Oklo Inc. Class A common stock

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 OCO third quarter 2025 financial results and business update call. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After the speaker's remarks, there will be a question and answer session. To ask a question, simply press star followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question, press star one again. Thank you. It is now my pleasure to turn the call over to Sam Doan, Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, and thank you, Operator. Welcome, everyone, to Okla's third quarter 2025 Earnings and Company Update Call. I'm Sam Doan, Okla's Director of Investor Relations. Joining me today, Okla's co-founder and Chief Executive Officer, and Craig Bellmer, 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 OCWA 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 DeWitt, Oklo's co-founder and chief executive officer. Jake.

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, how we design reactors, how we license and fuel 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 Oakville. 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 onsite construction risk, lowers cost, and supports faster rollout. And third, our liquid metal sodium 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 three 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 plants. OKLO is 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, fresh HALU, 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 has worked across areas needed to deploy its reactors and positioned 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 a 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 three 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 timelines 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. The NRC also indicated that the draft evaluation is expected in early 2026. which would be less than half the traditional review timeline. And just before the RPP announcement, Okla also completed a readiness assessment with the NRC for the phase one of its COLA 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's 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 Okla powerhouses. In fuel and recycling, we announced OKLO's Advanced Fuel Center, up to a $1.68 billion investment that anchors our long-term fuel supply chain, and we're 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 two weeks and demonstrates a new authorization pathway that can help unlock U.S. industrial capacity, strengthen 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 lab's 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 irradiation capabilities. These are capabilities that have been lacking in the U.S. for decades. We sign new international partnerships with European nuclear companies, Mucalla and Nucleo to advance joint technology and fuel manufacturing capabilities and demonstrate our emerging technical leadership in the 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 you 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. Financially, we closed the quarter with a strong balance sheet, approximately $1.2 billion in cash and marketable securities, with cash firm 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 Okla's potential for near-term success, licensing, acceleration, supply chain build-out, and commercial traction all moving in parallel. This quarter marked a major milestone for Okla with our selections under the Department of Energy's Reactor Pilot Program. The RPP was established earlier this year following new executive actions that direct the DOE 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 three of the 11 granted awards, two led by OKLO and one by our subsidiary, Atomic Alchemy. The awarded projects include OKLO's Aurora INL, our first powerhouse, Atomic Alchemy's 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 timelines. Just as importantly, the RPP provides a venue for generating operating data that will help de-risk commercial licensing for future powerhouses, strengthening our overall regulatory foundation. This selection positions Okla as 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 move 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 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 smooth handoff when conversion occurs. For investors and customers, this change hopefully means less timeline risk, better capital efficiency, and earlier validation of cost and performance. The bottom line is that DOE authorization de-risks the Aurora INL regulatory path and allows us 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 two 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, field behavior, and operating experience will feed directly into the NRC's combined license process, which we expect could compress the timeline from the Aurora INL to fleet deployment. We expect to submit licensing action 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 Oakwood powerhouses. In Idaho National Laboratory, we've officially broken ground on our first Aurora powerhouse, marking a major milestone in a close 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. Kiewit has mobilized major equipment