CCJ

Energy Fuels UUUU has gained 15% despite reporting weaker-than-expected second-quarter 2026 results on Aug. 5. Revenues surged 496% to $25 million but missed the Zacks Consensus Estimate by a margin of 16.9%. UUUU posted a loss of 13 cents per share, wider than last year's quarter’s loss of 10 cents as well as the Zacks Consensus Estimate of a loss of five cents. Despite the recent rebound, UUUU remains down 29.1% over the past six months. It has lagged the industry’s 7.2% decline and the broader Zacks Basic Materials sector’s 3.6% fall. In comparison, the S&P 500 has gained 12.8% in a year. Energy Fuels has also trailed peers Cameco Corporation CCJ and Centrus Energy LEU, which are down 12.2% and 5.7%, respectively, in a year. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Energy Fuels’ Q2 revenues jumped 496% year over year to $25.1 million, primarily driven by higher uranium sales volumes and realized prices. The company sold 310,000 pounds of uranium at an average realized price of $80.48 per pound. This included 150,000 pounds sold in the spot market and the remaining 160,000 pounds under long-term contracts. In the year-ago quarter, UUUU sold just 50,000 pounds of uranium at $77 per pound, generating $3.9 million in uranium-related revenues. Heavy mineral sands contributed $0.28 million, bringing total Q2 2025 revenues to $4.2 million. HMS no longer contributes to results following the completion of mining at Kwale in December 2024. Costs applicable to revenues surged 192% to $10.7 million on higher uranium volumes sold, partially offset by lower weighted average cost per pound of uranium sold. Standby costs surged 61% year over year to $2.87 million due to higher permitting activities at Roca Honda and Whirlwind and increased maintenance activities at Nichols Ranch. Selling, general and administration were up 31% year over year, reflecting increases in general headcount, salaries and benefits. UUUU also incurred $10.7 million in transaction and integration costs related to the planned acquisitions of Australian Strategic Materials (ASM) and VAC Group. This, along with higher operating expenses, was partially offset by improved margins on uranium sales, leading to a net loss of 13 cents per share in the quarter, wider than the year-ago loss of 10 cents per share Energy Fuels mined approximately 315,000 pounds of uranium in Q2, taking first-half production to 740,000 pounds. The company produced 865,000 pounds of finished uranium during the quarter and 1.7 million pounds in the first half, already exceeding the low end of its full-year guidance of 1.5-2.5 million pounds. UUUU expects to mine 2-2.5 million pounds of contained uranium in 2026 and sell 1.5-2 million pounds through spot and contracted transactions. Production from the Pinyon Plain mine remains a key cost advantage. The company expects to blend low-cost Pinyon Plain ore with smaller quantities of lower-grade material from La Sal/Pandora and other sources. Mining and transportation costs for Pinyon Plain ore are approximately $14 per pound of recovered uranium, while milling costs are about $9 per pound, resulting in a total cost of roughly $23 per pound. This is at the low end of UUUU’s $23-$30-per-pound cost target. In July, the company announced that construction has begun on an expansion of its White Mesa Mill in Utah to enable the large-scale production of heavy rare earth oxides. This is a critical step in the execution of Energy Fuels' integrated mine-to-magnet platform.  The planned expansion is expected to be completed by the end of 2027, with respect to the addition of the Tb and Dy circuits, and by the end of 2028 depending on the addition of the Sm, Eu and Gd circuits. The company is also advancing its planned acquisition of ASM, which is expected to close this month. The transaction is expected to strengthen Energy Fuels' position across the REE value chain by adding mining, separation, metallization and alloy production capabilities. In June, UUUU announced plans to acquire Germany-based VAC Group for approximately $1.9 billion. VAC produces permanent magnets, including NdFeB and SmCo magnets, as well as soft magnetic materials. The acquisition would significantly expand Energy Fuels’ position across the rare earth and magnetics value chain. Energy Fuels is also advancing the Donald Project via its joint venture with Astron Limited. The Donald Project has received all major regulatory approvals required to construct and operate the project and is expected to provide a long term, large scale source of monazite feedstock to the company for processing into light and heavy REE oxides at the mill. Energy Fuels ended the second quarter with $996 million in working capital, including $58.4 million of cash and cash equivalents, $878.3 million of marketable securities, $15.1 million of receivables and $75 million of inventory. This strong liquidity provides the company with financial flexibility to fund its uranium and rare earth expansion plans and pursue strategic acquisitions. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for Energy Fuels’ 2026 revenues is $136 million, indicating 107% year-over-year growth. The estimate for earnings for the year is currently pegged at a loss of 25 cents per share. The estimate for 2027 revenues is pinned at $224.8 million, implying a 64.8% year-over-year upsurge. The consensus estimate for earnings is pegged at three cents per share. This will be UUUU’s first year of profit since it started trading on the NYSE in December 2013. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Over the past 60 days, the estimates for Energy Fuels for both years have moved down. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Energy Fuels is currently trading at a forward price-to-sales multiple of 19.26, well above the industry average of 4.92. UUUU’s Value Score of F suggests that the stock is not so cheap and indicates a stretched valuation at this moment. Meanwhile, Cameco and Centrus Energy are cheaper options, trading at price-to-sales ratios of 16.69 and 8.02, respectively. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Energy Fuels has attractive long-term growth drivers, supported by rising uranium and rare earth demand. Its strong balance sheet, growing uranium production and expanding rare earth capabilities position it to benefit from increasing demand for critical minerals. The company’s standby projects, Nichols Ranch ISR and Whirlwind, could add up to 500,000 pounds of annual uranium production within six to 12 months of a go decision. Meanwhile, Roca Honda, Sheep Mountain and Henry Mountains-Bullfrog could collectively support up to 6 million pounds of annual production over the longer term. Energy Fuels has compelling long-term prospects, backed by a strong balance sheet, rising uranium production and an increasingly integrated rare earths and magnetics platform. However, the stock’s premium valuation, expected 2026 loss and downward earnings revisions temper its near-term appeal. Given these risks, investors may want to stay on the sidelines for now. UUUU currently carries a Zacks Rank #5 (Strong Sell). You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Energy Fuels Inc (UUUU) : Free Stock Analysis Report Cameco Corporation (CCJ) : Free Stock Analysis Report Centrus Energy Corp. (LEU) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research (zacks.com). Zacks Investment Research

