Oklo Inc

Q4 2025 Earnings Call — March 17, 2026

Brian Lee (Goldman Sachs): Hey, guys. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions. I appreciate all the updates here. Lots going on. Excuse me. Maybe just first one. You mentioned a lot of progress toward commercialization. I know there's a lot of focus around kind of the pipeline and customer status. Jake, can you maybe speak to where that sits today? Any new additions or conversion into binding agreements and any incremental visibility into more of that happening in 2026?

Craig (Management): I would say that, you know, clearly META was an important anchor point towards that commercialization progress, as you mentioned. And kind of based on that, you know, we continue to have conversations not only with Meta but with other potential customers, both those we've announced and other ones that we're continuing to progress. But really, it is important that we think that, you know, Meta being an important anchor customer for us and the fact that we can do more not only in the Ohio location, but also with some of our kind of behind the meter on campus customers. And not only in the data center space, but there's a lot of work going on with US military, predominantly in Alaska, but not limited to there, as well as other industrial customers.

It does look like Jake's jumped back on. Jake, I went ahead and answered the question since I think you got disconnected.

Jake (Management): Yeah, it's perfect. I would say, I think at the end of the day, you know, there's a pretty healthy pipeline that continues to kind of grow in different places. And I think one of the dynamics that's important is having, you know, Meta as one of the kind of basically lead customer helps others want to come follow and kind of repeat that because sometimes finding the first customer is the biggest hurdle to get into. It creates a pretty powerful dynamic. And I think on top of that, like the locationing and how we've built the strategy around, you know, where we see a lot of opportunity in Ohio is going to continue to kind of grow and scale with us.

Brian Lee (Goldman Sachs): And then just a second question on the CapEx guidance here. The $350 to $450 million in 2026, it's a pretty meaningful pickup. Again, lots going on, and it seems like some areas accelerating. Can you maybe just provide a breakdown of where that CapEx is being allocated? You mentioned a couple different locations. And then how should we think about the cadence into 2027 and future years off of this level? And then maybe just curious how much of the capex being allocated to the meta-Piketon site in Ohio. Thank you, guys.

Craig (Management): Yeah, so Brian, I'm not going to provide a kind of a business unit by business unit or project by project breakdown at this point. And part of that is, you know, we're still doing a lot of work kind of refining cost estimates for certain projects as well as kind of progressing procurement activities across those projects. And it kind of feels like with where we are commercially, it would be good to kind of let those progress before throwing project bogeys out there as we're progressing procurement strategies. But that being said, it's progressing things across all three business units. But clearly, the Idaho project is an important piece of that spend, just given the criticality of giving that first power project up and off the ground.

But we are also starting some preliminary work in places like Ohio for the metapowerhouses. And there's also quite a bit of work that's underway in recycling for the potential project in Tennessee, things we're doing to get isotope projects off the ground. And there's also some scoping capex available for some of those fuel projects that Jake mentioned across HALU, plutonium, and transuranic fuels. In terms of, you know, 26 to 27, you know, I think, you know, given the project pace of delivery, you know, I do think that we'll, you know, continue to see CapEx that, you know, will be, you know, at those levels. But it's really just a reflection of multiple projects going on in multiple dimensions across all three business units.

Jake (Management): Yeah, and I'll just echo. I think that's an important part about the positioning we have and also, like, the, you know, frankly, the ability to move more quickly and scale into the opportunity space as it is here and kind of set the direction and set ourselves up for a very long-term success by flexing into all of that is, I think, a very important thing to be doing, which is great that we're in the position to do it.

Dimple Gassai (Bank of America): Good evening. Appreciate you taking the question here, Tim. Just a question on the regulatory strategy here, right? You know, can you give us a status update on the COLA timing and the PDC topical report review? Like, how do you sequence the DOE authorization at INL with future NRC licensing for subsequent sites? And on the same topic, did, you know, the government shutdown at the end of last year, and some of the staffing constraints that we heard of at the DOE and NRC move any internal licensing, you know, timelines or anything, and does this change the schedule at all in terms of deployment or filings or anything? That's the first question. Thank you.

Jake (Management): Yeah, I think, I appreciate the question. There's a couple things in regulatory that are important. I think there's like, look, there's still, I think sometimes some confusion about DOE authorization, recency licensing, and how these things all fit together. The key thing is DOE authorization allows us to do the most important thing, which is build, which is learned by building now in a faster path, which is what we just talked about and shared a lot of information on. The progress we've been able to make on the ore plant wouldn't have happened without that pathway going forward.

And in many ways, arguably, this is the way the policies were set up a long time ago. And it dates back even, you know, even a little more recently, but still some time ago. Back in 2018, there was the bill time to pass into law and finance law called the nuclear energy innovation capability act and that's at the stage for using Department of Energy capabilities and resources, including the regulatory authorization side to support kind of the first of the kind of build because do we have just a wider range of regulatory experience and flexibility.

