufacturing. This acquisition is not expected to have material near-term operating cost increases for Oklo Inc., and does have the potential to accelerate revenues to the company through the sale of radioisotopes. This transaction was primarily funded via stock and represented less than 1% of dilution to Oklo Inc. shareholders. Additionally, shares issued to the Atomic Alchemy founders are subject to multi-year reinvesting to drive strong long-term alignment. The next slide focuses on some acquisition highlights. Atomic Alchemy will enhance Oklo Inc.'s technology portfolio and serve as a standalone radioisotope business with significant market potential. Acquisition highlights include the following. Massive market demand, limited supply. The radioisotope market is projected to exceed $55 billion by 2026, with applications spanning medical imaging, cancer therapies, space and defense, and next-generation semiconductor manufacturing. Meanwhile, aging facilities are struggling to keep up with demand, creating a critical supply gap. Benefits to Oklo Inc.'s energy and fuel business. Collecting high-value radioisotopes from recycling co-products enhances the economics of fuel recycling. Third, growth opportunities. We are already exploring joint ventures with customers in radiopharmaceuticals and advanced silicon doping semiconductor manufacturing, positioning Oklo Inc. for long-term success in high-growth industries. Fourth and finally, revenue and milestone acceleration. Radioisotopes are among the most valuable materials on earth. Take actinium-225, for example, which sells for $400 per nanogram or an astonishing $400 billion per gram. With our recent acquisition of Atomic Alchemy, we are positioning Oklo Inc. to capitalize on this high-margin market. Our radioisotope demonstration project is already underway, and we could begin generating revenue as early as the first quarter of 2026, unlocking significant near-term value for our business. This acquisition is a true force multiplier, accelerating our entry into the radioisotope sector. We are excited about the opportunities ahead and confident in the value this can create for our shareholders. I'd now like to talk about recent board appointments. With Chris Wright's confirmation as the new US Secretary of Energy, Oklo Inc. needed to fill an open board seat. In doing so, we took the opportunity to strengthen our board by adding not just one, but two exceptional leaders: Daniel Poneman and Michael Thompson. Daniel Poneman brings decades of experience in nuclear energy and national security. Most recently, he served as president and chief executive officer of Centrus Energy, leading the company to profitability and deploying the first US-based technology uranium enrichment facility since 1954. Before that, Dan was deputy secretary of energy, overseeing energy technology and nuclear security and playing a critical role in international nuclear negotiations and US energy security policy. Michael Thompson has significant experience in capital markets and technology investments. As managing partner at Reinvent Capital, he has worked with some of the most innovative technology companies. Previously, he founded and led EHR Capital, a New York-based hedge fund, and has served as an investor and board advisor across multiple high-growth sectors. With these additions, Oklo Inc.'s board is well-positioned to guide the company through its next phase of growth, ensuring strong governance as we execute on our strategy to deliver advanced nuclear power. I'll now provide a summary of our financials. Oklo Inc.'s full-year operating loss was $52.8 billion. This included a one-time fair market value expense of $7.8 million related to earn-out shares payable to Oklo Inc. staff who held us to the option at the time of SPAC closing, as well as $4.7 million of non-cash stock-based compensation expense. When adjusting for these non-cash amounts that were not included in our original 2024 budget, you get to $40.3 million, which is at the low end of our forecasted range of $40 to $50 million. In preparing our year-end consolidated financials, Oklo Inc. made two changes related to the accounting presentation associated with our business combination with Altsea that occurred in the second quarter of 2024. First, management received additional guidance that led us to reduce the fair market value of our safe notes at the closure by $2.1 million, improving our full-year net loss to $73.6 million. Second, we were directed that the tabular presentation of the deemed dividend on our quarterly income statement for earn-out and founder shares was not required, but this was already covered in the accompanying footnotes. We elected to reflect this as a material weakness in section 90, other information, in our 10-K for 2024, in the area of infrequent and complex accounting. It should be noted that these changes come from our business combination transaction that closed in the second quarter and actually result in improvement to our financial statements by minimizing our net loss attributable to common stockholders, from a loss of $563 million to a loss of $73.6 million. We are working to address this material weakness and expect to have it remediated by year-end. Oklo Inc.'s full-year cash used in operating activities was $38.4 million. This balance is derived from a net loss of $73.6 million, partially offset by $40.4 million in non-cash impacts. These non-cash impacts included $27.9 million in fair market value charges associated with the previously converted statements, as well as non-cash stock-based compensation charges of $12.5 million. Finally, at the end of the year, cash and marketable securities were at $275.3 million, primarily driven by the $276 million in proceeds net of fees received at the closing of our business combination. This cash balance generated approximately $7.7 million in interest income in 2024. Looking forward to 2025, we expect the cash used in operations Jake DeWitte: to Craig Bealmear: to be in the range of $65 million to $80 million. This year-on-year growth from 2024 is driven by increases in headcount, initiation of procurement activities in support of our first powerhouse at the Idaho National Labs, license application fees, progressing activities in support of fuel recycling, and a small increase resulting from our recently acquired Atomic Alchemy business. To close, we believe there are six factors that make Oklo Inc. such a compelling investment proposition. First, technology and size that are based on proven fast reactor technologies that we look to deploy at scale to reduce complexity, cost, and time delivery. Second, an attractive business model that is customer-oriented and enables recurring revenue and profits. Third, superior economics that can deliver power at competitive cost. Fourth, a diverse and growing customer base with interest across multiple market sectors. Fifth, a streamlined approach to regulatory approval underpinned by our combined license application process that leverages years of experience in our work with the NRC. And finally, a well-capitalized balance sheet that positions us well for the implementation of our business strategy. With that, I would like to thank you for your time. Jake and I will now open up the call for questions. Thank you. Operator: The first question comes from Ryan Pfingst from B. Riley. Your line is open. Ryan Pfingst: Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my questions. First, was the decision to go from 50 megawatts to 75 driven by customers you already have in your pipeline or potential customers you're talking to today? And do you see obvious benefits for your economics with the greater output? Craig Bealmear: Yes. Jake DeWitte: Thanks, Ryan. So a lot of it is built off of what we're seeing in the market come together from the customer interest set that we see sort of the data center architectures progressing. There's a sweet spot that kinda lives between 50 and 75, and probably more of it, really, between 60 and 72, probably more specifically. But in that range, that's really well targeted at our side. Like, basically, being at that size matches really well where we see kind of that range existing. So it made sense given that we have some latent extra capacity just through the design process for margin to be able to go up that high and provide that flexibility and do that now rather than kind of, you know, sort of strip like, basically keep the system more say, you know, I'm targeted at 50 and limits on the upside. So we just kinda unlock that in there and focus on making sure we can get up all that all the way to that number. So pretty much a customer-informed design, you know, kind of, I would say, decision if that makes sense. Just to be a little more specific, you might you know, people talk about gigawatt-scale data centers, and that's awesome and exciting to see how that's gonna come together. But many of the actual buildings that make up a campus because it's really gonna be a campus that makes up a gigawatt scale, these kind of buildings, structures are smaller than that, and then sort of sub-unit or if you will in those actual, like, data center buildings by themselves is really the this kind of data hall architecture as we refer to it. Is really living in that kind of 50 to 75-megawatt range, which is why we decided to go to that. You know, each different customer set has their own design, their own approach, so it does kinda have some range on that. But given kind of the lower relative parts of the CapEx for us, on the plant that's non-fuel related, it gives us a little more flex to accommodate that. And then we just size the core accordingly to make sure we match and live what we need to do between sort of that 15, 75 range. But generally speaking, I think we're gonna see some general convergence, but increasingly moves that number to exist pretty well between that 60 and sort of just basically 75-megawatt number. But it worked pretty, you know, pretty favorably to tie in to what they need at their core IT as well as heating and cooling load that those sizes. Craig Bealmear: And, Ryan, it's Craig. There will be some, you know, absolute economic benefits as well because just, you know, on the surface, if we have a customer who wants 150 megawatts of power delivered, it now moves back from three powerhouses at 50 to two powerhouses at 75. And so there'll be some economies that's going there. Ryan Pfingst: Got it. I appreciate that detail. And I'll stick to the customer side. Now that you have a pipeline of 14 gigawatts, do other potential customers see that and think, you know, Oklo Inc. is pretty full. I better seek out, you know, power elsewhere, or are your discussions progressing at the same pace following your announcement of the Switch agreement? Jake DeWitte: Yeah. I think it's I mean, generally speaking, I think it actually in some ways kind of accelerates for some because now it's like, oh, shoot. Like, you know, we wanna don't wanna miss out on this. We don't wanna lose out on this. But, you know, our kind of dynamic with customers and our engagement, as Craig talked about, is iterative based on, you know, what makes the most sense to engage folks when it you know, and when and how and kind of bringing a little bit more to the table accordingly. And so at the end of the day, I think there's a bit of scarcity effect that is existing now, and I imagine will probably increase and generally speaking, that's gonna be pretty positive to us. But, you know, then accordingly, we'll kind of see how that unfolds as things progress in terms of what there might be an effect on some folks being like, oh, that's pretty you know, but Oklo Inc. might be pretty pulled up. But I think what we see is more folks being like, okay. We wanna get in to try to figure out how to work with you guys and also what can we do to help expand that bandwidth and capacity so there's you know, you can do more. And I think that's a little bit of a more begets more here. And that's really how we're trying to, like, structure, you know, how and who we work with. Operator: The next question comes from Jeffrey Campbell from Seaport Research. Your line is open. Jeffrey Campbell: Good afternoon, and congratulations on a pretty strong year. Jake, regarding the increased range of the PowerHouse to 50 to 75 megawatts, does this require any kind of change in your total license approach or is it already covered or what kind of effect is there, I think? Jake DeWitte: Yeah. And really try to keep it so that it's a pretty minimal effect. In general, like, everything we're doing to support kinda going to the 50 yes, basically, is accommodating to this. There are, of course, a few things that we need to be mindful of. But in general, like, all the infrastructure and everything we have and all the design and analysis work, all those kind of things accommodate this pretty well. And if you think about what this is really doing is this is giving us a platform that allows us to go between 15 and 75. That's pretty unconventional in nuclear because people, again, typically think of very fixed heavy CapEx of the plant dominating the cost profile, so you wanna maximize the power output. Because of the benefits of, you know, what we've been saying before to you, and kind of our design approach, you actually have a little more flex on that side. And you become more, you know, a little bit more sensitive and driven by the fuel side relatively speaking. And that can give you some more room then to say, okay. If I need to be at 50, the number I'll be at. If I need to be at 75, here's the number I'll be at because of, you know, less fuel and more fuel, respectively. And that gives you that flexibility then to match customer demand and from the economic side. Craig said, of course, there is some benefits on the 75. Just because you kinda get a scaling benefit on, you know, fuel efficiency getting a little bit bigger. But at the end of the day, all of these sizes kinda keep us inside of a nice realm where the work we're doing on the licensing side carries over. That's also a reason why staying at this size range is important for us. You know, if you do get much bigger here, you can do start to tip into a world where some of the a lot like, you'll start needing to do more things that kind of go outside of the envelope of what we've been doing on the regulatory front to date. So it's very intentional to be mindful about those considerations and works out pretty well, but, you know, we're in this kinda sweet spot in the market right now. Jeffrey Campbell: And, Jeff, we came into the slides pretty quickly, but if you go back to slide ten, it does talk about no new technical or design risk to achieve a larger power output. Which is pretty important. Okay. Great. And I'll stick with one more regulatory question. Can you describe broadly what the readiness assessment entails and does it derisk your actual COLA application? To to extend? Jake DeWitte: Yeah. I think it's a great question. So how we're approaching, you know, our application on this go is it's kind of a structured submission of a first phase and a second phase where you're putting in sort of this initial work on citing environmental and some other dynamics that were being evaluated there. But ahead of that, we're doing a readiness assessment, which is an optional kind of thing you can do with the NRC. So basically do a prereview. It's something we've intended to do. It was kind of a key takeaway and lesson learned from our prior regulatory experience in leading up to this because it's continual and dynamic to basically make sure we're all sort of working on the same page. It pre converges us. It pre converges the NRC to kinda have a good sufficient review process accordingly. It's been a pretty clear point of benefit based on some recent regulatory actions by the NRC that the readiness assessment is supportive of that. So, yeah, it's a way to derisk both the content and the timeline of the review and position everyone for not just success, but more efficiency as a result. So that's how we're approaching this to lead into that review. Here. So it's pretty exciting stuff for us to come here next week. Operator: The next question comes from Vikram Bagri from Citi. Your line is open. Jake DeWitte: Hi. Thanks for taking the question. It's Ted on for Vikram Bagri. Just wanted to follow-up on that. Is there any initial feedback you could share on your discussions with the NRC as you work towards that pre-application readiness assessment? Just in terms of kind of, you know, how many meetings you've been having, what sort of discussions you're having, and then in terms of timing, I think the letter mentioned that you're expecting the COBRA to be submitted this year. Is it planning to do that once certain aspects of the advance site become effective? So should we be expecting that sometime in the fourth quarter? Jake DeWitte: Yeah. So I mean, the engagement with the NRC is pretty continual. Don't, you know, I don't actually have the latest number in terms of the total tally of meetings we've had, but it's, you know, it's, like, over between, you know, meetings and, you know, report submissions over there, that's over 600. We started working with them back in 2016, and then the number is almost changing. Well, it is changing pretty much by the week. And so but yeah. I mean, basically, you know, what all this work is for is, right, we're developing application content. What that is is really saying, okay. Here's how we're gonna meet the regulatory requirements that are outlined in the code of federal regulation. And then, you know, making sure that that is, you know, the owner should be able to spend some time understanding that and then using that to inform how they're going to do their independent safety analysis and their independent review that they have to do. And so spending some time kinda work through that and then a readiness assessment put them in a position where they had they go through the exercises, be like, okay. Here's what we here's here's the actual sort of approach we need in the review to make sure that everything is in place until then accordingly, is incredibly valuable. So, you know, hitting phase one of that here is gonna be super useful to then move quickly into submitting the application thereafter. One reference point that I think is important here is TerraPower's construction permit work is, you know, they did a readiness assessment and relatively quickly thereafter submitted a construction permit, and there's been recent news with the industry that had a schedule on that review. So you can see why, like, that's a very and that's, you know, it's a very similar technology set to ours. So this is why doing this for Cola is probably even more valuable. And which is why we're doing it. For the rest of your question, yeah. We're targeting submitting the rest of the full cola by the end of the year. The timeline is gonna depend a bit on sort of the other readiness assessment feedback, you know, affect sort of the timing of the phase one submission, but most likely, you know, we I mean, given that the advance act takes effect on October first, it's gonna you know, we're targeting Q4, just because benefits of that are pretty important to be fully scoped under. Got it. That's very helpful. And just in terms of the OpEx outlook, for this year, just just kind of curious, like, what are the main drivers there? How could how how should we be thinking about cash from operations this year relative to last? With that lower hourly fee rate from the NRSA, is that factored into the OpEx outlook as well? Craig Bealmear: Yeah. So it's Craig. So I gave a range of $65 to $80 million and incorporated in that range is the potential is the upside that we get from the lower NRCP, but those really don't go in effect until October. So that's probably more of a next year impact than a this year impact. You know, in terms of, you know, what are gonna be the uses and of that increase, you know, we can continue to bring on more staff. You know, Jake talked in his portion of the slides around the work we're doing at INL to get the site ready for deployment. We are continuing to advance things on the recycling front and seeing activity scale up there. You know? And I think I said at the last update that we expected Atomic Alchemy to add, you know, circa $3 to $6 million to our overall burn rate. And, you know, and we're still very much within that range post due completion. Operator: The next question comes from Eric Stine from Craig Hallum. Your line is open. Eric Stine: Hi, Jake. I'm trying. Jake DeWitte: Hey. Eric Stine: Hey. So earlier question, just talking about scarcity values. Your pipeline fills up. Just want to take it a step further. I'm curious, you know, how how is that kind of changed discussions or driven discussions around prepayments such as you've got with Equinix? I mean, is that something that counterparties out there looking at as a way to potentially, you know, you know, get up further in line, secure a spot? Just curious how that's playing out. Jake DeWitte: Yeah. It's a great question. I mean, I think, you know, what we're learning and it's been interesting is one, you know, each customer has a different, you know, I would say different things that matter to them and different tools in their toolbox accordingly. And so while we're creating like, the important thing about what we've learned and how we've adapted kind of our engagement with them, as Craig pointed to, we definitely could have jumped into signing some PPAs and probably left a lot of value for everybody on the table accordingly. Right? And so it's important for us to kinda scope out what makes the most sense for everybody through how we can structure master partnership agreement and find different ways to work with folks. And then, you know, I think the flavor of that is of that kind of prepayment or similar structures is gonna take a lot of different. Well, I'm afraid that. Have a lot of different flavors, based on what we're learning. So far. You know, everything from containment like we saw directly there to the potential for, you know, strategic investment as a possibility, if that makes sense for both parties. There's some reasons that may or may not make for all of us, of course. The possibility of, you know, sort of off-balance sheet, kinda joint venture approaches, the possibility of direct supply chain and procurement, the possibility of land lease and kind of value kind of work like that. Even even just the action in kind value of doing work, like engineering, siding, and different work like that. I mean, that's one of the things that on the Switch deal, I'm particularly excited about that I think is kind of a little bit underappreciated because, you know, it's it's it's it's a huge opportunity. I mean, twelve gigawatts is a number to get your head around. But the reality is, like, their position for all this massive, right, growth given kind of their positioning in the industry and their leadership. Especially in high-density compute. But their attention to detail and their focus on how they do design engineering for human construction, and that we we I I was captivated by that the first time I met them. And how similar I saw some of what they do is to what we do. And as a result, like, the ability to kind of I'm gonna use the term coaccelerate deployment by working with them and tapping into their engineering capabilities resource, you know, on the sort of full-stack engineering, procurement, construction side, it is really helpful for us. I mean, it's it's the preconditioning and acceleration of working with a group that's actively already building a lot of facilities that has some direct carryover, it it it can be difficult to overstate the value of that. Right? So being able to slide into some of those pieces and work towards the site is very promising and exciting. So there's a lot of in-kind value that comes off that. Doesn't show directly on the balance sheet, but helps accelerate everything across the board, you know, in that sense. So, accordingly, there's a lot of flavors and each customer has different, you know, different tools and a toolbox and a different appetite accordingly. And our view is just working with the ones that kinda help us maximize value for everybody and help us get a, you know, position to do what actually needs to get done, which is build build plans and produce power and then, you know, have them use the power. That's what we're ultimately working towards. And since there's several different initial steps that can help us get there, you know, this master power kinda and Master Power sorry. Master Power Agreement structure allows us to define that partnership structures and then iteratively grow those things. Because the more you get to know a site and a customer, the more you find that certain levers are higher impact than other levers, and so you wanna work with them to pull those accordingly. So kind of a long-winded answer, but that's how we're how we're seeing it structure out. So definitely the opportunity for that and the other type of things that have a similar kind of upside benefit. Eric Stine: Yep. That was a great great answer. Thank you for that. And maybe just for my follow-up, just on Atomic Alchemy, you mentioned potential that we see revenues initial in the first quarter of 2026. And you mentioned the demonstration project. Could you just lay out some of the signposts to look for, you know, so we can kinda track if, in fact, you know, things are on track for that first quarter of 2026 or, you know, any of the factors that might push that out a bit? Jake DeWitte: Yeah. So, you know, this is a fun part of the business that's gonna have a lot of upside as kind of continual illumination occurs here. From the sort of, you know, just like edification perspective. Is is that what I mean with that? I think, you know, there's a couple watch points of how that's gonna progress. Accordingly with different, you know, progress at their facility and capabilities, but build out with what they're doing out in Idaho and potentially other sites. And then also their ability to source some of these different materials and tap into that. And then couple that within if you think about what they're doing, there's a couple main major kind of points of value creation they have. Right? One is on being able to do the kind of near-term work. The other is like, you know, pull out some existing materials from other, you know, existing sort of reserves of radonucleides that are kind of untapped or like, you know, priorly used sources and radio therapy devices. Then the other is the opportunity to actually directly produce with their own reactor design and approach is very different than a power reactor. And it's very cool. To see how this stuff works. But, basically, you know, you build a reactor that main product is neutrons, and then you put materials in that reactor, absorb neutrons and turn into other elements. I mean, it literally is the alchemy, which is what's so cool about neutrons. And then and that produces incredibly high-value materials. One of the things we really like about their approach is leveraging very mature technology sets. They're not trying to build these hypergotic designs on the reactor side that give you the highest absolute performance but at a marginally massive cost, and that's something that's easy to fall into because, you know, the marginal economics, the unit economics of some of these materials are so high. Like, oh, I may as well, you know, I can pay for building out sort of this, like, Lamborghini of a reactor when really you just need, like, a Ford F-150. Maybe that's not the best analogy. Maybe better to pick a Toyota Camry, but, like, this is a simpler cheaper machine that gets you 80% of what you need, but does it, you know, involve and you can get it built a lot faster and need a lot less CapEx to get it built. So, like, that's that's another angle for potential future growth and some of the regulatory developments