Interested in Energy Fuels Inc.? Here are five stocks we like better. Energy Fuels posted a $33.6 million second-quarter net loss, though its uranium business generated $25 million in revenue, approximately $14 million in gross profit and a 57% gross margin. Uranium operations remain strong: the company produced more than 860,000 pounds of finished U3O8 in the quarter and 1.7 million pounds in the first half of 2026, already surpassing its annual production guidance midpoint. It ended June with 2.27 million pounds of inventory and expects to mine more than 2 million pounds during 2026. Energy Fuels is pursuing a vertically integrated “mine-to-magnet” rare-earth strategy, advancing the ASM acquisition expected to close in late August and the VAC acquisition targeted for early 2027. The company is expanding White Mesa processing capacity and plans to develop downstream metals, alloys and magnet manufacturing capabilities. Cameco Corporation Is the Only Uranium Play to Consider Energy Fuels (TSE:EFR) reported a second-quarter net loss of $33.6 million as transaction and development spending weighed on results, while its uranium business generated $25 million in revenue, approximately $14 million in gross profit and a 57% gross margin. President and Chief Executive Officer Ross Bhappu said the company is pursuing a strategy to build a vertically integrated rare earth supply chain, spanning mining, processing, separation, metallization, alloy production and magnet manufacturing. The company is advancing acquisitions of Australian Strategic Materials, or ASM, and Germany-based magnet producer Vacuumschmelze, or VAC. → No Hangover: Revisiting Microsoft One Week After Earnings Bhappu said Energy Fuels expects to close its ASM acquisition late in August, subject to final procedures, while the VAC transaction is expected to close in early 2027, subject to regulatory approvals. He described the planned combination as a “mine-to-magnet” platform designed to address supply-chain constraints in rare earth metals, alloys and permanent magnets. During the second quarter, Energy Fuels mined 365,000 pounds of uranium and produced more than 860,000 pounds of finished U3O8. The company ended June with 2.27 million pounds of uranium inventory. → MarketBeat Week in Review – 08/03 - 08/07 Chief Financial Officer Nate Bennett said the White Mesa Mill produced about 1.7 million pounds of finished U3O8 in the first half of 2026, reaching Energy Fuels’ full-year production guidance range of 1.5 million to 2.5 million pounds ahead of schedule. The mill has entered a planned maintenance period, with uranium processing expected to restart in the fourth quarter of 2026 or early 2027. Mining operations are continuing during the maintenance period. Energy Fuels maintained its expectation to mine more than 2 million pounds of contained U3O8 during 2026, with grades expected to improve during the second half as mining advances into higher-grade areas at the Pinyon Plain mine. → Why the Landlord of the AI Boom Could Outlast the Chipmakers The company reported weighted average uranium production costs of approximately $23 per pound of recovered U3O8 during the processing campaign, at the low end of its prior $23-to-$30-per-pound range. Bennett said mining and transportation costs averaged about $14 per pound, while milling costs averaged about $9 per pound. Finished uranium inventory carried an average cost of about $33.92 per pound at quarter-end, down from approximately $36 per pound at the end of the first quarter. Bennett attributed the reduction primarily to low-cost production from Pinyon Plain and said inventory costs are expected to continue falling as additional production moves through inventory. At June 30, Energy Fuels had approximately $996 million of working capital and $1.53 billion of total assets. Bennett said the quarterly loss included approximately $10.7 million in acquisition- and integration-related expenses tied to the ASM and VAC transactions. The company also recorded planned spending in its rare earth and heavy mineral sands businesses, including engineering, permitting, infrastructure development and organizational growth. Bhappu said Energy Fuels has access to several funding sources, including its balance sheet, potential government support and a $250 million Goldman Sachs term loan facility. Energy Fuels announced conditional support for a $725 million loan from the U.S. Office of Strategic Capital. Bhappu said the company is completing legal documentation and other conditions associated with the facility. He said the company likely would not need to draw on the financing until early 2027, with initial potential uses including the Phase I-B and I-C expansion at White Mesa. Bennett said the Phase I-B and I-C project is expected to cost $104 million, with about one-fourth of the spending anticipated in 2026 and the remainder in 2027. Energy Fuels has begun construction on its Phase I-B and I-C rare earth expansion at the White Mesa Mill, including a circuit to process mixed rare earth carbonate, or MREC. Bhappu said the expansion is intended to allow simultaneous commercial-scale processing of uranium and rare earth materials, rather than requiring the company to choose between the two. The company expects the facility to be able to produce heavy rare earth oxides, including dysprosium and terbium, in late 2027. Bhappu said Energy Fuels has completed pilot work on dysprosium and terbium and has moved on to gadolinium and potentially other heavy rare earth oxides. Energy Fuels is also advancing a Phase II expansion at White Mesa. The company previously released a feasibility study describing capacity of more than 6,000 metric tons annually of neodymium-praseodymium oxide, about 300 metric tons of dysprosium oxide and 80 metric tons of terbium oxide. Permitting is underway, and the company plans to commission the facility in late 2029. Bhappu said the company expects a final investment decision for its Donald Project as early as the third quarter of 2026, though he acknowledged that decision had been delayed while the company works on financing alternatives in Australia. If Donald is delayed, he said Energy Fuels could source monazite from its existing arrangement with Chemours, acquire MREC from third-party producers, or pursue supply discussions with heavy mineral sands producers. The company is also seeking government approvals and an investment agreement in Madagascar for its Vara Mada project. At its Bahia project in Brazil, Energy Fuels restarted drilling after obtaining exploration permits in 2025 and expects a resource estimate later in 2026 or in early 2027. Bhappu said ASM operates metals and alloy-making facilities that Energy Fuels expects to supply with its rare earth oxides. ASM’s Korean metals plant is operating and is being expanded with eight new furnaces, according to Bhappu. The company is also planning to expand strip-casting capabilities, with an objective of approximately doubling the facility’s current 12,000-to-14,000-ton annual capacity. Following the planned VAC acquisition, Energy Fuels expects to supply VAC’s magnet manufacturing operations, including its 2,000-ton capacity facility in Sumter, South Carolina. Bhappu said the company anticipates increasing magnet-making capacity there sixfold to 12,000 tons annually through 2031. “Our story is about execution,” Bhappu said, adding that the company is staging investments across mining, processing and magnet manufacturing over the next five years. Energy Fuels is a leading U.S. -based critical materials company, focused on uranium, rare earth elements (REEs), heavy mineral sands, vanadium and medical isotopes. Energy Fuels, which owns and operates several conventional and in-situ recovery uranium projects in the western United States, has been the leading U.S. producer of natural uranium concentrate for the past several years, which is sold to nuclear utilities for the production of carbon-free nuclear energy. Energy Fuels also owns the White Mesa Mill in Utah, which is the only fully licensed and operating conventional uranium processing facility in the United States. This instant news alert was generated by narrative science technology and financial data from MarketBeat in order to provide readers with the fastest reporting and unbiased coverage. Please send any questions or comments about this story to [email protected]. The article "Energy Fuels Q2 Earnings Call Highlights" was originally published by MarketBeat. View MarketBeat's top stocks for August 2026.