to the site, and earthworks began October 27th, 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 future 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 keep our schedule 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 timelines and fabrication slots with qualified vendors. It also demonstrates the maturity of our supply chain, a key differentiator for Oklo, showing that we can source critical 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, and then 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 de-risk the deployment of a larger commercial-scale VIPER facility. In the near term, the team is finalizing DOE 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 the full-scale VIPER facility, scaling to multi-year offtake agreements, and carrying forward the procedures and quality assurance systems proven in the pilot facility to streamline future deployments. 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 Viper Reactor, or Versatile Isotope Production Reactor, is also quite a bit different than Oklo's Aurora. The Viper Reactor is designed to produce isotopes and therefore produce neutrons. It is an open, water-cooled, pool-type reactor that is not pressurized and uses conventional 17x17 pressurized water reactor fuel bundles, fueled with LEU, at a shortened height. This means the reactors can be built and supplied quickly and produce a variety of isotopes that serve healthcare, 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 EBR2 fuel and potentially plutonium-based feedstock to fuel early units. Mid-term, our partnerships with Centris, Hexium, and others expand fresh helium access 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 HALU and related materials looks very different today than it did in 2024. Tariffs, supply chain constraints, inflation, and evolving sanctions have all changed the market dynamics. The global enrichment 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 scales successfully in the years ahead most quickly. We don't yet know where HALU costs will ultimately land, but what we do know is that Oklo has more pathways and 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 clearer, 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 illuminating HALU's supply chains and how they work. The current models in the U.S., and in the world generally speaking, involves several steps, starting with uranium mining, to then uranium milling, to then conversion, to then enrichment, to then deconversion, and then ultimately to fuel fabrication. Next generation models might change this significantly. This is one of the reasons why we take a multi-pronged approach in partnering with HALU 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 altogether mean opportunities for lower cost HALU. And beyond HALU, Oklo is also taking a multi-pronged 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 downblended into fuel for reactors. Some of it might also be in prior or previously irradiated fuel that can be recovered and then produced into fuel for reactors. That is where we're getting the first five tons of fuel for our first plant. Five tons of fuel produced from EBR2 fuel that has been recovered and downblended to make fuel suitable for use in our Aurora plant. An important feature about some of that material is that it carries impurities because it spent 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 in 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 reduce 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 comprise of two 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 HALU, 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 HALU 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 duplicitously 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 pass through the reactor. That means the used fuel that's discharged, or often referred 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 Oakloe 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 a fuel recycling facility located in Oak Ridge. 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 powerhouses and a fuel fabrication facility. The facility adds another layer of vertical integration to Oklo's business, enabling us to convert used fuel into new metal fuel for our powerhouses. It strengthens UF 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 Aurora 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 three 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 mirrors 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 three important things. It presents an opportunity to secure near-term fuel for early powerhouses, reducing one of the biggest bottlenecks facing the industry. It reinforces U.S. manufacturing and fuel independence, supporting the national effort to rebuild domestic nuclear capacity, and it stacks directly with our Tennessee facility, creating a vertically integrated ecosystem for recycling, fabrication, and deployment. Together, these programs, reactor pilot and fuel line pilots, form the backbone of a modern U.S. nuclear strategy, and Okla is one of the few companies positioned across both with the capability 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?