and milestones that come there are gonna be important. And then additionally, gonna be sort of the ability to tap into the things we're doing on the recycling side. Pull out some of the what would otherwise be byproducts and turn them into co-products from our recycling process. And then another thing that's a little bit underappreciated but goes back to the legacy of fast reactors, it's really cool. One of the plants we derive our legacy from is called the Fast Flux Test Facility in Washington state, and that actually was a is a fast reactor, setting fast reactor. A lot of similar activities to what we're doing. It was and did a lot of really cool things in terms of isotope production. And there's some unique things you can do for high-value isotope production and fast reactors. So accordingly, we expect that some of our plants that Idaho sent plant being a very good candidate for this, to have some extra flexibility baked into it to actually allow you to produce radioisotopes. They're already doing work at Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho Falls, so it's kind of a natural segue to produce additional revenue streams from that first plant. With, you know, extra production and sales from it. So, like, very, you know, kinda cool combination of different features that come together that way, but I would say, like, you know, there's gonna be updates as we go forward on the quarterly side about sort of where the progress and how that's tracking. Certain things are kind of well in sorry. Certain things are kind of in development on the sort of facility side. Other things have some regulatory permitting milestones that will kinda come forward as this kinda, you know, progress accordingly, and that'll just be a point where we fold into our normal update cadence, excuse me, cadence that we have. Operator: The next question comes from Craig Shere from Tuohy Brothers. Your line is open. Craig Shere: Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions. Did I hear correctly in response to Ryan's opening question that your 75-megawatt powerhouse would have similar nonfuel CapEx at the 50-megawatt design? And as to Eric's question, does the more scaled plant design obviously increasing, you know, fuel needs and CapEx, including fuel, does that necessitate either front-loaded customer payments and/or project equity participation if you're going to implement, you know, the faster scaled deployments? And finally, you know, not only is capital an issue in their early years of commercialization, but obviously, you know, in the first, you know, two, three years HALO fuel is in more limited supply. Any thoughts of addressing accelerated Halo requirements if you move more quickly to these upsized designs? Jake DeWitte: Yeah. A bunch of questions. So I'll try to get through unpacking each of those accordingly. I mean, there's a bit of a higher, you know, CapEx between 50 and 75 if you go that way just because, you know, you have bigger heat exchangers, bigger turbines. So you do have an increase in the CapEx across the board there. But it's typically something that scales favorably for you. And similarly, you know, at this size range, you actually get more power per, you know, kilogram of fuel accordingly. So there's some benefits accordingly that come that way. So it gives us some more flexibility, but that yeah. And that's really just kind of margin improvement. Part of the main part of the other driver here I mean, the main driver is matching this with customers. The other benefit that happens this way is you are getting more megawatts, you know, basically for your fuel, and given that fuel supply is a constraint, this gives us the flexibility to preserve the benefits of adapting into existing supply chains and capabilities for a lot of the components right here and live within that realm and not get too bespoke. And all of the upstream and downstream effects that happen if you do that right, including needing to put a lot more CapEx in the tooling and the manufacturing and all those kinds of things. It avoids a lot of that by staying in these sizes. But also gives you that benefit of having, you know, a little bit more I'll call just economic efficiency on the fuel side. So at the end of the day, you can build more reactor or sorry. You can build more megawatts if you really say, you can build more gigawatts with less fuel accordingly. That's part of the one of the other drivers that's important here. And as for a question that comes as well, what if I need to just go to, like, hundred channel megabits? Like, we always evaluate kinda different size points, but the reality is there's a lot of inflection occurs once you get above kind of the 75-megawatt range. That starts to complicate things up and down a few months supply chain that do put a lot more cost, challenger drivers, and uncertainties in play. And so maybe in time that makes something, you know, something we'll continue to watch and see as we execute at what we're doing now to see if there's some added insights we get through execution that make those more either palatable, approachable, or, you know, want to do them. But we see a pretty, you know, favorable sweet spot that matches really well with where we see the bulk of our customer interest being at the size range. And giving us the ability to execute against that accordingly. And the thoughts about I kinda the Sorry. I feel like I kinda cut you off. Did you say that part again? I'm sorry. It was about Patrick. Craig Shere: Yeah. Jake DeWitte: Because you have to front-load more cash back. Obviously, it's economic, but you have to come up with the money. Craig Bealmear: Yeah. So, Craig, it will add, you know, more front-end CapEx but, you know, similar to what we saw when you go from 15 to 50, and materials we showed at, you know, our investor day deck, but it will improve in terms of the dollars per megawatt delivered. And as Jake said, it's a much more efficient use of fuel and other things. Operator: The next question comes from Max Hopkins from CLSA. Your line is open. Max Hopkins: Hello. Thank you for the time. Question on fuel. I see Daniel from Centrus. He kinda led them and turned them around very well. I'm now on the board. I'll see in my talks with a lot of investors, it all comes down to fuel, it seems like, in the longer term. You guys are not part of the ARDP, but, you know, you have HALO's procured and secured. I guess, how does that look going forward with more procurement of HALO? Will it be Centra specifically that you guys need to procure with? Or can you go to other, you know, Halo providers or just straight to the DOE? I guess, how does the fuel procurement look going forward? Jake DeWitte: Yeah. It's a great question. I mean, one of the things that's interesting and exciting about this space and this opportunity is I love that we have fuel for our first plant for many, many reasons. Really important one is it helps position us to figure out the best way to find fuel for the next plant. In a scalable way. It's one of the reasons we publicly, you know, partnered with Centrus. We're very excited that they are producing Hailey as we speak. We're very excited about what their path looks like to increase that, and we'll continue to work with them and find the ways we can help partner and accelerate accordingly on that front. We're very pleased that, you know, obviously, there's been the programs from the US government to help scale up and spin out what's happening on the Hailey side. And we see those things as all occurring. But, look, the part of the reason that these kind of partnership agreements that we sign are so important is because it helps build the order book and then help build the frameworks accordingly because everything's adapting and dynamic right now. To best accelerate the fuel side. Jumping forward with the DPA, while, you know, too soon and then the maybe you leave some opportunity on the table about how you could position the growth forward because some of these PPAs, even if it's a multi-gigawatt potential upside on the whole project or the whole partnership, you're probably gonna most likely have the PPA signed in incremental chunks as the phases go and as they sell the power in their capacity, right, on the data center side. Accordingly, you know, if you want to build the framework for sustained fuel production over twenty years, that's much more valuable to everybody than just sort of like, alright. We have this PPA. We're gonna spend a good bill for the next five to eight years. Therefore bring the order accordingly in that sense, and then having the refueling kinda hidden to go with it. Those things piece together are even more powerful than stand-alone, but building that picture out helps the enriches on capital planning helps us help build the right frameworks, help build the right kind of contract structures, and even inform the right policy levers. It's a very important thing to highlight here too that's, like, significant. First of all, I think sometimes people tend to focus. Well, a design doesn't need Halo, and that's a big benefit. That's not really that that I could. Ownership market's across the western world are pretty tight. Right? We were importing 18% of our enrichment service from Russia and that's, you know, off the table model and there's exemptions being made, of course, I understand that. But even if there's changes in that policy, this is being challenged by, you know, I should say challenged, you know, stretched by increasing demand for new plans, life extensions, restarting plans, even on just the conventional LEU side. So really the capacity for LEU is basically overbooked and so is, of course, the capacity for HALO. Now obviously, the capacity of the production of the value is much larger than the production of Hailey today. But this is a constraining challenge across the board. Now what's feature about that problem though is the demand signals are clear across the spectrum. Obviously, the hyperscalers have shown that they're not being they've been partnering the, you know, most of these announcements have come working with like, us and our peers who are doing reactors that you say, Luz. Clearly, there's something that they dig into it. They feel like these are things that help move that forward. Because it's a solvable problem. But, it's important because what all that kind of translates to then is we're simulating the supply chain for the industry across the board with these different government programs and these different sort of commercial updates. Right? Are coming together. The centrifuges that you make a centrifuge technology base to make LEU are same that you're really gonna use to make each ALU. You're gonna typically see an order book that's larger on the LEU side just given the existing fleet and the size of it. So if you spin that into a growth mode, you're gonna see significant drop in the economy scales for So all of this is a silver lining of the tightness today to significant benefits to be seen tomorrow. So, you know, I do worry about sort of the bridge between now and the early 2030s, obviously have a little bit of an ace in our up our sleeve on the recycling side. Kind of a silly way to say it, but recycling helps diversify our exposure to that massively, and that's part of why we're taking this approach. It also just massively changes the fuel utilization question in economics. It's hard to beat dropping your fuel cost, which is a big cost item in our plans by over 80%. Having that potential is pretty exciting. Not to mention all the other benefits you get from recycling, but what we see is, you know, like, there is significant opportunity and there's appetite as we see it coming together on the policy landscape for opening up reserves extra reserves fuel with the government has that can be used to bridge us to that point. One of the interesting things about that is that's actually preferentially advantageous on average to actually fast reactors. You're accommodating impurities that might exist in some of the government reserves that can't use for anything else because of impurities that don't matter to fast reactors. They're already using different, you know, sources of this material and therefore opening up totally different, you know, opportunities to basically bridge us forward. And I'll not make this be kind of as a potential sort of couple kind of finding risk dynamic that does exist today. That is going, you know, market forces will force through this and resolve it, we're pretty excited about some of the policy appetite. We've already been a beneficiary of what that looks like. We've shown that that can be a successful pathway to open up government reserves as a breathing mechanism, and we're very excited and eager to see that, you know, if the basically help drive forward. Hopefully, more of that to come that helps us and others. But there's a lot of features that actually by on purpose how we've designed our system, the features that allow us to recycle and be flexible on fuel streams are actually help us a lot if those programs get opened up because a lot we can use pretty much anything that's out there. Not everyone else can do that, and that's gonna obviously help because material that maybe others can use is not gonna be competitive for, and so it gives us good advantages in that sense. So at the end of the day, I feel like, you know, the market's moving in the right way to address this in a number of fronts for LEU and HLAU. It's a problem across the board. To just catch up on the supply there, but it's happening, which is good. I'd love to see it happen faster, obviously. But then I think there's also the bridging piece that can really help and help accelerate that happening, by the way, that ramp up on the commercial side. Because then you can go build reactors and faster because you're not feel constrained, which is gonna help you then order more fuel to build more faster after that. So you know, virtuous cycle. That's how I kinda look at that. Max Hopkins: Thank you. Very clear. Operator: Relations, for a couple retail questions. Sam Doane: Thanks, Karen. Jake, Greg, we had a couple of retail questions. The first one is can you give more detail on the switch deal? And confer is this a firm or conditional, and what does that mean pro quo? Jake DeWitte: Yeah. Happy to. So the switch deals a pretty exciting opportunity for us given the size. Right? It's immense. In terms of the magnitude of it at twelve gigawatts. Accordingly, it has conditional elements around it for sure. So it's not a firm PPA. We didn't wanna sign them a firm PPA right away around that kind of size. It's too early. It's much better to do what we did here, which is say, okay. How we're gonna work together. You know, switch around and kind of built their case and talked to several different company or company technologies and like, through what we're doing and decided they wanted to with us and partner with us to power their growth to help power their growth and their ambitions accordingly. And we also really liked working with them. You know, there's a lot of people doing work in the space so we have the benefits of being selective too, and we see, like, they are really well aligned. Big vision, about what they can do, incredibly impressive technology for high compute. I mean, it's just incredibly impressive. The guy as a technical guy, just from, like, you know, they don't have electronics and data centers, but they do have thermal hydraulics. It's just thermal fluids. And what they do is awesome and very cool. And getting to see that was pretty neat to see. And accordingly, like, that's their design approach, their attention to detail, all kind of resonated really strongly. Not to mention kind of the benefits they have in terms of their plan for scale and growth across a number of different areas. So we were pretty excited to be able to work with them and want to work with them to then frame out this big vision to say, hey. Here's where we see them the roadmap being able to go to. Here's how we're gonna start working together as we further refine and define this. So this is the stage because, you know, twelve gigawatts is it I mean, it is. It's one of, if not the largest clean power deal in the US history or in US history. And so, like, it's great to have the stage set for that, but it takes a lot of time to say, okay. How are we gonna execute against this? And instead of then spending much time to come up with, you know, this grand master plan that, at the end of the day, is only gonna be, you know, twenty percent accurate because once you start executing against it, things change. Rather, it was like, let's take this incremental piece of approach. I've kinda mastered power agreement that sets the stage of how we're gonna work together on-site being and working together in different areas in government affairs. And different aspects around public relations. And site relations, how we do site characterization and studies, how we do design scoping and sizing, we actually do site design and integration and do the engineering some of the engineering work and therefore the engineering procurement construction work accordingly. I would look at how we can overlap those things tap into what they do really well, and find ways to sort of build off of their capabilities so that there's some economic and timing benefits that way. And then use those to define how you actually move to the next stages of contract negotiation. Negotiations for firm off, I think. So this is actually really good important, and it's the right way to do things. You jump straight to this, like, firm PPA model, again, you might miss the target and get into a bunch of retraining and a bunch of renegotiation, and that's just not gonna be helpful to building out what we're actually trying to do together. Which is much more than just the transactional relationship. Right? It's much more about building very sustainable source of energy to power the future of compute and AI. So, like, that is pretty potent. So that's how we structure that. Again, like, in this from an engineering kind of co like, I I guess I'd almost call it a philosophical alignment. Like, we I saw so many parallels to what they do to what we need to do from designing a pixel last asset to then how you route the sort of bring in these prefabricated manufactured componentry and put it together and piping and wrap plumbing and write valve power. There's a lot of similarities. It's not, again, not the same same, but there's a lot of interesting similarities. So great example of what that partnership says to phase four and how we expect that to go it's also worth noting it spans a very long timeline to deploy to that. I mean, it's gonna take us a long time to to scale in twelve gigawatts. I mean, I'm excited about the opportunity, but it's not something we can just do overnight. And it's not something we can just do in five years even or even ten years. Right? That's why this fan several decades. So, anyway, that's how we frame this and scope this. And I think this is kind of the right way to put these things together to help move the ball forward. So there's much more to come here, right, as these things progress, but it's the right kind of initial steps. To move forward. And, Jake, I was kinda held that internally that, you know, with when we were talking to Switch, and I think back to the meeting that you and I and other members of our team had with Rob Roy and his team in Las Vegas, to kind of pivot us towards the master partnership agreement. Because as we were going deeper in cover situations with the switch team, we realized there was more than one avenue of partnership that we could take with them. Which is why we put that overarching frame place so we could, you know, explore different things at different points in time, you know, and try to find optimized partnership elements between, you know, what Switch is looking for in their priorities as well as, you know, both. Sam Doane: Great. Thank you both. Last question for the day. Oklo Inc. previously faced regulatory setbacks with the NRC, rejected its application due to information gaps. Given those challenges, what specific changes or advances have you made now give you confidence in securing approval for your nuclear projects? Jake DeWitte: Yeah. I'm not trying to just, like, you what's the word? Like, polish this or a silver lining on it. But, like, the setbacks were also very informative, like, learning points to gain a lot of information. So I knew them some of my setbacks, but more as learning opportunities and forward progress on them. Just to recap, like, you know, we submitted our combined license application the first time around for a one and a half megawatt plan out of the Idaho site. This is 2020. Right? Pre this boom in AI data centers, all these customer dynamics, and much more focused on kind of a smaller incremental piece of reactor development and deployment. Our long-term road map was always to work our way up into the sizes we're at now. Just wanna start as small as we could to reduce the total amount of capital to get built and still have a viable market. Which really works well. We've thought at that time, at that size, well, the market evolved and moved, which was good, and it's nice because we would you know, it would have been would have been the best thing for us to build a one and a half megawatt plan given where the market is today had that license progressed. But also, we took a very forward-leaning licensing approach. And, you know, she had worked with us in pre-application for four years leading up to submitting that application, including us piloting an application with them. That was very novel instruction. Structure in 2018. And that was pretty important because we wanted to try to set up a new framework and a new approach on sort of what a license application would look like. I think the tendency in if we try to license these new reactor types like large conventional light water reactors, it just doesn't really make sense. A lot of square peg round hole there's a lot of ways you need to do things differently. And so we lean into that pretty heavily, and if you lean back into that heavily, and the after they did it around of audits on our applicator, you know, pilot application in 2018 and 2019, they gave us a clear feedback there's clear feedback that they could review an application that looked like that. They gave some feedback about how to approach framing and scoping it and also took it to okay. You know, more or less, if you come in or something like that, we could find a password to do that. And just to put the numbers on it, we went in with an application that was very, very forward-leaning. Right? Very innovative. It was like, seven major sections rather than the nineteen typical chapters. It was only less than six hundred pages compared to ten of thousands, like, ten to twenty thousand pages. Very different, much more lightweight approach. In parallel to that, the NRC was doing some new things that was pretty cool. And so we were pretty excited about what they were doing. In terms of highlighting a very audit-heavy review focus rather than kind of a written question and answer approach. I mean, they're gonna do both, but do a lot more on the audits, which are much more intensive, by the way, but they move faster. Much more productive for us and for the regulators. Additionally, and that was all based on in-person audits. Right? Then additionally, they wanted to move forward just kind of doing some cool, like, you know, core team, cross-functional review team that was working together in person not in the sort of departmental technical silos that they typically would sit in. Where an application would come in and get shotgunned out, whether they would all be together across different subject matters and working together to kind of develop out their independent safety analysis review and move forward. On top of that, you know, we told them, hey. We're gonna come in, you know, very forward-leaning. We're gonna come in with a we think is a justifiable and defensible approach, but it's going to inherently be different than what we've seen before. So a very, you know, I would say optimized safety footprint and how we classified what things were safety-related and not. So it was, you know, it's very modern frankly. All that I think was great, going in 2019 and early 2020, and, unfortunately, for much bigger reasons than our application, but obviously, the world changed very substantially in March of 2020, which is when we submitted the application, literally on the day the pandemic was declared. And that completely shifted the review dynamic that we were no longer doing these in-person things. We weren't doing the same approach that we built our application for. You know, as far as we knew and we were told by the NRC at that time, we submitted the first application that had ever been submitted online. Know, and we never verified and validated that through the whole change, but I think that's pretty true. And that was in 2020. Right? It just shows you that we were really doing some new things, and they were really responding to. Ultimately, think it was all too much during an era of COVID. And that's where we got setback considerably on, I think, sort of the, okay. We can't review the application that's submitted. Given all these things. So they denied it in January two, you know, two thousand twenty-two. After, you know, a couple of months later, we're able to engage again in person with them, immediately got back into pre-application. Obviously, we updated the design to be bigger because the market had moved on us that way. We already been talking about that with the NRC, and so that gave us the platform to do that. Move fully into that, and then take an approach that allowed us to focus on sort of resolving an the open items that the NRC wanted, which mostly turned into, hey. How did you do this? What was your methodology? And then bridging our approach and how we did it sort of what they're used to seeing and, you know, what they were comfortable with. What we found was a little more time on that, you gotta burn a lot more sort of comfortable with the different approaches being taken and saying, oh, actually, you did things. It was just done in a way we're different from seeing it. But now spending time together, we see that it's done in a way that we're kinda used to. Maybe some extra, you know, then, you know, approaches on, like, if you can help answer questions that we have in these areas, that will help us progress a review, for example. You have many, many meetings that then happen from April 2022 through now sort of converge on this, to put draft out content of theapplication together, to submit different technical reports, and have meetings and have reviews on that or white papers, I should say, and then also have the topical reports coming out and then moving into readiness assessment. It gives us the chance to then move forward on all these things in time. Since when we first submitted through now and time is looking at these things, as well as how we're using them and implementing them, has actually grown a lot more convergence on the doability of some of the things we were intending to do. Obviously, there's some updates into modernization, but the lessons learned have been massive because we spent time to actually now go through those things and try to do them. A key thing that was different for us compared to other companies is we leaned into that opportunity back at the very beginning of our engagement with NRC to try to do things in an efficient way as we could see possible. And we got some bumps and bruises and scratches and all of that and black eyes accordingly. But guess what? Look at how things have progressed accordingly. And a lot of that stuff and then they're not gonna mix, but builds off of some of the things we forward. Like, some stuff we tried and put forward, maybe a bit too different or too much, so it's kinda changed. But a lot of things are finding a lot of footing in the different things the NRC has done. The last, frankly, right, almost nine years since we started working with them. Not because it's like, oh, we did all these things with our credit is. It's more, hey. We're trying to do something differently, and then others are echoing that with some time in it. And we were obviously ahead of the pack. And so as others start kind of digging in and developing their own plans in the space, then they actually look at it. It kind of all comes together in a constructive way to say, okay. Yeah. We could do something in this way more efficient and right-sized. Then you couple that with the current environment that's gone from several administrations excessively of trying to drive forward a more modernized regulatory framework and approach, to reflect these kinds of capabilities and these changes. You know, it's pretty exciting, honestly. So at the end of the day, like, you know, we've applied a lot of lessons learned. We've done a lot. Obviously, we've grown the team, hired a lot of good folks to come in and help us do this. But a lot of the things that we put forward are also finding kind of footing with some updates and tweaks with iterations on them that can, you know, can come together over the last couple of years. These things don't move super quickly, but we've invested the longest amount of time of anybody to get to the state. So we're in a really good position to go forward into seeing and the next steps thereafter. So, you know, obviously, there's a lot more work to do. But, you know, we've been very excited about how the NRC has done things. How we've been doing things. The feedback we've done has been helpful and constructive here. You know, there's some things we've kind of evolved our course on. There's things that I think NRC has as well, but at the end of the day, it's coming together to set the stage for review unless they have license and issued things for other advanced reactor types. Which are pretty important. Granted, the construction permits, or design certifications, and those aren't the same as a COLA, but all that builds on itself so that when we go in with the COL application, there's a lot that we get to stand on, and they get to stand off from a success perspective. So that's my really long answer, but it's been a journey and one that I will continue to. Operator: I will now hand the call back to Jake DeWitte for closing remarks. Jake DeWitte: Great. Well, thank you all so much for the time. I want to talk about the different updates and things we have going on. 2024 was a very exciting year for us for a lot of reasons. But also just a preview of what we're all really excited to go do. Something I tend to talk about internally is the broad potential that this technology has and truly unlocking, you know, the energy of reactinide that we are unfortunately blessed with, to have as this incredible energy resource that fast reactors and recycling are pretty uniquely positioned to fully tap into. So thank you for the time, and looking forward to the next one. Operator: Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today's call. Thank you all for joining, and you may now disconnect.

