Oklo (OKLO) Q3 2025 Earnings Call Transcript

Image source: The Motley Fool.

Date

Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2025 at 5 p.m. ET

Call participants

• Chief Executive Officer and Co‑Founder — Jake DeWitte
• Chief Financial Officer — Craig Bealmear

Need a quote from a Motley Fool analyst? Email pr@fool.com

Takeaways

• DOE Regulatory Pathway -- Oklo transitioned its Aurora INL Powerhouse project from NRC licensing to the Department of Energy (DOE) authorization, enabling construction to commence ahead of full commercial licensing and significantly reducing regulatory timeline risk.
• DOE/NRC Coordination -- Management emphasized a "parallel engagement strategy," stating the new DOE process allows "faster demonstration of clean power" while keeping NRC licensing for future commercial operations.
• Construction Milestones -- Oklo has officially broken ground on its first Aurora powerhouse at Idaho National Laboratory, with major site work and equipment mobilization already underway as of October 27.
• Supply Chain Execution -- Procurements for in-vessel and ex-vessel handling machines, sodium pumps, reactor trip systems, and fuel fabrication components are now under contract, securing pricing and timelines with qualified vendors amid inflation and tariff volatility.
• Strategic Fuel Flexibility -- Oklo secured five tons of EBR2 fuel and can access up to 20 tons of government plutonium, convertible into about 180 metric tons of Aurora reactor fuel. This could support deployment of "10 to 20 plants" with expedited timelines and lower upfront capital requirements.
• Advanced Fuel Center Investment -- Oklo announced a privately funded fuel recycling facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, representing up to $1.68 billion in capital and over 800 projected permanent jobs, with targeted initial production in the early 2030s.
• Reactor/Fuel Line Pilot Program Awards -- Three Oklo-related projects received DOE selection for reactor and fuel fabrication pilots, including Atomic Alchemy's isotope production facility and the plutonium fuel testing reactor. All are expected to accelerate domestic deployment capability.
• International Partnerships -- Oklo closed new agreements with European firms BlueCala and Nucleo, including a joint development deal and a potential $2 billion manufacturing investment to extend fuel platform capacity in the United States.
• Backlog and Customer Pipeline -- Management stated the "14 gigawatts" pipeline remains of data center and hyperscaler customers, with active commercial discussions underway and potential prepayment structures similar to the Equinix deal.
• Operating Loss -- Third-quarter operating loss was $36.3 million, including $9.1 million of non-cash stock-based compensation expense.
• Cash Operating Use -- Cash used in operating activities year-to-date, adjusted for non-cash stock-based compensation charges, changes to working capital, and deferred income tax benefits, is $48.7 million, and full-year 2025 cash use is expected within the previously guided range of $65 million to $80 million.
• Balance Sheet -- Oklo ended the third quarter with $1.2 billion in cash and marketable securities, following $540 million in gross proceeds from an at-the-market capital raise.
• Prepayment Requirement -- Prepayments for long-lead supply chain items are currently "in that 10% range," which management described as "not significant" relative to total project budgets.

Summary

Oklo (NYSE:OKLO) advanced its transition to a DOE-led regulatory process, launching construction on its first Aurora powerhouse while maintaining active engagement with NRC pathways for future commercial licensing. Management highlighted rapid progress in securing critical components and demonstrated fuel flexibility by leveraging unprecedented access to government plutonium and recycled EBR2 material, supporting scalable deployment. High-profile international partnerships bolstered Oklo’s vertical integration strategy, and Atomic Alchemy is positioned to generate early isotope revenue starting mid-2026, with long-term infrastructure anchored by the forthcoming Tennessee fuel recycling facility. The company’s robust $1.2 billion liquidity position, diversified customer pipeline, and multi-pronged fuel strategy were cited as key enablers for operational scale and recurring margin growth.

• DeWitte stated that the DOE and NRC have an expanded memorandum of understanding, signaling "continued coordination throughout" and a "smooth handoff when conversion occurs."
• Oklo’s build-own-operate model leverages long-term power contracts with data center, defense, utility, and industrial customers to create recurring revenues and "margin visibility."
• Atomic Alchemy’s lab scale project may generate "single million" dollar gross margin in its first half-year, although revenues will "not be exactly ratable."
• Government policy changes now allow blending down plutonium for commercial fuel, described as a "game changer" that "completely changes the paradigm where you no longer are fuel constrained."
• The Oak Ridge, Tennessee advanced fuel center will enable Oklo to "convert used fuel into new metal fuel," supporting U.S. energy security and providing vertical supply chain control.
• Recent policy, including the proposed Nuclear Refuel Act 2025, could further streamline regulatory processes for advanced fuel recycling if enacted, as noted in the transcript.
• Oklo’s multi-stage supply chain model includes traditional enrichers, advanced enrichment technology providers, and internal recycling, with no stated reliance on a single vendor.
• Management clarified prepayments for major components are typical "in the 10% range," but substantial recent fundraising ensures capital availability does not constrain procurement decisions.

Industry glossary

• DOE Authorization Pathway: A federal process enabling construction and operation of first-of-a-kind nuclear plants under Department of Energy oversight in parallel with, and as a precursor to, full NRC licensing.
• EBR2 Fuel: Reprocessed uranium material from the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II, used as feedstock for Oklo's advanced reactors.
• HALEU: High-assay low-enriched uranium, enriched up to 20% U-235, needed for many advanced nuclear designs.
• Plutonium Bridge Fuel: Government-supplied plutonium, blended into reactor fuel to provide a significant interim supply for powerhouses prior to scale-up of commercial enrichment or recycling.
• Viper Reactor: A versatile isotope production reactor designed by Oklo’s Atomic Alchemy subsidiary for research, medical, and industrial isotope generation.
• Combined License (COLA): The prior NRC-required licensing application for new nuclear construction, now superseded by DOE authorization for Oklo’s pilot projects.

Full Conference Call Transcript

Jake DeWitte: 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 help derisk commercial licensing for future powerhouses, strengthening our overall regulatory foundation. This selection positions Oklo as one of the first advanced reactors 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 policies we have seen for advanced reactors in decades.

