Nano Nuclear Energy Inc.

Q2 2026 Earnings Call — May 29, 2026

Nate Pendleton (Texas Capital Bank): Good evening and congrats on the continued progress. Regarding the biropon feasibility study, can you provide some more detail around the potential timing of that one gigawatt of capacity and what the next steps look like from here?

James (Executive): Yep, I'm happy to do that. That's going pretty well, actually. We've finished the feasibility study. We've wrapped that up now. And so now we're in discussions with them about the next stage, which is examining the licensing requirements that would go into it. So you might have seen very recently at UIUC, we submitted a construction permit application. Now, there's going to have to be a similar sort of process done at the Borupon site, where we would follow up with drilling and gathering geotechnical work, and that would feed into the entire submission for construction permit at the site.

So now that the feasibility study is done and they're happy with that, now we're into discussions about the next stage, that licensing process. I mean, the good part now is that the reactor construction at UIUC, that will gift us obviously a commercial product that we can deploy and is subsequently licensed, but still the licensing process for the site itself needs to be done. So that's what we're working on with them at the moment, and we're working out the step, the involvement, the contributions, and the partners that will be involved in that geotechnical work as well with Barupon.

So how, and after that stage, once the construction permit application is done, then you can start moving into the point where you can start site prepping. But it would go off to the NRC, go through an examination process similar to URUC of just examining the geotechnical data. And then once approved, you would be authorized to start construction. Now, it's still going to be dependent on the licensing process happening at URUC for the ultimate deployment of the reactor systems. But we can get everything in place.

Once the reactor is licensed and it's more of a known quantity with the NRC, you could even expect an expedited CPA approval process when we give them geotechnical data for the specific sites the reactor launched to. But that's how it's going to look now. Feasibility study done, moving into examining licensing for the particular site, and then once the reactor is commercially ready for deployment, it can go straight into construction at the deployment site.

Nate Pendleton (Texas Capital Bank): That's great. I appreciate all that detail, James. And then maybe for Jason, you called out evaluating non-dilutive funding opportunities. Can you provide more details about what those opportunities are and directionally the size of the potential opportunity there?

Jason (Executive): Sure. So, we're looking at government programs or incentives, such as the DOE fuel under project qualifications, items such as IPCs, and potential avenues with the state and university. So, in terms of size, we haven't quantified the exact amount we'd be looking at. We do have substantial runway with our own liquidity. But as things get more moving forward to different timelines, we'll be looking at kind of quantifying that more and getting them nailed down.

Sheriff El-Moghrabi (VDIG): Hi, thanks and good afternoon. The new regulatory pathways for the NRC Part 53 and 57, is that something that could expedite UIUC or do you view this as more of like a commercial opportunity?

James (Executive): I would say it's very, very, especially part 57. I can go into a bit of both of them. But the reason why it's very important commercially is that part 57 in particular, I mean, it's already focused on microactors, which falls exactly into our, you know, our ballpark. But it's really focused on fleet deployment.

For an anticipated market of small modular actors and more in particular micro actors, which is what that Part 57 is focused on, how do you deploy dozens or hundreds of these things on an annual basis without being held up by that extremely long historic licensing and construction process? So, Part 57, maybe it has some benefits on the licensing front for small reactor systems, but the real benefit of that system is it is way more commercially focused.

By 2030 when we have the reactor fully constructed outputting power, licensed and ready to commercially deploy, you want to be in a position at that point to deploy these things en masse. And the PART 57 facilitates that a lot. So, we've been reading through, obviously, all the releases as they've come out. That has been extremely beneficial.

I would say in terms of where we are at the moment is that we were suitably far along in advance, that we already had a licensing pathway, and there was no significant benefit to us changing anything we were doing. The part 50 process that we're going through to get the reactor constructed at the university, to get it licensed, you know, there's no real expedited benefit of utilizing anything new. You know, we're on pretty much the fastest pathway, but that commercial advantage is very important.

What I could say is an advantage for the industry, you could see that the NRC is actually putting in real concerted efforts to facilitate the rollout of advanced nuclear. Part 53 is a different approach in that it's a more risk-informed approach to licensing, where a lot of the responsibility is put back on the reactor developer, and the responsibility lies with them.