And now, you know with the executive orders they directed a pretty clear approach and prioritization of DOE to leverage that and build the capabilities to do that, which frankly, they largely already had. It just said, put them to use to support these things, which is amazing because it's completely shattered the paradigms of the past. It's really illuminated a lot of the significant regulatory inefficiencies that have existed. On top of that, it sets a good pathway for us to then build that first plan.

But then also, what we expect to see coming from the NRC as part of executive orders there that build on all the work from the advanced act before, are driving a lot of new regulatory pathways and development there that bridge from the DOE basically authorization itself. So we're expecting the NRC to fairly soon issue basically their approach, if you will, for converting a DOE authorized and built and operating facility to an NRC licensed facility. And we're in a great spot to be able to go through that and experience what that looks like.

That inherently is not like a COLA because you're not getting a license to build and operate the plant. The plant's already built. So it's really a conversion process, which is cool. But they have to do the safety review and they have to reference and leverage everything before. Not only that, but we've also been working to include and loop in the NRC into our basically regulatory review with DOE. So they're seeing how it's done and they're getting experience watching and shadowing those pieces.

Which is pretty powerful. And this is a key kind of opportunity to go, I think, faster. It's really, it's hard to overstate the value of focusing on actually moving out of the way of sort of if you think about what a nuclear company historically would have to do, what our product was, if you really looked at it objectively before these opportunities existed. Our first product was really more built towards shipping permitting applications, right, paperwork.

Now, because of the DOE authorization approach, it's building while doing that, which allows us to learn and iterate way more quickly. Because naturally, things come up and evolve, and that helps you learn the really hard things that are actually really important to, like, deployment and scale. Now, all that also translates very effectively to what we're going to do with the NRC in Ohio.

And I think what's pretty clear is DOE and their approaches and the milestones we've hit with them show that they can do a safety review of surging fast reactors. And they've done a lot of those before because they oversaw the power plants that we build our legacy off of. On top of that, the energy is also shown by recent developments that they've had, including, for example, the construction permit work with TerraPower, that they can do that work as well.

And looping them into this and leveraging the experiences and expertise that DOE has, because DOE has done this stuff before, is quite constructive and quite efficient, frankly. So we're waiting to see the new framework from the NRC to start executing down the pathway of preparing to convert a license. But in parallel, we continue to work through effectively developing out the combined license to submit for Ohio.

That said, it's very important to also flag something else. Part of the executive order is there's significant regulatory work and rewriting going on that could significantly influence our approach in a constructive and productive way that we would expect to reduce costs and timelines, as well as add additional regulatory confidence and certainty. So that is all a very live situation as we speak, and we're watching eagerly as various things flow out from the NRC on that front.

But it's fair to say that that's probably going to be quite constructive, but also have some tweaks, if not more significant changes on our actual regulatory, I'll call it semantic strategy. In other words, we still get an NRC license, but the vehicles by which we might do that may be a bit different because of what's happening at the NRC.

That said you know we've been preparing and continuing to go through the pathway of pre-application that addresses general and somewhat generic or cross-cutting issues that are important for licensing for us. And those will set the stage for us to actually have, you know, reference those and whatever application structure takes place going forward from the NRC. Again at this point, you know we still expect a part 52 combined license. But that's just because we haven't seen what the new menu of options are going to look like as well, which we expect to happen over the course of the next few months, and then we'll adapt kind of a strategy from there.

But a couple of key things that we see are obviously just having the experience of going through the Aurora plant in Idaho under DOE authorization, going through the DOE regulatory process, having the NRC part of it, taking an iterative approach, learning by actually building and scaling that, and then applying that outward. On top of that, we're also getting experience from NRC licensing already on the isotope side, having obtained an NRC license now. It's a great win.

To your latter part of your question, Nipul, yeah, we did face some delays on that with that license application back in the fall during the shutdown. But now we have the license in hand, and off we go. I don't see any of the other effects that are, you know, frankly, at this point materially affecting our progress on the other activities that we have going on with the NRC and with DOE. But that was definitely something that was noted.

And then the last thing I'll just say is one important thing, too, that's very helpful is, you know, in the current frameworks, which may evolve and change a little bit, or frankly a lot, possibly, the approaches with what we're licensing and the work we've been doing on the isotope side, not just the material handling license, but the actual production reactor, like basically the full commercial version of Groves that we've spent some NRC pre-application time with, that has a different pathway than what the commercial Aurora power plant version has.

And having the experience that we gained across both of those and what we're gaining on the recycling side and what we've done on fuel fabrication, is very helpful because we see a whole spectrum of different parts of the NRC and can cross-connect best practices and help guide things from our development of an application as well as our engagement with them in the review process. And that helps in many, many ways in terms of some scaling efficiencies and bringing best practices from various business units across. And that's pretty unique for us because we're taking on that broad set of projects.

So, yeah, that's kind of the way I'm seeing that landscape evolve and how all this is moving forward.

George Gianakris (Canaccord Genuity): Hi, Oklahoma team. Thank you so much for taking our questions. You mentioned in the past that about 70% of the aurora powerhouse components are being sourced from non-nuclear supply chains, which is, I think you brought to it into the picture. Is there any update on what the 75 megawatt reactor capex should look like in the not a complete update, maybe any early indication on the dollars per kilowatt there. Thank you.