Interested in Urban Edge Properties? Here are five stocks we like better. Urban Edge raised its 2026 outlook, increasing adjusted FFO guidance to $1.50–$1.54 per share and lifting same-property NOI growth guidance to 3.25%–3.75%, supported by stronger leasing, percentage rents and recoveries. Leasing momentum remained strong, with new leases generating a 13% same-space cash spread and year-to-date spreads near 30%. Shop occupancy declined to 91.7%, but management sees an approximately 20% mark-to-market opportunity as it backfills space. The REIT is recycling capital into higher-growth assets, including a $50.5 million acquisition, while pursuing a $60.5 million property sale. Its $155 million redevelopment pipeline has an expected yield of about 12%, and liquidity stood at approximately $960 million. Cameco Corporation Is the Only Uranium Play to Consider Urban Edge Properties (NYSE:UE) reported second-quarter results that exceeded its internal expectations, driven by higher leasing spreads, same-property net operating income growth and contributions from redevelopment activity. The retail real estate investment trust raised its full-year funds from operations guidance while outlining continued capital recycling and leasing initiatives across its Northeast-focused portfolio. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jeff Olson said the company generated record FFO as adjusted of $0.40 per share, up 10% from the second quarter of 2025 and 7% year to date. Same-property NOI, including redevelopment, rose 3.2% in the quarter and 3% through the first half. → No Hangover: Revisiting Microsoft One Week After Earnings Olson said traffic at the company’s centers increased 3% from a year earlier, with particularly noticeable gains at Bergen, Woodbridge, Hudson Mall and Totowa, where Urban Edge has upgraded its tenant mix. He attributed demand to limited availability of quality retail vacancies in its trade areas and the company’s value- and necessity-oriented merchandise mix. Urban Edge raised its 2026 FFO as adjusted guidance by $0.02 per share at the midpoint to a range of $1.50 to $1.54 per share. The updated outlook implies 6% growth over 2025, according to Olson. The company also increased the low end of its same-property NOI growth outlook, including redevelopment, by 25 basis points to a range of 3.25% to 3.75%. → MarketBeat Week in Review – 08/03 - 08/07 Chief Financial Officer Mark Langer said second-quarter NOI growth exceeded the company’s expectations, supported by higher percentage rents, greater net recovery revenue, collections on prior-period reserves and lower real estate taxes. Results also included several items that Langer characterized as one-time benefits. Urban Edge received approximately $0.02 per share of lease termination income from Wren Kitchens, as well as about $0.01 per share from accelerated amortization of non-cash revenue and a multi-year real estate tax refund. Langer said some of the income had already been anticipated in the company’s full-year plan or reflected revenue that otherwise would have been recognized later in the year. → Why the Landlord of the AI Boom Could Outlast the Chipmakers Bad debt was about 40 basis points of gross rents in the quarter, better than expected, aided by collections from accounts reserved in the first quarter. Langer said a multi-location franchise operator in Puerto Rico that had contributed to earlier uncollected rents paid all current second-quarter rent and was current on payment-plan obligations for past-due amounts. For the third and fourth quarters, the company expects credit losses of 60 to 75 basis points of gross rent. Chief Operating Officer Jeff Mooallem said Urban Edge executed 26 leases totaling 199,000 square feet during the quarter, evenly divided between 13 new leases and 13 renewals. New leases produced a same-space cash spread of 13%, while renewals and option exercises generated a 10% cash spread. While the quarterly new-lease spread was lower than the first quarter, Mooallem said results can fluctuate because of the company’s size. Year-to-date new-lease spreads were nearly 30%, and the company expects new-lease cash spreads to exceed 20% for the full year, which would mark its fifth consecutive year at that level. Same-property leased occupancy was 96.3% at quarter-end, down 10 basis points from the prior quarter and 40 basis points from the year-earlier period. The decline largely reflected the bankruptcy of Wren Kitchens, which occupied two company locations. Mooallem said Urban Edge collected a meaningful settlement related to those leases and expects the vacated space to support a stronger merchandising mix at rents above Wren’s previous rates. Shop occupancy declined 70 basis points sequentially to 91.7%. About half of the decline resulted from deliberate recapture opportunities in which the company chose not to retain existing tenants, Mooallem said. Urban Edge expects to backfill shop space at average rents of about $45 per square foot, representing a mark-to-market opportunity of approximately 20%, and aims to restore shop occupancy above 93%. During the question-and-answer session, Mooallem said replacement tenants under consideration include names such as CAVA, Starbucks, Mathnasium and Rally House. He also identified fitness, medical, veterinary, urgent-care and quick-service restaurant concepts as active sources of small-shop demand, while noting the company is monitoring restaurant concentration at individual properties. Urban Edge’s signed-but-not-open pipeline represents $22 million of future annual gross rent, equal to about 7% of current NOI. Langer said the pipeline is expected to contribute $1.7 million of new rent during the remainder of 2026, primarily in the fourth quarter, and represents approximately $7.7 million of annualized rent. At Bruckner Commons in the Bronx, BJ’s Wholesale Club, Ross, Chick-fil-A and Chipotle are under construction. Olson said rent commencements are expected to begin during 2027, with the projects collectively representing more than $8 million in annual rent. The company stabilized a Hudson Mall redevelopment project with Burlington’s May opening in Jersey City, New Jersey. HomeGoods is under construction at the center and is expected to open later this year. Urban Edge also activated an anchor project at Ledgewood Commons and a multi-tenant outparcel at Woodmore Town Center. Mooallem said completed projects over the past 12 months involved $33 million of investment and are generating an average yield of 25%. The active development pipeline totals $155 million, with about $67 million left to fund and an expected yield of approximately 12%. On the acquisition front, Urban Edge bought Shops at West Falls Church, an 85,000-square-foot Safeway-anchored center in Falls Church, Virginia, for $40 million. It also acquired a ground-lease position at Shoppers World in Framingham, Massachusetts, for $10.5 million. Olson said the two purchases carried an average cap rate of 6% and are expected to generate a 9% unleveraged internal rate of return. The company is under contract to sell Briarcliff Commons, a Kohl’s-anchored New Jersey center, for $60.5 million, with closing expected later in the month. Olson said Urban Edge seeks to sell lower-growth, high-credit assets and redeploy capital into higher-growth properties, generally targeting assets with 3% to 4% growth rather than 1% to 2% growth. Management said acquisition competition has increased and compressed retail cap rates. Olson cited a general cap-rate range of 5% to 7%, while Mooallem said buyers have become more active across asset categories. The company remains focused primarily on its existing Washington, D.C.