Hello and welcome to the Standard Nuclear 3rd Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call. All participants are in a listen-only mode. After today's prepared remarks, there will be a question and answer session. Please note that this call is being recorded. I will now turn the call over to Chris Koscielniak, VP Finance, Treasury and Investor Relations for Standard Nuclear. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Operator, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to Standard & Nuclear's third quarter 2026 earnings call. This morning, we issued our earnings press release reporting results for the three and nine months ended September 30th, 2026, and filed our quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC. Our earnings release and investor presentation are available in the investor relations section of our website. Before we begin, please note that our remarks today will include forward-looking statements, which are based on assumptions as of today and are subject to significant risks and uncertainties. Actual results may differ materially. Additional information about factors that could cause actual results to differ materially is contained in the Risk Factors section of our Form 10-Q for the quarter-ended September 30, 2026 webinar. Thank you for joining us. Qualified Pipeline, Module Throughput Capacity, Building Throughput Capacity, and Process Yield. Definitions of these metrics and important limitations on their use are included in the key performance indicators section of our Form 10-Q. Transcription by CastingWords With me today are Kurt Terrani, our President and Chief Executive Officer, and Kevin Harrill, our Chief Financial Officer. Kurt will open with the market, our strategy, and operations. Kevin will take you through the financial results, and Kurt will close before we open the line for questions. With that, I'll turn the call over to Kurt.