Operator: Good day, everyone, and welcome to today’s Oklo Q3 ‘24 Financial Results and Webcast. [Operator Instructions] Today’s call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Sam Doane. Please go ahead. Sam Doane: Thank you, operator. Good day, everyone, and welcome to Oklo’s 2024 third quarter company update and earnings call. Joining us today are Jake Dewitte, Oklo’s Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer; and Craig Bealmear, Chief Financial Officer. Oklo’s Q3 earnings were announced after market close today. You can find the shareholder letter and supplemental slides on the Investor Relations page of our website. The information discussed during the course of our remarks and the subsequent Q&A session includes forward-looking statements, which reflect our current views of existing trends and are not subject to a variety of risks, assumptions, estimates, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from such statements. You are urged to carefully read the forward-looking statements language in our shareholder letter and supplemental slides. You can find a discussion of our risk factors, which could potentially contribute to such differences in our most recent filings with the SEC. Oklo assumes no obligation to update these statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law. I’ll now turn the time over to Jake Dewitte, Oklo’s Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer. Jake? Jake Dewitte: Thanks, Sam, and thank you all for joining us today. We’re excited to share our quarterly update and provide some insights into the progress Oklo has made over the last quarter. Oklo was born largely out of the view that there is a significant opportunity for advanced nuclear technology. What we observed was an industry that had radically stagnated and there was a massive need to rethink about how a company could approach taking new nuclear technologies to market. Oklo has started to take advantage of this opportunity and deliver our mission to provide clean, reliable and affordable energy on a global scale. Jumping up to the next slide on Slide 4. The last quarter has seen big tech make substantial and comprehensive commitments to nuclear as their technology of choice to reliably and affordably power their AI ambitions. The deals with existing nuclear facilities between Amazon and Talen, and Microsoft and Constellation demonstrate the desire to have access to reliable power. These deals have played an important role in establishing a price for baseload low-carbon electricity with some expected to be at or above $100 per megawatt hour, which supports our discussions with our current and future customers. The small reactor deals announced by Google and Kairos and Amazon and X-energy also demonstrate that big tech is willing to take long-term bets on new nuclear technologies to power their future operations. Oklo signed a similar strategic partnership agreement with Equinix earlier this year for 500 megawatts of power. Equinix also made a $25 million prepayment to the company for power. We believe that the Equinix deal and other small reactor deals serve as a useful road map for how Oklo intends to partner with data center customers in the future. Going to Slide 5. Oklo is differentiated from many of its conventional and advanced nuclear competitors because our business model is to build, own and operate our powerhouses and provide customers with what they want; reliable, low-carbon electrons. This graphic from the Department of Energy’s Advanced Nuclear Liftoff report demonstrates the challenges of bringing large nuclear projects to market. Large projects with multibillion dollar price tags require risk and cost sharing across multiple stakeholders and customers who don’t want to necessarily take those risks. Reactor technology companies sell their partially complete reactor designs and require others to complete the design for them as well as fund and construct those assets. Oklo’s technology is small and scalable, allowing us to build, own and operate the plants in a sequenced manner that is expected to reduce risk to all stakeholders. This value proposition resonates strongly with current and prospective customers. It’s important to note that this graphic doesn’t mean that Oklo will be doing everything itself. The company is building relationships with key strategic partners across our value chain so that we can bring our product to market. Our deal with Siemens Energy is a good example of what our value chain partnerships can look like. Going to Slide 6. The nuclear sector continues to receive strong support from all levels of government. This third quarter saw the nuclear fuel sector receive significant funding to construct the infrastructure required to supply High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium, or HALEU, and an increased pledge at COP29 with 31 countries setting targets to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050. On Slide 7, we highlight our strategic approach. Our strategy is centered on 3 key pillars that we believe position us to change the way nuclear power is delivered to customers. We take a different approach across the business model, the size of the plant and technology because we see these are key ways to unlock a huge amount of the potential nuclear has to offer. On the business model front, our model is designed to make it easy for customers to buy clean power at scale. We couple that with the small reactor size that allows us to achieve greater capital efficiency as a company and to match customer demand incrementally while offering resilient and redundant power solutions to our customers. And that’s all coupled with our technology, which leverages centuries of combined experience for technology with economic and operational advantages, thanks to the features of liquid sodium coolant. On Slide 8, we show what we presented last quarter as we laid our framework for how we plan to keep the market up-to-date on our progress, largely in 6 major areas. These span reactor licensing progress, project execution, fuel fabrication and recycling, customer pipeline development, strategic partnerships for corporate and business development and financial updates. So moving on to Slide 9, we’ll show where we made significant progress in the third quarter. We continued our NRC engagement for reactor licensing and secured key DOE agreements for project execution at the Idaho National Lab, including environmental compliance permits from the Department of Energy. Our fuel fabrication efforts were bolstered by DOE’s approval of the Conceptual Safety Design Report for our Aurora Fuel Fabrication Facility. On the customer side, we signed letters of intent with 2 major data centers for up to 750 megawatts of power. We also signed a letter of intent to acquire Atomic Alchemy for radioisotope production. And financially, we carefully managed cash burn and operating expenses to support sustainable growth. Going to Slide 10. Regarding our regulatory and permitting progress, we are targeting to submit our combined license application for the Idaho project next year with several follow-on applications within a year’s time frame. To streamline the licensing process, we are front-loading NRC review through extensive pre-application work, aiming for a review timeline of about 24 months once submitted. The ADVANCE Act presents significant cost and time advantages for permitting, and we are actively engaged with the NRC to optimize our timeline and maximize benefits as the act takes effect. This includes refining our initial application to facilitate maximum carryover from our 15 megawatt to 50 megawatt designs. Importantly, the ADVANCE Act accelerates deployment when multiple assets are co-located at one site, which aligns well with our strategy to support customers at a single site. As mentioned, we anticipate a 24 month review timeline with the NRC to get approval for our first site. During the application review period, we will also advance site preparation and likely initiate some construction activities in parallel. We expect to bring our first reactor online in late 2027. On Slide 11, we show the benefits from a regulatory perspective of our integrated build, own and operate business model. We believe that our business model and licensing strategy leverage a streamlined regulatory approach to achieve a combined license, allowing us to secure all necessary approvals to build and operate a commercial plant in one step. Unlike some others in the space and our peers out there who pursue separate construction and operating permits or design certifications and later combined license applications, we go directly to a combined license. This approach aligns with our ownership model, where we build, own and operate our powerhouses rather than selling partially complete designs or licenses. Additionally, the first combined license becomes a reference license or R-COLA, allowing us to submit subsequent licenses or S-COLAs with a focus only on changes from the original. By keeping these differences minimal, we gain significant efficiency, enabling faster licensing for each additional plant. This strategy not only simplifies the process, but accelerates our ability to deploy plants quickly and effectively. And moving to Slide 12, we show our regulatory path and our permitting progress. To recap, a custom combined license like we’re pursuing offers distinct advantages when your business model is to build, own and operate the power plant. With this approach, all regulatory reviews, including siting, design, financial, environmental, operational and security requirements as well as state and local considerations are expected to be completed in a single 24 month comprehensive application. Once approved, you’re fully licensed to build and operate. In contrast, other regulatory pathways and business models require multiple steps and more time to reach operational status. For instance, a design certification only validates aspects of the design itself and still requires additional multi-step multi-year reviews to achieve an operating license, which includes significant remaining regulatory work that needs to be done to obtain a license. Design certification also limits flexibility, a challenge often cited in reviews of lessons learned from the Vogtle experiences. This can lead to needing additional regulatory review in the form of standard design approvals or similar approaches. While a design certification can be useful if customers are willing to take that back-end risk, it is entirely optional and serves primarily as a risk management step. It’s important to emphasize that there is a significant difference then, between obtaining a design certification and securing an operating license. We continue to make significant progress towards receiving a combined license and the advantage of this approach are increasingly being demonstrated by our customer pipeline development. Next, on Slide 13, we’ll talk about our siting advancement for our Idaho powerhouse deployment. This slide highlights the multi-step regulatory process required for siting approval with the Department of Energy at the Idaho National Laboratory for our plant there. As you can see, DOE permitting involves several distinct stages, including environmental analysis, site preparation and various agreements for access and services. I’m pleased to report that we made substantial progress this quarter with 2 key milestones. First, we finalized a Memorandum of Agreement with the Department of Energy which grants us access to conduct site investigations. This is essential for carrying out assessments, environmental surveys and geotechnical studies, paving the way for smooth site preparation. Second, we secured an environmental compliance permit confirming that there are no significant environmental impacts, allowing us to move forward with the characterization phase. These achievements mark critical steps in our journey towards full siting approval and bring us closer to construction readiness for Oklo’s first powerhouse at INL. And moving to Slide 14. I’m also excited to share that the Department of Energy has approved Oklo’s Conceptual Safety Design Report for the Aurora Fuel Fabrication Facility. This approval is a key regulatory step in deploying our fuel fabrication facility and advancing our goal to use recovered nuclear material to fuel the first commercial Aurora powerhouse. With this milestone, we’re one step closer to realizing our fuel fabrication capabilities. With that, I will pass it to Craig to share customer development updates. Craig Bealmear: Thank you, Jake. Moving on to Slide 15. Similar to statements we made last quarter, we have seen a sizable increase in customer interest since the consummation of the business combination in May of this year with AltC, all of which is leading to an increasing customer pipeline. Oklo is continuing to move forward with additional letters of intent with customers, including new non-binding letters of intent with two major data center providers for up to 750 megawatts of power. Due to commercial reasons in this instance, both counterparties consider our stage of activity to be commercially sensitive and hence, have requested we withhold their names until a future point in time. Moving on to Slide 16. As a reminder, at the time of the announcement of our merger with AltC, we noted that we had over 700 megawatts of business that have been signed through a combination of memorandum of understanding and letters of intent. Since that time, we’ve made new announcements in the data center market sector with Equinix and Prometheus Hyperscale, as well as an announcement with Diamondback Energy in the oil and gas sector. With the two LOIs I mentioned earlier, this takes our total level of signed agreements to 2.1 gigawatts. We are already working towards putting in place our first set of power purchase agreements. While we are actively trading term sheets and PPAs, it is important to note that we are focused on commercial term quality over speed such that we have: optimized pricing potentially linked to fuel price; confirmed location given the impact on cost; partnered with the right customer as we deliver first-of-a-kind projects; assessed the opportunity for investments in Oklo, either at the asset or corporate level; ensured access to other intangibles such as access to their supply chains to support asset deployment. Jake Dewitte: Thank you for that, Craig. Moving to Slide 17, we are very excited to announce that with the support of our Board of Directors, we have decided to fully incorporate Atomic Alchemy into Oklo via an acquisition. The 2 companies have a long history together. Back in 2018, when Atomic Alchemy was founded, I provided due diligence support to venture capitalists to help them understand the potential for radioisotopes. We stayed in close touch with Atomic Alchemy over the years and formed a strategic partnership that we announced earlier this year focused on supporting technology and market sector advancements. Through our work, we have realized that there are massive synergies between our technologies and overall business approach and believe we can achieve more traction on market and technical advancements if Atomic Alchemy were part of Oklo. Before getting into the elements of the deal, let me walk through some of the basics of what radioisotopes are. So, radioisotopes are radioactive elements. They are vital materials with growing applications in cancer treatment, diagnostic imaging, space exploration, industrial processes and even advanced semiconductor manufacturing and fabrication. However, the U.S. lacks a robust supply chain to support these critical resources. Atomic Alchemy has developed proprietary reactor technologies and isotope production technologies to produce radioisotopes that can utilize unique nuclides sourced from nuclear fuel recycling processes for fast reactors and existing used nuclear materials. Oklo’s fast fission technology can generate electricity using recycled fuel, which can also produce valuable co-products such as radioisotopes. Through the proposed acquisition, Oklo aims to integrate radioisotope production into its fuel recycling process, creating a complementary revenue stream and strengthening the U.S. radioisotope supply chain. The technology opportunity here has been validated through our work completed under the previously announced MOU between Oklo and Atomic Alchemy. Moving to Slide 18. Atomic Alchemy is an innovative leader in radioisotopes. Founded in 2018 and initially funded through Y Combinator, Atomic Alchemy launched an innovative approach to radioisotope production to address global shortages and establish a reliable domestic supply chain for radioisotopes crucial to life-saving treatments, advanced industrial applications and national security. Atomic Alchemy has developed its proprietary VIPR reactor technology, which aims to set new standards in efficiency, scalability, economics and operational simplicity for radioisotope production. Atomic Alchemy has achieved significant design, engineering, licensing and permitting milestones towards the initial deployment of its VIPR reactor facility. Atomic Alchemy has also built an attractive supplier and customer pipeline to support commercialization of its operations and its products. And led by a high-quality engineering team based in Idaho Falls, the team is working in close collaboration with the Idaho National Laboratory and the Department of Energy. On Slide 19, we see that radioisotopes are becoming a national strategic priority for many nations. Many countries are recognizing radioisotopes are a national strategic priority given their importance to medical, defense, aerospace and semiconductor sectors. China is targeting economic output from radioisotopes at $55.7 billion by 2026 and is making strategic investments in the same way that they did with renewable energy technologies and rare earth elements. Additionally, the United Kingdom is also taking measures to ensure their domestic supply of radioisotopes keep up with demand. With that, I’ll go ahead and hand it off to Craig to talk more about the specific transaction. Craig Bealmear: Thank you, Jake. Moving on to Slide 20. There have been several multibillion-dollar transactions in the biotech sector related to radiopharmaceuticals, demonstrating market demand for radioisotopes, which is the primary input to radiopharmaceuticals. Atomic Alchemy and Oklo intend to become a premier supplier to this sector as other radioisotope production facilities reach the end of their useful life, resulting in reduced supply. Moving on to Slide 21 to provide some acquisition highlights. Atomic Alchemy will create significant value for Oklo’s shareholders by enhancing the value of our technologies and serving as an attractive stand-alone radioisotope business. We view this as an extremely attractive bolt-on acquisition at the right valuation, which will provide a unique enabler and springboard to enter the radioisotope business, which will be a co-product of our fuel recycling process. Acquisition highlights include the following: complementary technology, radioisotope technologies can significantly enhance the economics of nuclear fuel fabrication and recycling through co-product sales of high-margin radioisotopes. Massive market demand and diminishing supply, the radioisotope market is estimated to be in excess of $55 billion by 2026, which we believe could achieve rapid sector growth. In addition, aging radioisotope facilities are causing acute shortages in supply for critical applications across many sectors. Third, we see a diverse revenue opportunity. Oklo’s reactors will generate radioisotopes as a valuable co-product of its fuel recycling process, allowing revenue from both these co-products and existing used fuel. Fourth, growth opportunities. Joint ventures with customers on radioisotope applications, including radiopharmaceuticals and silicone doping for next-generation semiconductor manufacturing. Finally, we believe this provides an attractive transaction structure. $25 million acquisition will be funded with stock, priced based on Oklo’s most recent 20-day average closing price. All shares issued to Atomic Alchemy are subject to 1 to 3-year lockups with no early release mechanisms. Definitive agreements are expected to be signed in early December with a target close in early 2025. No material near-term operating cost increase is expected for Oklo as a result of the acquisition. We are extremely excited about what Oklo and Atomic Alchemy can achieve together by pushing innovation on numerous fronts in what we see as a very synergistic transaction. Hopefully, it’s clear that this acquisition will create significant value for Oklo’s shareholders. Moving now to Slide 22, I would like to talk about lock-up and earn-out triggers, Oklo has met all triggering events we mentioned at our last quarterly call. We would like to take a minute to review. The first material event is that the 180-day lock-up restriction for some of our investors was released on November 5, 2024, providing them the opportunity to sell their shares in the open market. These investors were two early -stage venture capital investors who previously sat on our Board. Their holdings totaled approximately 13.5 million shares. The second material event is that the time and price-based lock-up restrictions, which applied to the AltC sponsor and the Oklo insiders have all expired as of November 13, 2024. Approximately 41.3 million shares were subject to the time and price-base lock-up restrictions. As we can see in the table, 40% of the shares were unlocked when Oklo’s share price closed at $12 for 20 days out of 60 trading days. 30% of the shares were unlocked when the share price closed above $14 for 20 out of 60 days and 30% unlocked at the $16 trigger for 20 out of 60 days. Lastly, as part of the business combination, existing Oklo investors and employees at the time of close with shares and vested stock options were offered approximately $15 million in earn-out shares. These earn-outs were also subject to price triggers. As we can see in the table, 50% of the shares were triggered when the Oklo share price closed above $12 for 20 out of 60 trading days. Roughly 33% of the shares were triggered when the share price closed above $14 for 20 out of 60 days and roughly 17% triggered at the $16 trigger price for 20 out of 60 days. Our two co-founders have elected to forfeit 300,000 of their earn-out shares, which may be issued as an equivalent number of restricted stock units to certain employees pursuant to our 2024 Equity Incentive Plan. Moving to the table at the right, we can see the changes to our overall capitalization. We ended the second quarter with approximately 67.2 million shares in our tradable float. The release of the 180 day lock-up restrictions added 13.5 million shares to the tradable float on November 5, 2024. Unlocked sponsor and Oklo insider shares added 41.3 million shares to the tradable float. Earn-out shares added 14.7 million shares to the tradable float. Lock-up expirations and earn-out shares bring Oklo’s tradable float and total capitalization to a little under 137 million shares. Moving on to Slide 23 to provide a financial executive summary. Year-to-date, Oklo’s cash used in operations sits at $24.9 million, made up of a net loss of $63.4 million, partially offset by $38.5 million in non-cash impacts. Year-to-date operating loss of $37.4 million included a one-time fair market value adjustment of $7.8 million related to earn-out shares payable to Oklo’s staff who held vested options at the end of deal closure. At the end of third quarter, cash and marketable securities were $288.5 million, primarily driven by the $276 million in proceeds net of fees received at deal closure. Our full-year 2024 operating loss is still expected to be in line with our prior guidance of $40 million to $50 million that was noted in our Super 8-K filing. Moving on to Slide 24. Post the filing of our 10-Q for third quarter, we are looking forward to several upcoming investor events to close out the year, including events in Scottsdale, New Orleans and New York as well as several virtual events. Finally, to close, why Oklo? We believe there are 6 factors that make Oklo such a compelling investment proposition. First, technology in size that is based on a proven fast reactor approach that we look to deploy at scale to reduce complexity, cost and time to delivery. Second, an attractive business model that is customer-oriented and enables recurring revenue and profits. Third, superior economics that look to deliver power and very competitive levelized cost of energy. Fourth, a diverse and growing customer base with interest across 6 market sectors. Fifth, a streamlined approach to