Jake (Management): Yeah, I mean, I think this is one of the things that's actively evolving from, you know, where we're at in terms of the building cycle and what we're seeing is doable. And also what we're seeing, you know, can be done to either move some timelines to the left and build it faster and pay more to do that or not, right? But generally speaking, speed is a very important thing for us. So that's how we're trying to focus on this.

This also gives us a lot of insights into then what we're going to do from a more, I would say, optimized strategy with the Ohio plants that would allow us to scale those according to, you know, what makes the most sense from sort of like the experiences learned from the Idaho plant. So what that's all to say is, you know, we're going to have more information as we continue to get into the actual deeper works beyond some civil and prep works and have some relevant updates that come accordingly as I get deeper into it.

But, you know, what we've learned on the procurement side is we've been able to find ways to pull schedule to the left in different ways constructively. We've been able to find ways to look at how some things can be accelerated. But one aspect of that is sometimes it helps the fact that we have the Aurora planes in Ohio coming afterwards because it can maybe accelerate some things here in Idaho to help us with know other components and other parts and other sourcing for scanning those to the other Ohio plants and maybe having some benefits that happens that way.

So, the general view we have is it's evolving as we go through on this and as we develop and enhance the relationships we have and we look at different angles of attack on the different fronts of what drives costs and what doesn't and some things are, candidly, not worth necessarily driving the modernization for the first plant that we'd like to see in terms of the actual supply chain and the procurement of it.

So we might pay a little bit more to move faster and other things that is worth doing that. It's a bit of a dynamic situation that we're continuing to evolve and look at. At the end of the day, though, like my, you know, my view is like, generally speaking, all of these things can live, like pretty much every part outside of the fuel can live outside of the nuclear conventional supply chain.

But I think what's really important is I think that paradigm has actually been sort of inverted as of late, because we're seeing growth in the industry for the first time in a while. So you're actually seeing folks bring forward more disruptive approaches in kind of taking away some of the legacy models and approaches that were driving significant costs and inefficiencies by sort of locking into the status quo across different suppliers in different parts of the entire sort of value chain, if you will.

And a pretty cool thing that we're seeing is that we can actually get to be a lot more thoughtful engagement from our partners about how to do that and more constructive engagement about knocking out some of the synthetic like nuclear cost multipliers that have existed before. I know I say this a lot but it's hard to overstate the value of modernizing, of basically taking out some of those nuclear cost multipliers right the quote unquote nuclear idiot index if you will is really really high and is right to be changed by changing how we design, how we try to minimize and reduce parts that come in with some of the typical nuclear classifications to them by taking advantage of passive and inherent safety features, but also by modernizing how our suppliers and ourselves actually deliver those plans.

But we're finding that there are some places where, you know what, just easier to deal with what's legacy for the Idaho plant to get it up and running because that's more important. But that sets the stage for them how we can actually solve that problem in Ohio because we learned the best practices to do that. So it's pretty interesting to see that combo sort of evolving and taking shape.

Generally speaking though we're seeing a very different way of engagement across most of the supply chain and not having some of the conventional legacy requirements and what I really mean by that is not being a light water reactor is actually really constructive counterintuitively a value of that is not having to play in the legacy supply chains with the historical cost structures in place there that's actually worth a ton because it gives us a lot more flexibility.

Because we're not buying light water reactor parts by and large. I mean, yes, there's some similarities, but we're not a light water reactor. So a lot of it's different. And that gives us a lot more flexibility. And it also helps us focus on where do we need to flex into building ourselves? What parts make the most sense to buy to go faster or build ourselves and maybe build ourselves to scale and build ourselves to deconstrain supply chains or build ourselves just to be cheaper?

So it's an active, you know, growth aspect of the business, and it's also how we're looking at, you know, not just sort of the capital cost, you know, modeling and data sets, but also the long-term, you know, cost structures of the business and also, like, opportunities in the business.

Ryan Fingst (B Reilly Securities): Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my question. Somewhat of a follow up to some of the comments there, Jake. For the agreement with Meta, they ended up choosing two sodium cooled reactor developers following their nuclear RFP process. Can you rehash some of the benefits of your design and why Meta might have chosen it?

Jake (Management): Yeah, I think the answer right now is the fact that we've got, you know, I think they see the benefit of certain fast reactor technology between us and TerraPower, right? That's just repeating what you said, but basically, you know, I think that translates across a couple of vectors. One is the technical maturity, something that's vastly underappreciated, even by, you know, a lot of nuclear experts.

The fact is, you know, as a society, we've built a lot of these plans. We've learned a lot about what doesn't work and what does work. And in the U.S., notably the experiences we got through EBR2 and FFTF, the ability that those plants had to achieve pretty exciting operational characteristics, both in terms of operating capacity factor, in terms of occupational dose rates, in terms of how to service and run those plants, right? Their operating capacity factors were competitive and exceeded, in many cases, light water plants at the time, which shows a lot of the inherent benefits of the technology itself.