Thank you, Chris, and thank you everyone for joining us. This is our second earnings call as a public company, so I will keep the background short. Standard nuclear makes trisofuel, the coated particle fuel that many advanced reactor designs are built around. Each particle is a speck of uranium ceramic wrapped in layers of carbon and silicon carbide that hold the radioactive material inside at temperatures well beyond what conventional nuclear fuel can withstand. Thank you for joining us. It's worth taking a minute to explain why this technology is proven, because safety is the reason this market exists. In the Department of Energy's Advanced Gas Reactor Program, which members of our team helped lead, roughly 300,000 trisophil particles were extensively irradiated inside a test reactor at temperatures up to 1300 degrees Celsius during the first irradiation campaign of that program. Resulting in zero particle failures. Afterwards, that same irradiated fuel was heated to and held at 1600 degrees Celsius. The peak temperature of these reactors are designed never to exceed, even in an accident. And they were held at that temperature for hundreds of hours, again with zero particle failures. Because the fuel itself contains the radioactivity under these extreme conditions, massive containment domes and extensive civil site works are unnecessary. This is why a trisofueled reactor can be small enough to build in a factory and safe enough to site right where the power is needed. Last quarter, we showed you a model. This quarter, we want to show you a market. It is here, and it is arriving in three phases. Microreactors and government programs. Microreactors in commercial programs and small modular reactors in the next decade. We are built to supply all three. All right, let's talk about these three phases of tries to demand and double click on it. Let's start with the evidence. Six advanced reactors have reached criticality in the United States this year. Four of them by the July 4 target. Three of the six run on triso fuel, and every triso reactor needs a first core and then reloads for the life of the reactor. We work with many of these developers, and two of those relationships are public. Antares, which signed a fuel supply agreement with us in August, and Oklo, which signed a memorandum of understanding with us in April to explore supplying reprocessed uranium and transuranic materials recovered from used nuclear fuel as feedstock for our triso fuel. The same recycled fuel path ARPA-E selected us to develop. Our fuel is part of that evidence. In the third quarter, we completed delivery of Radian's Kaleidos core, the first complete reactor core of commercially produced triso fuel supplied by an independent US manufacturer. On October 29th, Radiant announced that Department of Energy approved the safety analysis for the colitis reactor to operate at full power, full temperature. From here, DOE conducts a readiness review and Radiant then fuels the reactor at Dome, the facility at Idaho National Laboratory, and tests it to full power. It is the same design and fuel intended for customer deployments. Feedstock is following the reactors. Congress directed the Department of Energy to seek to make 21 metric tons of HALU available to advanced reactor developers. Nine entities have been named across three allocation rounds. Most of those allocations go to tricep fuel designs and that feedstock has to be fabricated into fuel form before those reactors can run. We hold our own conditional allocation and we remain the first company to have both received Department of Energy authorization and physically taken delivery of HALU for tricep production. All right. Phase one. We said it's going to be microreactors in government programs. Phase one is here today. It's here now. The government is funding microreactors and most of them run on TRISO. Project Janus, the Department of Wars program run by the Army with the Defense Innovation Unit, puts microreactors on U.S. military installations. The Army has named five vendors and five initial installations, with up to approximately $2.2 billion in milestone-based funding across fiscal years 2027 through 2031. It expects the program to support more than 20 micro-reactors. With the first operational unit targeted for September 2028, four of the five awardees use trisophilic designs. Two of them, Radiant and Antares, are publicly our customers under binding fuel supply agreements. Radiant's Janus agreement covers up to 15 Kaleidos units by 2030, and Antares expects to begin deploying initial production units to military installations in 2028. The program funds the reactors, we supply the fuel and it becomes backlogged as our customers contract it. On October 20th, Reagan announced that Navy selected Kaleidos for Naval Weapons Station Crane in Indiana under Janus. Our interiors agreement shows how program timelines become contract terms. It includes a firm commitment of one metric ton of HALU tricycle fuel, with customer options for up to seven additional metric tons, exercisable in one ton increments by end of 2027, before the first Janus unit is scheduled to operate. Those options remain at customers' discretion. Government programs run on schedules and federal funding, and they arrive before the commercial market does. They let us build capacity against contracted demand, and they let our customers qualify their fuel with us years before commercial deployments. Phase 2. Microelectrics and Commercial Program Phase 2 is forming right behind it. Micro reactors and commercial programs. Developers have announced commercial agreements and partnerships outside any government program. And investors are backing them. By public reports, triso-fueled reactor developers have raised about $1.7 billion of private capital this year. The point is not any one deal. The point is that demand is real and broadening. The NRC is clearing the road. On October 22nd, it finalized a rule that lets developers with Department of Energy or Defense Department authorization use that work to expedite commercial licensing. We target reviews of about 18 months for a first-of-a-kind application and about 12 months after that. Every reactor that makes that move needs fuel, and we are well positioned to supply that demand across our various production sites in Tennessee, Idaho, and Washington. This is also where independence matters. The other trisome fuel efforts we see today are largely built to supply their own reactors. We are reactor agnostic with industrial scale trisome manufacturing in place today, so a developer whose reactor is not ours has a supplier in us. Now let's talk about the last phase, phase three, small modular reactors. Phase three is the triso-fueled small modular reactors of next decade, backed by hyperscale data center operators and industrial customers and targeting operation in the early 2030s. They sit inside a much larger nuclear build-up. National policy targets 400 gigawatts of US nuclear capacity by 2050, roughly four times today's fleet. and by our count of public announcements, hyperscale data center operators have contracted about 9 gigawatts of existing nuclear capacity and committed to roughly 6 gigawatts of new development. Not all of that will run on Tricer, but every Tricer design in it needs a fuel supplier. We do not have to rebuild for it. The same design frozen modules that make microreactive fuel today make SMR fuel tomorrow. And SMR customers will need the NRC-licensed supply that starts at Richmond in 2027. Here's how those signals reached our numbers. Total contract backlog was $577.2 million at the end of September. Up from $241.5 million at the end of June. And funded backlog nearly doubled to $119.6 million. First, why that demand comes to us. DOE operations today and NRC licensed production beginning in 2027. That's our model. Every reactor in all three of these phases we talked about needs fuel, and fuel is the gate. Our regulatory position is a strategic advantage. We are the only tricer producer in the country working under both Department of Energy and NRC jurisdictions. And we can produce under both. SN0, that's our existing operations today, produces today under DOE authorization. SNTN and SNID are built and equipped, and the final document of safety analysis for SNTN is submitted for review, with SNIDs to follow shortly on the same template, and DOE authorization is targeted for February 2027 once we receive operational readiness review approval. Prior to that date, we were able to run natural uranium through our modules, so we