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 Lucala and Nucleo, two 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 Lucala, 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 a cross-Atlantic partnership that benefits both companies. With Nucleo, we've launched a strategic partnership to develop advanced fuel fabrication and manufacturing infrastructure in the United States under domestic oversight. Nucleo 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. Oklahoma's third quarter operating loss was $36.3 million, inclusive of non-cash stock-based compensation expense of $9.1 million. Oklahoma'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 non-cash 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 to $80 million that we disclosed at the start of this year. To build on earlier discussion points 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 fuel 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, confirms strong, durable demand for what we are building. In short, Oklo is delivering on its plans, proven technology, a differentiated fuel strategy, global partnerships, and a business model designed to scale. We're executing today and possession to leave the next era of clean, reliable energy. Operator, we are now ready to take questions.

As a reminder to ask a question simply press star one on your telephone keypad we do respectfully ask that you limit your questions to one and one follow up our first question comes from the line of Ryan things with be Riley please go ahead.

hey guys thanks for taking my questions. Just want to make sure i'm clear on. the DOE authorization. Does the INL plan 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 shutdown impacted your ability to do that at all?

Thanks for the question. I think, so yes, we no longer need to do a COLA, 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 being a little bit redefined and developed based on, you know, even just this MOU sign 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 plant at some point after we get through some of the initial startup and operational kind of frame and basic paradigm, I should say. But yeah, 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 three major agencies have to do nuclear authorization or permitting. Obviously, the NRC, then there's the Department of Energy, and then the Department of War. And those three agencies have those abilities. DOE and DOD, DOW, haven't really used those very much recently, but they have that history. And so they are... They've used them, and they do have continued oversight of different programs, but they're using them now a lot more. And this, by the way, wasn't just something that happened overnight. This goes back to the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Capabilities Act, NECA, that was passed into law in 2018 that set the stage for this. It was just following the executive orders that really supercharged 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 NRC 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 this DOE process gives you the flexibility to build while you're going through the different steps of basically authorization up until loading 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, this has taken off a huge amount of the regulatory risk, has changed the paradigm that we can build in parallel, and has opened the path for a different kind of approach. And mind you, the Department of Energy has a long history of doing regulatory oversight and authorization of sodium fast reactors like we're developing, they were the ones that provided the regulatory authorization for EBR2 for FFTF and continued 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 NECA passed 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 as a country. And what's great about that is that actually means that there's going to be residual expertise and experience gained through our approach, you know, our 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 ultimately convert over to commercial operations and scale from there. It doesn't take away NRC licensing. It just changes the cadence. It kind of accelerates the ability to get something built and get into NRC licensing in a commercial space in a meaningful way, which is really, really accelerative for us.

TAB, Ryan Schuchard, LGO Admissions School of Law & God I appreciate that to tell jake and and then my second question i've asked you this one before but curious if you're thinking has changed regarding order, you know conversion from from pipeline to. TAB, Ryan Schuchard, LGO Admissions School of Law & You know more 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, you know, 26, 27, and ultimately that first plant being built.

Yeah. Well, you know, our view has always been find and build the right partnerships and deals with customers. and take the time to do that in the most constructive way possible for the company and not necessarily rush into PPA signing, 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, de-risking a lot of things for us that the offtakers are also incentive aligned to do with us. So, yeah, I mean, we continue 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 into places that do make sense for everybody to kind of build a really constructive mutual relationship that is part of an offtake agreement that also helps de-risk 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, you know, over 12 months or so. And we're, you know, we're continuing on that pace because that's what the market's quite supportive and receptive to. And, you know, we expect that to continue and position as well so that going into the next year and beyond, we'll start converting those into that kind of, you know, those kinds of structures as it works. Now, each of these different, you know, 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 work kind of with the right ones that can kind of lean into this in the right ways and cadence and then focus on moving that into the kind of execution phase. So that's how we think about that. I think one X 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, but around the AI side of things, enhancing the ability for them to be host and or even some kind of middleman 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 EEO has put into law or put into executive action that could enable sort of interesting structures 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 and saying, hey, let's find the most constructive ways to work with our customers and ultimately convert them forward based on 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.

Understood. Thanks, Jake. I'll turn it back.

Our next question comes from the line of Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.

Hey, guys. This is Tyler Bissedon for Brian. Thanks for taking our questions. 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 does shifting to the DOE pathway accelerate that timeline? It sounds like full excavation is targeted for early January. So what are the next sort of milestones we should be watching out for that supports that timeline beyond January?