regulatory approval, underpinned by our combined licensing application process that leverages years of experience in our work with the NRC. And finally, a well-capitalized balance sheet that positions us well for the implementation of our business strategy. In the last year, it feels like the world has moved from why nuclear to why not nuclear to nuclear now. We believe the 6 points I noted leave Oklo well positioned for the world of nuclear now. With that, I would like to thank you for your time. Jake and I will now open up the call for questions. Operator: [Operator Instructions] We’ll take our first question from Ryan Pfingst with B. Riley. Please go ahead. Ryan Pfingst: Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my questions. I guess for my first one, have the announcements from the tech giants recently led to an increased customer interest in Oklo and is it may be accelerating certain customer discussions? And when might we see the first contract conversion from an LOI to PPAs? So, a couple in there, but appreciate it. Jake Dewitte: Yes. Thank you. It’s a great question. This is Jake, by the way. I think it has accelerated. I think we’ve seen a steady pace of acceleration, I should say, a steady rate of acceleration really for some time. We kind of set the market here with the announcement – with the partnership we have with Equinix for 500 megawatts that included their $25 million prepayment back in the spring, and we’ve seen just progression continue. And with the announcements from the Microsoft-Constellation deal now, then the Google and Kairos deal, the AWS-X-energy deal, there’s just this pace of increase that’s happening and a rate of increase there. And I think what is changing the tone towards though is getting more and more towards recognizing that power is one of the biggest bottlenecks on data center deployment and some of the things in nuclear, especially what we’re offering in terms of the business model and our sizing and our sizing flexibility accordingly, opens up significant capabilities and flexibility for data center development as they think about what their scale and their plans for scale are. I think additionally, when we look at one of the indicators for what’s expected here, there’s a lot of eye-popping numbers about power demand, but we’re seeing it supported by what the semiconductor producers are making as kind of maybe a leading indicator, right? They see this enough to invest and produce and to support kind of where these power scales are moving to. And so it’s a pretty exciting kind of – I mean, it’s just an insanely exciting time to be really frank. I don’t think there’s really been a dynamic like this in the world of electric power generation since the advent of electricity. So we see that definitely occurring. That said, everything as a result of that creates a lot of valuable dynamics to build long-lasting strategic partnerships between us and our customers, and we’re seeing that growing and evolving. And as a result of that, our acceleration to sign PPAs, like it’s not as relevant to do that in terms of a pace to do so, like rushing to do so as it is to build the right partnerships and the right frameworks for those folks and find the right ones to move forward with. Not to mention that, as this is going, I think we’re getting more clarity on what the actual market pricing is for nuclear power. Clear signals, as Craig was talking about in the presentation, is for $100 or more megawatt hour. We expect that to continue and sustain itself going forward. So, for us, we are intentionally making sure we build the best partnerships we can with the best partners to drive that forward rather than rushing right into PPAs, just given all the other dynamics in terms of deployment as well as developing those partnerships for more potential value add to the whole business as we can. So I don’t know, Craig, if you want to add anything, given some of the dynamics around that, but that’s kind of how we see some of those dynamics evolving. Craig Bealmear: No, Jake, I think you nailed it. Jake Dewitte: And the one thing I’ll just add is, like we announced yesterday, I mean, we announced those agreements and those partnership agreements, people want to move quickly and – I mean there’s a lot of exciting things happening. So I think one of the things we really see is good validation of kind of our differentiated approaches or with our business model, kind of our time-to-market advantages, all of those things are lining up to support some of those activities to be more constructive to near-term power deployment, which is also a pretty exciting thing to see coming together. Craig Bealmear: Jake, maybe one thing as well, it’s great to have the data center customers in our order book, but it’s also – we’re still glad that we’ve got diversity in our order book across a number of other market sectors as well. Ryan Pfingst: Got it. Appreciate that, guys. And then just for my second one, could you give your high-level thoughts on how the changing political landscape might affect nuclear and Oklo’s opportunities specifically? Jake Dewitte: Like the broad, just nuclear competitive landscape? Ryan Pfingst: Yes. Nuclear obviously enjoys pretty nice bipartisan support. But just with the change in administration, are there any additional benefits or changes that you might expect to see? Jake Dewitte: Yes. I think we see – I mean, I think, it’s been pretty clear the support has been bipartisan, like you said, between whether it was going to be a Trump administration or a Harris administration and a Democrat or Republican Congress. And I think what we’ve seen is levels of support on the nuclear side continue to ramp up across the board from, frankly, one administration to the next to the next. I think we see a lot of focus on continued roles of regulatory modernization going forward, which I think will be particularly enabling for more and faster new nuclear. I also think you’re going to see some evolution. Obviously, it depends on a number of factors, but of the different support mechanisms on hand, given that nuclear has a lot of bipartisan support, I think any modifications or developments that happen with like the Inflation Reduction Act or different structures like that out there, I think you’re going to see that support continue for nuclear. That said, it depends on what happens, right? But when you read the news, it’s possible that there’s maybe a reduction in some of those benefits to non-nuclear sources of generation. So, that will kind of shift some of those, I think, implications and dynamics accordingly. The other part of this, I think is, I think we see some interesting dynamics on the kind of gas power generation side. And I actually think there’s a lot of opportunity in the gas to nuclear combo that’ll be in play for data centers, sort of the gas bridging to nuclear. So I think there’s some interesting opportunities that will continue to emerge there. But at the end of the day, like, we see a lot of constructiveness to nuclear policy as a whole here, probably with a heavy focus on regulatory as well as amplifying and accelerating the levels of support that we’ve seen already in place. Ryan Pfingst: Thanks, guys. I will turn it back. Operator: Thank you. And we will next take our next question from Vikram Bagri with Citi. Please go ahead. Vikram Bagri: Hi, good afternoon, team. Thanks for the thorough review of developments at the company. I have two questions, one on Atomic and one on Oklo. Can you talk about the response from hyperscalers regarding the size of reactors and you have plans to increase the size to 100 megawatts and higher. Where are we in that process? And do you see an opportunity to expand the pipeline meaningfully once you have more details and a design ready for a larger reactor? Jake Dewitte: Yes. I think just on the size part, I think it’s – okay, so it’s kind of an interesting strategic advantage given our sizing. I think the way to think about this is while there’s eye-popping big numbers in terms of like, data center campuses being multi-hundred megawatt. And I think we’re going to see convergence more and more into the multi-hundred megawatt data center campus size. You got to think about how these things are built, which is quite modular. And the data halls that are building out these things, what we’re finding talking to a number of different customers, seeing a number of different architectures, is a size range that matches quite well with what we’re offering. We’re seeing more of it offering and matching the 50-megawatt size. That’s tense how we’re thinking about that driving a lot of the growth here. But that’s important because when you think about these data center campuses, as they build out, it’s nice to be able to build out incrementally with them as these things scale up and out from a power generation side. And then additionally, that allows us to site multiple units to offer the right kind of reliability and resilience. That’s ultimately quite critical, especially in the wake of different dynamics following sort of the FERC ruling and other implications that may exist at the sort of local and state level energy market regulatory paradigms, which may heavily incentivize, like really significantly incentivize near-term deployment in more of an islanded mode behind the meter. Obviously, a lot of that’s evolving still. But that said, having multiple reactors reduces single shaft risk and our deployment strategy allows us to build up in parallel without having to overhang all that – a bunch of fixed capital to accommodate that growing into it. So our sizing is actually quite well suited for that. And if you look at the announcements that have been in the space, they’ve been largely constructive for new builds of plants in this kind of size range. Nice thing then is, of course, our business model differentiation, which is super important, making it easier for folks to buy what we’re offering. That said, we also see – like, to your point, there are some opportunities for getting bigger and that’s always been part of our road map. Counterintuitively, we don’t see that there are the same economy of scale drivers that you see in light water reactor, a pressurized system technology. So, there are some cost optima at certain size. I shouldn’t say cost optima, there are some cost thresholds at which – above which you turn – transition into becoming marginally more expensive due to the bespoke and non-recurring engineering costs of larger and larger plants, the same things that plague large-scale mega projects. So, we see a sweet spot there that’s going to be north of 100 megawatts probably. So that will kind of follow. But we see a lot of traction, hence what we’ve talked about and announced is heavily focused on the 50 and support for the 15 as well with respect to the sizing. So, we see quite a bit of, I think, constructiveness on that size and the full-in power solution we’re offering, because you got to think about the full power solution, not just the per reactor power basis. And that’s what we see on the plant level being quite constructive. Vikram Bagri: Thank you. Very helpful. And then moving on to Atomic. I was wondering like how big this business could be? And I realize I’m jumping the gun here, but is there a per reactor formula linked to fuel recycling that we should think about longer term based on how Atomic grows with number of installations you have? And then in the near-term, is there an independent revenue stream that Atomic could participate in before the complementary fuel recycling growth with Oklo that you highlighted? And then on the same topic, if there is, when do you think we will see some partnerships or pipeline of orders being built on Atomic site? Thank you. Jake Dewitte: Yes. No, thank you for asking those, Vik, and digging into that. I think this is an exciting one, that kind of a bit – I guess, is a little bit borne out of the long-term familiarity we’ve had with the business, and honestly, supporting a lot of venture capital investors looking at the business and wanting to talk to me about it and having done similar support for a number of medical and radioisotope companies just kind of at the different levels of maturity and development. It’s a space I’ve long been excited and interested in. Obviously, we’re super pumped about kind of the core vision of Oklo. It’s hard not to get motivated by a technology that can truly be a terminal energy and climate solution set. But we saw a lot of constructiveness the more time we spent with – I’m sorry, a lot of complementariness, the more time we spent with Atomic Alchemy to some of the things we’re doing with respect to expanding our fuel supply chains. The ability to monetize the co-products from recycling and not have to develop those sales channels and leverage some of their technologies to actually separate those into sellable products is great. We don’t have to do that then. So there’s a natural harmony there that then just is what sort of, in many ways, set the hook here to be pretty intrigued. But what we see as additional opportunities is because of what’s happening broadly in the radioisotope space. I think the recent announcements that we highlighted from – just in the last like week or 2 about China and making this a geopolitical priority and extract – basically projecting a $55-billion-plus impact in 2026 to their economy for this gives you a sense that there’s some massive geopolitical and therefore, economic implications of the radioisotope space, and we are woefully underserving this domestically in the U.S. as our reliance has been significantly based on Russia to-date. So there’s a whole reinvigoration going on here. And you see this manifest, obviously, the radiopharmaceutical side, you have a lot of activity there, including some exciting M&A activity that’s happened in the last few years around very promising treatments. Couple that with then also activity we’ve seen from our peers in the space, whether it’d be TerraPower or BWXT, seeing these as opportunities to grow into. It’s a big market space. Now, for those of you who follow minerals and pricing of commodities, this stuff could be kind of opaque, but it is some of the most fun pricing to look at because you see some of these elements and these isotopes fetch market pricing of billions of dollars per gram. We obviously don’t produce that many grams, not even a gram of some of these things. But it’s a clearly high value piece, so it’s pretty exciting what that looks like. Now what’s important to also highlight is there are opportunities for sort of, radioisotope production that we saw with Atomic Alchemy, we will be talking more about, but just a little like, post closure of the transaction, should that all occur. Some of those pieces, though, are pretty interesting from, I would say, like opportunities to bring in radioisotope sales before having some – like, for example, our full-scale recycling facilities operating and even before them having some of their other facilities operating, there are some near-term opportunities, accordingly, that we’re pretty eager to be digging into and exploring that are part of what we see as compelling about potential revenue stream acceleration. So that’s kind of how we see some of those pieces of that. I don’t know, Craig, if you want to add anything, but captures a few of these things. Craig Bealmear: Yes, Jake, I think the word I would use is stand-alone that Atomic Alchemy has got near-term and potentially long-term stand-alone capabilities to produce isotopes. And the other thing, I think, quite complementary, it’s actually one of the things that got me excited about Oklo when I joined the company 1.5 years ago is, we’ve always taken a customer-oriented approach around building – selling power to customers because that’s what they want. And I think what excites me about Atomic Alchemy is, if they – the near-term production capability that we may have means that we will have near-term market access. And as these markets are developing for these isotopes, I think we’re at the early stages for that. With Atomic Alchemy, we can be part of that near-term market development. And then as our recycling business comes online and we will have additional supply, we will be that much better positioned. Vikram Bagri: Thank you. Operator: Thank you. And we will take our next question from Jeffrey Campbell with Seaport Research Partners. Please go ahead. Jeffrey Campbell: Hi, Jake, a very good. Really enjoying it. I’ll ask an AA question as well. I was wondering if Oklo’s ability to recycle nuclear waste at pennies on the dollar, will provide any margin uplift or advantage for AA and its various radioisotope applications? Jake Dewitte: Yes. I think I’d give an answer kind of around some of that and definitely, Craig, feel free to jump in, too. I mean, I think what we see is the way that there’s some opportunities on how these are complementary aspects of the business is. When you think about what recycling is, you have multiple, I’ll call it, sort of product streams, right? And products include services to some degree here and what I’m going to say. But from the recycling perspective on the business, you have the ability to take in used fuel. And then when you recycle it, you’re breaking it into different constituents. Those are largely the fission products, the byproducts of fission themselves. The transuranics mixed up with some uranium. Those are things like americium, neptunium, plutonium, uranium, so on and so forth that are at the bottom of the periodic table and to the right and then just pure uranium. We see opportunities for sales of all of those products. The transuranic uranium and uranium parts are what we use direct to fuel in our systems. There’ll be some unused uranium that could be potentially sold into the market. And then on the fission product side, while a lot of those are, frankly, a waste stream, there are some high-value radioisotopes in that, and that’s what sort of was some of the initial partnership dynamics that formed between us and Atomic Alchemy that ultimately led to this, is how to then pull those, separate them, package them and put them in the right sales channels. And some of the revenue – some of the like revenue potential for that is quite significant for the recycling facility as well as then the benefits of actually consolidating the waste and all the things that come from reducing its size and all those other factors that recycling gives you. So that opens up a number of revenue streams. And we see the co-product sales as a pretty significant one because that market is pretty clear, right? Radioisotopes are bought and sold around the market today. So a pretty clear one to be able to take advantage of, if we were to otherwise just be throwing this stuff away. So that definitely will contribute and add additional revenue streams. And look, there’s – as we get more and more into the recycling story of the business as we grow, what we will be talking more and more about is all the different revenue knobs that may exist to turn and sort of what that does will just further help reduce the costs of those facilities, if you will, that are ultimately borne by us on the fuel side. So yes, there’s potential to further reduce costs. So it’s kind of a roundabout way of answering somewhat on that. Craig, I don’t know if you want to get into anything more on that. If there’s anything you’re curious to dig deeper on. Craig Bealmear: Well, the other thing I just like about the recycling business, and that’s why we use the word co-product in that byproduct is it’s going to produce things that we’re going to be glad to have and monetize as a co-product, whereas like when I was selling asphalt for BP in Europe, that was definitely selling a byproduct, like what are we going to do with it. So I think there’s huge margin upside as we get recycling up and running. And I think now that once our deal is complete, I think we will find all sorts of additional synergy points between Oklo and Atomic Alchemy. Jeffrey Campbell: Okay. Great. No, that was very helpful. Jake, you added excellent color on the COLA license process. To clarify, do you view each subsequent Aurora application taking the same 24 months as the first? Or could it be quicker? And if so, how quick? And also, do you think once the first powerhouse is up and approved, that it will be possible to apply for multiple COLAs simultaneously? Jake Dewitte: Yes. Actually, so to answer your question in reverse order, we could actually have multiple applications in review at the same time. They don’t have to wait for the first one. In fact, we anticipate having multiple applications that follow in relatively short order after our first one is in – before that first one is issued. That’s a really important strategy that we have to be able to scale up elements, scale up deployment across the business. So in other words, just to summarize that, we don’t need the first one to be approved before we submit additional ones. And there is some timing benefit of having a staggered parallel review going on for those subsequent applications. That said, the real benefit to get to the first part of your question is on those subsequent applications. This is one of those features that’s embedded in the regulation that’s really exciting, that was actually kind of envisioned for this model of repeatable deployment that we’re just maybe going to be one of the first ones to actually fully take advantage of. It’s this reference license, subsequent license dynamic. In other words, your first plant you get a license for, becomes your reference combined license. Your second, third, fourth, everything beyond that can become the subsequent license that references that actual reference first license. And the NRC just in the last few months, issued a white paper outlining subsequent high-volume deployment pathways, leveraging this approach where they projected being able to get the total review times for those subsequent licenses down to 7 months. So from time to submit to time to approval is as little as 7 months. I mean that’s a game changer, not just in nuclear, but that’s faster permitting for pretty much anything on energy in many ways. And that’s pretty dang exciting, frankly. So – and that’s what we’ve been building towards. We’ve heard numbers that range in those levels, but it was really exciting to actually see some clear things come out in terms of how that could be achieved. Again, I mean, there’s aspirational dynamics to that, and that’s not what we’re going to realize on our second wave of applications necessarily. But I think we expect significant acceleration in that second wave and maybe even hitting to those numbers by the time we kind of hit the stride later in that second wave into the third wave. And what I mean by waves is like submitting applications after we’ve largely gotten that first one either proved or approved and the ones that kind of come after that. So we see some acceleration benefits pretty quickly and then some significant acceleration benefits down the road. Jeffrey Campbell: Now, that’s really great. And that helps to make this massive backload of LOIs that you have feel more tangible. So I appreciate that. Thank you. Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from Max Hopkins from CLSA. Max Hopkins: Hey, guys. Many of my questions have already been asked. But I guess on the construction side of things, two there. What’s the time line for, I guess, groundbreak on Idaho? Obviously, that was announced last week or weeks before. And then with that, are there specific citings, I guess, issues for earthquakes, water, accessibility and everything in all the sites you’re looking for that could potentially change how you cite things? Jake Dewitte: Yes. I mean, generally speaking, it depends a little bit on various elements on the specifics on the regulatory review plan and all those other details. But we anticipate that there’s opportunities to break ground as soon as 2026 for that Idaho plant. It depends on a couple of factors that we will have to optimize to for all the various reasons you need to do that from a project and asset management optimization perspective, but that’s when we’d expect to be able to do that. Generally speaking, one important thing is given how we’re approaching the plant and the nature of how you consider what’s sort of in the safety envelope and what’s not and things like that, there are elements that allow you to do a lot of parallel development and construction while the license is under review within the right scope and bounds, of course, but that’s something that we can use to deploy things accordingly. The other dynamic in terms of like where we’re at in Idaho is, we outlined this in the slides, but yes, there’s a lot of steps to kind of progress this into full build-out because this is on DOE land, which is great because it’s well understood land. We have access to it. And we get fuel with it, right, as part of – I mean, not with it, but we get fuel there as well as part of what we got in 2019 with the site-use permit as well as the fuel award. That said, we got to follow, obviously, the DOE regulatory protocols about that facility to get the site ready to go and then also the NRC regulatory requirements that are part of the ultimate license to turn the – build the plant and turn it on commercially to operate. But all these things are kind of progressing forward. Generally speaking, just to go back to that, these sites are extremely well characterized because this is on the Idaho National Laboratory. We’re not far just down the road, frankly, from where there’s already an operating react – two operating test reactors and where EBR-II operated before. So all this land is well characterized, and that’s one of the reasons we like it. So obviously, there’s still work to do to fully get into build and everything else, but that continues at pace, and we’re pretty thrilled by the progress made so far, and know that there’s some inherent risk mitigation just by working with the government on already well characterized and understood land. Max Hopkins: Thank you. And then I guess a follow-up to that in some sense is these announcements from competitors, they’re kind of thermal neutron versus fast – your guys’ fast neutron reactors. Are you guys seeing slower progress or I guess, customer questioning given your guys’ fast neutron reactor type and the potential, I guess, for more proliferation from that technology. Is that a concern for clients and it might be potentially dangerous from that sense? Jake Dewitte: No because – no, that’s. I guess, it is not. I mean this is one of the beautiful things about Fast Neutron technology. This is – so okay, let’s just kind of run through kind of a quick history on some of these pieces, right? Initially, fast neutron reactors were envisioned for their significant potential on fuel efficiency, right? Slow neutron reactors, just because what happens, right, is neutrons are born going fast from fission, they just are. So you slow down in slow neutron reactors to make them easier to catch, so you need less fuel to run. But you can’t get that much energy out of the fuel because the slow neutrons are far easier to intercept by the byproducts of fission itself, like fission products – like these fission products as well as other materials in the reactor and everything else. They also aren’t very good at fissioning very many isotopes, really only a few fissile isotopes. So you get a lot less energy and you’re a lot more susceptible to significant challenges on the fuel side in terms of the ability to run for longer and be able to even recycle, you cannot do that in a slow neutron reactor. In a fast reactor, you don’t slow those neutrons down. You need more fuel, but you have the benefit now of allowing for much better material selections that are cheaper, that are better, that are just more resilient. There, you have the ability to also be relatively impervious to these kinds of fission products as