That should actually shorten things substantially for future licensing processes for advanced reactor systems. I would say it's just less of a benefit for us just given how advanced we were in the process of site, you know, site characterization, submission of the CPA, the place of where the reactor is in terms of technological development, and the fact that we've already had a lot of ongoing licensing engagement with the NRC already. But, yeah, Part 57, incredibly useful, very, very useful for future, you know, mass deployment of reactor systems at fleet level.

Sheriff El-Moghrabi (VDIG): That is great color as always. Just one follow-up out of curiosity. Are there similar efforts in Canada to keep pace with what the NRC is doing?

James (Executive): I've got to admit, I don't know. I know that Canada, obviously, they've been very vocal about the need for the introduction of these advanced systems into Canada, especially because some of the larger nuclear systems are just ill-suited for the Ring of Fire or oil sands projects or remote communities up there. But I haven't seen anything like this so far. Now, I don't want to be offside with the CSNC, so they might be doing something very similar. I just don't know.

Samir Joshi (HC Wainwright): Hey, thanks for taking my question. Just a few on the CPA. I think you mentioned the CPA has been submitted. Any idea on when it will be accepted and then does the 12-month timeline start from acceptance or has it already been triggered?

James (Executive): So, obviously, everyone saw that we formally announced the submissions at CTA just at the end of March. There is a standard acceptance window. Actually, that window is now. So, it could be any time from today, actually, all the way through to early next week where we can really expect that formal acceptance from the NRC.

And, obviously, I don't want to speak for them. There are always delays with organizations, but that formal acceptance we'll also expect imminently. So, there's that process. And then, obviously, there's the expected 12-month turnaround once formally accepted for the permission to then go and construct. So, yeah, that formal acceptance is, yeah, is expected very, very soon.

Samir Joshi (HC Wainwright): Thanks for that. Just switching subjects, I think in the commentary, I mean, the opportunities mentioned including for transportation and some other areas. Are you looking at specifically transportation partners that will help you transfer nuclear fuel?

James (Executive): So, this is a very important question and, you know, to be honest with everybody as well, we did have some things that we're working on at the moment and we hope they would have been ready in time for this earnings call so we could speak about them more publicly. But I don't think it's any secret that we've identified that the transportation element of the nuclear industry, especially advanced nuclear industry, would be very crucial to the successful mass deployment of reactor systems and refueling spent fuel, everything like that.

Now, we've accepted actually that we're going to have to create more in-house capabilities within nano to ensure that there's not going to be a bottleneck on operations due to constrictions around the delivery of materials, nuclear materials, fuel, anything like that. So there are acquisitions that we've already identified, we're in late-stage discussions about, and those late-stage discussions should lead to announcements, I think, in the short term that we can publicly talk about.

It is a very important aspect of the business. It is actually an area of the nuclear industry that is already a bit squeezed. And we are trying to get ahead of that problem right now. And we are very, very close, as I say. It should be a very short turnaround before we can actually formally announce something on this one.

Samir Joshi (HC Wainwright): Yeah, I know. It is an important aspect because everyone is focused on the reactors and the fuel enrichment and other aspects, but transportation has not been a subject of focus so far. So glad you're working on that. My last question is regarding the proposed part 67. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the NRC is still accepting comments on this. And if so, are you, do you have any comments that you may be submitting as part of this process?

James (Executive): So, on the part 67, I mean, we are part of a lot of the consortiums. And obviously, I think they're specifically, I think 67, I mean, that's sort of physical protection of special nuclear material. It's probably going to be an increasing consideration of ours, just because they're going to be involved in some level of transportation.

So, even though we're part of the consortiums with the NEI that are examining this kind of thing, I would say at the moment, until we complete, you know, those prospective acquisitions, we probably won't concentrate too much on them, almost certainly the security aspects of things like that, like 10 CFR Part 67, they are going to be a focus of some of the specialists that we're going to inherit as part of any potential acquisition that will have to focus on these different aspects.

But at the moment, I wouldn't say we've allocated any personnel to them. What we expect is that the personnel we're going to bring into the company will address these things with the NRC consortiums run by the NEI.

Samir Joshi (HC Wainwright): Thank you.

James (Executive): And we have reached the end of the question and answer session. Therefore, I'd like to turn the floor back to JU for closing remarks.