And it's the only technology that's really been able to do that. And on top of that, I think there's a clear trajectory on the cost benefits of sodium being a relatively, you know, materially benign fluid with commonly available seals. In other words, you can use it and it's quite, you know, compatible with stainless alloys. That's great in terms of opening up supply chains and reducing costs and avoiding major cost drivers of very exotic alloys you might need if you didn't have those benefits.

And then also not being pressurized and then having the benefits of being able to operate at relatively higher temperatures and then the features that come from that for passive heat rejection through the phenomenal heat transfer characteristics that sodium has, as well as operating at higher temperatures and what you can do to reject heat to air because you're at slightly higher temperatures.

So all in all, it translates to a lot of, generally speaking, cost benefits, as well as the strong operational history and high technology readiness. I think those are big features there.

Brian (Management): Maybe just a couple of ads there. I think, you know, as we continue to emphasize in calls like this, you know, the importance of having multiple field pathways, I think, was another important point of distinction and being able to have proof points against those pathways. And I think another important part on META was, you know, already having a ROFA in place and access to land in Ohio. I think was another important advantage and that we've leveraged that land access even more with, you know, what we could potentially do with Centris.

Vikram Begri (Citi): Hi. Good evening, everyone. I have two questions. I'll ask them together. First, maybe for you, Craig. Can you talk about the timing of Aurora ML? It appears timeline shifted slightly to the right with a change in language from late 27 to early 28. Now it says 2028. Am I reading that right? And what led to the shift in timing? Also, I see it's a 75 megawatt reactor. Can you talk about what the CAPEX requirements for this reactor will be or when you will have a greater clarity into CAPEX requirement?

And then secondly for you, Jake, I see you conducted a fast spectrum plutonium criticality experiment. Can you share what that entails and your expectation of timing of plutonium allocations that we've been looking forward to? Thank you.

Craig (Management): Yeah, Vic, you know, in terms of the last bit of your question, you know, I'll take that first, you know, that we're still doing a lot of work, and Jake kind of mentioned this dynamic of challenging, you know, the cost versus the timeline because, you know, trying to bring timelines forward could have a cost element to it and we're really trying to balance both of those pieces, and I think we'll have more information to share around what the cost of that first asset looks like later this year, as well as you know how we look to bring costs down on future deployments.

And in terms of the timeline, I think I've been pretty consistent in the various investor meetings that I've been in that we're targeting a 2028 timeline. We know it's an aggressive target, but we feel like the industry and our customers are pushing us towards being able to hit those timelines. And it's also, I think, important why we're doing things on projects like growth where we can learn how to bring down capital costs and learn how to bring down project timelines as well.

I think one thing we saw with the, like what we're having happen with, you know, I think that basically the timeline elements are, as we're putting all these things together, right, like we're, we have a path of being able to start hitting important construction milestones this year, doing some plant commissioning work.

But getting the full plan in the nuclear heat production just is going to really happen in 2028, right? And it's just where it's going to be. So I think at this point, we're seeing that lineup to make that kind of the case. We're always looking at different ways that might pull parts of the schedule to the left, and there might be some things that kind of help with that, but a lot of this gets to how we can execute on, you know, building this thing and doing it quickly and moving through learning iterative processes relatively quickly.

And I think it's important because we're trying to also make sure we capture lessons learned and not design the fly to implement all those things, but that help us with Ohio. And that's important because it means that the palm plants are going to, you know, obviously show this improvement significantly. And that's a key thing about small reactors, right? The cost and timelines iterations are just way lower. And that's how you really drive learning and scale as we see everywhere.

Jake (Management): Onto the plutonium front. Yeah, it was pretty cool. We got to partner with Los Alamos National Laboratory and throw out to the Nevada National Security Site. Basically what we got to work with was a small plutonium, like basically metal assembly that we used uranium as a reflector and plutonium was the primary fuel and gore and got to run it through some criticality, basically benchmarks and tests as well as some reactivity measurements, which means you're actually taking the system, putting some power into it, heating it up a little bit and looking at the thermal expansion and the other effects that cause it to shut itself down naturally.

It was important because while a lot of that data has been out there, doing it in this kind of way helped us get more fidelity in certain ranges of particular interests for us relevant to our use, as well as just to enhance our overall models for validation purposes. It was pretty cool because it was really doing that, right? I think we were putting in a couple of kilowatts at most in terms of thermal power, but in a very small system that's literally very small, it matters.

And it was able to heat the system up and we got to see all those insanely fast dynamics and responses. I've gotten to spend a little time around like a high and restraining fast reactor system in my past. But this thing was even faster and how it behaved is very, very tightly responsive, which was awesome. And the way they ran it was just a pure Testament to like how, you know, robust a small type of coupled fast reactor is in terms of like inherent feedbacks and all those benefits.

So that was helpful. We anticipate there's gonna be more work there that just adds more fidelity to basically improve reactive performance and reduce some certainties throughout the system that ultimately translate to, you know, dollars saved or more dollars earned right or both, and then the other part of it is.