well as be able to actually fission a lot more of the actinide so you can actually recycle fuel and comprehensively get a lot more energy out, right? So just to use one metric, if you look at today’s reactors or most slow neutron reactors, the amount of energy they get out of the uranium they pull out of the ground, right, because you have to enrich it and you leave some uranium on the side as you enrich it. By the time you account for all of that, you’re only extracting 1% or less of the overall energy content of what comes out of the ground. With a fast reactor, you can actually extract – you can get at more than 90% of that energy content. So that translates to massive long-term fuel savings and economic efficiencies as well as just deconstraining yourself on fuel availability. But on the safety side, there’s also an important aspect here. Fast neutrons are tightly neutronically coupled systems. And what that translates to are systems that are quite robust and quite stabilizing when you design them in a way that takes advantage of those features. This has been done before, and it’s one of the only – it’s really the only technology that in the U.S. has actually demonstrated these capabilities in a comprehensive safety manner. From a proliferation perspective, look, no commercial fuel has ever been used or plant fuel has been used from a perspective for proliferation. Fast neutrons are actually far better at consuming things like plutonium and transuranics than thermal neutron reactors. So there is no inherent proliferation sort of challenges unique to fast reactors versus other things from how I look at it. The – I mean, just from what the physics are. And the reality is they’re actually quite antiproliferative. And that’s one of the nice things about recycling as we can do that you can only do with a fast reactor, which is actually keep all the transuranics that includes plutonium mixed up, commingled and therefore, really, really not usable in any direct way. So that then when you can put it in a reactor and just burn it like that without having to go through additional steps to further refine it and purify pure plutonium, which is what you need to do to be able to use any kind of recycling in a thermal reactor and even then you get limits on what you can do. So that’s me rambling for quite a while, but the reality is – technologically, it’s actually – as we see it, a pretty competitive at least, I mean, frankly, just a superior solution in many ways with a deep history of maturity behind it. And that’s why we see the multitude that we have, like we have a versatile customer – diverse customer order book that we’ve obviously talked about and announced 2,100 megawatts to-date. So a lot of exciting things happening there with good validation on that front. But look, there’s a lot of different features that different types of technologies and approaches offer, and we think the market here is massive. So there’s probably going to be multiple winners. But the nice thing we have is we have the only technology that’s actually – that’s a non-light water technology that’s demonstrated out some of these characteristics and capabilities. And it’s the only technology that’s in many ways, actually proven out some operational histories that have outperformed light water reactors operationally speaking, in terms of capacity factor and availability factor. All these other kind of next-generation concepts have a lot more work to do to kind of get there. And so we see a lot of value in that piece. Not to mention, we are trying to build this not just for like optimizing where we are at in a couple of years in terms of, oh, build some plants, that’s great. Look, this is a technology that’s fundamentally been demonstrated and proven on the fast reactor and recycling side that can tap into known harvestable right resources of heavy metals on the planet and power the entire planet’s energy needs for billions of years. I mean are we – yes, that’s going to take a lot of work and a lot of things to actually get there, but we know the physics is on our side. Easy to get excited by that and feel pretty good about that and that’s part of why we like this approach. Max Hopkins: Awesome. Thank you very much for all the detail. It clears a lot of things up, I think for many of us. Jake Dewitte: Thanks. Operator: Thank you. We will next go to Craig Shere with Tuohy Brothers. Please go ahead. Craig Shere: Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions and congratulations on the very positive announcements. My first question, if I understand it correctly, ultimately, looking into the late part of this decade, early 2030s, fuel recycling is going to ultimately need some potentially sizable external capital raise to fund that effort. Do you see the Atomic acquisition commingling helping to increase prospective low-risk project finance for such an undertaking? Jake Dewitte: Yes. I will just start with a little bit, Craig, feel free to chime in. I mean so, what we see is recycling is, first of all, just – we see this as a big catalyst and enabler for growth and for margin enhancement. It’s not a thing we have to do to exist. So, it’s just something that, look, if we can reduce our fuel cost by over 90% or so, that’s pretty compelling. Not to mention add additional revenue streams and pieces like that. But as we structured kind of when we – the transaction, the SPAC going through with AltC and how we thought about the capital retained from that and everything else, focuses on getting through our first plant built and beyond, knowing that in the recycling part of the story, we really didn’t try to capture either in the valuation part of it or really in the core elements of that because you are not going to see some of those benefits until a bit later. So, we think that has a lot of upside that remains there to be, I will say, potentially tapped into. And accordingly, as that matures and comes together, yes, there may be opportunities where we go back to market to support what that looks like, but that’s going to be largely supported by the additional growth accordingly that comes from that. And part of why we see there are some synergies with, for example, Atomic Alchemy is helping to prove out and verify some of those radioisotope sales channels accordingly so that there is some off-take examples that can be used to sort of support the economic case of why we would do that and then the according value add that we think can be made accordingly. So, that’s how I think we think about some of those dynamics. I don’t know, Craig, if you want to add anything on that front, but that’s kind of how I see it. Craig Bealmear: Yes. I think the only thing I would add is, I look at the recycling business as kind of having three sources of value. One is the value it brings to reduced fuel cost. Two is our – we may potentially be able to extract rent by storing the spin fuel that needs to be recycled. And last but certainly not least is the co-products production of the isotopes. And I think as we have a better view on what a buildup of that recycling business looks like following all the work that we are doing with the DOE, I think it will be – we have always said that, that would be a separate fundraising event for the company, but I think we will have a lot of sources of value to point to that hopefully should give us a lot of optionality around the fundraising, including potentially project financing. Craig Shere: Great. And then my second question, it’s kind of tied to a three-parter. So, across data centers, oil and gas, industry, and military, how do you think about the mix of your first 5 to 10 powerhouses? Do you intentionally want to diversify your mix versus concentrating with any single industry or counterparty that may be paying a higher PPA price point today? And finally, how do you see the mix over the first 5 or 10 deployments roughly in your mind today across the 15-megawatt versus 50-megawatt applications? Jake Dewitte: Yes. I will start and just say, I think the diversification is a valuable thing to have. I think there is three macro trends, right, that are catching all this excitement about new – just new nuclear builds and AI and data centers clearly dominates that. But even before that, there was actually, I think a couple of major macro trends that were kind of carrying the day, too. So, all of these – and they are all constructive to each other and complementary. But broad efforts on energy transition, you see people talk about needing 2x to 3x more electric power generating capacity just to support electrification as we strive for that across transit and domestic use and all these other things. So, that’s one big drive, of course. I think another drive is what we are seeing happening on the reindustrialization perspective. There is a lot of factors that I think have dictated where we saw electric usage and demand, therefore, kind of be relatively low growth for a couple of decades in the U.S. But one contributing factor there was the sort of offshoring of a lot of manufacturing capacity and the jobs associated with that. As we see increasing dynamics to drive that back into the country, they need – factories need base load power. They need 24/7 power and across all the different verticals, ranging from semiconductors to paper mills, oil and gas production, all these different industrial use cases. And so that’s another big drivers we see that occurring kind of supportive of this as well. And we see that being something that’s going to continue. And we think from various market perspectives, those are giant markets as well. In some cases, they aren’t moving as fast as data centers. And I would argue that in some cases, some of those are a little bit more a better – I would say the 15-megawatt solution better suits a number of those, not all of them and it’s a mix. That’s why we see the need for both of those, whereas we see on the data center side, a lot more pull on the 50-megawatt piece. But yes, we think it’s pretty important to kind of support those things. But we also recognize that data centers are going to be moving faster. And so some of the near-term deployments are likely to be sort of more data center focused. But from developing relationships and developing business partnerships, we see a lot of support on the sort of the diversified deployment by customer models, and that’s why we have tried to do that, and we will continue to build that up accordingly. Craig Shere: Thank you. Operator: Thank you. We will take our next question from Ivan Feinseth with Tigress Financial Partners. Please go ahead. Ivan Feinseth: Thank you for taking my question and congratulations on the great progress and the acquisition announcement today. So, focusing on the opportunity for getting into other industries and maybe is there opportunities for like co-R&D development partnerships? And in that case, what do you feel your value proposition would be to working with some of the companies in biotech or pharmaceutical or semiconductors? Jake Dewitte: Yes. I think – I definitely think that’s a possibility. I think one of the things we see as enabling here is our ability to share some of the kind of capabilities we have to help accelerate Atomic Alchemy, and then similarly, what they bring to the table to help accelerate on their side to ultimately be able to scale into these markets and deliver, which opens the door for a lot of different things. I think right now, we are seeing on the value chain on the radiopharmaceutical side, a lot of focus on the potential of these radiopharmaceuticals. We are so early in the game on this, and they have been so severely supply constrained that the more – as this kind of, I would say, pull on the market continues to grow and accelerate as more and more of these drugs kind of hit the market, you are just going to see a big pull up on the supplies. That’s I think one of the things we really like about the Atomic Alchemy play is a diversified approach on radioisotopes actually, too, not just to focus on sort of the big name jitters like Lutetium, or Actinium or Mol-e, like we are looking at a number of different isotopes that they can be well produced to supply to. And as you open the door for even more of those, you are going to just see even more pharmaceutical development, because right now, one of the big constraints even on R&D is the lack of availability. So, I think we see a lot that comes from that. And then there are strategic partnerships that come accordingly from a totally different pool of folks because of what you can supply here, which I think is neat. And you hit on one point on there is the semiconductor side. And this is something that still really exciting to me because it’s pretty significantly underappreciated, but it’s some of the benefits that neutron transportation doping can do for silicon doping for semiconductors. In many ways, it is one of the gold standards with respect to taking silicon ingots and doping them up for just better semiconductor fabrication and manufacturing. And reactors are the best way to do that. And so when we think about state-of-the-art kind of best high-quality semiconductors or really, I should say, silicon input into semiconductors, this is a pretty interesting opportunity space there. So, yes, I think there are some dynamics that evolve there. And this gets back – I know it’s just quickly kind of – there is a question I feel like I didn’t answer very well before, but where do we see pipeline announcements and all these other things as we get through the transaction, I think you will see – we will see how those develop and how that continues to develop as well. And I think there will be some off-take developments that occur over the course of the next year or so with the Atomic Alchemy off-take streams. Ivan Feinseth: Because Slide 20 really shows some significant investment from Bristol-Myers, Novartis and Eli Lilly into this area. Jake Dewitte: Right. And I think what we see is as we – as this continues to mature and develop, you are going to see I think the maturation of this to the point where you can really attractively attract some of those partners in the right way to be even more constructively engaged. I know just from the diligence side of providing sort of being a reference point for Atomic Alchemy and some others in the space before talking to some folks from the big pharma companies who are looking around and watching the space, but I think waiting for a couple more pieces to come in before they start to sort of jump to partner, but it feels like it’s largely just a function of sort of development and inevitability, which brings them to the table, which is part of what planted the seed that this could make a lot of sense to help accelerate into those opportunities potentially. Ivan Feinseth: Alright. Looks very exciting, congratulations again. Jake Dewitte: Thank you. Operator: Thank you. We will take our last question from Pavel Molchanov with Raymond James. Please go ahead. Pavel Molchanov: Thanks for taking the question. Let me go back to one of the earlier points about the SMR competitive landscape. Given the sheer number of new entrants in the space, do you find that prospective customers are getting confused or bewildered just by the scope of offerings that are out there and trying to differentiate between them? Jake Dewitte: I think at times, I think what we have seen though is a lot of these folks are – a lot of the customer side here are getting pretty savvy on the different opportunities, and they are talking to a lot of different groups. I mean I think yes, and there is a mix. There is a spectrum, right. And I think at the end of the day, there are some, I will call it, frothiness in the space. And I think that’s a good indicator of innovation and a good reflection of that. But look, I think this is where we see differentiation from a number of perspectives being to our advantage and how we have seen validation of that from the customer side. I think we were one of the first out, right. I mean we were the first out with the data center deal with Equinix. So, like months before everything else, it kind of reflects some of that validation point. And for us, we really like that approach and that model because this keeps versatility and flexibility with our partners because of the COLA model and who they serve. So, we don’t – you can imagine that sometimes hyperscalers know they have a lot of leverage in a dynamic and might want to lock in some things that prohibit your ability to be flexible. That’s – there is ways that you can then find more versatile partners, and that’s one of the things we really liked about what we have with Equinix and then the others we have announced and talked about. That said, we see like – I think what we see is some of the signals that we think are pretty powerful that have been purpose-built for how we have started the company and grown the company are built around the ability to position ourselves to be one of the early movers and largely make the solution for the potential customers easy. We are not needing to have a bunch of complicated partners and teams and dynamics that our customers have to be involved with and push a lot of the work on them, all the other factors that just make deployment more challenging. Instead, we bring that in-house, we do that in-house. It’s more work for us, but it makes it easier for our customers, and that’s what I think a business should try to do is make their products a little bit easier. It’s funny, when you have people that want to buy your product, you make it so hard to sell, they can’t buy it. It’s so hard to buy it. It’s hard for them to buy it. It feels like that there is a lot of room for just easy disruption there. And it’s not easy, but disruption to make that easier, and that’s what we are focused on. So, I think the business model is a key differentiator. Our size and our approach on technology are key differentiators. We don’t have long R&D requirements, and we don’t have these massive supply chain requirement challenges like nuclear graphite supply chains and some of those pieces. We all share nuclear fuel supply chain challenges, but there is a lot of work, obviously, that’s moving that forward. That said – and we can diversify into recycling because we are a fast reactor, which is awesome, meaning diversify fuel sourcing. That said, we also have the progress points to-date, right. I mean we are the first of the non-light water companies to formally engage in the NRC’s pre-application processes back in 2016. We have had a lot of regulatory traction there. We are the only company that has a site use permit for commercial plan as a National Lab, and we are the only company that has fuel secured for an advanced reactor as part of a partnership with the National Lab and the Department of Energy as well. So, all of those are pretty great position to have that we have been building for a long time so that we can be well suited to be – take advantage of the opportunity. I can’t sit here and say, oh, we knew the timing was all going to line up exactly like this. I wish we could have stuff even sooner than we now, for example. But I think we have long felt that the physics of energy make what’s happening in terms of recognition of nuclear incision inevitable, which just happens to be accelerating at a really good time where we are really well positioned at one of the leaders of the pack with respect to that. So, I think those things have been pretty constructive for differentiation for us. That said, I think there is still some confusion at times about licensing and about readiness to market and all of these other factors and the differences between different steps on the permitting process, the permitting journey, I should say, ranging from things like construction permits for test reactors or construction permits for commercial reactors or design certifications or combined licenses and all of that. So, I think there is still some room for obviously continued education across the board, and that’s one area where we see that being pretty clear. But that’s where our model is very advantageous as we go straight to the license that actually gets you to commercial operations and then grow from that and have the repeatability from that accordingly. Pavel Molchanov: Appreciate the color on all of that. Let me also follow-up on the recent politics. Can you just remind in the economics of – or the indicative economics of your projects that you spelled out more than a year ago, was there any assumption for either ITC or PTC for nuclear? Jake Dewitte: The models we put out do not include those directly in there. I don’t know, Craig, if you want to add any commentary on that, but yes… Craig Bealmear: Yes. I mean we have always viewed it as upside. I think we did have some levelized cost of energy metrics in our last 2Q update on Investor Day presentation. It showed a range of $90 to $40, and the $40 did include the benefit of ITCs, but we have always viewed that as not a requirement to generate an appropriate return. Pavel Molchanov: Got it. Thank you very much. Operator: Thank you. And now, I would like to turn the call back over to Sam Doane, Oklo’s Director of Investor Relations, to present a couple of retail investor questions. Sam Doane: Thanks Marjorie. Yes, we have had a number of inbound retail investors questions, I would like to just ask a couple here. The first one is, when can we expect Oklo to produce a physical plant? And is the timeline solely dependent on legislative changes? Jake Dewitte: Yes. So no, not dependent on legislative changes, we see legislative changes as possibly being accelerative and in-conducive to this. But I think in many ways, we see a lot of the legislative activity probably going to be more geared for the following units to be more, I guess more constructive for acceleration on those units, just given all the other factors that kind of dictate the timeframe for that first plant. But we are targeting beginning the initial operations of that plant in late 2027. Sam Doane: Great. The next one is, will you explain the moat Oklo is building out to protect against other competitors? And why Oklo is poised to power an increasingly large share of the nuclear-powered AI market? Jake Dewitte: Yes. I think we see this manifest in a couple of ways, but it’s pretty comprehensive throughout the business, right. One is the business model where we are selling power and not kind of the conventional model that allows us to consolidate the deployment partnerships through us where we bring in the partners like the Siemens of the world, like the Centrus of the world and others to help actually deliver the plants and therefore, the power. Additionally, we see value in the size we have, which gives us flexibility to offer kind of redundant, frankly, shaft redundancy, having more plants than just one to power, especially industrial assets that want high reliability power. And the size allows us to target the markets from a slightly different angle, which we think is pretty important. And then from the technology side, it sounds kind of funny, but building off a very mature technology base and optimizing that for operations and deployability and not necessarily for a lot of fundamental R&D requirements to go forward from that or to deliver that gives us some advantages on that front because we design on the technology side accordingly to cost and a few supply chain capabilities that exist today that help us negate some of the significant supply chain investment requirements that otherwise exist for some design choices that one could make. So, we have tried to avoid those. And accordingly, that gives us some supply chain scalability that’s faster, frankly, and less volume limited. I think that’s a differentiated factor, right. We don’t need to build like a factory to build a bunch of reactors to get out. That’s, I think arguably less constraining because you need all the capital to put in the factory. And then you are inevitably going to have to retool the factory because it’s pretty hard to get it right before you actually start doing it. And you are also going to need capital to do that and you are going to be bandwidth limited and you are going to need more capital to scale that capacity. Instead, we try to leverage existing supply chains, existing suppliers and manufacturing capabilities to actually get the supply chains able to – well, use those supply chains so that we are not as constrained. That means our unit costs are probably going to be a bit higher than they would be if we fully internalized it, but that’s okay for now. We can clearly have support to pass those along and be quite competitive. And then in time, if we decide there is things that make sense to internalize for margin control or improvements or whatever, then yes, we can take those approaches. But we will be in a different position with cash flows in terms of what that looks like to finance that kind of growth. So, right now, I think we are pretty excited about what those positionings look like. But I think the other thing is just really our capital efficiency. The numbers we spent this last quarter are quite a bit less than what you often see in the nuclear industry, and that’s a reflection of a cost-conscious culture that reflects what I just talked about, a focus on being able to be efficient in getting these things out the door and leveraging what’s been done before. And that’s very much something that is a manifestation of kind of the culture we have built from the beginning and important for us to kind of continue to maintain as we grow. Obviously, as we grow, we will spend more money and those things happen as you do that. But starting with that base is a great place to be rather than starting in a really high cash burn position, which is all too often kind of what the incentives are in nuclear to do before you are shipping anything, in fact way before you are shipping anything. So, that gives us some advantages in that sense. So, across a lot of prongs, those things are pretty helpful for us. And then I think the other really major one is the timing advantages that we have, given that we are the only company with the timing and the maturity we have on the site-use permit on the fuel – having fuel secured and awarded to us. All of those factors just give us a massive advantage in getting to market in terms of being an early mover and then having the opportunity to scale and learn across our fleet accordingly on that sense. And with our business model, since we take some of the owner-operational, we take that owner-operational risk off the table, you don’t have a lot of customers saying, okay, we are interested, but we want to wait and see a couple of years of operation from your first plant. Instead, people are like, okay, well, you are providing the power, great, we are comfortable to do that. And then we can accelerate the lessons learned accordingly to our fleet as we grow and scale. So, it gives us a lot of benefits that way. Operator: Thank you. I would now like to turn the conference back over to Jake for any closing remarks. Jake Dewitte: Awesome. Well, thank you all for joining us today and I appreciate the attention and engagement as always. I think it’s a particularly exciting time in nuclear, especially in the last month, 1.5 months with all the activity in the space. We see all these announcements that are being made as extraordinarily constructive and validating of the opportunity that nuclear is well positioned to meet, which is the opportunity to provide abundant, affordable, reliable and clean energy. And I think we are pretty excited at Oklo about the position we have in the market to do that, validated by our customer partnerships and our general traction to deployment. So, look forward to keeping you all updated in the next quarter, and appreciate the time again. Operator: Thank you. And ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude today’s program. We thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.