JU (Executive): Actually, I'm sorry. We have one more question in the line of. Please proceed with your question.

James (Executive): Yeah, I got it. Sorry, I thought I was in the queue already. The first question, James, I guess is, you know, as you order these long lead items, does your original cost estimates, you know, how are they sort of flushing out and, you know, when will you have sort of a more fulsome view of what the actual will be versus the estimate?

James (Executive): So, actually, kind of near term, because now that the technical team has finished with the construction firm application, and that was really occupying almost all of them, like 60 or 60 numbers of people, whoever number it was, the team has immediately shifted focus onto the supply chain. So, the vessels, the graphite, fuel, the fabrication, helium circulators, whatever it is, and including the non-nuclear components like the turbine systems, the mechanical systems, the salts.

We do, I mean, prior to the submission of the CPA, we already had identified suppliers involved. And so now what is going down is contract negotiation. And that started with all the different vendors so that the subsections, we can get a much more granular appreciation of what the overall cost would be.

I would say at the moment, the estimations that we've provided so far, that $300 to $350 million, which were conservative, are still accurate. And as we get deeper into the examination and the negotiations, that's not shifting. Now, I would just preface as well that that number is not, certainly not going to be representative of ends-of-a-kind reactor systems. Everything is being bespoke for this particular reactor, and maybe we might double them up if we go ahead with the Canadian project.

But the, yeah, so far that initial first-of-a-kind full power reactor fully operating, power-producing, full-scale reactor system at UIUC. The estimates are, so far, looking to be pretty accurate.

James (Executive): That's good to hear. And on the Rupon, just curious, when do they secure a tenant? Or, you know, yeah, go ahead, sorry.

James (Executive): Oh, no, I was just going to say, obviously, that's their business, but we have a very close relationship with them, so they keep us updated. There are actually two major high-scalers that are examining their facility at the moment, and obviously, I wouldn't say their business is dependent on those two being successful, but they're attracting, obviously, a lot of interest to get the tenants on to that particular site.

Now, the nice thing about Barupon is that they are suitably flexible, and I know that we've learned a little bit about how hyperscalers and data centers operate just through discussions with them. And the nice part is that they do have alternative sites, even if the site is considered not ideal for a lot of these different areas.

And the nice part is if we, because we've gone through this process with them anyway, wherever they do deploy, whether it's Texas, or Virginia, or Wyoming, or wherever they're currently looking to deploy these sites and attract tenants, we're already earmarked in to provide the nuclear power for these different sites. So even though we've only publicly spoken about Texas, there are other opportunities with them even beyond that site. But yeah, they're currently going through the due diligence process with two big hyperscalers at the moment.

James (Executive): Thank you. And again, now we have reached the end of the question and answer session. Therefore, I'll now turn the call back over to J.U. for closing remarks.

JU (Executive): I want to thank everyone again for joining us on today's call. The interest and enthusiasm of our investors and market participants is important to us, and we're very grateful for your support. We look forward to providing additional updates in the future. Have a great evening.

And, ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference, and you may disconnect your line

at this time.

We thank you for your participation.

Q4 2025 Earnings Call — December 18, 2025

Jeff Graham (Northland Capital Markets): Hey, guys. Thanks for the time. I'll start first at the U of I site. Good to hear you guys are still on track for the permit application in Q1 of next year. Can you walk us through kind of the timeline, you know, when that gets filed, how long you guys think that'll take to get through the NRC, and is there any work you guys can do to accelerate that timeline while that's getting through the NRC process? Or is a lot of that predicated on getting that permit application through the NRC before you can do too much site preparation infrastructure work ahead of time? Thanks.

James (Executive): So what I would say is that actually the drilling completed on schedule and on time, so that was good. That gave us the geotechnical data we needed to go into the construction permit. That was really the missing component. We're in a bit of an odd situation with the reactor companies that our engineering is way ahead of the licensing, and usually it's the other way around. The people get prepped for submissions, and then they allow for the engineering to catch up. But effectively, this puts us in a position where we are on track to submit that construction permit application to the NRC in Q1 next year. And that is on track, and that is looking like it's going to go ahead. With regard to time on the turnaround from the NRC, one good thing to reference is, say, PIROS did something very similar to us. They applied for a construction permit for their – not a full-scale reactor, but sort of a – a model scaled down system. But theirs took about 15 months turnaround.