Yeah, 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 three reactor pilot programs awarded to us. We talked about those a little bit in earnings. One is Aurora INL. The other is for the atomic alchemy pilot and prototype production reactor. That is on pace for that plant. It's specifically on pace to turn on. And, you know, june july of next year 2026. um it's incredible it's awesome it's really cool to see how it's progressing um so that's a pretty big set of you know 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 um then there's the pluto reactor uh which is basically a plutonium-fueled testing reactor um 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 and the Patel 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, you know, plutonium-driven fuel systems and critical assemblies and test reactors that are happening on a pretty fast timescale as well that will continue to update the market over the course of the next six, you know, well, the next three, six, nine, 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 is allows us to move into the construction activities much more quickly so we can start building the plant. You know, we broke ground in September. We're moving into major excavation work here coming up shortly and then moving to the, you know, the full scale procurement and activities as we speak, including stuff we've already done, stuff 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 twenty seven, twenty eight timelines that plants to commence operation 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 fabricate fuel to put into these reactors. And that's a critical part of the supply chain that you know, 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 achieved some pretty sizable milestones there in a really compressed time window. And it illuminates objectively how clearly beneficial these things are for us. We are building a fuel fabrication facility to make fuel for our Aurora plant in Idaho. We partnered with the government. We're using an existing building at 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 traditionally kind of legacy DOE because it's a DOE facility, DOE authorization path before the executive orders, we were moving at a pace that was in the order of like two years to kind of get close to a milestone that then when we reset the process under the pilot program, starting from zero there, granted we had some work done so we could kind of copy paste over that, but we moved in two weeks to hit this significant milestone that is now allowing us to actually do the construction work there, install 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 and turn that plant on. I will caveat that that plant in Idaho, it is not going to be selling commercial power to the grid under DOE authorization. That's not what its intent is. It might be able to do some work selling into not just power but irradiation services to the lab complex in 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, so the MOU signed by DOE and NRC just in the last week or two, they made it clear that the NRC is going to build on the DOE's work for that. 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 is to build off the success that we can do under DOE. And again, the feature DOE has compared to the NRC, the NRC has been doing a lot of work to get ready to license advanced reactors. DOE has been licensing advanced reactors 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 the NRC is going to be able to build off and reference those things. 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.

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.

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 that I'm going to spend the whole time getting into the technical details, which I'll try not to, because on a prerecording 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 um yeah so the key thing about plutonium right is it's a incredibly useful fissile material as a fuel source, in other words, if you think about halo is 19 years up to 20% less than 20% rich and uranium to 35 now the balance your name to 38. And the fast reactor. Pretty much all the isotopes in plutonium, but especially the stuff being made available, which is mostly plutonium 239 with some plutonium 240 and 241 in there. But that material, it's a great bridge fuel because it can be a direct replacement for the uranium 235 without needing any enrichment. It already exists. So you blend it in with uranium. In our case, you have some zirconium to obviously make the metallic fuel, but you just blend the plutonium with uranium to make a helium equivalent type fuel form. 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 variations and flavors in the fuel, but on average, if you basically, it's about 11 or so percent equivalent. So about 11 or so percent plutonium is equivalent in our reactors and behavior and performance to about 19, just under 20% enriched 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. uh so that's pretty cool that's obviously very accelerative for a lot of things and for that facility uh that's one of the things that was encompassed in the um pilot program the fuel pilot program awards um and being able to do that kind of work there uh 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, again, key thing 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 kitty litter and sand and bury it in the desert in New Mexico, versus making it available to be a bridge fuel for the advanced reactor industry. It completely changes the paradigm where you no longer are fuel-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 markets as well as what we're doing on the recycling side. It's incredible. It is absolutely, absolutely incredible. So for me, that was one of the most exciting things to have happened this year because of what that catalyzes for building more things sooner without having to be dependent on other factors and then instead using that enabled 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 kickstart 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. So yeah, seriously, it's a really, really significant policy move to enabling the deployment of more nuclear power more quickly.

Perfect. Thank you very much.

And I'll just add one little piece to that. Not all reactors and fuel fabrication approaches can benefit from plutonium the same. It has different characteristics to it. We just know it works really well in fast reactors because we spend a lot of time developing and researching it for that. So that obviously is part of the benefit, you know, of fast reactors and their ability to be quite fuel-agnostic and fuel-flexible.

Your next question is from the line of Bakram Bakri with Citi. Please go ahead.

Hi, it's Ted. Thanks for taking the question. 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?