Expanding regulatory tools without reducing safety expectations. For Oklo, it effectively provides a structured approach and process to begin constructing our first powerhouse under DOE oversight. While maintaining full alignment with NRC standards. The DOE pathway enables faster demonstration of clean power while maintaining the same rigorous safety expectations and provides an opportunity for a rapid transition to an NRC license for full commercial operation. Here's what changed in May, new executive actions established a clear DOE authorization process for first-of-a-kind nuclear plants. A process that now complements rather than replaces traditional NRC licensing. Within months, we moved to qualify our Aurora INL Powerhouse under that framework.

We expect to finalize our other transaction authority or agreement and have approval of our nuclear safety design agreement or NSTA with the DOE by the end of the year. So here's how it works. DOE will authorize construction and operations under its modernized framework which allows us to begin building while the longer commercial energy transition proceeds in parallel. We do not 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 does not 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 reactors. Importantly, DOE and the NRC are complementary, not competitive. Their teams have a long history of collaboration, and we expect continued coordination throughout this to ensure a 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 derisks your INL regulatory path and allows us to focus on building and operating powerhouses.

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, 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 will finalize DOE authorization documentation and begin Aurora INL construction and operations under DOE oversight. While continuing NRC pre-application work for follow-on deployments. The learnings from real-world performance data, fuel behavior, and operating experience will feed directly into the NRC's combined license process. Which we expect could compress the 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 Oklo powerhouses. In Idaho National Laboratory, we have officially broken ground on our first Aurora powerhouse marking a major milestone in Oklo's transition from design and permitting to active construction. As mentioned, we are progressing under DOE's reactor pilot program, which provides federal oversight and coordination as we move from preparation to build. KeyWit has mobilized major equipment to the site and earthworks began October 27, to be followed by controlled blasting in mid-November targeting full excavation in early January.

For Oklo, this is a defining moment. 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 are 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 having them under contract early locks in pricing, timelines, and fabrication slots with qualified vendors. It also demonstrates the maturity of our supply chain. 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 amid 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 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 cost 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 repeatably 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 quarter with its selection under the Department of Energy's reactor pilot program. This selection makes the Atomic Alchemy pilot facility eligible for DOE authorization, creating a faster pathway to construction and operations. The pilot facility is designed to prove isotope production validate supply chain readiness and derisk the deployment of a larger commercial scale Viper facility. In the near term, the team is finalizing de-authorization documents 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 multiyear offtake agreements and carrying forward the procedures and quality assurance systems proven in the pilot facility to streamline future deployment. What's important here is that Atomic Alchemy is not 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. Therefore produce neutrons.

It is an open water-cooled pool-type reactor that is not pressurized and uses conventional 17 by 17 pressurized water reactor fuel bundles, filled with LEU, at a shortened height. This means the reactors can be built and supplied quickly produce a variety of isotopes that serve healthcare, defense, and industrial applications. Isotopes are generally speaking vastly undersupplied in The US. 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 are drawing on DOE materials like EBR2 fuel and potentially plutonium-based feedstock to fuel early units.

Mid-term, our partnerships with Centrus, Hexium, and others expand fresh Hailey Waxes and reduce single vendor risk. Longer term, our Tennessee Advanced Fuel Center positions 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 that the cost environment for HALEU related materials looks very different today than it did in 2024. Tariffs, supply chain constraints, inflation, evolving sanctions have all changed the market dynamics.

The global investment landscape is still shifting and so are the pricing assumptions that come with it. This is challenging work and we are owning it. 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 do not yet know where HALEU costs will ultimately land, but what we do know is that Oklo has more pathways and flexibility than other companies in the space. We will continue refining our cost models and expect to share more detailed updates next year as the pricing picture becomes clear. But the takeaway today is straightforward. Fuel markets are changing and Oklo is built to adapt.

Especially in the current fuel environment with additional government materials becoming available to serve as bridge fuel supplies. We think it is useful to spend a little time illuminating HALO supply chains and how they work. The current models in The U.S. And in the world of generally speaking, involve several steps starting with uranium mining, to then uranium milling, to then conversion, to then enrichment, 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 HALO 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 offer value chain consolidation and operate more flexibly. Which can altogether mean opportunities for lower cost And beyond HeLu, Oklo is also taking a multipronged approach for sourcing fuel both in the near term as well as the long term. We discussed this a little bit already, but there are several major pools of material to think about for fueling our reactors going forward. For one, there are significant government uranium reserves.

Some of this material stands in highly enriched form and can be down blended into fuel for reactors. Some of it might also be in prior or previously irradiated fuel, that can be recovered and then produced in the fuel for reactors. That is where we are getting the first five tons of fuel for our first plant. Five tons of fuel produced from EBR2 fuel that has been recovered and down blended 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 has been timed 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 can be used in our reactors. That negates and avoids the need for any enrichment can accelerate time to market as well as reduce total capital investments needed 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 HALEU, as well as advanced enrichers that bring forward different technologies and centrifuges that have unique upside and potential but may in some cases stand lower on the technology readiness development spectrum But these technologies offer opportunities for value chain consolidation, lower cost of production, lower cost of operation, ultimately the ability to use lower cost feedstocks. This can ultimately translate to lower cost HALEU at scale as well.

And ultimately, recycling is a key part of our fuel strategy because of how significant it is in unlocking significant reserves of fuel. I use that term 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 pass. 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 is 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 will likely get built. This positions Oklo well to have a long-term, very durable supply of fuel going forward. Continuing on recycling, one of our biggest advancements this quarter was the announcement of our advanced fuel center in Tennessee, beginning with 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 has another layer of vertical integration to Oklo's business, enabling us to convert used fuel into new metal fuel for our powerhouses. It strengthens U.S. Capability and gives Oklo more supply chain control on our path to scale. We are tracking towards an initial production ramp-up in the early 2030s with regulatory engagement already underway through the NRC pre-application process. We are also working with the Tennessee Valley Authority on potential collaboration around used nuclear fuel feedstock transfer well as power generation from Aurora powerhouses.