expect to be able to start halutricer production once we receive that final approval. On the NRC side, the Richmond side in Washington has its license, Framatome Part 70 license, which the NRC amended in July to authorize triso fabrication at in Richmond's just under 10 weight percent uranium-235. Our joint venture is in full swing. The design established, the long lead equipment is ordered for delivery around the end of the year and production begins in 2027. Also, you may have heard that Urenco USA in New Mexico successfully completed production of its first product cylinder of LEU+. Guess what? That material is produced for Standard Nuclear, and we plan to receive it at our joint venture site in Richmond and use it as feedstock to produce fuel for our upcoming customers that use LEU+. So again, we operate in Tennessee and Idaho under the Department of Energy Jurisdiction and Washington under NRC Jurisdiction. And over time, we have the option to transition our tenancy in Idaho sites to also go under NRC jurisdiction. But a key takeaway is that we have mature processes and engagements with both of these federal entities, and they both have reviewed our processes thoroughly and have issued approvals and authorizations at various stages for us to conduct our fuel production operations. For a new entrant, the road is still long. As our prospectus sets out, licensing, construction, and qualification take seven to ten years before the first kilogram comes off the line. And the only new trisophilic facility license issued today took nearly four years on its own. The NRC is working to shorten its reviews, and that will help, but it does not shorten construction and qualification. Let's talk about the joint venture strategy. The joint venture is strategy. It's not a side project. Standard Nuclear Framatome LLC was formed in September 2025. We hold... Two-thirds, Framatome holds one-third, and it exists to manufacture trisul and trisul-based fuel forms at Framatome's Richton site. We bring the technology and modular equipment. Framatome brings an NRC-licensed site and decades of fuel manufacturing experience. Initial capacity is approximately one metric ton annually. Our S1 describes the site as capable of scaling to as much as 20 metric tons over time, and that capacity is incremental to our wholly-owned facilities. The strategy is speed and access. The NRC approved Tricer Fabrication admission less than two years after the license request was submitted, far faster than a Greenfield license. And the commercial customers of phases two and three will need fuel from an NRC license facility. The Joint Venture gives us that facility, and it is licensed today. Now let's talk about why is it that our customers stay. Fuel is not a commodity in this industry, at least for some time. Every reactor design has its own specification, kernel size, enrichment, coating layers, the fuel form that the particles are packed into, and the qualification data the regulator will require. Those specifications are set early in the reactor development, years before the first core. Under a fuel development agreement, or an FBA, the customer funds the development of its specific fuel form with us. We develop it, characterize it, and generate the qualification data on our own equipment in our process. The reactor is then designed around the fuel that we make. Once a developer has built a qualification data package with us, changing suppliers means redeveloping and requalifying its fuel. That is what makes the relationship memorable. And our contracts back it with non-refundable deposits, milestone payments, and in certain cases, off-ramp payments if a customer cancels early. This quarter showed progression is not a one-off. At the end of June, we had field development agreements with eight commercial reactor developers. In the third quarter, two of them, Radian and Terry's, moved to fuel supply agreements. The others are earlier on the same path, and how fast they move depends on their qualification progress, financing and deployment schedules, and not on a sales calendar of ours. Each stage shows up in a metric we report. Qualified pipeline is fuel we have vetted but not yet contracted. A fuel development agreement is the first contract where the customer pays us to develop and qualify its fuel form. A memorandum or non-binding term sheet is unfunded backlog. And a fuel supply agreement puts firm quantities into funded backlog and additional quantities into purchase options. Our government development work, such as the NASA program, is funded program work that builds new capability and is not part of this commercial path. Execution in the quarter. Being positioned is one thing. We are executing. On deliveries, we completed the balance of radiant colitis cholera in the third quarter following the initial 50 kg shift in June. On contracts, we converted the radiant binding term sheet into a defensive fuel supply agreement in August for multiple metric tons of fuel through 2031, and we entered into a terrorist fuel supply agreement I described. On capacity, construction is substantially complete at SNTN and SNID. All the long-lead module equipment for both sites is on hand. At SNTN, installation of most of the long-lead modules is complete and installation continues. SNID is next. The Department of Energy has approved the preliminary document of safety analysis for both sites. On November 6th, we submitted the final document of safety analysis for SMTN. SMID is to follow shortly on the same template. Two steps remain. DOE's review of the safety analysis and a readiness review. We target authorization to operate at both sites in February 2027. Our Form 10Q reports two capacity metrics, so you can track this. Module throughput capacity, meaning installed lines available for commercial production, was 0.5 metric tons per year at the end of September, all at SN0. Throughput capacity, meaning what our construction buildings can hold when fully populated with modules, was 5.5 metric tons per year, SN0 plus 2.5 metric tons for each of the SNTN and SNID buildings. The modules we have purchased and are installing give each new site up to 1 metric ton per year at start. As the sites are authorized and modules are installed, module capacity steps up towards building capacity, and each site can grow to its 2.5 metric tons by adding modules. Process yield was 63.3% at the end of September, unchanged from the second quarter. Our new facilities are designed to improve it, and we will report at each quarter as they come online. On the platform, our transportation package designs continued through the NRC's Part 71 process with target approvals in the fourth quarter of 2028 and first quarter of 2029, as reported in Form 10-Q. Our Oak Ridge campus keeps growing. In July, we bought 100 Europia Avenue, 5.45 acres, with an approximately 51,000 square foot building for $5.5 million in cash. It gives us the room for non-radiological operations and brings our Oak Ridge holdings to more than 50 acres. And in July, the Department of Energy named Tennessee and Idaho the two states where we operate among the finalists to host its Nuclear Life Cycle Innovation Campuses. New fuel lines, space and recycled feedstock. Our fuel was also going to space. We fabricate fuel for NASA's nuclear thermal propulsion program under our contract with Battelle Energy Alliance, the operator of Idaho National Laboratory. And we delivered our first fuel kernels in the third quarter with further deliveries scheduled. Nuclear thermal propulsion relies on fuel engineering to withstand extreme core temperatures while transferring heat directly to a hydrogen propellant. These engines can make long duration and deep space missions possible, and they depend on advanced fuels and high-temperature materials as the critical path to flight. We see the program as a foundational piece of our space nuclear fuel line. Alongside our terrestrial triso business, we are supporting additional space reactor developers, programs, and initiatives. Recycling material is the next frontier for the same expertise. ARPA-E is funding approximately $7 million of our work to develop triso fuel made from recycled transhumanic material, including plutonium. That builds the same fabrication capability the surplus plutonium utilization program needs, where DOE selected us in the second quarter for advanced negotiations. Together, the extended feedstock of fuel can be made from beyond high-asset low-rich uranium. Kevin will now show you what all of this looks like in our numbers. Kevin, please.