Yeah, it's a great set of questions. So basically, it's a little bit different. It's bespoke to enable the accelerated sort of fast neutron radiation testing capabilities that a system like that can afford. That's important for a couple of reasons. Like part of what we've talked about is, you know, at the company, right, if you think about what Okla does, obviously the reactor part is what people focus a lot on. We sell power, we sell heat. But we have these other parts of the business that we've had to build to deliver into that, like fuel fabrication, which will help us obviously make fuel for our reactors, potentially for others too, which is part of what some of the investments and partnerships we've announced this quarter touch on. Additionally, we've 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 as co-products from that, as well as possibly recycling services. All great. And then obviously the isotope 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 reactor. We use fast. We make fast neutrons. We will have fast neutrons 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 timeframe, 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 naturally had a lot of sort of challenges around it. What we're doing with the 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 fast neutrons that we can provide a radiation capability, 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 on a plutonium based system is pretty accelerated to opening the door for moving into better skills 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 time in the reactor and just ultimately better economic performance with more data that we can generate using this. 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. Its primary job is, I mean, as of now, its primary job is focused on making fast neutrons. And it's a culmination of activity. So think of it more as a program than just a single reactor that will involve taking some plutonium critical, getting some experience doing that with our national lab partners, doing some work around the plutonium handling and management, and then moving that into, obviously, the full-scale Pluto reactor. The reactor will be smaller in its power production and will also be optimized to use plutonium. Since 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, you know, generally speaking, fast test reactors have done. So that means we can kind of use a higher loading of plutonium, 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 repetitions about doing the actual work around plutonium fuel fabrication and 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 type, it would just use a lower amount of plutonium in it because what we're designing to in the Aurora plan is to be interchangeable between HALU, plutonium-bearing fuel, and transuranic-bearing fuel. And that means you kind of dilute the plutonium more compared to what Pluto will do. When you think about what Pluto is as a program, it's the cadence to build on top of the fuel, the plutonium fuel fabrication piece into the plutonium reactor part. So over the course of the next year, we'll gain experience with plutonium criticality and work around that. And then we'll move that into the next steps 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, you know, getting those repetitions in our belt to then 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. Yes, it opens the door 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 can come to us. and either rent or buy a radiation time or similar types 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 stuff work, but this is a platform for R&D and margin improvement is 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. Thank you. And I just had one follow-up. On slide nine, it mentions the breakdown of CapEx by components, and I think it's listed by number of components. Are you able to share just directionally what that is in dollar terms?

Yeah, I mean, I guess I'll kind of hand this over for Greg if you want to kind of answer some of it and I can chime in.

Yeah, so I think, you know, directionally we would expect the dollars to be similar to the components. In terms of an actual dollar breakdown, you know, we're still refining a lot of our cost estimates now that we've got Keywood on board 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. Thank you.

Our next question comes from the line of Jed Dorshmeyer with William Blair. Please go ahead.

Hi, thanks. Thanks for taking my question here, guys. I guess first, I don't know if Jake, you want this or Craig, but just if you could talk a little bit about backlog, I think was 14 gigawatts. You know, has that changed at all? And maybe just, you know, a little bit of color on the discussions that you're having. You know, is it mostly utility? Is it mostly hyperscaler? You know, Just that breakdown, if you would, and then I have a follow-up.

Yeah, Jed, I can take that. So I'd say, you know, the 14 gigawatts is still predominantly made up of data center and hyperscaler customers. You know, and as 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, you know, when do you convert that into a PPA? And I'd say we are working 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 OCO to be on the same page with the customer. But I'm really pleased with kind of how those commercial progress, commercial discussions are progressing and not just on the PPA pricing front, 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.

Got it. That's helpful. Just along those lines, do the discussions Does atomic alchemy and 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 breast? And sorry.

Yeah, that's well, I would say atomic alchemy is probably, you know, the types of conversations we're having around feedstock for isotope production, taking customer discussions into, you know, contract conversion. The steps are the same, but it's definitely with different counterparties on both the, you know, feedstock side, the supplier vendor side, you know, 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 rateable, 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 growth margin in the first half of next year.