This project is not just about fuel supply, it is 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 is growing federal support for advanced fuel recycling. Just last week, the Senate Energy and Public Works Committee announced the Nuclear Refuel Act 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 to facilities. Strengthening U.S. Capability and ensuring that advanced reactors like ours have a long-term supply of fuel. Under this initiative, DOE awarded three Oklo lead fuel-related projects, allowing us to build and operate facilities that directly support our POWERHOUSE deployments and complement the work underway at our advanced fuel center and Aurora INL fuel fabrication facility. The fuel line pilot program nears the intent of the reactor pilot program.

To create alternative pathways for advanced nuclear deployment that move faster streamline reviews and leverage private investment alongside federal oversight. Broklo does three important things. It presents an opportunity to secure near-term fuel for early powerhouse producing 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 Oklo 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 will pass it to Craig to share progress on our strategic partnerships and financials.

Craig Bealmear: Thanks, Jake. As Jake mentioned, Oklo is leading the advanced nuclear effort here in The United States. But we are also experiencing growing international momentum around fast reactors and metal fuel technology. This quarter, we signed new transatlantic partnerships with BlueCala, 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 Bluekala, we entered into a joint technology development agreement to collaborate in key areas where there is 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 New Pleo, we have launched a strategic partnership to develop advanced fuel fabrication 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 will now provide a summary of our financials. Oklo's third-quarter operating loss was $36.3 million inclusive of non-cash stock-based compensation expense of $9.1 million. Oklo's loss before income taxes in the third quarter was $29.2 million which reflects our operating loss adjusted for net interest income of $7.1 million. On a year-to-date basis, when adjusting for 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 million to $80 million that we disclosed at the start of this year. In addition, 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.

Jake DeWitte: In

Craig Bealmear: This spin has been enabled by various accelerators we have seen across the business 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 the 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 have 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, scalability, and our first powerhouse at INL under construction. We have 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.

Jake DeWitte: We

Craig Bealmear: 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, growing customer pipeline for Power, spans data centers, defense, utilities, and industrials. Confirmed 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 are executing today and positioned to lead the next era of clean, reliable energy. Operator, we are now ready to take questions.

Operator: Our first question comes from the line of Ryan Pfingst with B. Riley. Please go ahead.

Ryan Pfingst: Hey, guys.

Jake DeWitte: Thanks for taking my questions. Just want to make sure I am clear on the DOE authorization. Does the INL plant shifting to the DOE pathway change your requirement to submit a COLA with the NRC for that project? Or is that something you still have to do? And has the government shutdown impacted your ability to do that at all? Thanks. Sure. For the question. I think so, yes, we no longer need to do a COLA Right? So we are going through the DOE authorization process, which is inherently quite different. So we do not have to do that anymore. At the end of the day, to build.

At the end of the day, we will still do, some kind of combined license type application to the NRC. Part of it is being a little bit 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 know, after we get through some of the initial start-up and operational kind of frame, and base or paradigm, I should say. But, yeah. Now it is just through a different DOE process.

What is huge about this is this you know, this is a muscle that if you think about it, there are three major agencies.

Operator: Have, right, to do nuclear authorization or permitting.

Jake DeWitte: Obviously, NRC, then there is Department of Energy, and then the Department of, you know, War. And those three agencies have those abilities. DOE and DOD, so DOW have not really used those very much. Recently, but they have that history. And so they are like, they have used them, and they do have continued oversight of the programs, but they are using them all, you know, now. A lot more. And this, by the way, was not just something that happened overnight. Like, this goes back to the nuclear inner energy innovation 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. DOE has really leaned into it, and it is kind of empowered that ability to do these things. What is 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 are able to break ground and move into meaningful construction is because the DOE process gives you the flexibility to build while you are going through the different steps and, you know, of basically authorization. Until loading fuel and turning it on.

And that gives you a lot more flexibility just move into a build mode and iterate a lot faster. Something that I think is really important and that you 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 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 certain fast reactors like we are developing. They were the ones that provided the regulatory authorization for EBR two for FFTS. And continued that oversight into operations.

They know how to do this better than probably anybody. So it is a really great kind of fit. Looked at this pathway, as it existed before, back in the past. It was not in any way modernized. And then since Nika 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 is great about that is that actually means that there is going to be residual expertise and experience gained through our process you know, our approaching us through DOE that will also help us in the NRC space. So it is a huge kind of change in many, many positive ways. That is gonna let us move faster to build and turn on the plant. Ultimately convert over to commercial operations and scale from there. Does not take away NRC licensing. It just changes the cadence. It kind of accelerates the ability to get built and get into NRC licensing in a commercial space in a meaningful way, which is really, really accelerated for us.

Ryan Pfingst: Got it. Appreciate that detail, Jake. And then my second question, I have asked you this one before, but curious if your thinking has changed regarding order conversion from pipeline to more of something firm. And if it is starting to make more sense to try to lock in a PPA with a customer as we get closer to 2627 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. The most constructive way possible for the company and not necessarily rush into know, PPA signing.

Jake DeWitte: But rather build

Ryan Pfingst: better off take structures because doing this inherently is not the same exact thing as sort of just doing a power off take know, purchase from, a solar project, which is what much of the, I would call it, legacy conventional PPA structure has been built for. There is a lot of room to be also more creative and that opens the door to do a lot of things that are important for frankly, derisking a lot of things for us. That the off takers are also incentive aligned to do with us. So yeah, I mean, we have continued to develop customers in the market, and we continue to do that here.

And that, you know, is part of kind of our intentional cadence and strategy to do that. And I think as we work towards what we are executing against, we to be able to kinda 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 derisk some of the stuff today into that. For them for their power offtake. Pretty powerful. So that is kind of where our focus should not say kind of. That is where our focus has been for the last you know, over twelve months or so.

And we are, you know, we are continuing on that pace because that is what the market is quite supportive and receptive to. And we expect that to continue and position us well so that going into the next year and beyond, we will start converting those into that kind of you know, those kinds of structures as works each of these different you know, off takers and groups is gonna have different knobs and levers and things to turn that work better for them respectively than maybe their peers or competitors. So we gotta make sure we work kind of with, you know, the right ones that can kinda lean into this in the right ways and cadence.