But the reason why we're very likely to be a lot less than that is that they were using things like novel coolants, more novel tech, whereas what we're doing here is much more well-known about, large data sets, very high TRL components. So there's a lot less scrutiny that needs to go into the NRC evaluation of our applications. So 15 months can be considered like far out beyond what we can expect. We really expect a turnaround substantially below that. It would be very nice if it was in the same time of the year. Certainly within 12 months is kind of the ballpark we're expecting. In terms of what we're able to do on our side to expedite things, the most important part is the initial application to make sure that goes in. Now, it doesn't have to be perfect. What you can do is you can get the application in and get them started on the process, understanding that there are certain components that you would supply them during their evaluation process. And that allows you to get the process underway and save on time. So I would say that's a big one.

The big one is to get the application into them sooner, get as much detail in as you can, and then work, obviously, very closely with them throughout the whole process to get it expedited and completed.

Jeff Graham (Northland Capital Markets): That's super helpful, James. I appreciate that. For my follow-up, can we touch on the vertical integration strategy there? What are the main objectives in 26 in this regard? And I'm curious, in terms of internally developing capabilities versus acquiring them, do you guys have a bias or does that kind of depend upon what aspect of the vertical integration we're talking about?

James (Executive): Yeah, so for instance, if we're talking about internal capabilities with regard to the reactor first, just before we get into vertical integration around things like fuel, on the reactor itself, we do acknowledge that there are certain components that are very unlikely for us to be able to internally produce. And I mentioned that in reference to things like nuclear-grade graphite or a N-stamped fabrication facility to produce reactor vessels. These kind of things are so specialist that if you were to try and internally do them, you probably would spend in the order of 10 years getting yourself to a level where you are qualified to produce those materials. And still, even then, you wouldn't have the operational experience that some of the partners that we're talking to at the moment have with regard to manufacture those parts. So just all that to say that there are definite components within the reactor that we are very confident that we can do internally.

And what we're examining is that while we're building out the UIUC projects and the Canadian project is essentially a centralized reactor core manufacturing facility to centralize the fabrication of individual components so we can get that economies of scale for the reactor by doing as much as we can internally. But we know what we know, and we know what is more specialist. And even in the U.S., a reactor vessel with an end stamp I don't think there's actually anybody currently outside of people who do cause for military that are able to do that kind of thing. Those things need to be more specialist. What I would say on the fuel side of things is that this has been a concern of ours since as early back as 2022 when we started trying to de-risk the fuel supply chain. And that's what led to our related transaction with this technology and their creation. Essentially to give us a means to ensure that we could be relatively confident that we would have an enrichment capability in friendly hands that we would be able to utilize for our fuel. Now, saying that, we took a very holistic approach of the entire industry.

We realized that there were a number of different people going into enrichment. So there was ourselves with this technology. There was General Matter, Rano, Centris. but none of them were actually focusing on the feed material that actually goes into all the enrichment facilities, which was uranium hexafluoride, and that's produced via conversion. Now, a conversion facility is kind of odd. It's not spoken about very much, but already in the U.S. at the current time, the U.S. produces about a third as much as it needs for its civilian reactors. And by 2050, that maximum capacity of that facility is expected to produce about one-tenth of what the country needs for new fees for enrichment facilities. So we saw that as being maybe even a bigger bottleneck than the enrichment component. So we spent the last couple of years really examining how we can involve ourselves in the conversion side of things. And there's nothing publicly released at the moment, so I'm somewhat limited on what I can talk about in the internal work.

But what I would say is that I would expect next year that you can anticipate some developments on that side where we can announce the work that we've been doing on that conversion side to de-risk that and ultimately being able to be involved in that uranium hexafluoride supply chain and obviously what's beneficial about that is that it is a business before even the reactors are online and it's a very unique thing that nobody else seems to be doing that gives us a lot more control and de-risking of our reactor systems.

Sameer Joshi (HC Wainwright): Hey, good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions. Thanks for providing good color in the presentation. Just a few questions from me. You did mention progress on the Canada front with the Nuclear Safety Commission there. Can you give us a little bit more color into what the steps are for that country and what you're planning for there in 2026?