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 till you get the Viper up for sort of an actinide tailoring or, you know, can that be done in between? I ask because, you know, CANDU 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, you know, the tailored

reactor before you can do that or if there's an in between thanks yeah it's a good question i mean there's there's a couple steps actually to parse that out so one 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 in the in the update um towards in idaho where you'll be able to actually have you know 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 you get some practice repetitions Maybe helps accelerate revenue, which is cool. But at the end of the day, it helps position us with experience to then move into the next stages, which is where the reactors really unlock significant differentials in performance. And yes, can-dos do that. They're also not in the US. And there is a pretty important focus on these production capabilities being in the US, not even in our nearest neighbors. And can-dos are pretty limited. They can do some things pretty well. But they can do everything very well. And the versatile isotope production reactor design is designed to do pretty much most everything pretty well. That you can do with thermal neutrons, key caveat. So the nice thing about that reactor is we'll have its prototype up running by middle of next year. It uses standard pressurized water reactor fuel bundles that are just shortened in height at commercial scale. And that's awesome. And it's fueled 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 radioisotopes bring 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 One custom reactor to produce these isotopes when maybe all you need is like a Ford F-150 or something similar 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 as 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 isotopes, 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 from 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 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 annals of history, the fast flux test facility, one of the reactors from which we derive our legacy, a reactor that our chief technology officer spent a lot of time at, had quite a cool setup to do a bunch of fast neutron 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 markets a global scale because they've been using their 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 neutron 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 the to go back to the viper reactor one of the things it's designed for is also being able to do silicon radiation which is generally speaking the or one of the gold standards for keeping silicon doping, right? If you do phosphorus-like type vapor deposition or infusion, you're 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 phosphorus doping happen naturally, and it's a pretty attractive thing. That capability used to be used when it existed in a way because the ability to do that radiation of went away so we're also that's one of the cool things about vipers it could do stuff like that too right so a lot of flexibility that you couldn't otherwise do um without a system designed to be versatile in nature your next question comes from the line of jeffrey campbell with seaport research please go ahead good evening and congratulations on all the progress um

I hadn't planned this one, but I found the last discussion pretty fascinating. 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, the CAMD can do it without any interruption, but typically, reactors have to... match their fuel, their refueling cycle with their irradiation. So just wondering what you think about that.

Yeah, it's a great question. You know, 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 Roar at 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 for normal commercial OPS if we want to harvest from 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 it's going to be some interesting planning and coordination, like it is for other test reactor radiation and test reactors. to sort of optimize to that and do the trade-offs. But generally speaking, yeah, for the vast majority, the focus, if we're going to use any of their capacity would be largely skewed towards minimizing, if not completely avoiding interference on the power operation schedule, while there will be a couple that will have more flexibility that we can kind of optimize to on the ICW side, if it makes sense to do so. It's kind of one of those acknowledgments of, yeah, we're going to have to look at possibly parsing some of the assets operation schedules if it makes sense to do. And that's the key question is if it makes sense to do.

Okay. Yeah, 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 partnership with Liberty Energy. Liberty's recently spoken about it at a high level, and they seem to indicate They've been aimed towards large projects. Frankly, I wondered if there's been any diminished appetite on Oklahoma's side as its progression to Aurora construction has accelerated.

Yeah, 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 and nuclear combo and bridging, you know, 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 operational kind of preference where that will be a key enabler for getting some stuff built or powering stuff that's 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 is then kind of followed by the benefits of being able to bring gas in to enable power at a site. for either co-location or near location or even behind the meter approach that gas can enable 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, you know, and 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 feature 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 I call it a challenge, but one of the things we've observed is You know, a lot of focus on the hyperscalers has been on, you know, the energy objectives they have over the next, you know, on multi-month scale timeframes, right? Maybe that extends out to 24 months or less, but like that's where they're obviously really, really focusing in most of their activities is making sure they're in a good position for all of what they need then. 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, you know, gas as a 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 increasing government fuel availability, like the plutonium side, which can be quite accelerative to building new nuclear plants faster and more plants faster, it's still being digested in the market. So like that may have an ability to help show a path to bringing nuclear on 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.

Yeah, that makes sense. But at least I wasn't completely irrational. You know what I would say. So I appreciate the call.

Your next question comes from the line of Derek Soderberg with Cantor Fitzgerald. Please go ahead.

Yeah. Hey, guys. Just one question from me. Is there a level of prepayments you need to make to secure some of these long lead time items in either the nuclear or non-nuclear supply chain? And wondering if you can quantify how much capital it'll require to just ensure access to those long lead time items as you scale. Thanks.