-to-Boston corridor, though Olson said the Southeast is the most natural potential geographic expansion. Urban Edge ended the quarter with approximately $960 million of total liquidity, including $82 million of cash, $55 million drawn on its credit facility and no borrowings on its delayed-draw term loans. Net debt to adjusted EBITDA was 5.5 times, Langer said. Urban Edge Properties is a publicly traded real estate investment trust (REIT) that specializes in owning, operating and developing grocery-anchored shopping centers. The company was formed in January 2017 as a spin-off from Regency Centers Corporation, establishing an independent platform focused on urban and densely populated markets. As a fully integrated REIT, Urban Edge oversees the acquisition, financing, leasing, redevelopment and management of its retail properties. The company's portfolio comprises predominantly open-air shopping centers anchored by national and regional supermarket operators. This instant news alert was generated by narrative science technology and financial data from MarketBeat in order to provide readers with the fastest reporting and unbiased coverage. Please send any questions or comments about this story to [email protected]. The article "Urban Edge Properties Q2 Earnings Call Highlights" was originally published by MarketBeat. View MarketBeat's top stocks for August 2026.

Cameco (NYSE: CCJ) recently reported ugly second-quarter results. The nuclear fuel supplier's revenue fell 7%, while its adjusted earnings per share missed the analysts' consensus estimate by a mile (0.18 Canadian dollars per share vs. CA$0.36 per share, or $0.13 to $0.26). However, things for the uranium company weren't as bad as they initially looked. The earnings miss was almost entirely due to lower equity earnings from its investment in Westinghouse Electric, which it co-owns with Brookfield Renewable. That trend could quickly reverse as its owners are preparing to take Westinghouse public, which could unlock significant value for Cameco. Missed Nvidia in 2009? This Rare Signal Is Flashing Again. In 2009, a "Double Down" signal flashed for a little-known chipmaker called Nvidia. For the first time in years, that same "Total Conviction" signal is flashing for a company 1/100th the size of Nvidia. Continue » Cameco bought a 49% interest in Westinghouse in late 2023, with Brookfield Renewable purchasing the remaining 51% stake. The deal valued Westinghouse at CA$8.2 billion ($5.9 billion) at the time of its closing. As a co-owner of Westinghouse, Cameco accounts for its interest in the business on its financial results using the equity method of accounting in Canadian dollars. During the second quarter, Cameco reported a CA$10 million ($7.2 million) loss attributable to its Westinghouse share. That was down from CA$126 million ($90.4 million) in earnings in the year-ago period. However, that was entirely due to some lumpiness in Westinghouse's business. Cameco's equity earnings from Westinghouse were higher in 2025 due to its participation in the construction of two nuclear reactors at a power plant in the Czech Republic. While Westinghouse's earnings declined in the second quarter, its future is bright. Its technology platform operates across more than half the global nuclear fleet. Meanwhile, the company has a pipeline of up to 91 of its AP1000 reactor opportunities, which will drive demand for Cameco's uranium and fuel services businesses. The global nuclear resurgence has made Westinghouse more valuable since Cameco bought its stake. According to an estimate by Desjardins Securities, Westinghouse is now worth about CA$10.8 billion ($7.8 billion). Westinghouse is still in the early stages of going public, having only recently filed a Form S-1 with the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding its proposed IPO. It hasn't yet set a price, nor an IPO date. Further, it might not go through with the IPO if market conditions deteriorate. However, the window for IPOs has opened wide this year, especially for those related to the nuclear energy sector. Advanced nuclear reactor company X-Energy completed its IPO in April, raising more than $1 billion. Nuclear fuel company Standard Nuclear followed it up by completing its IPO in July, raising $150 million. While X-Energy initially popped 27% after going public, it has since cooled off and is now marginally down from its IPO price. Standard Nuclear, on the other hand, hasn't fared well at all. It slumped 10% on its debut and is down more than 45% from its IPO price. This tepid response could give Westinghouse pause. Westinghouse hurt Cameco's second-quarter financial results due to the way it accounts for earnings. However, investors shouldn't let that obscure the value embedded in this investment, which Cameco and Brookfield Renewable could soon unlock with an IPO. If they can price and time the IPO right, it could unlock significant value for Cameco shareholders. Before you buy stock in Cameco, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Cameco wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $399,724!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,374,595!* Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 967% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 215% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 8, 2026. Matt DiLallo has positions in Brookfield Renewable and Brookfield Renewable Partners. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Cameco. The Motley Fool recommends Brookfield Renewable and Brookfield Renewable Partners. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Why Cameco's Ugly Earnings Miss Might Be Good News in Disguise was originally published by The Motley Fool

Image source: The Motley Fool. Friday, July 31, 2026 at 8:00 a.m. ET Vice President, Investor Relations - Cory Kos Chief Executive Officer - Timothy Gitzel President and Chief Operating Officer - Grant Isaac Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer - Heidi Shockey Senior Vice President and Chief Corporate Officer - Rachelle Girard Global Managing Director of Cameco U.K. - Dominic Kieran Operator: Thank you for standing by. This is the conference operator. Welcome to the Cameco Corporation Second Quarter 2026 Results Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] The Q&A session will conclude at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time. I would now like to turn the conference over to Cory Kos, Vice President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Cory Kos: Thank you, operator, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to Cameco's Second Quarter 2026 Conference Call. I would like to acknowledge that we're speaking from our corporate office in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, which is on Treaty 6 territory, the traditional territory of the Cree people and the homeland of the Metis. With us on today's call are Tim Gitzel, Chief Executive Officer; Grant Isaac, President and Chief Operating Officer; Heidi Shockey, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Rachelle Girard, Senior Vice President and Chief Corporate Officer; and Dominic Kieran, Goal Managing Director of Cameco U.K. Tim will provide some commentary to start the call, and we will then open it up for your questions. Today's call will be approximately 1 hour, concluding at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time. Our goal is always to be open and transparent with our communication. So if you do not have time to get into your questions during this call or if you would like to get into detailed financial modeling questions about the quarterly results, we'd be happy to respond and follow up to any inquiries. [Operator Instructions] For your reference, our quarterly investor handout is also available for download in a PDF file on our website at cameco.com. Today's conference call is open to all members of the investment community, including the media. During the Q&A session, please limit yourself