Operator: Good to everyone and welcome to Oklo's Second Quarter, 2024 Earnings and Business Update Webcast. At this time, all participants are in a listen only mode. Later, you will have the opportunity to ask questions during the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions]. Please note this call may be recorded and what I will be standing by if you should need any assistance. It is now my pleasure to turn the conference over to Mr. Sam Doane, Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead, sir. Sam Doane: Thank you, operator. Good day everyone and welcome to Oklo's inaugural company update and earnings. Joining us today are Jake DeWitte Co-Founder And Chief Executive Officer, and Craig Bealmear, Chief Financial Officer. Oklo's Q2 earnings were announced after market closed today. You can find the shareholder letter and supplemental slides on the investor relations page of our website. The information discussed during the course of our remarks and the subsequent Q&A session includes forward-looking statements, which reflect our current views of existing trends and are subject to a variety of risks, assumptions, estimates, uncertainties, and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from such statements. You are urged to carefully read the forward-looking statements language in our shareholder letter and supplemental slides. You can find a discussion of our risk factors, which could potentially contribute to such differences in our most recent filings with the SEC. Oklo assumes no obligation to update these statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise, except as required by law. I'll now turn the call over to Jake DeWitte, OKLO's Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Jake? Jacob DeWitte: Thanks, Sam, and thank you all for joining us today. I'm excited to share a quarterly update and provide some insight into the progress we've made over the past quarter. By way of introduction and a little bit of background and history in Oklo, the company was born largely out of the view that there was a significant amount of opportunity with advanced nuclear technologies. Personally, I grew up in New Mexico. I was born and raised there and born and raised around the technology accordingly. And that's where I fell in love with it from a very young age. It was something that felt like it was from science fiction, but it was actually real. The fact that you can take an atom and split it and harness the strong nuclear force and produce 50 million times more energy than a conventional hydrocarbon oxidation reaction is crazy to me. It's always been crazy to me. It still is today, but it's real. This is real technology. And it's been with us for over 80 years at this point. So I knew I wanted to work on it from a young age and I had a unique set of experiences to be around the technology. In high school, I got hired into the nuclear weapons program and I got a chance to learn a lot about it from that point. And from there, I got a chance to springboard into a number of different facets of the industry, from academic and government R&D, to licensing and procurement on the fuel enrichment side, to commercial reactor design and R&D, as well as research projects on the academic side, touching conventional large light water reactors, as well as next generation advanced reactors. Along this path, I started to see a clear picture of what I thought was the case. When I went into it, which was new technologies were going to be what ushered in some of these new areas of growth for nuclear. But that was only part of the story. In fact, it was much more oriented to fundamentally needing to do some new things in a space. What I observed was an industry that had fairly radically stagnated in how it did things and approached things. And there was a ton of opportunity to rethink about how you could approach taking new nuclear technologies to market. So that led my Co-Founder Caroline and I to think about and ultimately start a company sitting around three major pillars that we saw were really important to catalyzing significant changes and opportunities in the industry. Those centered around taking, first, a different approach on the business model, second, a different approach around the size of the reactor, and third, a different approach around technology. So to kind of pick at those things really quickly, first on the business model side, this is a really important differentiation point for us from how things have been done and are done, generally speaking, across the industry. Typically, the nuclear business model from a reactor design perspective has involved designing a reactor to about 80% or so completion, maybe designing the power plant to something between 50% and 80% completion, and then going off and trying to license out that design to your customers, asking them to then take the baton, to then complete the design, to then permit it, decide it, to build it, to own it, and to operate the plant. That puts all of the burden on the customers, and it's a highly frictional process. We found that people really wanted the wonderful attributes that nuclear power affords, so we decided to take a different approach. So early on, we took a view of asking the question. What would make it easier for people to buy what they really liked about nuclear technology? In other words, how could we make it easier for people to buy what they wanted? And so that led us to ultimately follow into an opportunity that's built on what renewables had done very well for a long time, which was to design, build, and operate the plant ourselves, and then just sell the power through power purchase agreements. That has significant benefits because it's aligned with what customers want, perhaps that's the most important thing, and we see that reflected in how our customer interest and customer order book has grown and is growing. Additionally, we also see reflected in the significant benefits that come to the company with this kind of recurring revenue model. And so those things are significantly enabling and accelerative to us as we think about how the future of nuclear needs to ultimately evolve. Additionally, we wanted to take a different angle on size. We didn't want to start at bigger size ranges like a few hundred megawatts or even a gigawatt like today's plant. Instead, we wanted to start as small as we reasonably could so that we could have a technology that could service a market of reasonable size and grow into, so not so small that it's kind of like a toy or niche system like a few hundred kilowatts or so, but actually big enough so that you can service a large market and grow into it. So we found a sweet spot at about 15 megawatts and that's allowed us to change the paradigm from needing billions of dollars to capitalize the plant and get it operational to only needing a few hundred million dollars. So that's allowed us to significantly change the paradigm to how you take new technologies to market. And finally, we took the approach on pursuing what we see as the best-in-class economic potential from a technological perspective. Specifically, we're working on what's called a liquid sodium cooled fast reactor technology. That means we use liquid sodium as the coolant. We do that because it's a technology that has a huge amount of potential with a really rich history of development behind it. As a society, we've built and operated more than 25 of these plants around the world. We've gained over 400 combined reactor years of operational experience. We've learned what works, what doesn't work, and we know how to take the technology ultimately into the market. In the U.S., we notably pursued a pathway of ultimately developing and demonstrating this technology in two meaningful ways, so in two plans. One was a plant in Washington State called the Fast Flux Test Facility, and the other was a plant in Idaho called EBR-II. At Oklo, we most directly build our lineage and legacy of the EBR-II plant, which was a just under 20 megawatt fast reactor that sold power to the grid, ran for about 30 years, demonstrated superior operating characteristics to its temporary commercial light water plant at the time, while also demonstrating the amazing features it had from an inherent and passive safety perspective that can afford plant design simplification and therefore cost reduction, as well as the ability to recycle fuel. Altogether, these are significant enabling benefits. We like sodium because it operates at high temperatures without being pressurized. It's compatible with common alloys. It allows us to tap into existing value and supply chains. And from there, we have the ability to leverage a technology that ultimately has best-of-breed economic potential in our eyes. Not only are we building on a mature technology base that's behind it, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has had experience in sodium fast reactors. We also have peers in this space that are developing sodium fast reactors, like TerraPower, who's developing a sodium fast reactor but at a larger size. The progress made by them, the progress made by us, all gives us a pretty clear line of sight for how the NRC can review and evaluate sodium fast reactor technologies. And it has a long history of technology development and technology maturity behind it. A fun little fact is most people often talk about advanced reactors or Gen 4 reactors that's going to be milestones of the first one to do some milestone coming up. The reality is the first reactor that actually produced usable electricity in the United States was a liquid metal-cooled fast reactor named EBR-I. It was the earlier predecessor of EBR-II. And it first produced usable electric power back in 1951. So we're ultimately at Oklo very excited to build up on the legacy of this technology and stand on the shoulders of the giants who came before us that developed it to the spot where we can now move this technology forward. So specifically, we're implementing this in what we refer to as our product offering of the Aurora. The Aurora product line is designed to scale to 15 and 50 megawatt offerings today. And we're also evaluating 100 megawatt or larger offering that we're developing. The core focus of the business at this point is developing the 15 and 50 megawatt plants. They look very similar. They share the same fuel types and materials and coolant types, just slightly different sizes and packaging. And we do that because we've been focused on being responsive to where customer interest and demand has been, and that's led us to these two size points to start. This technology is basically a way to make heat. So when you split an atom, you're ultimately just producing heat that then conducts through the fuel, through the structure, and then is conductively removed by the coolant. So we use sodium as that way to move the coolant from the fuel then up to ultimately boil water. You can also use this heat product directly, which often opens the door for industrial heat processes. And we operate in a temperature range, which allows us to service the vast majority of heat markets that are available today. It also has some interesting connection points for advanced cooling technologies, which I know sounds funny, but thermal driven cooling technology has a lot of promise, especially for scaling data centers. Technologies like absorption chilling has some significant upside in the data center markets. And we're pretty excited about how that can integrate with our system. Aurora powerhouses are designed to maximize the use of materials, parts, and labor from non-nuclear supply chains. We develop and design this technology in a way to take advantage of these benefits because sodium gives us the ability to operate at high temperatures without being pressurized. It's compatible with commonly available alloys like stainless steel alloys, such as 316L and 304L, and form factors that are similar or identical to components available in other industries, such as oil and gas or food and beverage or chemical. That's great because we can then tap into existing value and supply chains to ultimately deliver these systems. The ability to utilize existing supply chain components allows us to leverage non-nuclear supply chains, which operate at much higher volumes and offer more diverse options that come at lower cost. This approach significantly enhances the economic scalability of our technology. And that's one of the reasons we're so excited about is economic potential. By leveraging the energy density of fission, Oklo's Aurora powerhouses have immense environmental benefits, that creates a pretty favorable technology platform that looks quite a bit different than what nuclear's been used to looking like, if you will. And that was a big focus of ours. We wanted to focus on something that has aesthetic appeal while also offering something that has functional benefits from a constructability perspective. So because of those benefits, the nuclear sector is receiving unprecedented support from all levels of government. This quarter has seen some pretty exciting developments, including the signing of the Advance Act, but this builds on years of significant support at a federal, at a state, and an international level. One of the big benefits legislatively for nuclear, frankly, one of the biggest in the last few decades was the passage and signing of the Advance Act. And that just happened within the last few months. This is a significant piece of legislation that drives forward support for Congress and also support from this administration that has clearly been in favor of propelling and advancing nuclear technology. It brings forward several major legislative developments and policy support levels to basically support and scale the deployment of nuclear. This includes enhancing and modernizing NRC licensing and review timelines, as well as fee structures, but also supports driving forward accelerated deployment models, creating opportunities to enhance demand signals and demand indicators from the government, as well as aligning the NRC mission towards more successful and efficient scaling of nuclear technology. There's a lot more we can talk about what the ADVANCE Act does, and we will continue to do so, but we're quite excited about what this positions the industry to be able to actually do and drive forward the deployment of new technologies going forward. Oklo is one of the most extensive regulatory engagement histories with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the NRC. Accordingly, we find ourselves very well-positioned to benefit as an early mover with the regulatory side. We've been the longest engaged non-light water reactor company with the NRC, dating back to starting to work with them back in 2016. We've had several significant milestones along the path there, and are positioning ourselves to do a pre-application readiness assessment later this year, spanning into submitting our next application early in the next year, followed by subsequent applications thereafter. Oklo's integrated build, own, and operate business model enables an integrated and streamlined licensing pathway that's a bit different from what the industry does otherwise. An important feature for our business model, as well as our licensing plan, is taking advantage of a regulatory approach that allows us to do all the licensing we need to do to get a commercial operating license in one step. In other words, you can take a lot of steps to get to what you ultimately need, which is a commercial operating license. And some of our peers are taking a process where they go apply and get a construction permit. After that, they can go build the plan and then apply to get an operating license, after which, if they get the operating license, they can then commercially operate the plan. Others are taking an approach where instead of being the owner operator, they're designing the plans to get a design certification or something similar to that, like a standard design approval. Then after that, going out and then working with their potential customers who then need to go through the actual licensing process to get a commercial operating license themselves. So that means their customers still have to go get a commercial operating license, even if a reactor design company has a design certification, because that's only a piece of what you ultimately need to get a commercial license. And it's not needed to get a commercial license. So the design certification is not regulatory approval, but it's a step towards ultimately submitting application that you're asking your customers to do to get that license. For us, we don't do any of that. We just go straight to the combined license approach. This is largely because of what we're doing on a business model side. We're owning these plans. We're not just trying to sell the designs or license off the design. So that means you go straight into licensing and allows us to build an operator plan, which then sets the stage for us to then pursue this one step licensing process and have the benefits of repeatability that this framework allows. One really important thing that's been developed in the past when they were developing these regulatory frameworks was the ability to subsequently license additional plans in an expedited and more efficient manner. What that means is that after you've licensed your first plan, you get a combined license for that first plan that becomes your reference license. Then every license you submit thereafter becomes a subsequent license. In other terms, your reference license becomes your reference combined license and then your subsequent license because you're subsequently combined licenses. That benefits us because the subsequent reviews on the subsequent license applications are only focusing on the things that have changed from the reference application that has significant benefits in terms of accelerating and reducing review timelines, while also allowing us to scale rapidly and to follow on plans. So on the design side, our product roadmap includes three reactor sizes to meet customer needs based on what we're seeing in the customer market. And that spans megawatt to gigawatt scale deployments. What's great about this is it also positions us to have the benefits of spanning across a bunch of different markets according to these size offerings. We've long known that there's not a one size fits all design in this space. Instead, we wanted to start as small as we could for the aforementioned benefits, but then have a pathway to scale using the same technology. So we are currently offering a 15 megawatt and a 50 megawatt plan, and are also developing a 100 to 200 megawatt plan as well. These are all very similar looking technologies as we scale up, but just slightly bigger from a physical footprint. We are targeting 15 and 50 megawatt ranges to start because based on the feedback we've seen from our customers, that's a really great size range to be in to meet their needs. The numbers are very large around the opportunities to service some of these customers in these markets, especially with what our business model is, which is designing and owning and operating these plants and selling power to the direct customers. So when we talk about providing power directly to energy users, these sizes offer a good entry point to a number of different markets, and these projects can be quite large when they aggregate together. The reality too is that data centers are making up a vast majority of the market opportunity we see in front of us. While the numbers are very large around those opportunities, especially around the larger scale AI purpose data centers, these projects are not being deployed all at once at a one gigawatt or multi-gigawatt scale. Instead, they're ramping into it. It's phased growth through a development process. When you're talking about these facilities as they grow up, they also need to have the ability to have power that meets their needs, which in other words is something that is always on and with a high availability and high reliability. That means they need to have something that offers them that kind of NPlus of one generation footprint so that they are more or less confident to get the energy when they need it and how they need it. In other words, you're going to build more power capacity as you ramp up with your customers, which is a really exciting thing for us, given our size, we're uniquely positioned to do it, but it also allows us to grow with them as they build out their overall footprint and they meet their customer needs and therefore need more energy as that goes forward. The important thing about this too, just to emphasize this one more time, is that we can build up to match where our customers are going as they grow their order book and their demand in a phased way, while also building an extra reactor that is providing power on standby for them when they need it because at the end of the day, we have to take some of our plants offline every once in a while to service them or refuel them. That means we can deliver that full freight power solution for our customers and do so in a way that's economically attractive because we're not too large to do so. So our size is really in that sweet spot that matches very well with both the growth and the NPlus 1 requirements that our data center customers have. And to dive a bit deeper on the data center side, one of the things that stood out to us in our engagement with potential customers is learning about what their energy needs really look like. We're finding that a data center, a data center campus is often made up of a number of data halls, as we like to call them. Those data halls are whatever built out kind of in building block fashion to fill out an ultimate facility or a campus. We're finding that most of the data halls today that are being planned are planned to consume between 35 and maybe 50 megawatts each. So each company has a different architectures and different approaches, but we're seeing that there's a significant amount of upside and opportunity around where those data halls are. We also see some development that's on the smaller size, power chunks between 10 and 20 megawatts. So at the end of the day, that gives us a really good position in the market to service in different range of power levels. So in summary, when we think about our sites and our project opportunities, we're matching very well with how we see data center markets and other industrial markets developing. As we look at the market today, based on the conversations we have with our partners and customers, we see that the ranges of power needed on a site-by-site or project-by-project, or even sort of data centered phase development project basis. They're typically looking at needing power between 10 and 20 or between 30 and 50 megawatt chunks while also needing that high reliability of power. Our ability to scale with them means we're really well positioned to build up. This position is quite differently than if you were to go in and say, let's build one plant to provide all the power for a facility. That's been hard to offer an NPlus 1 dynamic because you would significantly have to overbuild your capacity. So in this illustration, if you had a 500 megawatt project, to build two 500 megawatt projects to provide NPlus 1, that would be a lot of stranded capacity. Whereas for 500 megawatt projects, we could build 10, 15 megawatt plants within an additional 50 megawatt plant. So 11 total to offer that NPlus 1 reliability while also offering the same amount of power. Additionally, as customers build out, they're probably going to need 500 megawatts all at once. They're going to need it over time. And that time might be a ramp up of two or five or more years. So they might start by needing 50 and then 100 and then 250 and then 500 megawatts in total as they scale forward. Well, that's great because we can build up and match that with them. That also gives us the benefits of ordering parts for the reactor and components for the reactor in volume, just to meet one project, very different dynamic than building one plant to purposely fill that. And if you built that 500 megawatt plant to fill that demand, you'd have a lot of stranded capacity while your customer would ramp up. That challenges some of the economics accordingly. So our model really works well to match where we see data center development moving, as well as other industrial users and other power users. So with that, I'll go ahead and hand off to our CFO, Craig, who's going to take it over and talk to you about our business model. Craig. Craig Bealmear: Thanks, Jake. As we highlighted at our Investor Day presentation back in February of this year, slide 15 shows how we have developed and are implementing a business model with five key attributes that can be seen on the right-hand portion of this slide, namely, recurring cashflow from power purchase agreements. We expect these contracts to be at least 20 years in duration, which supports our build, own and operate business model. Second, capital efficient approach to asset deployment enabled by the size and technology foundational pillars Jake discussed earlier. Over time, this should allow us to reduce cost and asset construction time through purchasing economies of scale, as well as efficiencies that should come from deploying essentially the same asset over time. Third, these two factors should generate attractive asset returns on their own. In addition, we look to deliver upsides to those returns by accessing investment tax credits or ITCs and utilizing project financing against the long duration PPAs. Fourth, longer term, we are working to deploy fuel recycling technology, which should have the dual benefit of providing enhanced security to our fuel supply chain and potentially reduce our fuel cost by over 80% versus the cost of fresh fuel. And finally, a strong balance sheet to enable growth. Post the completion of our merger with AltC, we believe that we are now well capitalized to execute our business plans, which should be a significant competitive advantage. Point 16 reflects that we expect this approach to asset and capital efficiency to create a strong position for our business in terms of our overall delivered levelized cost of energy or LCOE. Initially, we expect our first of a kind or FOAC LCOE to be approximately $90 per megawatt hour. This figure should improve as investment tax credits, scale economies and improved project execution capabilities are utilized across our business. The overall ability to produce power 24 hours per day and at a high capacity factor should make our overall LCOE very competitive versus other clean energy alternatives. Finally, I would note that this chart does not reflect the potential upsides that can be achieved to the deployment of fuel recycling technology. Moving on, one question we've been asked is how we plan to capitalize the business going forward? One of the benefits of the extremely low level of redemptions from our merger with AltC is that not only does it put us in a great position to execute our business plan, but it also means we can be strategic as we develop and implement a go-forward financing strategy. Moving left to right on chart 17, you can see that over time, we expect to utilize Oklo's equity in the form of cash on the balance sheet to finance anywhere from 25% to 35% of our projects with the remaining 65% to 75% being financed potentially through a mix of budget financing, tax equity structures and the DOE's loan program office. We are currently assessing each of these options across a number of lenses and we'll provide further updates as our plans mature. As we have discussed at numerous investor and analyst meetings, we believe it is clear that there is significant untapped demand for the clean, affordable and reliable power that nuclear in general can deliver and that is ideally suited for Oklo's build, own and operate business model. On slide 18, we see four macro trends that