Thank you, Kurt, and good morning, everyone. Before the numbers, one piece of context. Our IPO closed on July 17th, so this is the first quarter that shows the post-IPO company in the balance sheet, the share count, and the interest income. I'll spend most of my time on three things, revenue growth, gross margin, and how equity compensation shows up in our operating expenses. On that last point, this quarter we added non-GAAP measures that exclude share-based compensation both the awards granted with the IPO and other awards. Share-based compensation is a non-cash expense, and it is large this quarter because of the IPO grants, so we believe these measures help you see the operating performance of the business alongside our GAAP results. GAAP results remain our primary measures, and the reconciliations are in our release and Form 10-Q. Revenue of $6 million was up from $4.7 million in the second quarter and from $900,000 in the prior year quarter. Product revenue was $3.7 million, primarily from deliveries of triso fuel under one fuel supply agreement, including the balance of the radiant core. Service revenue was $2.2 million from fuel development contracts and government projects. Product revenue was the majority of the top line for a second consecutive quarter. Now let's turn to gross margin. Gross profit was $1.8 million, a gross margin of approximately 30% compared to 67% last quarter. Excluding the $600,000 of share-based compensation and cost of revenue from both IPO awards and other awards, Adjusted gross profit was $2.4 million and adjusted gross margin, a non-GAAP measure, was approximately 40%. Cost of revenue was $4.2 million, up $2.6 million from the second quarter, as we ran SN0 at a commercial production rate for the whole quarter to complete the radiant core. Most of that increase was people. Production, labor, and payroll, including overhead labor that supports production, added $1.5 million. Subcontract and consulting support added about $900,000. Production, supplies, facility, and insurance costs added another $700,000. And share-based compensation added about $100,000. Lower depreciation and lower travel hardly offset those increases. Depreciation included a $500,000 adjustment for depreciation recognized in prior periods on equipment at our Tennessee and Idaho facilities. Neither the second quarter nor the third is the run rate in these first periods of commercial production. Our manufacturing economics depend on process yield, material recovery through our inline recycle loop, and fixed cost absorption as production volume increases. We will report the cost lines each quarter so you can assess our progress. Moving on to general and administrative expenses, we reported $15.5 million compared to $5.5 million in the second quarter. Of that, $9.5 million was share-based compensation, of which $7.7 million came from awards granted in connection with the IPO. Excluding that $9.5 million, adjusted general and administrative expense, a non-GAAP measure, was approximately $6 million. As our second quarter 10-Q disclosed, we granted those awards in connection with the IPO, and this is the first quarter that carries their expense. That expense will continue over the award's remaining vesting periods and we will report it separately so you can distinguish it from operating performance. The public company infrastructure is in place and our focus now is discipline on additional overhead. Research and development expense was $1.4 million for the quarter compared to $2 million in the second quarter. This is the process engineering and qualification work to bring SNTM and SNID into commercial production, including the licensing and authorization deliverables under our agreement with the Department of Energy and the engineering of our fuel transport containers. It covers only the costs that are not capitalized into the facilities and equipment. It is the engineering behind the replicable facility model, and it is spending ahead of the production revenue those facilities are expected to generate. Now moving on to loss from operations, for the quarter we reported $15.1 million. Adjusted operating loss, excluding all share-based compensation, was $4.8 million. Interest income, was $2 million, reflecting income earned on our cash balances. Net loss was $13.1 million, or 10 cents per share, on weighted average shares of approximately $134.9 million, which mostly reflect the post-IPO capital structure. For the nine months, revenue was $11.3 million, up from $1.8 million in the comparable prior year period. Gross profit was $0.6 million. and non-GAAP adjusted gross profit, excluding all share-based compensation, was $2.1 million. Net loss was $24.2 million, or $0.38 per share. Cash and cash equivalents were $223.1 million at September 30, and we have no debt. Deferred revenue, including the non-current portion, was $6.7 million, up from $4 million at June 30th. That line largely reflects customer deposits and milestone payments received ahead of performance under our commercial contracts, which is the commercial deposit model Kurt described earlier. Property and equipment net was $46.8 million, up from $12.6 million at the end of the year. That increase reflects the continued build-out of the modular equipment and facility infrastructure needed for production. For the nine months, cash used in operating activities was $16.6 million. Cash used in investing activities was $33.6 million, including $32.2 million of capital expenditures for the build-out of production capacity, and $1.4 million contributed to the joint venture. Financing provided $210.2 million, including $137.4 million of net IPO proceeds, as well as 70 million private financing which was completed in January of this year. Finally, the metrics I would ask you to watch. Total contract backlog was $577.2 million at September 30th. That consists of $119.6 million of funded backlog, $443.5 million of purchase options under executed contracts, and $14.1 million of unfunded backlog. At June 30th, those figures were $241.5 million, $61.9 million, $156.5 million, and $23.1 million, respectively. Funded backlog represents binding commitments with firm delivery obligations, net of revenue recognized. Purchase options are at the customer's sole discretion and are not in our financial statements until exercised. Unfunded backlog is non-binding arrangements and is declined because those arrangements became executed contracts. That is the progression we said last quarter we would report to you every quarter. Here is the first data point. Between March 31st and September 30th, funded backlog went from $8.2 million to $119.6 million, and unfunded backlog went from $83.1 million to $14.1 million. One more figure for visibility. Our Form 10-Q reports $115.2 million of remaining performance obligations at September 30th, of which we expect to recognize about $41.4 million over the next 12 months. Remaining performance obligations are the gap measure of contracted revenue still to be recognized, and they exclude unexercised options. Qualified pipeline was $844.7 million at September 30th, compared to $986.3 million at June 30th. The $141.6 million decrease reflects conversion of pipeline into executed contracts, and the pipeline rebuilt from approximately $696 million in late August. Now let me connect our numbers to the market Kurt described. Because I want you to see why we are confident the opportunity through 2030 is there. We do not give financial guidance, so this is about the market, not a forecast. First, the demand is real, and it is arriving in all three phases Kurt walked through. Government micro-reactors now, commercial micro-reactors behind them, and small modular reactors in the next decade. The independent study commissioned for our IPO puts triso fuel demand from advanced reactors at about 26 metric tons a year by 2030 and about 116 metric tons a year by 2035. Second, we conserve it. SN0 produces today. SNTN and SNID start at up to one metric ton per year each once authorized and are designed for 2.5 metric tons each. Richland is licensed and begins production in 2027 through our joint venture. And we can add capacity quickly. We can replicate a facility in about 11 months, and our long-term plan calls for up to 40 metric tons of capacity by the end of the decade. Third, we are already capturing that demand. Total contract backlog and qualified pipeline together were approximately $1.4 billion at September 30, roughly 44% of our estimated $3.2 billion serviceable addressable market through 2030. And two of our fuel development customers converted to fuel supply agreements this quarter. Six more are under contract with us to develop their Triso fuel. Qualified pipeline is not included in total contract backlog and the market estimate is inclusive of both, not incremental. This is why we are confident the opportunity through 2030 is there. Finally, we ended the quarter with $223.1 million of cash with no debt, and the new facilities were funded before the IPO. Instead of guidance, we give you dated operational milestones, authorization to operate at SNTN and SNID, targeted for February 27, and the start of production at Richland through the joint venture in 2027. We will report against them every quarter, including when one moves, and we have the balance sheet to fund the work to reach them. With that, let me turn it back over to Kurt.