With the plutonium awards, you know, we're expecting those things to kind of progress that other Department of Energy is going through the active kind of reviews of the request for applications they put out and we're pretty excited about, you know, our positioning for that, but. Timelines, I think, you know, I think we'll watch it eagerly this quarter coming up, but I think it depends on a couple of factors that are still evolving.

Jeffrey Campbell (Seaport Research Partners): Hi, Jake. Hi, Craig. Thanks for taking my questions. My first one is will the deconversion discussions you've noted result in Centris increasing its enrichment capabilities from its current small volumes, or do you envision the deconversion capability as independent of any particular uranium enrichment supplier?

Jake (Management): I mean, from the deconversion technology side that we've worked through and, you know, we've been developing out, it's pretty flexible. I mean, it's based on a, you know, a UF6 input. And, you know, try to supply some things we think can help scale and drive costs more effectively at a facility level. So it's pretty flexible.

Part of why we explored it with Centris to start is just given the positioning we have in Ohio, the fact we're going to be building a lot of plants right there by where they have it. There's some significant economies of scale of putting deconversion there, as well as potentially fuel fabrication there and the reactors there. You have a pretty cool campus that goes from enrichment to deconversion to fabrication to actual reactors, all in that general area.

And in a very attractive market to be in overall. So that's how we see kind of the opportunity on that. I think the space we see is, I think we've got some cool technology pieces. We're eager to explore what that looks like to integrate with theirs, like their facility and their approach. The idea would be, of course, to support their significant growth and expansion. But yeah, we see this as being, you know, broadly suited for any kind of uranium hexafluoride.

Q3 2025 Earnings Call — November 11, 2025

Ryan Things (B. Riley): Hey guys, thanks for taking my questions. Just want to make sure I'm clear on the DOE authorization. Does the INL plan shifting to the DOE pathway change your requirement to submit a COLA with the NRC for that project? Or is that something you still have to do? And has the government shutdown impacted your ability to do that at all?

Jake (Executive): Thanks for the question. I think, so yes, we no longer need to do a COLA, right? So we're going through the DOE authorization process, which is inherently quite different. So we don't have to do that anymore. At the end of the day, to build, we'll still do some kind of combined license type application to the NRC, part of it being a little bit redefined and developed based on, you know, even just this MOU signed between the NRC and DOE, which was a pretty big deal just last week or the week before. It sets the stage for how the facility would then become a commercial operating NRC licensed plant at some point after we get through some of the initial startup and operational kind of frame and basic paradigm, I should say. But yeah, now it's just through a different DOE process.

What's huge about this is this is a muscle that, if you think about it, there's three major agencies that have to do nuclear authorization or permitting: the NRC, the Department of Energy, and the Department of War. And those three agencies have those abilities. DOE and DOD haven't really used those very much recently, but they have that history. And so they are... They've used them, and they do have continued oversight of different programs, but they're using them now a lot more.

And this, by the way, wasn't just something that happened overnight. This goes back to the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Capabilities Act, NECA, that was passed into law in 2018 that set the stage for this. It was just following the executive orders that really supercharged this effort. And DOE has really leaned into it, and it's kind of empowered that ability to do these things.

What's cool about it is it changes the cadence compared to what the NRC had. The NRC framework said you have to do a lot of upfront licensing work before you can build and operate the plant meaningfully. Part of why we're able to break ground and move into meaningful construction is because this DOE process gives you the flexibility to build while you're going through the different steps of basically authorization up until loading fuel and turning it on.

And that gives you a lot more flexibility to just move into a build mode and iterate a lot faster. Something that I think is really important and that you see in pretty much every other industry. So in many ways, this has taken off a huge amount of the regulatory risk, has changed the paradigm that we can build in parallel, and has opened the path for a different kind of approach.

And mind you, the Department of Energy has a long history of doing regulatory oversight and authorization of sodium fast reactors like we're developing; they were the ones that provided the regulatory authorization for EBR2 for FFTF and continued that oversight into operations. They know how to do this better than probably anybody. So it's a really great kind of fit.

We looked at this pathway as it existed before back in the past, but it wasn't in any way modernized. And then since NECA passed and then following the EOs, it has been, which made a ton of sense then for us to move into that space, not to mention kind of the enhanced work between the NRC and DOE to obviously leverage this.

The interesting thing is, right, DOE reviewers, NRC reviewers as well, they would all also use our national laboratory experts in this country, one of the key kind of things we have as a country. And what's great about that is that actually means that there's going to be residual expertise and experience gained through our approach, you know, our approaching us through DOE that will also help us in the NRC space.

So it's a huge kind of change in many, many positive ways that is going to let us move faster to build and turn on the plant and ultimately convert over to commercial operations and scale from there. It doesn't take away NRC licensing. It just changes the cadence. It kind of accelerates the ability to get something built and get into NRC licensing in a commercial space in a meaningful way, which is really, really accelerative for us.

Ryan Schuchard (LGO Admissions School of Law): I appreciate that. And then my second question, I've asked you this one before, but curious if your thinking has changed regarding order conversion from pipeline to something more firm. And if it's starting to make more sense to try to lock in a PPA with a customer as we get closer to 26, 27, and ultimately that first plant being built.