James (Executive): Absolutely. So Canada is actually an extremely interesting prospect, just given the fact that when we took over the assets, that we're going to develop. The Canada project had been previously backed by the Canadian government because it was being looked at as a means to supply areas all over the country that subsist off remote diesel. So obviously we've been very keen to put this back in place and it's been very tied in with the Canadian government. Now, that all relates to just answering the question very quickly because the siting is probably the most important thing we're concentrating on now. We do know where the reactor will be placed. And now we're going through the legal process and the due diligence process to be formally awarded that site at the federal level. Once we do have that, and we do expect that announcement in the first half of next year, then the next stages become quite quick. So, for instance, you mentioned CNSC with the licensing process. That licensing work that had previously been completed for this project and on our reactor was completed at this Site 2. So we automatically inherit all of that progress that was done at that site.

That means we go straight into the Phase 2 of the licensing process, so the LTPS 2 process. And we bypass the Phase 1 because it's already been done. So that sort of leapfrogs us into the lead in Canada in terms of the progress needed to commercialize and deploy and license a microreactor system. And what I would say after that stage of things is once we've got the site announced and finalized and we've got the progress reinstated with the CNSC, you're going to see some level of government support coming for this reactor system, which we are currently negotiating with the Canadian government but it's likely to take the form of certain incentives or investment or support in some sort of breakdown fashion, because obviously they are very keen to have this as a future power source for particularly areas where they subsist off remote diesel and they don't have an alternative. But those are the milestones in the order you'll see them coming out next year.

Sameer Joshi (HC Wainwright): Thanks for that, Kala. And sort of staying on the government opportunity, but in the U.S., I guess, what is the scope of this AFWERX Direct to Phase 2 project? What does it entail on Nano's part, and what is the potential opportunity here in coming years?

James (Executive): That's a good question, actually, because it wasn't a very well-known-about opportunity, but the reason why it's particularly important is that the U.S. military bases have a mandate to be able to be self-sufficient in terms of generating their own power for at least a two-week period. And currently, very few of them are able to meet that requirement. In fact, if they are, they usually have to stockpile diesel, which in itself is a dangerous thing to do, especially for targeted attacks. So the AFWERX program is deliberately for the purposes of trying to find energy systems, particularly nuclear, that can come in and provide that mandated self-sufficiency. But the long-term prospects are that once this is done and we move into the later stages of the development of the program, that opens the door to all military bases, because the AFWERX program is concentrated in the Air Force originally.

But effectively, once you're in the system and you're working through the later AFWERX programs, effectively, you're given the same opportunity to mass-produce reactive systems for many, many, many bases as you would the Defense Innovation Unit opportunity that came out a few years ago that was looking at reactive systems for bases. So I would say the phase one, which we're currently in at the moment, that could take anywhere from around sort of a 12-month period kind of estimate. Potentially a bit longer, but it's only a small build-up program. The next phase after this will be much more substantial, and that will look at actual deployment, actual costs, and who's going to be operating and how the logistics will actually look like. Once that's done, that's when we really will have available to us many opportunities to make many reactors for many different bases. So the AppWorks thing... It was a really great win. And we won it particularly as well just because the solution we do have was so ideally suited for what they needed. Subterranean, to be co-located, didn't need large emergency planning zones. And for that reason, we did beat out the competition.

And the Air Force and the wider military just believed that this is the better solution for them in terms of long-term self-sufficiency for powers.

Subash Chandra (Benchmark): Yeah, hi. A couple of questions from I guess the 10-K. One of them is I think you mentioned in there that states can get delegated over some nuclear activities by the NRC, and it's something that you might be able to take advantage of. Could you elaborate on that, like sort of what activities, and if you're looking at any specific states, or what you're suggesting there is Illinois?

James (Executive): Sure. So there are a number of different things here. So what I would say initially when we were working with people at state level, say, for instance, when it comes to something like a conversion facility, that sort of facility is actually more largely a chemical plant rather than a nuclear facility. And so when it comes to chemical plants, states actually license those all the time outside of a federal regulator actually being involved. But because of a historic precedent, those facilities fell under the NRC. And so what we have been working with at the state and actually with the NRC directly is looking at opportunities for the state to take back that control to license those facilities and take that off the plate of the NRC. And the fortunate part is at the state level and at the NRC level, there's support on both sides for that. For that kind of facility, it's very unnecessary for the NRC to be involved. It certainly can do the job. But it's also coming at a time when the NRC will be very stretched, and especially if states have the internal capabilities to license a facility like that, then it's advantageous to do it at the state level.