Thank you, Kevin. Let me leave you with the three things I would want you to take from this call. The triso market is no longer a thesis. Multiple triso-based reactors reach criticality. The core we delivered this summer is going into a reactor that now has DOE approval of its safety analysis to operate at full power, and demand is building in government programs, commercial programs, and next triso-fueled small modular reactors. Our customers are converting. Two of the eight reactor developers we had under fuel development agreements at the end of June moved to fuel supply agreements this quarter. And the other six are still in development. Each one assorts an additional backlog and pipeline as they progress. And the numbers show it. Total contract backlog reached 577.2 million and the pipeline refilled right behind it. and our fabrication expertise already reaches beyond today's reactors. NASA's nuclear thermal propulsion program in space and recycled and plutonium-bearing feedstock through ARPA-E's and Department of Energy's surplus plutonium utilization program. We see more opportunities like them. The contracts are signed, the buildings are built, the modules are being installed, and the fuel is being delivered. We are the only company in the United States with industrial-scale tricycle manufacturing facilities that we can produce under both the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. That is a first mover advantage and we intend to keep it. Advanced nuclear is no longer a question of if, it is a question of how fast and the answer to how fast is fuel. Standard nuclear exists to make sure fuel is never the reason the industry waits. Thank you to our many employees and their hard work and thank you all for joining us today. Operator, please open the line for questions.