I can take that one. So, like, you know, we're currently working on progressing, you know, I don't want to mention the vendors 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, you know, 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, you know, we can, you know, we don't need to have capital be a constraint, that if we find an opportunity, that 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.

Perfect. Thanks.

Your next question is from the line of Sheriff L. McGrady with BTIG. Please go ahead.

Hi, thank you. Just a two-parter on the fuel line pilot at INL. 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.

Yeah. Just so I 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 an NRC 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, you know, and it was in the EOs and that might be something that does evolve. But the plan is to convert that over to an NRC license after some of that experience is gained, which at the end of the day is great because you point to real data with real us 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 an NRC license as well. There's some optionality potentially there, but the general view is keep to the DOE facility, get the experience of loading it, running it, doing some radiation work, providing some support to DOE missions, 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 NRC license, all of them to NRC licenses. That's a possibility, but the general purpose and plan is we kind of see the Aurora INL being the one that would make the most sense to do that with. The other two, not necessarily, but it depends on some factors that may evolve. Another thing I'll flag is coming out of the executive order is 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, quote unquote, products, right, whether that be power or heat or isotopes or whatever it is, to the Department of Energy in these 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, like, 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. It's, you know, there's nothing firm on that, but just given that the EEOs put that out there and it does open the door for the possibilities of 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 NRC and DOE are working well together and working together to, I would say, you know, be efficient in how work done by one will be complementary, 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, you know, DOE authorization and going through the technical work to do that will be constructive in NRC either licensing conversion and or, I should say really and, future NRC license applications for future commercial plans.

Great. Thank you, Jake.

And our final question comes from the line of Craig Shear with Tooley Brothers. Please go ahead.

Hi. Thanks for taking the question. What are the prospects for rounding up remaining fuel needs to maximize your maiden INL powerhouse to 75 megawatts? And if you don't have it up front as you commence operations, but later get NRC approval and can commence full commercial sales, at that time, could you refuel to maximum capacity?

Yes. Although, you know, 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 of full power, pretty close to the immediate onset of full power. Not that this is the plan, because we feel, again, increasingly confident that there's going to be extra HALU that we can use for that facility from actually a variety of sources, which is the diversity of sources is part of the confidence, the inspiration of the confidence. The other part of it is we can in that reactor if we need it. If we were able to get, for example, access to some of that plutonium feedstock, make that into fuel that could be located and commingled with the reactor fuel there, which just means some assemblies would have plutonium bearing fuels and would just be uranium bearing fuel. And you can design it to work just fine in that configuration and 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 yeah, that's how we see that kind of playing out.

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?