to d questions and then return to the queue. Please note that this conference call will include forward-looking information, which is based on our current assumptions, and actual results could differ materially. You should not rely on forward-looking statements, and we do not plan to update them after this call, except as required by law. For more information on the assumptions we've made and the risk factors involved, please see our most recent annual information form and MD&A. And with that, I will turn it over to Tim. Timothy Gitzel: Well, thank you, Cory, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us to discuss Cameco's second quarter and first half 2026 results. While the year is flying by, it's the middle of summer here in Saskatchewan, Canada, which is really the inflection point where people here have stopped complaining about the past cold winter and they start worrying about the upcoming cold winter. As we move past the halfway point of the year, I want to start by reinforcing the consistent message you've heard from us for a while now. Our strategy is built for long-term value creation, and our decisions and activities will be centered around that strategy. As a result, we are currently on track with our expectations for the year. Year-to-date, we've seen the support for nuclear energy not only growing, but becoming more tangible. Around the world, governments, utilities, energy-intensive industries and the public are recognizing that nuclear energy is essential to energy security, national security, economic competitiveness and decarbonization objectives. We see that recognition translating into policy support, new build discussions, life extension decisions, up rates, fuel security initiatives and improved public perception. Here in Canada, the federal government released its nuclear energy strategy in June. The strategy highlights the role that nuclear is expected to play in achieving national energy security and economic objectives while supporting emissions reduction. In the United States, the Department of Energy's conditional commitment to support deployment of AP1000 reactors is another very important indicator of the growing alignment between policy, proven and deployment-ready Gen 3+ technology and the need to execute. We've said many times that the next phase of nuclear growth will be defined by delivery. Ambition matters, but execution is what brings megawatts into the grid and important to us at Cameco brings fuel requirements into the market. That's why we continue to believe that the value of proven technologies, experienced operators and established supply chains will be critical to the equation as the sector moves from aspiration to implementation. For Cameco, that alignment is very constructive. We are positioned across the nuclear fuel cycle with Tier 1 uranium assets in stable jurisdictions, fuel services capabilities, strategic investments in Westinghouse and global laser enrichment and strong long-term customer relationships built over decades. On the uranium and fuel market side, conditions continued to improve in the first half of the year. The long-term uranium price strengthened to decade highs, and we saw increased on-market and off-market contracting activity. Customers continue to focus on security of supply with notable interest from both sovereign and commercial fuel buyers. At the same time, our contracting discipline remains one of our key competitive advantages. We continue to be patient and selective in committing supply. We layer in volumes where we see contracts that support our strategy and where we believe we can incorporate an appropriate level of downside protection with exposure to improving future market conditions. That discipline matters because sustainable supply does not simply appear because demand is growing. It requires long-term contracts to back long-term investments planned by capable and experienced operators. Over the next 5 years, we have contracts in place for average annual deliveries of more than 28 million pounds of uranium per year. And as the market continues to improve, we expect to continue layering in volumes that capture greater future upside. We continued on a positive contracting trajectory in Q2. However, quarterly results in our business will always reflect the normal variability of customer delivery schedules, product mix and the timing of activity across the fuel cycle. The second quarter of 2026 was no exception. Our financial results were lower than the strong second quarter and first half that we reported last year, largely because 2025 included a significant contribution from Westinghouse related to its participation in the Dukovany reactor construction project in the Czech Republic. But looking past the impact of that payment, the underlying fundamentals of our business remain strong. A few of our outlook metrics changed as a result of the strength of the U.S. dollar, which drove a change to our exchange rate assumption. Average realized prices continue to improve in both our uranium and fuel services segments, and our annual production outlook is unchanged. The unchanged 2026 plan calling for our share of production to be between 19.5 million and 21.5 million pounds of U3O8 is important. That's because to date, in 2026, we've been reminded that safely operating complex, heavily regulated uranium mining and milling assets in remote Northern Saskatchewan is never without challenges. Spring road conditions affected Northern supply routes during the quarter, contributing to temporary unplanned operational disruptions at Key Lake and McArthur River. And subsequent to quarter end, we also experienced operational challenges that had Cigar Lake production suspended for a couple of weeks. While we were able to address and overcome those unexpected developments with no impact on annual outlook, they were good reminders of why we have built flexibility into our supply strategy and why operating experience, risk management and credible teams matter so much in this industry. Our assets are world-class, but they are by no means simple assets. They require disciplined planning, technical capability and constant attention to safety and reliability, and that's what our teams across the company bring to the table every day. During the quarter, we closed our agreement to increase our ownership interest in the Cigar Lake mine. The high-grade Cigar Lake mine is one of the most important uranium mines in the world and increasing our interest reinforces our commitment to own and operate the scarce, proven Tier 1 assets that we expect will be essential in supporting the growth of nuclear energy. In our Westinghouse segment, performance in the first half was strong, as I said, once you look past the benefit that we realized related to the Dukovany project last year. As an operating business with deep exposure across the nuclear power value chain, Westinghouse is embedded in the day-to-day needs of the global nuclear industry while also being well positioned to drive the next wave of new nuclear capacity through its AP1000, AP300 and eVinci technologies. New nuclear capacity creates long-term demand for uranium and conversion and fuel fabrication and related services. That's why Westinghouse is so strategically important to our broader growth thesis. It gives us exposure to the full nuclear fuel cycle and to the technologies that can help shape the next era of nuclear deployment. So our message for the second half is straightforward. Our annual plan remains intact. The market continues to strengthen and Cameco's long-term strategic position is becoming even more compelling. We have flexible supply, a strong balance sheet, disciplined capital allocation and decades of experience operating assets in jurisdictions that customers can rely on. We believe the risk to supply continue to