Thank you. We will now begin the question and answer session. To ask a question, please use the raised hand icon at the bottom of your webinar application. When you're called on, please unmute your audio and ask your question. So that we can get to everyone, we ask that you limit yourself to one question and one follow-up. If you have additional questions please rejoin the queue and we will take them as time permits. We will now pause a moment to assemble the queue. Okay, our first question comes from Brian Lee from Goldman Sachs. Please unmute yourself and ask your question, Brian.

Hey guys, this is Tyler Bissedon from Brian. Thanks for taking our questions. First, on the qualified pipeline, looks like it increased by about $150 million since your August call. So is there anything you guys can discuss on whether this was one or several customers? Was this related to any specific government programs? Did this include any new customers? Any incremental details on this would be great.

Yeah, thanks for the question, Tyler. Yeah, the increase does come from a number of customers, not just one. As you know, we don't publicly disclose any customers outside of what we've done previously, which is our Antares and Radiant customers, but what I will Two customers that we have announced are only two out of the eight arrangements that we currently have with fuel development customers that are ultimately going to be converting to fuel supply agreements as we move forward. And so what it really shows is two things, which I think is critical. Our pipelines converting into contracts and demand we see is across government and commercial micro-regions. Thank you for joining us. Thank you very much.

Super helpful. And then you guys discussed that you are now targeting a February 27 startup for your Tennessee and Idaho facilities. I believe in August you were targeting this to occur by the end of the year. So are you seeing any delays in regards to getting these sites operational? And then are there any implications to any of your customer contracts based on the updated timing?

Yeah, appreciate the question, Tyler. We projected based on our plans end of Q4 26. Now we're talking in February. Really what it tells you is that the hard part's done. We mentioned in our remarks this morning that we have submitted the documented safety analysis for the SNTN facility and shortly we're submitting the documented safety analysis for SNID. That is the ultimate and many more. So that's a key regulatory milestone. Since that's been submitted and it's undergoing Department of Energy review, that positions us for an early next year operational readiness review by the Department of Energy, which is really the last stage of the process. In the background and in parallel, what we communicated to you was the construction was done. That's still the case, obviously. And we've completed all of our long lead procurements. Our module installations are maturing and ongoing and going to be ready. in anticipation of that operational registry review early next year. All of this really goes to show that, again, we can deploy these hazard category two facilities at incredibly fast timelines. I think we're going to be well-positioned to support our customers in 2027 and support their mission, be it government or commercial. We find ourselves well-positioned to support the volumes that we intend to manufacture next year.

Thank you very much.

Our next question comes from Mark Shooter from William Blair. Please unmute yourself and ask your question, please, Mark.

Hey, Kurt and Kevin, can you hear me? You bet. Great, thanks. Congrats on the progress this quarter. You spoke a lot about Project Janus. We appreciate that. But I think that investors are looking at Project Janus microreactors to start going in in 27 and 28. But we understand there's a lot of testing required to first achieve criticality and then even more testing to deliver power. So how do you look at TRISO demand during these testing phases across the different reactor companies? How does that translate into your TRISO backlog prior to these reactors being online and delivering power and operating?