And then and then focus on moving that into the kinda execution phase. So that is how we think about that. I think one x factor that is interesting is of the executive order structure includes the government's ability to be and also as we have 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 hosts 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 is some interesting potential based on what the has put into law. Or, you know, put into, you know, 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 is kinda cool to see what that might look like too, which is interesting. So, that is probably the biggest shift that a lot of this has opened the door for. Otherwise, we have continued to work at pace and saying, hey.

Let us find the most, you know, constructive ways to work with our, you know, customers and ultimately convert them forward. Based on what how we can work together and what we can do to sort of more or less guarantee success in this project in a in a beneficial way.

Ryan Pfingst: Understood. Thanks, Jake. I will turn it back.

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

Tyler Bissett: Hey guys, this is Tyler Bissett on for Brian. Thanks for taking our questions. Wanted to follow-up on a prior question. Just wanted to confirm are you guys still targeting commercial operations at INL to commence between late twenty seven and early twenty eight? Or does shifting to the DOE pathway accelerate that timeline? Sounds like full activation is targeted for early January. So what are the next sort of milestones we should be watching out for that supports that timeline beyond January?

Jake DeWitte: Yeah. I mean, this is what is really exciting about the 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 reactive pilot programs awarded to us. We talked about those a little bit in earnings. One is the Aurora I know. The other is for the atomic alchemy pilot and prototype production reactor. That is on pace, for that plan is specifically on pace to turn on. And you know, June, July of next year, 2026. It is incredible. It is awesome.

It is really cool to see how it is progressing. So that is a pretty big set of, you know, milestones. Alone to achieve that. So, obviously, we will continue to update the market as we hit milestones on front as we execute into that. Then there is the Pluto reactor, which is basically a plutonium fuel testing reactor, that will have a continued set of milestones as well. That bridge as 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 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. Will march forward about moving towards basically know, to turning during fuel systems and critical assemblies and system test reactors. That are happening on a pretty fast timescale as well that will continue to update the market over the course the next six know, well, the next three, six, nine, twelve months out. And then back to of where your question was on the Aurora NINL plan. The authorization path that is important here is it allows us to move into the construction activity much more quickly so we can start building the plant You know, we broke ground in September. We are moving into major excavation works here coming up shortly.

And then moving to the, you know, the full-scale procurement and activities as we speak, including stuff we have already done, stuff we are ramping forward into. That is gonna be pretty important for us to be able to turn that plan on. We are still targeting in 2728 timelines for that plant to commence operation to turn on and go. There are some things that might be accelerated to benefit that. Some of that can also just help take out or accommodate some, you know, Slack and other things in the system. It is 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 is enabling all of this is the ability to actually, like, fabricate fuel to put into these reactors. And that is a critical part of the supply chain that you know, we have been focused on for a very long time. And with the reactor pilot program and then this associated fuel pilot program allows us to move into. And as we talked about and we announced earlier today, achieved some pretty sizable milestones there. 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 are using existing building at Idaho National Laboratory to do that. That building needs to have refurbishment and then have equipment go into it. That building going through the tradition the kind of legacy DOE because it is 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 kinda get close to a milestone.

But then when we reset the process into the pilot program, starting from zero there, granted we had some work done so we could kinda 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 are clear benefits that we are seeing that we are going to be in pace to have things moving faster and be able to deploy and turn that plant on. Will caveat that plant in Idaho it is not going to be selling commercial power to the grid under DOE authorization That is not what its intent is.

Might be able to do some work selling into just power, but radiation services to the lab complex in the Department of Energy as part of the authorization. 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 for 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.

So we expect like, there is some new work obviously to do that kind of thing, but it is supportive that they are already getting in front of that. Part of why they are looking at that is you know, to build off the success that we can do under DOE. reactors. Again, the feature DOE has compared to the NRC, the NRC has been doing a lot of work to get ready to license events DOE has been licensing advanced reactors for a long time. So they already have those muscles internally. Now they are just using them a little bit differently externally, and that is hugely beneficial.

Because then the ERC is gonna be able to build off and reference those things. So it kind of keeps the same pace and cadence of operations. For what we are 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.

Tyler Bissett: 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. 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? It sounds like that fuel source could accelerate your deployment schedule.

Jake DeWitte: So one of the things that we got I love that question for so many reasons. And I am sure some folks are probably gonna be a little nervous, but I am spend the whole time getting into the technical details, which I will try not to because I am 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, yeah, so the key thing about plutonium, right, is it is an incredibly useful fissile material, as a fuel source.

In other words, if you think about HALEU, it is 19 you know, up to 20%, less than 20% enriched, and uranium two thirty five, now the balance you are earning two thirty eight. In the fast reactor, pretty much all the isotopes and plutonium, but especially the stuff being made available, which is mostly plutonium two thirty nine with some plutonium two forty and two forty one in there. But that material a great bridge fuel because it can be a direct replacement for the uranium two thirty five. Without needing any enrichment. Right? It already exists. You blend it in with uranium.

Our case, you have some zirconium to obviously make the metallic fuel, but you just blend the plutonium with uranium to make a halo equivalent type fuel form. Now the thing about plutonium is it is a even better fuel uranium. You need less of it to get commensurate performance.

Ryan Pfingst: So

Jake DeWitte: on average, and it depends by variations and flavors in the fuel, But on average, if you basically it is 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, you know, plus just under 20% enriched uranium. So that is where that conversion and math comes from. So that is that is why it is such a potent, you know, fuel form. So to speak. So that is pretty cool. That is obviously very accelerated for a lot of things. And for that facility, that is one of the things that was encompassed in the, pilot program, the fuel pilot program.

Awards, and being able to do that kind of work there. At an initial stage and initial scale. So it may 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 is, you know, fully made available and know, we have the DOE fuel pilot program selections to support that. It is hard to overstate the significance of the government moving this material away from a 20 plus billion dollar taxpayer funded liability to bury it. Literally, mix it with titty litter and sand and bury it in the desert in Mexico.