outweigh the risk to demand, and we are not prepared to dilute the value of our assets by committing supply into contracts that do not appropriately reflect the durability of market fundamentals. With Tier 1 assets, strategic investments across the fuel and reactor life cycles, strong customer relationships and a proven operating track record, Cameco is uniquely positioned to support the continued growth of nuclear energy while creating sustainable long-term value for our shareholders, customers and communities. So thank you for your continued interest and support. Before moving to questions, I want to recognize Dominique Miniere, who has stepped down from Cameco's Board of Directors effective July 26, 2026, to focus on his other professional commitments. Mr. Miniere has served as a Director since 2023 and has been a member of the Human Resources and Compensation Committee, the Technical Committee and the Safety, Health and Environment Committee since he joined the Board. On behalf of the Board and management team, I want to thank Dominique for his contributions to Cameco, and we wish him continued success in his many pursuits. So with that, operator, we are now ready to take questions. Operator: The first question today comes from Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs. Brian Lee: I appreciate a lot of this AP1000 pipeline disclosure in the MD&A. So I wanted to ask first on that. Looking at this, it seems like the DOE process with the $17.5 billion loan funding from EDF, that's kind of toward the top of the stack in terms of timing potential. One, is that a fair characterization? And then two, can you describe kind of what milestones we could see on that process between now and, let's say, year-end? And then what kind of engagement you're seeing from the utilities since that was launched or announced a few months ago? And I had a follow-up. Timothy Gitzel: Yes. Thanks a lot, Brian, for your question. We have our Global Managing Director, Dominic Kieran, here with us this morning. So I'm going to pass it over to Dominic to say a few words about Westinghouse. Dominic? Dominic Kieran: Tim, thank you. Good morning, everybody on the call. So let me maybe just start with a comment that, as Tim mentioned, I'm very limited around what I can say about the offering that Brookfield -- that Westinghouse announced this morning. But Brian, let me get into your question. So in June 2026, Westinghouse announced the USD 17.5 billion conditional commitment from the Department of Energy, energy dominance financing team. And this is really to facilitate the ordering of AP1000 long-lead items. And why is this important? Because this is an opportunity to really accelerate the deployment of AP1000 in the U.S. So to your specific question around what are the next steps that you can see, well, the next steps are that we will move to definitive agreements. And that is really the next step that you should be looking for is news from us about progressing to definitive agreements, which will involve, obviously, specific utilities in the U.S. as well as the Department of Energy. Timothy Gitzel: Brian, I should have mentioned as well that Dominic, as probably everyone knows, is the Chair of the Westinghouse Board. So I just want to put that into context. Grant is on the Board, Heidi is on the Board as well. Brian Lee: Yes, I appreciate the sensitivity around the different constituents involved. Fair enough. Second question, maybe just on the uranium segment. Pretty encouraging to see the realized uranium per pound ASP increased a good bit here. Curious, was that all because of the stronger market pricing? Or did that have anything to do with restructuring of contracts? And then how should we think about pricing the construct heading into next year? I know heading into 2026, your view had been mostly flat. So it's nice to see this uptick halfway through the year. Would this maybe not also be the sort of baseline to expect for trend line heading into next year as well? Just any thoughts there. Timothy Gitzel: Thanks. Grant? Grant Isaac: Yes. Brian, the uranium side of the market continues to move from strength to strength. Just in general, across the industry, I think what the most notable point to make is we are still not at replacement rate demand across the industry. We still don't have utilities coming forward and collectively buying at a volume that replaces what they consume under existing contracts. And yet we found ourselves back into a mid-90s long-term uranium price on its way to 3 digits likely. And that's in the absence of replacement rate demand. And as I remind folks, we've never been at this kind of uranium price on the front end of a uranium contracting cycle. We've only ever found ourselves at these prices on the back end. So this is really super constructive for the uranium space that on very little demand, that underlying long-term price continues to go up. And the reason for that is very simple. Utilities and those that are concerned about future production are starting to realize that they need to pay production economic prices to ensure that supply is there in the future. So that's a very good news story. Now you spoke about our average realized price. Of course, that's derived from contracts we've already captured from business that we've already captured for deliveries that were just simply making not new sales. And really, that increase in the price is a function of the contracts we're delivering into the stronger pricing in the market being reflected in the market-related components as well as some exchange rate effect, the strong U.S. dollar relative to the Canadian dollar. But this is all part of our marketing strategy of being disciplined. Those old contracts are showing that upward leverage to the market that we said they would and new contracting going forward is being done in a very constructive, stronger pricing environment. And we're not even at replacement rate contracting yet. It's a very exciting segment. Operator: The next question comes from Orest Wowkodaw with Scotiabank. Orest Wowkodaw: A question around this disclosure around the Form S-1 with respect to potential IPO for Westinghouse. I realize there's not a lot you can say, but could you give us an idea of the strategic rationale for this? Is this -- sort of should we think about it as getting a market value for the business outside of Cameco and Brookfield? Or is this about not having to put cash into the business in order to fund all the growth that's ahead? Just curious how you're thinking about this. Timothy Gitzel: Yes. Orest, consistent with the U.S. SEC rules governing the process, we are extremely limited in what we can say about the offering at this time. So we just can't provide any additional information on that. Orest Wowkodaw: Okay. Okay. Maybe shifting gears then. Grant, could you please give us an update just where current market terms are with respect to contracting in terms of floors and ceilings? And with the term price having perked up this year, just curious if we're also seeing ceilings move up in new contracts. Grant Isaac: There continues to be upward movement in the floors and the ceilings, Certainly, as we look to respond to utilities, either on market or off-market Orest, you're familiar, and I think most people listening are familiar that there's the two components of the term contracting market, what shows up in RFPs and then what shows up bilaterally or exclusively, and we call that off-market. From our perspective, when you look at this overwhelmingly favorable supply-demand dynamic where you have a very durable demand building over 3 billion pounds of uranium that needs to be bought to run reactors on a requirements basis against a supply stack that is actually increasingly uncertain, uncertain in terms of the depletion of existing assets, uncertain