Yeah, Mark, fantastic question. I mean, let me just first open by saying, yeah, building nuclear reactors is full contact sport. You don't just kind of, you know, do it and all of a sudden it works. So, yeah, there's a lot of development and testing. But let's reflect kind of what's been done just in 26. We've had, you know, numerous criticalities that were achieved, a lot of them by triso-based reactors. As we mentioned, Radiant is gearing up to do a full power test, which is really remarkable for this technology that they're bringing that directly supports Janus' micro-reactor program. Yes, there is a licensing and technology demonstration that our customers have to do as a part of the Janus program. That's why they're targeting 2028. Again, talking to them and seeing them, they're are incredibly hard at work, but more importantly, are making incredible progress, and they're leveraging the milestones they achieved, the key milestones they achieved in 2026, DOE approvals for their course, criticality tests, and so on. More importantly, They cannot afford to wait. And frankly, speaking of the Department of War, the Janus program cannot afford to wait for that development to be complete before the fuel is ordered. This is why we already have those fuel orders in hand. That's why a majority of our existing FSAs goes to support Janus program's demand. And we expect that to continue. On the heel of that, again, all of these things kind of build on each other. We expect to see a receiving commercial micro reactor fuel demand for behind the meter applications. So in summary, there's work to be done by our customers, but they're sharp enough and the department is intelligent enough to know that the fuel orders are one of the first things that you do. And so they're in our pipeline and we're going to make sure that the fuel supply is not the reason those programs are going to be slowed down or have issues.

Thanks, Kurt. It's very helpful. And just as a follow-up, how do you feel about the progress and availability of HALU this quarter? I mean, I also heard you mention something of URANCO, I believe, on the call with LEU+, and any color on that would be helpful as well. For sure, for sure.

So HALU, as you all know, the Department of Energy's HALU Availability Program, we said it this morning, has provided multiple tens of metric tons and allotted it for the advanced reactors. A lot of it will go into our customers. Project Janus, I feel very confident about. That's a government agency with their own substantial allotment. So yes, they're working with the Department of Energy on the mechanics of transportation and getting it to us as a fuel fabricator, but the availability is going to be quite robust. Down the line for the commercial applications, again, we're really, really pleased to see all the private and public investment that's gone into the enrichment service providers. And we see a commercial supply of HALU coming down the line so all these React developers don't have to rely only on the Garmin source. But there's two other sources that are also... providing the feedstock that standard nuclear as a fuel fabricator needs to process into usable fuel form. One of those you've mentioned, yeah, Eurenko said they were going to make LEU+, by the way, that's just under 10%, like 9.9%. They announced that they produced the first 30B cylinder of 9.9+. You know, some of our customers, as you may know, are using those assays. Not everybody's using HALU. Sometimes that's the reactor design, sometimes the reality of they choose to go the commercial route and not draw in the DOE supply. So that feedstock, additional feedstock that gives us confidence that, hey, the feedstock's going to be available for us to serve our customers. And then last is, if I can tie in the ARPA-E program, you know, we've been talking about the transuranics and plutonium and surplus plutonium utilization program. Well, this ARPA-E award is really awesome. You know, it's, they are funding us. And, you know, we're partnering with with companies like Shine Technologies, a company that's specifically going after recycling used nuclear fuel to extract these transuranics and get that plutonium. Well, guess what? That transuranics and plutonium, when blended with natural uranium, it's a substitute for helium. So it should give everybody a lot of confidence that, hey, the government's providing HALU, not just for the government mission, but also for some of these air reactors. The enrichment service providers, multiple of them, with good backing from public and private, are bringing commercial HALU online. But wait, in the meantime, there's a lot of customers that can easily access LEU Plus by a provider located in the United States. And then last of it is that there's these transuranic supplies that can come in and yet an additional feedstock. So I hope that gives you enough color as far as how we feel about feedstock availability and don't see it as a bottleneck right now. That's great. I appreciate it, Kurt. Thank you.

Our next question comes from Drew Scott from Needham & Co. Please unmute yourself and ask your question, Drew.

Hey, how's it going? Great quarter and thank you for taking my question. When you think about the advanced reactor companies, is your backlog and pipeline mostly associated with the initial reactors or does it account for multiple reactor builds per customer for the advanced reactor cohort? And is your backlog mostly initial reactor initial loadings or does it account for multiple deployments for your customers?

Yes, thank you for your question, Drew. I would say it's all of the above in a very short answer. We're in a very unique position with what we look at over the next five years. And we talk about our serviceable addressable market at about $3.2 billion, of which we have about $1.4 billion of total contract backlog and pipeline. And so that is made up of a myriad of will include the initial reactors for the microreactor community. The reloads as well are going to be embedded in there. We've talked about multi-year contracts like the Antares, which is up to eight metric tons through 2035 with the possibility or permissibility, I should say, to accelerate that into 2030 and prior based upon I think what we're looking at is in our pipeline and our backlog a lot of opportunity across the board for all types of deliveries for both the initial reloads, the reloads, and what I would say also is the opportunity coming in 2030 for SMRs as well. We do have that baked within our pipeline because those are conversations we're having with customers. Our next question comes from Rini Singh from Bank of America. If you would like to unmute yourself and ask your question, please, Rini. Good morning, guys.