So that's one thing. What I would say is that there are a number of companies at the moment that are, I wouldn't say blaming the NRC, but there's even a couple of lawsuits against the NRC at the moment to sue for state rights to license reactor systems. Now, I would caution with doing that is that without a framework and a historic experience about doing that kind of thing, it's going to be very trying for people to do a licensing for reactor at a state level. And certainly, if you examine even a DOE license, which wouldn't be commercial, even the DOE, for the large part, is going to have to defer towards the NRC for licensing how it does regulate these systems on DRE land or its own DRE license. But what you can do for certain things, certain individual components, is that you can get certain things qualified at the state level rather than the federal NRC level for certain components to get them qualified. That would be the biggest advantage you could have to, one, take work off the NRC's plate, and two, potentially expedite the licensing timeline that are going to be a critical path towards the commercial deployment of the reactor system.

But in large part, we have a very good relationship with the NRC. The bulk of all of our licensing will go through them. They're already very familiar and confident with our reactor design. We don't anticipate actually any significant issues with getting our reactor licensed. Just for us, it's more of a process we have to go through. But on the just regressing back to the facility, there's definitely opportunities to do things at the state level, which would definitely expedite certain facilities a lot faster than if we were doing it at the NRC level.

Subash Chandra (Benchmark): Got it. Could you remind us, the test reactor at UIUC, what components or what's going to be the difference between that and the commercial reactor, if any, including balance of plant?

James (Executive): It's a very good question because actually the answer is not much. Whereas other companies have gone for demonstration reactors or test reactors, we want to do a full-scale reactor system. So same dimensions, same everything. And the reason why we want to do that is that there are companies out there with licensed designs. And what they've found and what we've noticed is that no customer wants to be the first customer to buy a reactor and build it and hope that all the kinks have been worked out in the design process and then operate the system. And that effectively led to killing any potential orders that came in from it, especially when that vendor wasn't interested in being the owner-operator of the systems. So that the URUC reactor will be a full-scale reactor. It will be called a research reactor, but effectively it will be full-scale. I would say that the only potential difference between the URUC reactor and the commercial reactors is that we will certainly be able to optimize a lot of the engineering as we build them out, so that the power output of the commercial reactors will very likely be higher than the research reactor at UIUC. But same scale, same balance of plants, same components. As much as we can get in terms of closeness to the final commercial design, it will match very closely.

Subash Chandra (Benchmark): Yeah, I guess what I was getting at, do you think you'll be able to determine an LCOE value with this reactor?

James (Executive): I think, well, certainly. What I would preface that with, though, is just saying that the LCOE for the first-of-a-kind reactor will be wildly different from the commercial reactors, especially once you start deploying those commercial reactors at scale and multiple units, because each one will significantly drive down the cost of that LCOE. Now, I would say with the... Already internally, we've taken great lengths to try and actually get towards those numbers, which is why in the brief we gave at the start, we said we're very confident it'll be cost competitive with solar and wind and traditional nuclear. We get into the ballpark of those outputs very, very quickly. Now, we didn't say things like gas or coal, but if you do look at the fact that even something like gas, is anticipated to double in costs within the next five, six, seven years, then it actually starts getting quite commensurate with even the gas. But with the added benefits, obviously we can co-locate and it can be put anywhere and you don't need to be connected to the grid, and you've got those advantages too. So I know you probably noticed I'm avoiding figures exactly, but at this point it's better to just compare what we know we are commensurate with. And then as we get to the finalization of that first of a kind, that will give us an even stronger indication of how correct we were in our assessments.

Management: There are no further questions

at this time.

I would like to turn the floor back over to JU for any closing remarks.

JU (Executive): I want to thank everyone again for joining us on today's call. The interest and enthusiasm of our investors and market participants are important to us, and we're very grateful for the support we've received. We look forward to providing additional updates to you in the future. Have a great evening. Thank you. This concludes today's conference. You may disconnect your lines

at this time.

We thank you again for your participation.