Jake (Executive): Well, you know, our view has always been find and build the right partnerships and deals with customers and take the time to do that in the most constructive way possible for the company and not necessarily rush into PPA signing, but rather build better offtake structures because doing this inherently is not the same exact thing as sort of just doing a power offtake purchase from like a solar project, which is what much of the, I would call it legacy conventional PPA structure has been built for.

There's a lot of room to be also more creative. And that opens the door to do a lot of things that are important for, frankly, de-risking a lot of things for us that the offtakers are also incentive aligned to do with us. So, yeah, I mean, we continue to develop customers in the market and we continue to do that here. And that is part of kind of our intentional cadence and strategy to do that.

And I think as we work towards what we're executing against, we expect to be able to kind of mature those into places that do make sense for everybody to kind of build a really constructive mutual relationship that is part of an offtake agreement that also helps de-risk some of the stuff today into that for them, for their power offtake. That's pretty powerful. So that's kind of where our focus, I shouldn't say kind of, that is where our focus has been for the last, you know, over 12 months or so. And we're, you know, we're continuing on that pace because that's what the market's quite supportive and receptive to.

And, you know, we expect that to continue and position as well so that going into the next year and beyond, we'll start converting those into that kind of, you know, those kinds of structures as it works. Now, each of these different, you know, off-takers and groups is going to have different knobs and levers and things to turn that work better for them respectively than maybe their peers or competitors.

So we got to make sure we work kind of with the right ones that can kind of lean into this in the right ways and cadence and then focus on moving that into the kind of execution phase. So that's how we think about that.

I think one X factor that's interesting is part of the executive order structure includes the government's ability to be, and also as we've seen in their policy actions, and I think as we hear about policy actions that are still developing, but around the AI side of things, enhancing the ability for them to be host and or even some kind of middleman or some kind of enabling structure for data center development at DOE sites.

So this is still developing and speculative in many ways, but there's some interesting potential based on what the EEO has put into law or put into executive action that could enable sort of interesting structures to expand deployments under the DOE authorization that are providing to the government for their own use cases as they think about critical resource needs and critical capability needs. Resource needs meaning AI and compute needs.

So it's kind of cool to see what that might look like too, which is interesting. So that's probably the biggest shift that a lot of this has opened the door for. Otherwise, we've continued to work at pace and saying, hey, let's find the most constructive ways to work with our customers and ultimately convert them forward based on how we can work together and what we can do to sort of more or less guarantee success in this project in a beneficial way.

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

Brian Lee (Goldman Sachs): Hey, guys. This is Tyler Bissedon for Brian. Thanks for taking our questions. Wanted to follow up on a prior question. I just wanted to confirm, are you guys still targeting commercial operations at INL to commence between late 27 and early 28 or does shifting to the DOE pathway accelerate that timeline? It sounds like full excavation is targeted for early January. So what are the next sort of milestones we should be watching out for that supports that timeline beyond January?

Jake (Executive): Yeah, I mean, this is what's really exciting about the reactor pilot program. It opens the door for quite a bit of different ways of doing things and thinking about things in terms of cadencing these milestones. So a couple of big things to pull back. We have three reactor pilot programs awarded to us. We talked about those a little bit in earnings. One is Aurora INL. The other is for the atomic alchemy pilot and prototype production reactor.

That is on pace for that plant. It's specifically on pace to turn on in June or July of next year 2026. It's incredible, it's awesome, it's really cool to see how it's progressing. So that's a pretty big set of milestones alone to achieve that, so obviously we'll continue to update the market as we hit milestones on that front as we execute into that.

Then there's the Pluto reactor, which is basically a plutonium-fueled testing reactor that will have a continued set of milestones as well. That bridges well into serving both research and development purposes for us, to serve that for the government. We announced earlier today partnering with Idaho National Laboratory and the Patel Energy Alliance about providing fast neutron radiation capabilities.

Pluto will kind of expand on that capability set, but that has an incremental set of milestones that will march forward about moving towards basically, you know, plutonium-driven fuel systems and critical assemblies and test reactors that are happening on a pretty fast timescale as well that will continue to update the market over the course of the next six, you know, well, the next three, six, nine, 12 months out.

And then back to part of where your question was on the Aurora INL plant, the authorization path that's important here allows us to move into the construction activities much more quickly so we can start building the plant. You know, we broke ground in September. We're moving into major excavation work here coming up shortly and then moving to the, you know, the full scale procurement and activities as we speak, including stuff we've already done, stuff we're ramping forward into that is going to be pretty important for us to be able to turn that plant on.

We are still targeting in the twenty seven, twenty eight timelines that plants to commence operation to turn on and go. There are some things that might be accelerative to benefit that, but some of that can also just help take out or accommodate some slack and other things in the system. It's just important that you can move fully into the build stage so that you can move through these things more iteratively.

And then on top of that, the key thing that's enabling all of this is the ability to actually fabricate fuel to put into these reactors. And that's a critical part of the supply chain that you know, we've been focused on for a very long time and with the reactor pilot program and then the associated fuel pilot program allows us to move into.