Thanks for taking the question.

I think first, just on the gross margin, Kevin, I know you said that Q2, Q3 don't really represent the normalized gross margin, but as production ramps, can you help us understand the relative contributions from things like process yields recovery and then the fixed cost absorption, and then how should we think about when those efficiencies begin to show up?

Yeah, appreciate the question, Rudy. Yeah, so what we reported for this quarter was a 30% gross margin on approximately $6 million in total revenue. When we adjusted for share-based compensation and cost of revenue, we're up to 40%. As a reminder, last quarter, we roughly We ran our production levels at full capabilities that would support a 2.5 metric ton capacity and production outlay. And we obviously won't give forward-looking guidance, but what I will tell you is when we're looking at opportunities for Transcription by CastingWords Thank you for joining us.

That makes sense. And I think just to follow up on that part, you know, how do you think about the timing for the additional module expansion? So go from the 1MTU to the 2.5MTU. And is that kind of what I guess would drive those? Would that be more firm customer commitments? Or is it kind of do you want to see more operational utilization milestones at the 1MTU first?

Yeah, what I would say is twofold. I would say number one are, and we've disclosed this and talked about this in our S1 and public forums, our anticipation that is in the short term, we're going to scale up to eight metric tons with the anticipation of hitting 40 metric tons by the end of the decade. And so what that means is those two facilities that we have in Idaho and Tennessee that are scalable up to 2.5 metric tons are critical within our ability and capabilities We do have the capability of being very flexible and adjusting for that. Some of that equipment is long lead equipment that we will have to I think it's somewhat of a great answer that we see the demand, we're building it out, we're ready from a supply chain perspective, although we can theoretically pull back if needed, but we don't anticipate that to be the case.

Okay, perfect. Thanks, Kevin. Thanks, Kurt.

Okay, and our final question comes from Chris Dendrinos from RBC Capital. Will you please unmute yourself and ask your question, Chris?

Yeah, great. Good morning and thanks for taking the question. I guess really just kind of one question for me and it more has to do with just the potential conversion timing for the qualified pipe. And I guess the question is, you know, how much lead time do you all generally need to get from a customer, you know, call it converting to an order time? to producing Triso. And then, you know, as we kind of think about the different phases and it sounded like you mentioned that that pipeline kind of covers across all three phases, you know, how should we think about the timing of each of those phases and when you start to kind of see, I guess, things getting converted to orders for each of those buckets? Thanks.

Yeah, I appreciate the question. I gave you some color on that. I think we've talked about the way we interact with our customers. And now we have, you know, it's really proven that over and over again, this is how the engagement work does. It starts out with the field development agreements, the FDAs. Thank you for joining us. We provide them that data. That data is not a nice to have. That's really essential for their development and licensing activities. After that FTA, then the customer is really well positioned. And we are well positioned to give the customer an accurate number based on You know the details of their specification at an accurate price and then the customer is really well positioned to go ahead and get into the next phases. Sometimes it's a commercial deposit, sometimes it's the fuel sales agreements where they come in and in firm fashion commit to offtake a certain quantity of fuel from us and you've seen in some of the examples that we have there's always often those customers they also give us deposits as options for expansion. So maybe the best thing to say is reflect on a couple of examples that we've had to kind of give you an idea of these timelines. Because at the end of the day, it really depends on the customer. As we said, it depends on their plans, their financing, and their overall technology development as they transition through these phases. But let's start with Radiant. Radiant is a good example. We engaged with Radiant in early 2025. to do a fuel development agreement. In the summer, they started reserving our fuel line with commercial deposits, and we executed our first FSA with them in fall of 2025. And since then, we've expanded that FSA substantially as they are securing now multiple cores for future activities. If you look at Antares, it's the same thing. The fuel development agreement was completed and then they came in and transitioned that into a fuel sales agreement with a substantial ability to expand that demand through the options that they purchased from us. So I hope these examples Thank you very much.

That concludes our question and answer session. Thank you for joining the standard nuclear third quarter 2026 earnings call. A replay will be available on the investor relations section of the company's websites. You may now disconnect.