are providing tailwinds to our industry, which include increasing electricity demand, decreasing electricity capacity, grid reliability challenges and decarbonization targets. Moving to the next slide, the impact of this growth at the macro level is providing increased demand for Oklo's clean, reliable, affordable offer as reflected on slide 18. As we've previously discussed, we are targeting customers across the six market sectors reflected on this slide. In the 12 months, we have made announcements across each of these sectors with the exception of master plan communities but we do have commercial discussions underway with customers in this sector as well. Overall, we believe the strong level of customer interest and traction demonstrates the applicability for our Aurora powerhouses across a variety of use cases and should create a very strong pipeline of business to underpin sizable revenue growth. As reflected on the left bar on slide 19, at the time of our announcement of our merger with AltC, we noted that we had over 700 megawatts of business that had been signed to a combination of memorandum of understanding and letters of intent. Since that time, we've made new announcements in the data center market sector with Equinix and Wyoming Hyperscale as well as an announcement with Diamondback Energy in the oil and gas sector. These more recent announcements have also served to demonstrate our customer-oriented approach whereby we look to deploy 50 megawatt powerhouses to meet the needs of those customers. I would also like to point out that this customer momentum is continuing. Maintenance was not only Oklo's first day of trading on the New York Stock Exchange but also a day where we saw sizable inbound inquiries from customers looking about power from Oklo. As such, we expect to make more customer announcements during the remainder of 2024. I would now like to turn back over to Jake. Jacob DeWitte: Thank you, Craig. As we talked about a bit before, we have some significant advantages with respect to our timing in the market as well as our product offering. After closing the business combination with AltC, we raised a significant amount of capital through that process, leading to a well-capitalized balance sheet to now execute against our plans. We are uniquely positioned in the advanced nuclear industry with respect to being the only company that has a site use permit to build our first plant at our national laboratory, a site use permit from the Department of Energy and having fuel that was competitively awarded to us from Idaho National Laboratory, both received in 2019. That's on top of the significant regulatory traction we have to date. Additionally, the differentiation with respect to our business model, our size and our technology make us well-positioned to capitalize on the significant amount of opportunity in the market space building up today. Over the course of the next few years, we have a couple of exciting milestones to look out through. And as we think about the growth of the company, we're excited about the transition from turning our first plant on into growth and scale from there. Between now and 2027, we'll be working to deploy our first plant in Idaho National Laboratory. This is a fully commercial plant, and it's a plant that we have a site use permit for, we have fuel for, and we have significant regulatory traction around. In parallel to this, we'll also be developing plants in other areas and other sites to meet our growing customer needs and looking forward to ramping up our growth after 2027. Over the course of the first and second quarters of this year, we hit several major milestones. We closed the business combination and started trading on the New York Stock Exchange. We achieved a significant regulatory milestone with the Department of Energy with respect to our first fuel fabrication facility. We continued to advance our project in Southern Ohio and entered into land agreements to deploy two plants there. We signed an LOI to supply 50 megawatts of power to Diamondback Energy in the Permian Basin in Texas. We signed an MOU with Atomic Alchemy, a radioisotope production company, to collaborate on isotope production, particularly with the use of our fast neutrons, as well as the radioisotopes that are coproducts from our recycling facilities. We partnered with Wyoming Hyperscale to deliver 100 megawatts through its data centers. We achieved significant milestones with Argonne National Laboratory, one of the leading experts in sodium and liquid metal fast reactor technology, involving the use of their state-of-the-art thermo-hydraulic testing facilities. We also established what we announced earlier today, our preferred supplier agreement for steam turbine generator products and services with Siemens Energy. We're very excited about this partnership because it is validation of our business model and our approach, that we can leverage suppliers that make components for other purposes that we can directly use in our system. What we're buying from Siemens looks very similar to what they make for fossil-fired plants, and we're very excited about our partnership with them going forward. We also continue to make progress to put in place numerous supplier contracts that would be critical to the deployment of our first Aurora plant at Idaho National Laboratories, and for our supply chain that will be required to deploy a fleet of powerhouses. Contracting is underway for site preparation and field fabrication at INL, which we expect to ramp up during the remainder of 2024 and beyond. In most cases, we're at the commercial negotiation stage with key vendors, and hence are limited to the details we can provide at this time. In addition, we recently announced that we have finalized our preferred supplier agreement with Siemens Energy, who will be providing steam turbine and generator technologies, as well as services for our fleet of powerhouses. We believe having an agreement with such a recognized name as Siemens Energy is unique for our industry and a testament to the type of partnership arrangement that our business model unlocks, not only for Oklo, but for our key suppliers. Additionally, one of the exciting parts of this business is what we can do on the recycling front. Fast reactors have the unique ability to recycle used fuel, and we've been actively pursuing this to diversify our fuel supplies and capitalize on the benefits of fuel recycling. This approach not only improves fuel economics, but also opens up additional revenue streams from the sale of co-products generated during the recycling process. This is the technology that has been demonstrated before, and that is, in fact, already operating at a small scale at national laboratories. Our work with Argonne and our Department of Energy partners has been focused on furthering the development of this technology to prepare for industrialization and scaling up operations. We hit several milestones in the last quarter, notably demonstrating a successful end-to-end recycling process with Argonne National Laboratory. We also continue to advance our regulatory engagement with the NRC, and are submitting white papers and holding pre-application meetings in several key topic areas. Finally, I mentioned this before, but we were also excited to advance and announce our strategic partnership with Atomic Alchemy, a company working on producing radioisotopes. Our partnership entails work on using the fast neutrons we produce for radioisotope production, as well as partnering with them to process co-products from the recycling facility that can be packaged and sold into various industrial, medical, and other markets. So going forward, we look forward to keeping the market up to-date on our progress in six major areas, reactor licensing progress, customer pipeline development, project execution, the development of fuel recycling, strategic partnerships, as well as financial updates. So with that, I'll hand it over to our CFO, Craig, again. Craig. Craig Bealmear: Thanks, Jake. Both Oklo and AltC are very pleased with the outcome of our merger, which closed on May 9th, 2024. Slide 27 demonstrates several of the key outcomes of this transaction, whereby a record 0.002% of redemptions translated into gross proceeds of over $300 million. After associated fees, over $276 million in cash moved on to Oklo's balance sheet that is being used to fund our business. We believe that attractive pre-money valuation of $875 million, which also included the Equinix prepayment for power, as well as the straightforward nature of the deal that resulted in one class of common stock with no words or pipe, were also critical drivers of this successful outcome. As part of our public offering, as seen on slide 28, Oklo established a new world-class board of directors with individuals with backgrounds in defense, oil and gas, power generation, capital markets, and artificial intelligence. This deep expertise will benefit Oklo as the company executes on its business plan to deliver its vision. Oklo is also lucky to have an experienced management team with a broad spectrum of backgrounds from large Fortune 500 companies, as well as relevant government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Energy and nuclear-focused research institutions, such as the Idaho National Laboratory. Moving to slide number 30, we know that there have been some questions post the close of our transaction regarding shareholder lockups. Post-deal completion, our total outstanding share account is slightly over 122 million shares. Of those outstanding shares, our co-founders, as well as our chairman and the AltC sponsor are under multi-year lockups that include an early release mechanism for share price appreciation, with trigger set at $12, $14, and $16 per share. These lockups represent approximately 34% of total shares outstanding. In addition, we have a few early stage investors who are subject to 180-day lockup from the transaction date, but equate to roughly 11% of shares outstanding. All other original investors did not have lockups, which were therefore freely tradable on May 10th, which resulted in no sizable overhang on the stock. Moving on to our financial highlights. Year-to-date, Oklo's cash use and operation sits at $17 million, made up of a net loss of $53.3 million, offset by $38.9 million in non-cash impact, the main drivers of which I will highlight momentarily. At the end of second quarter, cash and marketable securities were $294.6 million, primarily driven by the $276 million in proceeds, net of fees received at deal closure. Year-to-date, our operating loss of $25.1 million included $9.2 million of non-cash, stock-based compensation expenses, which was primarily driven by a one-time fair market value adjustment of $7.8 million related to earn-out shares, that would be payable to Oklo's staff who have vested options at the time of deal closure. Full year of 2024, our operating loss expectations are still in line with our prior guidance of $40 million to $50 million, that was noted in our super 8-K filing. Our year-to-date net loss of $53.3 million, including non-cash fair market losses of $30 million associated with a safe note revaluation and $7.8 million losses in stock-based compensation. Both of these non-cash adjustments will require these back closing entries. Further details on our second quarter and year-to-date results can be found at the end of these materials and in our 10-Q that will be posted to the investor section of Oklo's website. With the filing of our 10-Q for second quarter, we're looking forward to several upcoming investor events, including Canaccord Genuity's annual growth conference and Citi's one-on-one midstream and new energy infrastructure conference, both of which will occur later this week. In addition, we are scheduling an Ask Me Anything session with our executive team for later in the month of August. But finally, to close and to emphasize the points made during this conversation. We believe there are six factors that make Oklo such a compelling investment proposition. First, technology and size that is based on a proven fast reactor approach that we look to deploy at scale to reduce complexity, cost, and time to delivery. Second, an attractive business model that is customer oriented and enables recurring revenue and profits. Third, superior economics that look to deliver power and very competitive levelized cost of energy. Fourth, a diverse and growing customer base with interest across six market sectors. Fifth, a streamlined approach to regulatory approval underpinned by our combined license application process that leverages years of experience in our work with the NRC. And finally, a well-capitalized balance sheet that positions us well for the implementation of our business strategy. With that, I would like to thank you for your time and Jake and I will now open the call for questions. Operator: Thank you. [Operator Instructions]. And we'll go first to Vikram Bagri with Citi. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Vikram Bagri: Hi, good afternoon, everyone. Very thorough update from the letter presentation, release and prepared comments, appreciate the color. To start off, very impressive increase in pipeline from 700 megawatts to 1.35 gigawatts now. The letter cites the AltC merger as one of the drivers of the increase. I was wondering what led to this meaningful increase in the pipeline? Is it due to more visibility from the merger? Is it driven by data center AI power needs or more liquidity now that you have to actively engage the customers and our progress on regulatory front? If you can identify what's sort of like driving this level of interest and what sectors are majorly contributing to this demand? Craig Bealmear: Sure, Vik, it's Craig. I can take that. So, the growth from 700 megawatts to the 1.3, 1.4 gigawatts was really the result of the things that we announced between deal announcement and deal closure. So that would be the Equinix transaction, Wyoming Hyperscale, Diamondback Energy. But what we did see on May 10th is Jake's phone started to ring off the hook and Brian Gitt's phone started to ring off the hook with even more customers expressing interest. But I think there probably was an element of some of those customers wanting to see if the deal would close and at what level the deal would close. And once it did, I think that gave them confidence to progress business development conversation. So I would actually think that as those conversations progressed and when we do an update in the third quarter, that 1.3 to 1.4 gigawatt, we could be in a world where that figure could be higher and we'll continue to work on those announcements or those deals with customers. And we hope to have more to announce in the coming month. Vikram Bagri: Thanks, Craig. And then on the relative note, the slides mentioned that you're looking at converting a lot of these letter of intents into PPAs later this year, next year. I was wondering if you can talk about how many of these cases are you doing site evaluations? How are you thinking about doing site evaluations? And then how are you incorporating fuel costs in your PPAs when you convert these LOIs into PPAs? Will fuel costs be passed through? And then finally, we've seen significant increase in capacity prices in recent auctions. If you can also talk about the PPA rates that you're seeing in the market, it seems like those should be higher, much uniquely higher than what you had indicated at the time of the merger? Jacob DeWitte: Yes, thank you, and this is Jake. It's a good set of questions and a good thoughtful set of questions. I think from a matriculation perspective, what we're excited about seeing is kind of a pool of LOIs that then set the stage for us to start working with each of those customers, as well as others in the pipeline that are coming forward to then identify basically site-specific considerations that move into the PPA negotiation process. So right now, we are actively looking at site exploration around several of the partners we've announced about not just where to go, but where on their specific sites of land that they already have make the most sense to deploy. So we're going through a characterization process there. We have a methodology we've developed and we've been working on, basically executing against with our partners to identify what makes the most sense for their needs and for our needs. So those things all then play into then the specific PPA terms and pricing development. In the LOIs, we try to set those forward, at least at that stage, to make sure we're all working in the same direction. But then that will help sort of fine-tune what's to be expected based on the specifics that evolve during the actual PPA negotiation process. PPA negotiations take a long time, so we're excited to be in those discussions with several groups and we're excited about more kind of continuing to migrate into that space. That said, in terms of the question around fuel costs, I think what we're seeing, and this ties to the other part of your question, which is right now, energy pricing is quite constructive to what we're doing because there's a significant demand uptick, of course, for a lot of reasons. To your earlier question, if you look at the 650 megawatts we brought forward and announced here over the second quarter, 600 of those megawatts were for data centers. So that is -- I think, a somewhat reasonable approximation for the breakdown in customer input or engagement that we're seeing by sector. But accordingly, we're seeing, obviously, demand, limited supply for power. That's constructive to us, of course. It allows us to monetize those benefits and have some leverage in that case, which is great. But since fuel is a scarce item for everybody in the nuclear side, scarce is the wrong word. Since fuel is a pricing, I would say, a volatile pricing input for everything in the nuclear side right now, especially for new advanced plants, we found that there's an openness to fuel cost pass-throughs. And we have a unique advantage in the fact that, as we pursue recycling, it also opens the door for our customers to be quite open to having the discussion of fuel cost pass-through if they can also then get the benefit of the fuel cost savings if recycling comes online, when and if recycling comes online. So that creates a pretty, I think, favorable dynamic for us so that we can not get hung up early on necessarily with some fuel pricing volatility, but have a pathway to get to market. And then that helps us drive the case for deploying your recycling even sooner, which then helps us deploy more reactors and lower costs altogether. Vikram Bagri: Thanks, Jake. I have a couple more, and then I can jump back into the queue. I was wondering if I could again share, Jake, how many pre-filing discussions you've had so far, and the letter indicates the first plant will be by 2027 versus the previous expectations in 2026 or 2027. I was wondering if I'm reading too much into the language or there is slight delay in the timeline, and if you can just share how those conversations are going and how many hours of conversations you've had so far? Jacob DeWitte: Yes, and lots of conversation with the NRC. I think the latest tally in our slides is, we've had -- we've submitted about 55 draft and technical reports to the NRC dating back through our engagement starting since 2016. We've had over 500 technical and planning meetings. It's a lot of engagement. We continue at a pretty regular pace. I would say, we're meeting on average for a few hours once every couple of weeks right now as we ramp into the pre-application readiness assessment to then go forward. That's helping us and the NRC make sure we define the scope of what we expect out of the readiness assessment appropriately and move forward from there. One really significant feature that puts a lot more work on companies, but again, I think it's a significant feature, is the flexibility that the NRC has in terms of how you can ultimately get a commercial license from pre-application all the way through licensing. So there's a huge menu of items you can choose from. And what's nice then is each company can kind of pursue the path that makes the most sense for them. And for us, that works very favorably because of our business model we're going straight to build and operate. We go straight to the license to actually build and operate the plant. As opposed to taking steps to get a design certification and then have to go through the process we're going through or take the steps to get a construction permit and then get an operating license. Instead, we do it all at once, which has some significant efficiencies for us. So then similarly on the pre-application side, as we ramp into preparing for submitting the application, you can do all sorts of things in that pre-application practice to make sure you're moving forward, you're sort of retiring the risk as the company engaging as the pre-applicant accordingly, and getting the right feedback with the NRC and helping the NRC accordingly prepare for review. So it's highly iterative, it's highly dynamic. We're engaging with them on the reactor front as well as now on the fuel recycling front and the larger scale fuel fabrication front. So a lot of activity there, but at the end of the day, we're working to basically be in a position to submit an application as soon as we reasonably think we can get to, which is in next year, sort of looking at having that application go in next year, followed by subsequent applications to come in the latter part of next year, depending on the timelines of how those PPAs and other things develop to then have several and staggered review. And that's a big feature for our model as well is the benefits that come from having multiple, kind of in a staggered parallel review path. In terms of the timeline, I would say, when we announced the deal, we were looking at 2026, 2027, kind of that was built somewhat under the context of us closing the deal and with the possibility that we could close the deal in 2023 because that ended up happening closer to the midpoint of 2024. I think that's where it kind of delayed some of the deployment of the full capital to then start executing fully against that. So it kind of fully shifted us towards the 2027 date. Additionally, there are some other factors that are on hand with respect to how we're working through on the supply chain, the site development, and all those other pieces. But so far, those have largely been moving forward reasonably well. It's nice for our first plant that we have fuel awarded and allocated to us. We're not subject to some of the supply limitations for that first plant. Of course, we will be for our subsequent plant, so that's why we've partnered with Centrus and others to actively work through that. But it's nice to take some of that risk for your first plant off the table, which is a big deal for us. So that's kind of why the timeline is pretty firm up on the '27 date and '26 is really just, isn't really achievable from the perspective of when the deal closed in '24 versus when there was a possibility of it closing in '23. Operator: [Operator Instructions]. We'll move next to Thomas Meric with Janney Montgomery. Thomas Meric: Good afternoon. Congratulations on all the success there. Just wanted to start out on EBR-II. The question's really around capacity factor of sodium cooled fast reactors. And what does the data suggest as you've reviewed it that a sodium cooled fast reactor can hit on a real world capacity factor basis. And I'm asking just kind of with the perspective of we have a long deep history of operating large light water reactors at 90% and 92% capacity factor. And it took us a while to get there. And how should I think about the time it'll take for your Gen 4 reactor to get to capacity factors in the 90s? Jacob DeWitte: Yes, that's a great question. And actually a real fun little nugget of information. That's not the easiest thing to pull out. We developed all these amazing things in the nuclear industry that came out starting, back in the 50s and 60s, of course on paper. So, all of the great records of history and operations and all these things were largely paper-based for EBR-II and for prior fast reactors as well as the Fast Flex Test Facility, FFTF. But the FFTF and EBR-II are the plants we kind of most directly derive technical legacy and learning from is kind of the latest iterations, if you will, from prior development in the US. The reason I point out that they were on paper is it makes accessing that less scalable. Historically speaking, there's been a big effort to digitize all those records, which has been great. We've been pushing forward on that. We've been working and very thankful for the work that the National Labs and the Department of Energy has done to do that, because that stuff is a treasure trove of information and data. But one of the great things that kind of stood out to this and one of the things that when I learned it, back around the formation of the company was kind of mind blowing in a positive sense was EBR-II and FFTF, both liquids that include fast reactors, actually achieve superior operating capacity factors and operating characteristics than commercial light water plants at the time we're achieving. And to me, the thing that's great, and there's reasons why, but what was even more incredible about that to me was that both of those reactors, their job was not to produce power. Their job was actually to test materials and fuel. So they're moving stuff in and out of the reactor at a high cadence, at a high frequency. It means you're shutting it down, turning it back on, shutting it intentionally, doing all of that. And they still beat what was going on the light water side. And they were contributing factors. You can pull out more information from occupational dose rates, other things like that, that can affect and dictate sort of operational timing and maintenance timing and how you work around the plan and what you can service in the plan while operating and without having to take the plan offline. All of those things were actually, generally speaking, lower than what you were seeing commensurately at commercial light water plants. And a lot of the key inherent kind of design and I would say benefits of sodium fast reactor technology, the fact that it showed you can do those things was a huge validation point that you could achieve commensurate, if not superior operating capacity factors. At the end of the day, I think we can slightly beat -- we can get up into the mid 90s, I think is a trajectory we can get to potentially as we build out and get a lot of experience. It's going to take some time to get there though, because like you pointed out, we have tons of operational experience with light water reactors. And a lot of that is directly applicable to us, but not all of it is. But thankfully there's experience with what we're doing in the past that was quite successful that we can draw from accordingly and then benefit from that. So the fact that we're already starting at a better place than sort of light water plants were 40, 50 years ago, gives me a lot of confidence that we have a pretty good trajectory to actually outperform those technologies, at least match those technologies, outperform those technologies. And as we work with potential customers, we generally build in some flexibility in how we want to scope what our early plants are going to be operating at from a capacity factor perspective, just so we can obviously get through those sort of initial learning curves to get these things going into the higher end ranges of capacity factor that we can achieve. But it is the only technology that in a meaningful way actually outperform light water plants. Everything else has actually been pretty significantly worse than light water. It's because light water is a great technology. It just happens to have some features that make it fairly operable or operator friendly, I should