Versus making it available to be a bridge fuel for the advanced reactor industry. And completely changes the paradigm where you no longer are fuel constrained because of that. It is huge. And what is significant about that, obviously, is not that you can build more reactors sooner, but that means you can scale more powerful and significant orders to the enrichment markets well as what we are doing on the recycling side. It is incredible. It is absolutely, absolutely incredible. So for me, like, that was one of the most exciting things to have happened this year because of what that catalyzes for building more things sooner.

Ryan Pfingst: Without

Craig Bealmear: like,

Jake DeWitte: having to be dependent on other factors And then instead using that you know, enabling 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, 've been working to advocate for government bridge fuel supplies as a key enabler to kick start commercial fuel supply chain. And I think we are we are seeing that really take root and open the doors for that to move in a totally different way. Yeah, seriously, it is it is a it is a really, really significant policy move to enabling the deployment of more nuclear power quickly. More quickly.

Tyler Bissett: Perfect. Thank you very much.

Jake DeWitte: And I will just add one little piece to that. Like, not all reactors and field fabrication approaches benefit from plutonium the same? It has different characteristics to it. We just know it works really well in fast trackers because we spend a lot of time developing and researching it for So that obviously is

Ryan Pfingst: part of the benefit

Jake DeWitte: you know, of fast reactors and their ability to be quite fuel agnostic and fuel flexible.

Operator: Your next question is from the line of Vikram Bagri with Citi. Please go ahead.

Vikram Bagri: Hi. It is Ted Thanks for taking the question.

Jake DeWitte: Wanted to ask about the Pluto test reactor. So it looks like it is gonna be deployed after the first reactor at INL. Is this gonna be the template for all the future reactors And what are the differences to Aurora? Is it only that it is gonna 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 from this test reactor?

Jake DeWitte: Yeah. It is a great set of questions. So, basically, it is a little bit different. It is bespoke to enable the accelerated sort of fast neutron radiation testing capabilities of the system like that can afford. That is important for a couple of reasons. Like, part of what we have talked about is you know, at the at the company, if you think about what Oklo is, 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 had to build to deliver into 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 have announced this quarter touched on. Additionally, 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. 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 have had in this country. In thirty plus years, and it is not a capability that the Western world has had in a similar time frame. So, like, in twenty years or so. So it is an important thing we are 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 are doing with the Aurora plant and our ability to do that therefore also offer that as a potential revenue-generating aspect of the company, which is hey. We have fast nature on it.

We can provide a radiation capability, not just for our own use, but for others. As well as what we are doing on the Pluto side, which expands that.

Ryan Pfingst: And gives us that

Jake DeWitte: cadence of experience in a plutonium-based system is pretty accelerated to opening the door for moving into better deals and different materials and expanding the field performance envelope so that we can maximize what we do. A good spot to build and operate. That is great. But there is going to be so much more we can get out of these materials with more end fuel terms of timing of 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 is a smaller system. It is not producing electric power.

Its primary job is I mean, as of now, its primary job is focused on making fast neutrons. And it is 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 platonic handling and management, and then moving that into, obviously, the full-scale like, Pluto reactor.

The reactor will be smaller in its power production, and will also be optimized to use plutonium is inherently in the nuclear space, a higher worth you know, to use that terminology fuel, means we can actually use less overall fuel we concentrate up the tonium a bit more, which is what generally speaking, process reactors have done. So that means we can kinda use a higher loading of plutonium total less total fuel mass, get more thermal power out of it, and therefore, more neutrons to test things with it. It is a pretty favorable thing to with that.

But the system will give us a very significant amount of repetition about doing the actual workaround plutonium fuel fabrication going forward. The fuel will look, generally speaking, very similar to the Aurora fuel if we use plutonium in it. In terms of form factor and type, it would just use a lower amount of plutonium in it because we have you know, what we are designing to in the Aurora plan is to be interchangeable between HALEU the Plutonium Fuel, and Transuranic Fuel. And that means you kinda dilute the Plutonium more. Compared to what Pluto will do.

You think about what Pluto is as a program, it is the cadence to build on top of the fuel fab the Plutonic fuel fabrication. Piece into the plutonium reactor part. So over the course of the next year, we will gain experience with plutonium criticality, and work around that. And then we will 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 is a pretty significant enabler for you know, getting those repetitions under our belt to then start fueling Aurora plants with plutonium bearing fuel.

Now just to put a number on this, like, the thing that is 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 is important because it helps us with ourselves as well as other companies come to us or government programs can come to us and either rent or buy radiation type time. Radiation, sorry, radiation time or similar types of kind of exposure in the environment.

To help bring some materials that are quite mature, but need a little bit more to go over the finish line that are inherently, you know, I have 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 that looks this is a platform for r and d and margin improvement is one way to think about it. So anyway, that is that is kind of the cadence of how we see things.

Vikram Bagri: Got it. That is super helpful. Thank you. And then I just had one follow-up. On Slide nine, it mentions the breakdown of CapEx by components. And I think it is listed by a number of components. Are you able to share just directionally what that is in dollar terms?

Jake DeWitte: Yeah. I mean, I guess I will I will kinda hand this over for Greg if you want answer some of it, I can chime in.

Craig Bealmear: Yeah. So I think directionally we would expect the dollars to be similar to the components. In terms of an actual dollar breakdown, we are still refining a lot of our cost estimates now that we have got Keywood onboard and now that we are deepening some of our procurement activities. We will probably have more to share on that going probably into 2026.

Ryan Pfingst: Thank you.

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

Jed Dorsheimer: Hi, thanks. Thanks for taking my question here, guys. I guess, first, I do not know if Jake, you want this or Craig, but just if you could talk a little bit about backlog. I think it was 14 gigawatts. Has that changed at all? And maybe just a little bit of color on the discussions that you are having. Is it mostly utility? Is it mostly hyperscaler? It is, you know, just that breakdown, if you would? And then I have a follow-up.