Yeah, it's a very good question, Seth. There are some inherent things that are a little different. You know, to go back in the history of this plutonium material, kind of its legacy and policy history, the president's executive orders directed 34 tons that was slated for dilute and dispose to be, you know, made available for reactors for fueling before the program of dilute and dispose, which is we're going to spend 20 plus billion dollars of taxpayer money to just blend this stuff up with kids that are in sand and various the program before that was actually to fabricate it into fuel as part of a joint treaty with russia at the time for stockpile reduction and the plan was to take um that material fabricated into fuel for light water reactors and then use it in light water reactors it was called the mox program in the facility in south carolina to do that that program There's a you can 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 still behaves differently than uranium in a fast reactor but the difference is more amplified and accentuated in a thermal spectrum or slow neutron reactor especially water cooled reactor and it wasn't something utilities were really one thing fuel markets were not constrained it was not something that there was a market for and it was a top-down government-run approach where the facility got way out of control and cost and everything else because it wasn't really driven by a kind of a more i would say you know entrepreneurial or enterprising kind of dynamic. So the recommended option, the best path coming out of that program, basically not, you know, being in a spot to not proceed was to actually the technical panel panelists were to say, okay, the best thing would be to put it in fast reactors, 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 it's not just that. 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 with how they think about that. That facility that I talked about under the Lightwater MOX program was actually going through and had gone through all of that was set up to be under NRC purview, 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 generally speaking pretty well known. But what's really powerful too is that DOE expanding kind of with the reactor pilot program to include the fuel pilot program to help fuel these reactors under the pilot program. They also are extending their authorization capabilities and they are the ones that already oversee from a permitting and authorization perspective plutonium 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 we have in this country and kind of accordingly kind of be able to scale that forward. So that's like that's that's how this coarse sort of charts. It's got some things that are a little bit different than the uranium side, but nothing significantly departed, and stuff that's largely knowable, manageable. I mean, again, there's contours and elements to it, but generally speaking, this has a history and precedent behind it in a multitude of ways between DOE and NRC. Where there is, and to your other point of the question, where there is kind of an exciting opportunity around this is the story and the conversation around proliferation. And I say that because The kind of only way to permanently destroy plutonium out of this universe is to fission it. So by putting it in the reactors, you're fissioning it, and you're turning it into two fission products that, you know, like stars have a really hard time synthesizing through supernovas back into plutonium. So that's a cheaty 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 know, you obviously apply all the relevant and state of the art. And this is something we've leaned into because of our work in recycling and 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 destroying it. So it's actually a pretty cool setup and something that as a country we were geared to do. There are some, you know, I would say, critics out there, mostly pretty clear anti-nuclear advocates who have said, oh, this is a nonproliferation concern. I've never understood that because destroying plutonium, kind of the best way to get rid of it, not kind of, it's objectively the best way to get rid of it. So yeah, it's just pretty elegant solution to actually get rid of the material. I think what it really distills to you though is just like, oh, this is different. And then it's just changed, takes a little bit of time to socialize and people are like, oh yeah, it 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 countries to destroy their plutonium, that's also kind of a feature in the nonproliferation 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 programs. As we think about the future in recycling, you're not separating out pure plutonium using state-of-the-art technologies, which again gets back to how I think at a policy level, we should be thinking about leading on the world stage. If we as a country are, you know, as what we announced in Tennessee, recycling material in a manner that does not ever produce pure separated plutonium instead produces a uranium transuranic mix that's commingled um that's that's a good spot to kind of you know lead from and so that's kind of how i think about the space great thank you and with no further questions in queue i will now hand the call back over to jake dewitt

CEO and co-founder of Oklo. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you all for joining in today. We appreciate it. There's you know, 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. know in its accelerative features but also in its regulatory de-risking 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 at 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 speaking, enable a world where NRC reviews will be accelerated and made more efficient. And generally speaking, improved by the experiences already done by the DOE. DOE has 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've 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 and 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 abilities. 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 build out and invest in and expand the uranium fuel supply chain are pretty accelerative because the bridge fuel opportunities that plutonium gives us is a game changer in building more reactors more quickly and using that to help accelerate the investment and development of the uranium enrichment markets. Uranium enrichment is radically undersupplied in this country, radically 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 one time a year, but for HALU. And so things we can do to help signal more powerful optics orders and investments and therefore expansion in the HALU side, supported by building more reactors sooner using bridge fuels, is pretty creative to realizing more fuel supplies. And to use maybe a bit of a silly term, fuel leadership and fuel dominance. Because back in the 1980s, we as a country had more fuel production capacity meaning conversion, enrichment, deconversion, fabrication, than 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, you know, one of the great things about the pilot programs and the benefits there is an ability to move into buildings. 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 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 one two and you know what you're licensing but also you know you can have it built and then get the final authorizations before you actually load the fuel and actually run the plant and the doa pathways allow us to do that so we can accelerate timelines and it's bringing forward an ability to start going from being going from greenfield and the design of a reactor to turning reactors on in 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 speeds 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. 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 three of those reactor pilot programs, as well as the fuel line programs and executing down that as we also scale forward with additional, you know, customer development, and future sites and deployment opportunities. Thank you all.

Thank you again for joining us today. This does conclude today's conference call. You may now disconnect.