in terms of the restarts of existing assets that have been shut down and of course, promises of greenfield, which seem to be sliding sideways, if not backwards, that's all very favorable for that supply-demand dynamic. And what it suggests is that there should be upward pressure on that pricing dynamic. And we just talked about it with respect to Brian's question on the underlying long-term price. Of course, when you think about market-related contracts, they don't reference the long-term price, but they generally have collars around them, floors and ceilings, as you've talked about. And we are seeing the floors and ceilings increase commensurate with that underlying long-term price. I think it's not unusual to see market-related contracts now where floor prices are in the high 70s escalated and where ceiling prices are 160 escalated. I can't speak for everybody. There still seems to be some in the market willing to try to discount floors and ceilings in order to win business, but that's not what we do. We are in the business of being disciplined and looking forward to capture that long-term value with those utilities who have come to realize that security of supply is important. So as I said in my earlier answer, it is a very constructive uranium segment. And it hasn't even discovered replacement rate contracting yet. And that is something that I think everybody on this call and looking at the uranium space should be focused on. These are prices that we've never seen on the front end of a contracting cycle before. Operator: The next question comes from Alexander Pearce with BMO. Alexander Pearce: Great. So in the spirit of continuing to ask questions that you may not be able to answer, is it fair to assume that the timing of the filing -- or timing going forward, sorry, would probably -- the next step would come after finalization of the DOE and DSE agreements? Timothy Gitzel: Alex, I have to go back again to our compliance with the SEC rules governing the process. We really can't say anything about that at this point. Alexander Pearce: Okay. I'll ask a more technical question then. So you pushed up cost guidance a little bit for this year. Is it possible to just break down how much of that cost change is due to kind of on-site maybe cost inflation, et cetera? Or is there any of the cost change just because of the purchases you've made this quarter? Timothy Gitzel: That's a good question that we can answer. I'm going to ask Heidi Shockey, our CFO, to answer that one. Heidi Shockey: Alex. The change in the cost going forward was really as a result of the impact of the foreign exchange, mainly on our purchases, as you noted. So it's -- any inflation we're seeing and whatnot would have been covered by the range and the big difference was really that FX rate. Operator: The next question comes from Mohamed Sidibe with National. Mohamed Sidibe: Appreciate the additional color provided on Westinghouse and the outlook there. So maybe just on the new pipeline, our global AP1000 pipeline outlook or, call it, economics that you've shared with us with, call it, the better share of revenue there. I just -- I was wondering if the 91 reactors pipeline included opportunities that you would take on with the Koreans or if that excludes that category? Timothy Gitzel: Dominic, do you want to answer that? Dominic Kieran: Yes, of course. The pipeline, the 91 that we've sort of spelled out in our MD&A is very specifically focused on deployment of just the AP1000 technology. So we have not included in that any opportunities related to the Koreans deploying their technology globally. So that is in addition to our list of 91. Mohamed Sidibe: That's great. And maybe just a follow-up to that on the second question. When you disclosed the expected share of project value at 40% to 45%, is this something you expect to be consistently applied across jurisdictions? Or does it vary drastically between, call it, Europe, North America or maybe the Middle East? Dominic Kieran: Yes, absolutely. Maybe let me just answer that with a little bit more detail around where we're at with the AP1000. So we talk a lot about EPC to build reactors, engineering, procurement, construction. Of course, we're really focused is on delivering a little bit of engineering that is site-specific engineering and the procurement of the parts to build the AP1000. So two comments on that, if I may. So firstly, we're very unique in that we have a finalized design for our reactor. And that allows us to have a very, very specific and fixed scope of procurement. So to answer your question, why we see real value and competitive advantage in the AP1000 is that there is no more design needed. And therefore, the procurement is fixed, which is the majority of that scope for Westinghouse that we've listed in the table. So in summary, we're expecting to see very similar percentages irrespective of what jurisdiction the AP 1000 is deployed in. Operator: The next question comes from Bob Brackett with Bernstein Research. Bob Brackett: Thanks for all the Westinghouse disclosure again in the MD&A. I'd like to dig into the backlog numbers and new order numbers that you disclosed. But I think of that backlog as the amount of business pre -2025 that sort of flows through in sort of 10 years and then becomes revenue and that, that new order line that you talked about there is a significant step-up, and that was business gained in 2025. And can you talk -- is that the new steady state for the level at which you're capturing business? Timothy Gitzel: So Bob, thanks for the question. Just you may hear in the background of beeping noise. We're just hearing an alarm, but we'll carry on until further notice. So Dominic, over to you. Dominic Kieran: Yes, absolutely. Bob, thanks for your question. So maybe let me do it in reverse order. Let me talk about new orders entered. So new orders entered, and this is a point in time at the end of last year is the cumulative number of orders entered into within last year. Now those orders, some of those and the smaller percentage will have been executed and taken to revenue in the year. The larger percentage of those orders that have not been delivered on will enter backlog. The backlog then is at a point in time of December 31, how much contracted business does Westinghouse have for delivery and revenue recognition in the future? So I hope that explains just what do we mean by backlog and new orders entered. Your second question was then, are we expecting to see this as a steady state going forward? What I would just maybe just draw your attention to is when you look at the list of AP1000 pipelines, the 91 identified opportunities for AP1000; you can see many of those are in the future, and we're at a pretty early stage with some of those projects. So while I can't give you any specific details on what we expect to happen to the backlog, I think what you can expect as we start to see the AP1000 being contracted and deployed, we are expecting to see a very positive trend on the backlog as we go forward through time. Bob Brackett: Very clear. A quick follow-up on your end-of-a-kind unit economics for the AP1000, you've got a range for a 2-pack of USD 14 billion to USD 17 billion. Is that a conservative number? One could imagine that end-of-a-kind economics could be lower than that $14 billion. How do you think about the range of outcomes of that number? Dominic Kieran: Well, thank you for your question. I think the honest answer is it's pragmatic, right? We've given a range because it is pragmatic. And why am I being a little vague? Because some of this also depends on sort of jurisdiction. So if we think about countries that are going to deploy multiple units, we're probably at the bottom end of that range. Where countries are maybe just deploying a single unit or a twin pack, we're probably