And as we talked about and we announced earlier today, we achieved some pretty sizable milestones there in a really compressed time window. And it illuminates objectively how clearly beneficial these things are for us. We are building a fuel fabrication facility to make fuel for our Aurora plant in Idaho. We partnered with the government. We're using an existing building at Idaho National Laboratory to do that.

That building needs to have some refurbishment and then have equipment go into it. That building going through the traditionally kind of legacy DOE because it's a DOE facility, DOE authorization path before the executive orders, we were moving at a pace that was in the order of like two years to kind of get close to a milestone that then when we reset the process under the pilot program, starting from zero there, granted we had some work done so we could kind of copy paste over that, but we moved in two weeks to hit this significant milestone that is now allowing us to actually do the construction work there, install equipment, and fabricate fuel much more quickly.

So there's clear benefits that we're seeing that we are going to be in pace to have things moving faster and be able to deploy and turn that plant on. I will caveat that that plant in Idaho, it is not going to be selling commercial power to the grid under DOE authorization. That's not what its intent is. It might be able to do some work selling into not just power but irradiation services to the lab complex in the Department of Energy as part of the authorization.

But the point is we get this built more quickly, get the initial operational experiences and everything else, and then we can take that path over to the NRC. And as indicated by the expanded MOU signed, so the MOU signed by DOE and NRC just in the last week or two, they made it clear that the NRC is going to build on the DOE's work for that.

There's some new work, obviously, to do that kind of thing, but it's supportive that they're already getting in front of that. Part of why they're looking at that is to build off the success that we can do under DOE. And again, the feature DOE has compared to the NRC, the NRC has been doing a lot of work to get ready to license advanced reactors. DOE has been licensing advanced reactors for a long time.

So they already have those muscles internally. Now they're just using them a little bit differently externally, and that's hugely beneficial because then the NRC is going to be able to build off and reference those things. So it kind of keeps the same pace and cadence of operations for what we're trying to do for the Aurora plant, but opens the door for accelerated milestones on that, and then additional accelerated milestones for other things going on.

Tyler Bissedon (Goldman Sachs): Awesome. Super helpful. And then really appreciate the incremental details around the 20 tons of plutonium reserves potentially being made into 180 tons of Aurora fuel. Can you help me understand what underpins that conversion math or your assumptions? Because that was a lot more than what we were estimating. And then is this an opportunity for your fuel recycling facility or would processing this material require a separate NRC license facility? Because it sounds like that fuel source could accelerate your deployment schedule.

Jake (Executive): So one of the things that we got, I love that question for so many reasons, and I'm sure some folks are probably going to be a little nervous that I'm going to spend the whole time getting into the technical details, which I'll try not to, because on a prerecording practice sessions, we were thinking about getting really, really deep on all this.

Let me rephrase that. I was just doing that because this is one of my favorite things technically. So to answer your question, yeah, so the key thing about plutonium right is it's an incredibly useful fissile material as a fuel source. In other words, if you think about halo is 19 years up to 20% less than 20% rich and uranium to 35 now the balance your name to 38.

And the fast reactor, pretty much all the isotopes in plutonium, but especially the stuff being made available, which is mostly plutonium 239 with some plutonium 240 and 241 in there. But that material, it's a great bridge fuel because it can be a direct replacement for the uranium 235 without needing any enrichment. It already exists. So you blend it in with uranium.

In our case, you have some zirconium to obviously make the metallic fuel, but you just blend the plutonium with uranium to make a helium equivalent type fuel form. Now, the thing about plutonium is it's an even better fuel than uranium. So you need less of it to get commensurate performance. So on average, and it depends by variations and flavors in the fuel, but on average, if you basically, it's about 11 or so percent equivalent.

So about 11 or so percent plutonium is equivalent in our reactors and behavior and performance to about 19, just under 20% enriched uranium. So that's where that conversion in math comes from. So that's why it's such a potent fuel form, so to speak.

So for me, that was one of the most exciting things to have happened this year because of what that catalyzes for building more things sooner without having to be dependent on other factors and then instead using that enabled basically the ability to build more plants to convert to more fuel orders to then help scale that fuel supply side more quickly.

So for a long time at Oklo, we've been working to advocate for government bridge fuel supplies as a key enabler to kickstart the commercial fuel supply chain. And I think we're seeing that really take root and open the doors for that to move in a totally different way.

So yeah, seriously, it's a really, really significant policy move to enabling the deployment of more nuclear power more quickly.

Ted (Citi): Perfect. Thank you very much. And I'll just add one little piece to that. Not all reactors and fuel fabrication approaches can benefit from plutonium the same. It has different characteristics to it. We just know it works really well in fast reactors because we spend a lot of time developing and researching it for that.

Ted (Citi): I wanted to ask about the Pluto test reactor. So it looks like it's going to be deployed after the first reactor at INL. Is this going to be the template for all the future reactors? And what are the differences to Aurora? Is it only that it's going to be run on plutonium? Should we also assume a 75 megawatt size for it? And then just lastly, what are the main learnings that you hope to obtain from this test reactor?