say. Thomas Meric: Super helpful, thank you. And then on the demand side, just curious your thoughts around defense applications, just thinking of defense innovation solicitation from earlier this summer. Thoughts around that, and just micro reactors at defense, generally speaking. And then just kind of seeking the last one in here and kind of an administrative question, but how do I think about programs with the DOD and NRC licensing? And is there like a crosswalk there that makes one more easier than the other? Just generally, how do I think about those licensing Programs, and that's it for me, thanks. Jacob DeWitte: Yes, yes, of course, great questions. On the, sort of on the defense engagement, we've been actively working, obviously, with the different departments or the different branches in the Department of Defense for some time. A year ago, we were awarded the first round or awarded initially for the Eielson project up in Alaska. As that had been a threat of a protest, the kind of conservative, cautious procurement actions that is very common today in terms of the protest cycles at the Defense Department, that was then pulled back to then update the review. It was then re-awarded to us in February. Then there was a protest file that was pulled in March. It's going through the next updates there. Given the cadence before was about six months, we expect, hopefully, that we'll be entering into kind of an update on that front as well. The fact that we were awarded it twice gives us some confidence, but of course, we'll see kind of where that moves. The thing is, is we're offering something based on that call. And then if you look at the Defense Innovation Unit kind of call, it's pretty well aligned with what they're looking for in terms of business model. And we have some flexibility to get down into the size ranges they want to be looking at. We're not going to be serving the one megawatt in kind of small scale. We see a lot more opportunity, obviously, at the higher ends of those ranges, but we can definitely perform and deliver a very competitive and attractive solution. So, we're good to see how those projects and those things develop. At the end of the day, the energy needs that we've learned from the Defense Department and what they project forward is quite diverse in offerings. So there's going to be, I think, multiple solutions that can offer -- well, multiple companies that can offer different solutions that are successful for them. And we see ourselves being positioned potentially to be one of those, especially given our sort of prior success there. One of the things that was part of the Air Force call was they wanted it to be licensed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But generally speaking, and there's a lot of new ones here, but generally speaking, the Defense Department can actually authorize their own nuclear plants. So that is a pathway some are looking at pursuing some of the branches and some deployment cases are looking at as well as the potentiality. The thing we like about that is it provides sort of a -- in our perspective, a backup option to the NRC, but it also provides a good sort of motivation that, hey, look, this is something that can be done, but their preference is that the NRC does it. And their preference isn't based on just wishing and hopeful thinking. The Air Force has been around some of these NRC meetings dating back to 2018, maybe even earlier, but they've been engaging there to know that this is something that they have confidence that can be done, right? I can't speak fully for them, but from what we've seen, what they've identified is what's important about what they're offering. The empowering these bases is mission critical for them. So they aren't going to be sort of jeopardizing that with some hopeful thinking about what a regulator can do instead. I think they've made those decisions intentionally based on what they expect to be able to be done. That said, they also have optionality, which gives them great positioning. And we see that as generally speaking, a broad benefit for everybody, us included as well as others. So that's kind of how we see that playing out. The nice thing for us in general, it's sometimes very nice to work with government-owned land because it's well understood. It can also be challenged, obviously, that comes with the fact that it might have other things around and on it. But at the end of the day, there are some benefits there. So our model of being able to site where a customer wants us, including on their lands, works pretty favorably for us and for the off-takers. Speaker: Craig Bealmear: Jake, it's also one of the reasons why we were really glad to get somebody like retired General Jansen on our board to get insights around that market sector. I would also note that, I think this call was scheduled to end at 6 p.m. [ph] Eastern Standard Time, but Jake and I are more than happy to stay on and continue answering questions. Operator: We'll move next to Ryan Pfingst with the B. Riley. Ryan Pfingst: Hey guys, thanks for taking my questions. Just curious, are you seeing a difference in demand between the 15 and 50 megawatt plants? Maybe if we're looking at the pipeline, how would that break down between the two? Craig Bealmear: Yes, so it's a great question, Ryan. So I think if you actually look at the things that were announced when I started with the company back in August of last year, so. The projects in Ohio, the project in Idaho, the project at Allison, those were all in the 15 megawatt size range. But most of the things that we've announced subsequent to that, that's really caused that growth in the order book is more in the 50, 5-0 megawatt size range. Jake and I were also in a meeting a couple of weeks ago at our headquarters with a potential data center customer. One of the things that was great about that conversation is getting into the details of how are they thinking about deploying data centers at a Greenfield site and how might we match up a deployment schedule of 50 megawatt powerhouses to support that. So I think it's just also an example of, you know, we're trying to be customer oriented and customer responsive, you know, and I think now our order book kind of reflects that with probably more things in the 50 megawatt size than the 15. Ryan Pfingst: Yes, I appreciate that color, Craig. Any update on how you're thinking about the estimated construction and fuel costs for your plants? I know we've spoken about 70 million-ish dollars being a good target for the 15 megawatt version, but wondering if you have an update there. Craig Bealmear: So if you look at our investor day materials, I don't have it right in front of me, but the 50 megawatt size is, I think our first of a kind was about $145 million. It decreases when we apply some of those economies of scale, fuel costs have gone up. In fact, at times, I think we would see, you know, an increase on that number, but also as we were speaking earlier, just the overall demand and power and the pricing around PPAs is also going up to help offset. The other thing that does help us a bit is in all of those financials that we showed back in the investor day, we were not assuming any benefit from ITCs, but the ITC actually goes against both the asset cost and the fuel cost. So there is a little bit of an element of the ITC bid in that 30% to 40% range that can act as a hedge against those inflationary pressures. Operator: We'll go to our next question from Jeffrey Campbell with Seaport Research Partners. Jeffrey Campbell: Good evening and thank you for all the color. As you think about possible title 17 loan applications, is this effort aimed more toward installations after the initial national laboratory installation? And if so, are you thinking more about a project-by-project type of financing or perhaps multiple projects in one application? Craig Bealmear: I think, Jeff, at this point, we're probably looking at both of those scenarios and there's probably a middle ground that if we do have a project that is made up of more than one powerhouse, you could actually bundle that up as well as we look at exploring financing strategies. The other thing I tried to call out in the slide that looked at that mix of for each project, how much is coming from cash off the balance sheet versus financing structures? One of the things that Graham Johnson, who's our Treasurer and I are starting to look at is overall what would be the right mix around tax financing structures, things like the loan program office, as well as project financing structures, just so we can get both the right mix of cost of capital, but not all financing structures are created equal in terms of the effort it's going to take to put one of those in place. Jeffrey Campbell: Okay, thank you. As you look ahead to a time when you have multiple installation projects operating simultaneously, do you imagine that the work will accrue to a handful of EPCs who will have aligned to your work or is it going to be more of a separate EPC aligned to each separate project? Jacob DeWitte: Yes, it's a thoughtful question and it's more the former. Our view strongly has been to create and maintain a competitive environment amongst the EPCs and work with a number of different ones based on sort of regional and maybe site-specific experience, characteristics, or preferences, but that way we have diversity in our sort of EPC bench while also having flexibility and also having, I would say, competitiveness from a cost perspective. And that's, I think, quite constructive for what we're trying to do. That said, some of this does get specialized as we look at certain specific deployment scenarios or, for example, certain defense projects. There's likely a narrower set of EPCs we'd end up wanting to work with just given what would probably be preferred for prior experience. But generally speaking, on average we expect to have kind of a relatively deep bench of folks that we can work with accordingly to get these things built out and scaled out accordingly. Operator: We'll take our next question from Graham Price with Raymond James. Graham Price: Hi, good afternoon. Thanks for taking my question and for fitting me in. Just one on my end. Just wondering if we could get an update on the project with Diamondback Energy, specifically what's a realistic timetable for deployment there? Jacob DeWitte: Yes. So basically, we announced the partnership with them, largely stemmed from engagement we started having with them towards the end of 2023. So we're going through the process of identifying the specific sites they want us to be on. I'm sorry, the specific site of the number of sites they're looking at they want us to be on. From our perspective, we view this as a kind of an initial project. I think given what we see as sort of the demand projections for electrification in the Permian, this is just like a toe in the water, so to speak. So an exciting one, but wanting to obviously make sure it's impactful and also something that positions things for more successful scalability. So as we go through that effort, I think we're targeting, developing out the specific site, developing out the PPA with all those factors in mind to towards potentiality for future expansion possibly. So it takes a good amount of work to go through those efforts. There's also a lot of grid constraints down there and just broadly speaking in the Permian, but not everywhere. So obviously mindful of that kind of changes how we think about the site selection processes and down selection processes. And then, I think depending on timelines, we'd expect something in the 2028 to 2029 window for initial power generation at this point. But some of that's going to be largely dependent on sort of where and how Diamondback is going to want to proceed with the times -- with those specific locations selection process. But that's kind of how we're marching forward on our end. Graham Price: Got it. I guess just broadly, how does the opportunities look for the oil and gas space in the Permian and other basins as well? Jacob DeWitte: It's pretty -- it's very exciting. It's very large. I think as we see what we've been learning about, or I should say we -- myself personally, have been learning about the opportunities around electrification and the benefits that it gives to operate in the region. It's pretty promising. I think we see a pretty large order book potential down there and our model is well positioned to kind of provide into that. The numbers are going to be -- it depends on a number of factors, but we've seen people talk externally on like high hundreds of megawatts to a couple gigawatts of power would be needed for electrification. And so I think as you kind of think about how to ballpark size it, I think that's a reasonable starting point. That said, part of our view and part of the sort of strategic developments we've taken here, last year we had we've taken here -- last year we raised capital before the transaction course. So last year from Liberty Energy Services and through that process got to know, Chris Wright had joined our board here after we closed the transaction and given his position and expertise in the field, part of his conviction about this was obviously he loves the story around nuclear and energy abundance, but also some of the potentiality for the market development side on the oil and gas piece and things. So I see quite a bit of upside on there. I just was the one that rambled while our CFO actually spent a good amount of time in the oil and gas industry. So Craig, do you want to add anything on that? Craig Bealmear: I would just say, 30 years in the oil and gas sector and most of the operations need to operate 24/7. They want reliability. And most of the majors have got some form of carbon reduction targets that they're trying to meet too. So I think our offer works very well to meet those needs. Operator: We'll move to our next question from [indiscernible]. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Unidentified Analyst: Thank you. Congratulations on the progress and the first public call. And thanks for taking my questions. On slide 20 with your pipeline, can you give us some like outline of the steps from signing the initial letter to going through the process to getting a final power reactor? Jacob DeWitte: Yes. So basically, the way this works for us, kind of from a process perspective, as we start engaging with customers is to sort of progress it through that relationship because each site, each consideration around the market, each customer, when I say the market, I mean the local market consideration, each customer, everything is variable. So we go through a process of sort of marching through progression as we engage with customers and they're interested to move forward, often starting with either a memorandum of understanding, which can kind of set a broad scope to survey things and figure out where we want to go. And then that often kind of goes into a letter of intent to effectively purchase power from us that outline site and size and price ranges. Sometimes customers know enough, so they kind of leapfrog the MOU and they go straight to the LOI. Actually, that's been more often the case for us. And then from there, we go through a process of working with them to determine the site, determine where we want to, like where it makes the most sense to go. Oftentimes these projects or these kind of -- these LOIs would entail multiple plans being built. So you want to be mindful about how the growth plan works there too as we go through site selection sort of process. And then once those things are identified and determined, you know, you're going through that, you're doing the PPA development and then detailed negotiation accordingly in parallel and then in subsequent to develop finalizing on site, at which point then once you have a PPA signed, we kind of transition into execution. But right now it's in our advantage not to just rush into PPAs given there's so much demand out there and they're going to constrain our opportunities or our ability to -- as you look at what the demand curves are and the indications out there. And we look more high level at what the projections are, right, for what people are talking about meeting and all of these factors that are very good for us. It does create a situation where we might be oversubscribed in our ability to deliver for a couple of years, just given that there's so much interest. Now there's a lot of interest on the backend for that timing. So we want to work with customers to see what makes the most sense to stage those things. But it's a great place to be because it gives us a good position in terms of how we think about prioritization and execution accordingly. Craig Bealmear: And Ivan, it's Craig. I know one of the challenges on a day like today is we put a lot of materials out there and there's only an hour to look at them. But I think its page eight of our shareholder letter actually has a nice little visualization of the steps from that MOU stage that Jake mentioned until I actually get in a PPM place. Unidentified Analyst: Okay. But now one of my questions, let's say you have a potential customer that's already running a data center. They have land and they want just to contract with you. Would they be able to streamline the licensing permits -- the approval process? I mean, I would believe that you have tremendous demand and probably the bottleneck is the ability to get regulatory approval all the way down to permits to build and eventually implement. So do you have customers in the pipeline that would fit like that outline that could streamline the process? And also, what is the process of, let's say, taking deposits or financial commitments that also could help finance the, you know, the build out of the reactors? Jacob DeWitte: Yes, I'll just start on the siting and Craig, feel free to chime in. So there are some benefits when they have a site and you know where we want to go for various reasons, often times they have infrastructure in hand and everything else. So it does just have some benefits, but most of those benefits are going to be realized on the actual like construction and installation phase. The permitting process itself at the local level might benefit some, but that's largely wrapped up in the federal side. So you mostly are going to see those benefits kind of on the construction side. That said, it helps drive the process forward and it makes things clear and simpler, which is a good thing when you do have a customer who's like that. And I would say, of several, like of the customers we've announced and been talking quite a bit about on the data center side, it's a mix of some of the site they very specifically know and want power at, others have a variety of sites that they're kind of exploring and trying to prioritize where they're going to see the demand go and then where we can go. So it's co-interative. So it just depends kind of on a case by case basis. But I do think in general, places that have sites and have the area and land for us to be able to go build with them, have a strong advantage when it comes to the overall speed of deployment, if that makes sense. Craig Bealmear: And I would say, the question on financing, and we've already got one great example of Equinix investing in the company. And every customer is going to look at those sorts of things differently. It made me more than happy to entertain those sorts of conversations with some of our other customer stats. Operator: Thank you. That will conclude the analyst Q&A portion. I will now turn the call back to Sam Doane to address retail questions. Sam Doane: Thanks, Jess. Our first question from our retail investors are AI has been a big buzzword, but where else is the focus for Oklo and what goes beyond powering just that facet of the future? Jacob DeWitte: Yes, I think it's definitely getting a lot of attention in terms of growth, opportunity, energy needs, all those things. I think we see it's quite constructive and driving obviously like data center development growth. But there were a couple of big macro factors in hand even before sort of, I would say, AI came storming out of the scene from an energy perspective. Obviously, given our chairman has a pretty unique insight in the future of AI, we've kind of been excited about what could be in the data center side for some time. But the reality is there's been several dynamics here that are favorable for us. One is, we have the energy transition perspective in hand in process, I would almost call it that way. That is, I think, moving at pace. That was kind of -- I think we're coming up right around now is the two year anniversary of the inflation reduction act, obviously, a big piece of legislation and policy to move forward and try to accelerate the energy transition. That is creating a huge amount of demand for electrification. And that number might take time to fully realize. But if you look at what's on hand for that and for incentivization for that, the numbers are staggeringly large. And that's a huge amount of opportunities just there. Additionally, we also have this other big macro factor occurring, which is -- let me just add some context on energy transition. It's such a generalized electrification and sustainable and actually scalable electrification in a meaningful way. Which means, we need to have a whole portfolio, a whole grid perspective, and nuclear is going to play a really important part of that, which is why, you know, over a year ago, the Department of Energy had a report that projected nuclear capacity would come directly triple or so in terms of meeting energy transitioning. That's a huge opportunity alone there. And you see capacity markets recently reflecting that. The fact that capacity markets pricing in PJN went factor 9X or something like that, a significant increase. That reflects sort of the obviously capacity factor for nuclear capacity value that a nuclear plant affords. And some of the shortfalls that some of the deployment of clean energy technology has had in terms of what it's trained on the grid and then how to make sure pricing reflects all the things. So all-in-all, the energy transition is one of the big pillars here for growth, massive in scale. The other is then, and what I mean massive in scale is, you look at those numbers and it's tens to hundreds of gigawatts in total size for that. Additionally, as we look at this massive re-industrialization occurring in the U.S., the Chips Act is a good example of that as we're trying to drive bringing manufacturing back into the United States. That needs energy. A lot of those facilities need 24x7 reliable energy, frankly, to run, and energy costs can be sizable for the input on that. And so I think you're going to see that increasingly play a role in and as companies are looking at citing manufacturing capacity somewhere in the U.S. If power availability or access or reliability is a challenge, which it increasingly is, they're going to be turning to bring their own power solution, which is a win-win for kind of everybody in many ways. And that's pretty constructive to us as well. So that's a big factor there. And then of course you have the AI side. I think those three also then cast their things in between there's the defense opportunities around resilience, there's opportunities for just replacing retiring assets on the power generation side. So there's a lot of things here that are kind of driving forward on this. So at the end of the day, I think AI is a big piece here, but there's a lot of other demand drivers at this point. But we see AI right now moving faster than everything else. Sam Doane: Thanks, Jake. Our next question is, could you provide an update on the expected completion timeline for your waste recycling facility? And once operational, what percentage of fuel in your powerhouses do you anticipate will come from this recycled source? Jacob DeWitte: Yes, so fuel recycling is one of the things I'm really excited about. I could probably take way too long to answer all sorts of fun things about this. So try to be concise on this. So recycling provides a pretty important way to diversify fuel streams for us, as well as the opportunity to reduce fuel costs in a pretty meaningful way, while also enhancing and diversifying revenue streams for the business from sort of co-product sales. All-in-all, pretty exciting, something that we're then pursuing as quickly as we reasonably can accordingly. I think we aim to have a facility operational at the start of the decade, basically, so getting something built out in the late 2020s to be operational come 2029, 2030, and then starting to ramp operations from there. The way this process works, so like refining specifically, is it's modular or it's batch-wise process, so it's inherently modular. So as a result, we anticipate having sort of like a scale-up and ramp-up of modules in the larger scale facility to deliver as we scale. Our goal will be to move as quickly as we can to take up as much of the recycling capacity as we can, but we still see a need that we'll have fresh fuel input on, largely because of sort of the order book and what we're anticipating, the growth scenarios, like we're just talking about driving sort of the demand for our ability to deliver, which is going to inherently be hard for us to keep up with on the recycling side. So I think we target that, I talk about this sometimes, you hear me say, we think in scales of very long time friends here, but I think it would take us, frankly, out for maybe 100 or 200 years to fully hit, like a higher than maybe 85% or 90% full reliance on recycling, but in the near term, we try to get those numbers close to 50-50 as soon as we can. A lot of that's just going to be dictated by growth on the recycling front as well as growth on the order book. Sam Doane: And Jake, just to prove I'm listening when you talk about it, the other thing that excites me about recycling is not only what it can do around our supply chain for fuel and our price of fuel, but that process itself throws off some great co-products, some isotopes that are very high and ever increasing demand in the medical industry, in the aerospace industry. So there's potential, we have business within that business as we develop it. Operator: And that will conclude questions altogether. I'll turn the conference back to Jake for any additional or closing comments. Jacob DeWitte: Great, well, thank you everyone for joining us today. We appreciate the attention, the time, the thoughtfulness around the questions. We're excited about these continuing, keeping you guys up to date as we proceed forward on executing against our plans and march forward getting our first plant built, getting recycling scaled up, delivering and growing our order book, all the cool things that are going to be coming for us. At the end of the day, one of the things that motivates us here and me specifically at Oklo, it's pretty easy to get really excited about is what the fundamental technology affords us the ability to do. Fast reactors have significant economic upside, significant fuel efficiency benefits that coupled with recycling, all of which demonstrated technology, truly has the potential to be a terminal energy and climate solution. In other words, you have a technology set that's been demonstrated and proven that we now have the opportunity to scale forward that can tap into reserves of heavy metals on this planet and power the entire planet's energy needs for the rest of the planet's durable lifetime. That's a pretty exciting thing to be motivated to work, or exciting thing to get to work on, pretty easy to get motivated to work on. So we're very excited about being a public company now, looking forward to keeping you all up to date as we progress towards our goal and our mission here and look forward to the next one of these. Thank you all. Operator: Thank you. That does conclude today's program. Thank you for your participation. You may disconnect at this time.