Craig Bealmear: Yeah, Jed, I can take that. So I would say, 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 are also got other potential customers in the mix that are not identified customers as part of that 14 gigawatts that could maybe even cause that number to go up. I know the bigger question is, when do you convert that into a PPA? And I would 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 Oklo to be on the same page with the customer. I am really pleased with kinda how those commercial progress commercial discussions are progressing and not just on the PPA pricing front, but I think we are also seeing good traction on similar to what were able to achieve with Equinix, which was a prepayment for power. We are 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?

Jed Dorsheimer: Got it. That is helpful. Just along those lines, you know, the discussions, does has atomic alchemy and having the standing up a fueling recycling, even if that is in the future, has that kind of moved some of those discussions along from a supply chain, risk? And sorry, Yeah. That is Well, would say atomic alchemy is probably it is you know, the types of conversations we are having around feedstock for isotope production taking customer discussions into know, contract conversion. The steps are the same, but it is definitely with different counterparties on both the feedstock side, the supplier vendor side, and all of that.

But I think we are excited around the tremendous progress that the team is making around the reactor pilot program, that Atomic Alchemy was awarded. And in addition, we are also making good progress on the lab scale facility that will be down the road at INL. I think as I have said earlier, there is the possibility for the lab scale project that we could be you know, generating revenue and gross margin. It is going be in the you know, single million dollars, not anything bigger than that. And it will not be exactly ratable.

But we are excited about what we might be able to do to actually turn some of that the lab scale facility, especially in the gross margin in the first half of next year. Got it. And then just one for Jake. If I just look at you know, 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 can that be done in between? I ask because 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 is an in between.

Jake DeWitte: Thanks. Yes. It is a good question. I mean, a couple of steps, actually to parse that out. So one, there are some things we can do in the near term without a reactor in terms of isotope of consolidation and recovery that we are making progress. We talked about in a in a in the update. Towards in Idaho where you will 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 is great because you get lot of you get some practice repetitions.

And you have to color everything, 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, candies do that. Also not in The U.S. And there is a pretty important focus on these production capabilities being in The U.S. Not even in our nearest neighbors. Right? And so and candies are pretty limited. They can do some things pretty well, but they can do everything very well. And the versatile the 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 will 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 is awesome. It is filled with LEU. And it is of what we are drawn to with this business, was it was not trying to design because some of the you know, 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 kinda build, a formula one custom reactor to produce these isotopes when maybe all you need is, a four to one fifty or something similar to that. It does not 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, you know, attracted us Atomic Alchemy as we were working with them. So that is one of the features here is what that will enable. But then there is the other part. Which is some isotopes you really say you best produce, if not uniquely produce, in a fast spectrum environment. Need fast neutrons to really do that.

Then that is where being able to harvest some of the fast neutrons in our fast reactors will unlock those capabilities. Pretty attractively and then tie that in to the atomic alchemy kind of sales channels and, you know, we will we will productization and sales trends. And that is a pretty cool feature set that we will be able to have. If you look back in the analyst history, fast block test facility, one of the reactors from which we derive our legacy, a reactor that our chief technology officer spent chief technology officer spent a lot of time at.

Had quite a cool setup to do a bunch of fast neutron like, I could do production work, like, 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 at a global scale because they have been using their fast neutron capabilities to do that too. It is a pretty significant game changer that does diversify away from capabilities that you cannot do with just thermal neutron reactors. But at the end of the day, those are pretty important things.

One other thing I will just throw out that talked a little bit about it is important to kind of eliminate, the to go back to the VIPER reactor. One of the things it is designed for is also being able to do silicon radiation, which is, generally speaking, the or one of the gold standards. For achieving silicon doping. Right? If you do phosphorus, like, type vapor deposition or infusion, it kinda 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 is a pretty attractive thing.

That capability used to be used when it existed in a way because the ability to do that radiation kinda went away. So we are also that is one of the cool things about Viper is it could do stuff like that too. Right? So a lot of flexibility that you could not otherwise do without a system design that would be versatile in nature.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Jeffrey Campbell with Seaport Research. Please go ahead.

Jeffrey Campbell: Good evening and congratulations on all the progress. One I had not 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 radiate radiation with an aurora, you gonna be able to do it in a way that will not interrupt your fuel cycle? You mentioned the Russian reaction. It has kind of a peculiar fuel cycle that allows it to go in periodically and do the irradiated And, of course, the CANDU can do without any interruption, but typically, reactors have to match their fuel, their refueling cycle with their irradiation. So I was just wondering what you think about that.

Jake DeWitte: Yes, it is a great question. By and large, like, the focus of those reactors is really power production but some of the flexibility that will be afforded to us by, for example, the Aurora, Idaho, as well as 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 some of those new trunks because it makes sense, gonna have to fit it into the power cadence because that is the primary driver. But we will have some flexibility in some other reactors that will give us more flexibility to kind of match that accordingly.

Because we are gonna be doing other testing work. So it is it is gonna be some interesting planning and coordination, like, it is for other test reactor radiation and test reactors. To sort of optimize to that. You know, and do the trade-offs. But generally speaking, yeah. We it is it is know? From the vast majority, the focus, if we are gonna use any of their tape any of their plastic drawing capacity, would be largely skewed towards, you know, minimizing, if not completely avoid interference on the power operation schedule.

While there will be a couple that have more flexibility that we can kind of optimize to on the on the ICWeb side if it makes sense to do so. So it is kind of a one of those acknowledgments of yeah. We are gonna have to look at part possibly parsing some of the assets operation schedules if it makes sense to do, and that is the key question if it makes sense to do.

Jeffrey Campbell: Okay. Yeah. That makes sense. The other question I wanted to ask you is, Steve, if could give us any update on your proposed natural gas or partnership with Liberty Energy. Liberty has recently spoken about it at a high level and they seem to indicate they have been aimed towards large projects. Frankly, I wondered if there has been any diminished appetite on Oklo's side as its progression to Aurora construction has accelerated.

Jake DeWitte: Yeah. I think in general, we still see it as a pretty powerful bridge. I think we have seen now several other groups be talking at a broad thematic about the gas to nuclear combo and bridging. You know, capabilities and features that offers. So we continue to see that as a as a positive thing in different customer discussions. I think what we see in general, though, and this is 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 is 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 is 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 a colocation or near location or even behind the meter.