Jake (Executive): Yeah, it's a great set of questions. So basically, it's a little bit different. It's bespoke to enable the accelerated sort of fast neutron radiation testing capabilities that a system like that can afford. That's important for a couple of reasons. Like part of what we've talked about is, you know, at the company, right, if you think about what Okla does, obviously the reactor part is what people focus a lot on.

We sell power, we sell heat. But we have these other parts of the business that we've had to build to deliver into that, like fuel fabrication, which will help us obviously make fuel for our reactors, potentially for others too, which is part of what some of the investments and partnerships we've announced this quarter touch on.

Additionally, we've talked about recycling, which is great because we can make fuel for ourselves as well as potentially for others and sell various materials and isotopes as co-products from that, as well as possibly recycling services. All great. And then obviously the isotope side of the business, which is specifically focused on that.

Part of the reactor part of the story, though, and also somewhat ties over to the isotope side, is we are a fast reactor. We use fast. We make fast neutrons. We will have fast neutrons to help test and characterize materials and fuels. That is not a capability that we've had in this country in 30 plus years. And it's not a capability that the Western world has had in a similar timeframe, like in 20 years or so.

So it's an important thing that we're bringing to bear. The government set forward on building a big dedicated test reactor, but it was a government program. So it naturally had a lot of sort of challenges around it. What we're doing with the Aurora plant and our ability to do that, and therefore also offer that as a potential revenue generating aspect of the company, which is, Hey, we have fast neutrons that we can provide a radiation capability, not just for our own use, but for others, as well as what we're doing on the Pluto side, which expands that and gives us that cadence of experience on a plutonium based system is pretty accelerated to opening the door for moving into better skills and different materials and expanding the fuel performance envelope so that we can maximize what we do.

We're in a good spot to be able to build and operate. That's great. But there is going to be so much more we can get out of these materials with more end fuels in terms of time in the reactor and just ultimately better economic performance with more data that we can generate using this.

So that was part of the incipient to look at doing the Pluto test reactor. It's a smaller system. It's not producing electric power. Its primary job is, I mean, as of now, its primary job is focused on making fast neutrons. And it's a culmination of activity. So think of it more as a program than just a single reactor that will involve taking some plutonium critical, getting some experience doing that with our national lab partners, doing some work around the plutonium handling and management, and then moving that into, obviously, the full-scale Pluto reactor.

The reactor will be smaller in its power production and will also be optimized to use plutonium. Since plutonium is inherently in the nuclear space, higher worth, to use that terminology, fuel, means we can actually use less overall fuel if we concentrate up the plutonium a bit more, which is what, you know, generally speaking, fast test reactors have done.

So that means we can kind of use a higher loading of plutonium, less total fuel mass, get more thermal power out of it, and therefore more neutrons to test things with it. And it's a pretty favorable thing to do with that. But the system will give us a very significant amount of repetitions about doing the actual work around plutonium fuel fabrication and going forward.

The fuel will look, generally speaking, very similar to the Aurora fuel if we use plutonium in it. In terms of form factor and type, it would just use a lower amount of plutonium in it because what we're designing to in the Aurora plan is to be interchangeable between HALU, plutonium-bearing fuel, and transuranic-bearing fuel.

And that means you kind of dilute the plutonium more compared to what Pluto will do. When you think about what Pluto is as a program, it's the cadence to build on top of the fuel, the plutonium fuel fabrication piece into the plutonium reactor part. So over the course of the next year, we'll gain experience with plutonium criticality and work around that.

And then we'll move that into the next steps of actually building the plants going forward. Those are high level kind of perspectives on where it goes, but it's a pretty significant enabler for, you know, getting those repetitions in our belt to then start fueling Aurora plants with plutonium bearing fuel.

Now, just to put a number on this, like the thing that's really powerful about moving in this space, like building out these fast neutron radiation capabilities, yes, it opens the door to do additional things for radiation services. Yes, it opens the door to do some additional isotope production using different material types. And yes, it's important because it helps us with ourselves as well as other companies can come to us or government programs can come to us and either rent or buy a radiation time or similar types of exposure in the environment to help bring some materials that are quite mature but need a little bit more to go over the finish line that are inherently basically economically better than what we have to use based on what the experiences are today.

Those are still great because we can make stuff work, but this is a platform for R&D and margin improvement is one way to think about it. So anyway, that's kind of the cadence of how we see things.

Ted (Citi): Got it. That's super helpful. Thank you. And I just had one follow-up. On slide nine, it mentions the breakdown of CapEx by components, and I think it's listed by number of components. Are you able to share just directionally what that is in dollar terms?

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

Greg (Executive): Yeah, so I think, you know, directionally we would expect the dollars to be similar to the components. In terms of an actual dollar breakdown, you know, we're still refining a lot of our cost estimates now that we've got Keywood on board and now that we're deepening some of our procurement activities. And we'll probably have more to share on that going probably into 2026.

Jed Dorshmeyer (William Blair): Thank you.