Approach, that gas can enable pretty successfully. So I mean, it is still a pretty powerful feature in market conversations and discussions. But I think at the end of the day, like, know, and I do not think there is much diminishment on it. I think if anything, there is a lot of validation that it is that it is valuable and it is a feature and it continues to kind of evolve and progress.

Of the challenges I think we see in the commercial markets if I call it a challenge, but one of the things we have observed is 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 time frames. Right? Maybe that is extended out to twenty-four months. Or less. But, like, that is where they are obviously really, really focusing in most of their activities is making sure they are in a good position for all what they need then.

And they are increasingly looking at the longer-term views just given how constrained the power are as a whole realizing they need to expand those horizons. And that systematically continue to see evolve and you know, gas as they ability to bring power to a facility or site sooner, is pretty powerful. I still think I will say that I still think that the understanding of the benefits that making fuel government fuel availability, like, you know, it was just increasing government fuel availability like the platooning side? Can be quite accelerated to building new nuclear plants faster and more plants faster. It is 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 is, I think, pretty potent. And I think it is still very early innings for folks understanding of what that means given the nature of still pretty fresh.

Jeffrey Campbell: Yeah. That makes sense. But, at least that was not completely irrational. You know what I was saying. So I appreciate the color.

Jake DeWitte: Mhmm.

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

Derek Soderbergh: Yes. Hey, guys. Just one question from me.

Craig Bealmear: Is there a level of prepayments you need to make to secure some of these long lead time items in either the nuclear non-nuclear supply chain. And wondering if you can quantify how much capital it will require to just ensure access to those long lead time items as you scale?

Derek Soderbergh: Thanks.

Craig Bealmear: I can take that one. So, like, you know, we are currently working on progressing I do not want to mention the vendors specifically, but some of the other supply chain partnerships we have already announced and there might be some form of a prepayment, but it is in the you know, it is in that 10% range. So it is a number, but it is it is not significant.

And I think of the reasons, though, that we are so glad about the success we have had around the capital raise is that we can we do not need to have capital be a constraint that if we find an opportunity 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.

Derek Soderbergh: Perfect. Thanks.

Operator: Your next question is from the line of Sherif Elmaghrabi with BTIG. Please go ahead.

Sherif Elmaghrabi: 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 daily program, which you mentioned. And I am wondering if there is an economic opportunity there as soon as the facility comes online or if that is also something that needs NRC approval to monetize?

Jake DeWitte: Yeah. So, so I understand that you like, the Aurora plan so that you know, is going through a DOE authorization to get built and, you know, and turned on initially and get through some initial operational cycles. And then the intent is to move that over into a commercially operating space. I will flag like but moving that over to an industry license, is the most likely path. It is not impossible, that given of the dynamics of what is happening on the DOE side that there might be pathways to kind of sell into the government, that could exist.

We are planning that is 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 you gain. At the end of the day is great because you point to real data with the real plan. Just move some of that stuff pretty constructively forward. The atomic alchemy plant in Texas, the intent we have on there is to primarily be serving where DOE is. Impossible that we go convert it over to NRC license as well.

There is some optionality potentially there, but the general view is keeps in the DOE facility, get the experience of loading it, running it. Doing some radiation work, providing some support to DOE missions, and opening the door for other things. But at the end of the day, that is kinda how we see that. And that similarly is kind of how we think about the Pluto reactor as well. Again, it is know, possible that there is a feature set to convert many of these facilities or convert these to license all of them to energy licenses. That is a possibility.

But general purpose and plan is we kinda see the Aurora I now being the one that would make most sense to do that with the other two. Not necessarily, but it depends on some factors that may evolve. Another thing I will flag is coming out of the executive orders. One of the things that is 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 product. Right? Whether that be power or heat or isotopes or whatever it is. To the Department of Energy use cases.

That can then, by how these things are defined can be and proceed and be built, like, sorry. Things that do that work can be under like, basically authorized under DOE authorization. And that could mean, for example, we are in a position where we build more plans under DOE authorization because they are serving DOE. So that could be something that also occurs It is you know, there is 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 is so important for why we felt confident and excited to move in this pathway that is accelerative is because it is clear that the inner city we 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 is an important kind of capability set. And, again, that is evidenced pretty clearly by the MOU between DOE and NRC.

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 and version and or, I should say, really, and future NRC license applications for future commercial plans.

Sherif Elmaghrabi: Great. Thank you, Jake.

Operator: And our final question comes from the line of Craig Shere with Tuohy Brothers. Please go ahead.

Craig Shere: 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 do not have it upfront as you commence operations, but later get NRC approval and can commence full commercial sales. At that time, could you refuel to maximum capacity?

Jake DeWitte: Yes. Although given the recent activities and traction around a multitude of kind of fuel policy arrangements as well as what we are seeing in the commercial fuel supply markets, I think we feel increasingly confident that we will be able to have the fuel needed to run that facility 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, you know, again, increasingly confident that there is gonna be extra Hailey that we can use for that facility from actually a variety of sources, which is The other part of it is, the diversity of sources is part of the confidence, you know, the inspiration of the confidence. we can in that reactor if we needed. 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. Means some assemblies would have turning and bearing fuel. Someone just be uranium bearing fuel.

And you can design it to work just fine in that in that configuration and manner. And given that material exists in a pretty much ready to fabricate form, gives us a lot of confidence in how that can actually kind of proceed. So, yeah, that is how we see that kind of playing out.

Craig Shere: Right. And last for me, the degree you start employing, which sounds like a great opportunity, plutonium mix to help bridge quicker plant deployments. Does that have any implications on NRC regulatory process? You know, 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?

Jake DeWitte: Yes, it is 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 diluting disposed to be made available for reactors for fueling. Before the program of dilute and dispose, which is where we are gonna spend 20 plus billion dollars of taxpayer money to just blend this stuff up with kids that are in sand and bury it? The program before that was actually to fabricate it into fuels, part of a joint treaty with Russia at the time. For stockpile reduction.

And the plan was to take that material, fabricate it into fuel for light water reactors, and then use it in light water reactors. It was called the MOX program and the facility in South Carolina to do that. That program, there is a you could spend a long time and for time's sake, I will keep it very simple and a little bit simplistic. That program significant struggles because plutonium fuel and light water reactors, while very doable, inherently something very different than what we do as a country here. The infrastructure to do all that was not 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 it is more amplified and accentuated in the in the thermal spectrum or slow neutron reactor, especially water-cooled reactor. It was not 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 main 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 technical panelists were to say, okay. The best thing would be to put it in fast factors. But we do not have any fast reactors, so the next best option is just to dilute and dispose it. Well, now we are gonna have fast reactors, right, based on what we are doing. So our view is, hey. This is great because it is not just that. There are other companies developing reactors and other things that can use this material, and there is a fuel crunch.

Now we are in a different world with how they think about that. That facility that I talked about under the Lightwater mocks program actually going through and had gone through all like, all of that was set up to be under NRC purview. Generally speaking. And so there is 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 is not it is it is generally speaking, pretty well known.

But what is 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, also are sending their authorization capabilities, and they are the ones that already oversee from a permitting and authorization perspective. With funding work. So it is great to be able to kind of tie in with that. Been expanding our partnerships with some of the national labs who have experience doing all that work, so it kinda helps us drive and build out that expertise set. In partnership with the experts we have in this country and kind of accordingly kinda be able to scale that forward.

So that is like, that is that is how this course sort of charts. Got some things that are a bit different than your name side, but nothing significantly departed. And stuff that is largely like, noble and manageable. I mean, again, there are contours and elements to it. But generally speaking, there are this is this has a history and precedent behind it. A multitude of ways between DOE and NRC. Where there is and to your other point of the question, where there is kind of exciting opportunity around this is the story and the conversation around proliferation.

And I say that because the kinda only way to permanently destroy plutonium out of this, you know, universe is deficient. So by putting it in the reactors, you are fissioning it. And you are turning it into two fission products that, you know, like, stars have a really hard time synthesizing through supernovas into back into plutonium. So that is a cheeky 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 the relevant and state of the art, and this is something we lean into.

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 are destroying it. So it is actually a pretty cool setup and something that as a country, we were geared to do. There are some, you know, I would say, predicts out there Mostly, pretty clear antinuclear. Advocates who have said, oh, this is a non-proliferation concern. I have never understood that. Because destroying plutonium kind of the best way to get rid of it, kind of objectively the best way to get rid of So, yeah.

It is just pretty elegant solution to actually get rid of the material. I think what it really distills to, though, is just like, oh, this is different, and then changed. Takes a little bit of time to socialize, and people are like, yeah. It makes a lot of sense. Concern is, like, well, we will incentivize other countries to do the same, which I would also argue I think if we incentivize other countries to destroy their platonia, that is also kind of a feature in the non-proliferation world. So necessarily the worst thing on that front. And then I think what is important too is legacy material from weapons programs.

We think about the future in recycling, you are 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 uranium transuranic mix that is commingled that is that is a good spot to kind of, you know, leave from. And so that is kinda how I think about the space.

Craig Shere: Great. Thank you.

Operator: And with no further questions in queue, I will now hand the call back over to Jake DeWitte CEO and Co-Founder of Oklo. Please go ahead.

Jake DeWitte: Thank you. Thank you all for joining in today. We appreciate it. There is you know, this is the second call since the executive orders were signed. The first callJake DeWitte: since we had the reactor pilot program and fuel pilot program selections. So it has significantly changed how we think about the regulatory landscape and the strategy we are employing accordingly. So it's significant, you know, in its accelerated features, but also in its regulatory derisking features. This aligns pretty well with what we're also seeing in the policy landscape, driving sort of a continued focus and effort on modernization 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 worked together for a long time.

And we're happy to see that's kind of continuing. 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 one of the best ways you can do safety analysis safety oversight is good understanding of what the system is you're overseeing and leveraging our nation's leadership, technically speaking, that the DOE has, the national labs have to help support that. It's a pretty powerful combination. So I like to think that we're now kind of moving into this next chapter of this new wave of nuclear that's leveraging the best features of government to its maximum 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 stand 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 development of 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. We also need it, of course, where we're making less than one ton a year, but for HALEU.

And so things we can do to help signal more powerful optics orders and investments and therefore expansion in the HALEU side. Supported by building more reactors sooner using bridge fuel. Is pretty accretive to realizing more fuel supplies and to use maybe a bit of a silly term, fuel leadership and fuel dominance. Because back in the 1980s, as a country had more fuel production capacity meaning conversion enrichment, deconversion fabrication, than the rest of the world combined. Now we definitely don't. So big opportunity for how that's proceeding. And bridge fuels are really important piece of that.

And then on the reactor front, you know, one of the great things about the pilot programs the benefits there is an ability to move into building. A big thing that we have long thought from policy would be very supportive of nuclear, is to move the front-loaded paperwork to be developed largely or as largely as in parallel as possible with the actual building of facilities so that you can do 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 know, you can have it built and then get the final authorization 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 ability to start going from well, being going from greenfield and the design of a reactor to turning reactors on. And what looks like it's gonna be less than twelve months for 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 you know, 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 and the iterations that come from being able to build more quickly. So this is a bit of a dream set of scenarios that I think Caroline and I long dreamed about when we're 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, also the resources we have to bring to bear to it.

So we're very excited that we are know, 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 customer development and future sites and deployment opportunities. Thank you all.

Operator: This does conclude today's conference call. You may now disconnect.

This article is a transcript of this conference call produced for The Motley Fool. While we strive for our Foolish Best, there may be errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in this transcript. Parts of this article were created using Large Language Models (LLMs) based on The Motley Fool's insights and investing approach. It has been reviewed by our AI quality control systems. Since LLMs cannot (currently) own stocks, it has no positions in any of the stocks mentioned. As with all our articles, The Motley Fool does not assume any responsibility for your use of this content, and we strongly encourage you to do your own research, including listening to the call yourself and reading the company's SEC filings. Please see our Terms and Conditions for additional details, including our Obligatory Capitalized Disclaimers of Liability.

The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.