towards the top end of that range. But as you say, at the moment, those are really estimates and depend on the situation. And I would say that is our best view at the moment of where we could get to. Operator: The next question comes from Lawson Winder with Bank of America. Lawson Winder: I really appreciate the update and also echo those comments that I really appreciate the additional disclosure here on Westinghouse. When we look at the huge pipeline of 91 reactors, what percentage of those 91 units would you characterize as high probability opportunities? And then maybe being more specific on some of the different stages, like you have front-end engineering and design projects of around 11. If you look historically, what percentage of those more advanced discussions would typically convert to a full reactor build? Timothy Gitzel: Dominic, please? Dominic Kieran: Yes. Thank you. So Lawson, thank you for your question. We have ordered the in terms of how close the opportunities are to making what we call final investment decisions. And obviously, the closer you are to making a final investment decision, there's a couple of things to bear in mind, one of which is there's been considerable effort to get ready for a final investment decision. So a huge amount of work preparing for that. But obviously, the probability increases as you get to final investment decision. We haven't put specific probabilities on the list because, quite frankly, it's very, very difficult to estimate that. But let me make a couple of comments. If we go to the bottom of the list, so maybe some of our early-stage opportunities that we've listed a number of countries there. It's not that we see them as lower probability, it's just that we see them slightly earlier in the process of getting to a final investment decision. And the countries that are listed there, we are seeing very, very strong recognition of the need for nuclear in baseload energy generation and some very, very common themes around the need for decarbonization, the need for energy security, the need for a decent proportion of baseload power on these countries' grids, which gives us really quite a high degree of confidence we will convert a significant number of these opportunities into real projects and pass through a positive final investment decision. So we're not really in a position to give specific numbers, but I hope that gives a little bit of color as to how we think about these opportunities. Lawson Winder: Yes. That is helpful, Dominic. And then AP300s and eVinci, again, the color there is very helpful. Obviously, a huge opportunity, particularly for the AP300. But just how would you characterize the CapEx remaining for Westinghouse internally and the time line for each of those two technologies to get to a commercial deployment level? Dominic Kieran: Yes, absolutely. So let me start with the AP300. So just to be clear, what the AP300 is, is a scaled-down version of our very proven AP1000 technology. And while this is -- why do we think this is really unique and we're in a unique position is because we are basically taking the proven AP1000 technology and really just adapting it for those customers in those markets that are looking for a smaller reactor. So what does that mean? That means the capital needed to bring that AP300 technology to a final design ready for deployment is actually pretty modest. And I think we've put the numbers in the MD&A. So they're there to read. I mean, thereafter, of course, once you're into deployment, it is our customers, our utilities, our government CapEx as we move into deployment of that. So I hope that explains the AP300. As I say, we benefit from very, very modest amounts of capital, I'd say, quite uniquely modest amounts of capital to finalize that design because of the pedigree of the AP1000. And I would just draw your attention to this is not just about design, this is about ensuring there is a robust supply chain for the delivery of these reactors. And of course, the AP300 has huge commonality with the AP1000 supply chain. On eVinci, different technology. So this is what we call a Generation 4 technology. And we're really focusing the eVinci is a much smaller reactor. It isn't 1.1, 1.2 gigawatts, it's not [ 330 ] gigawatts. It's in the small number of megawatts range. But we're very focused at the moment on some opportunities with the U.S. government. And those opportunities currently are self-funding. And what this presents us with is an opportunity to make decisions in the future to commit capital to these projects, should we decide within our capital deployment process that they warrant additional capital. Operator: The next question comes from George Eadie with UBS. George Eadie: Just firstly on the duration piece for the AP1000, how does last month's DOE commitment change things? Is that sort of brought forward timelines much? And is that included sort of thoroughly in the 9 to 10 and 10- to 11-year guidance estimate? Dominic Kieran: Yes, George, thank you. Good question. I mean, you will have read one of the purposes of last month's announcement is to really stand up the supply chain for AP1000 as it pertains to those items that are traditionally on the critical path. And so I think it's a very valid question, is this really provide an acceleration to these numbers. What we're really showing here in terms of the duration of the project, I think you can see that we've put in first projects, but also where we expect to get to with end of a kind. We are expecting the first projects to include the LLI timelines. But what we're expecting is very quickly to get to end of a kind, very much supported by the announcement of the long-lead item opportunity that we are working with the Department of Energy. George Eadie: Yes. Okay. So I guess outside of sort of supply chain, what is the biggest headwind to getting this in production? Like is it labor and getting the sites ready? I guess if I take the 29 units in the table, getting them all in operation in, say, 12 years from today; how confident are you that's still manageable given there's potentially another 60 in study in origination phase? I guess that's a huge profile of work to manage, but equally, the potential earnings are quite eye-watering. Timothy Gitzel: Dom? Dominic Kieran: Yes. Thank you. So maybe let's break the answer into a number of different buckets, if I may. So bucket number one is go back to what I said earlier, do we have any design to do? Well, no, we have no design to do on the reactor. There is always some design to do around the sites. But because the design of the reactor is finished, the amount of design we need to do around the sites is not expected to be significant for this technology. The second bucket is, are we well positioned to provide the P, the procurement part of EPC? And the answer is yes, we are. We are very focused to make sure that we have the processes and the suppliers to stand behind the numbers that are on this table. And maybe just go back to my comments about the long-lead item opportunity in the U.S. And then finally, we're into sort of construction. And you will see from the list and construction can be seen as a bottleneck. But you can see on the list that a number of these reactors are being deployed in different countries around the world. So we don't have outside of the U.S. a lot of perceived bottlenecks around construction. So back then really just to sort of summarize your question is we have put this in because we have considered the sort of the risks around this. It is certainly not without risks, but we've been, we believe, prudent when we put this in as our view of what the potential future may look like. Operator: The next question comes from Andrew Wong with RBC Capital Markets. Andrew Wong: Just wanted to ask with the U.S. DOE loan programs that are available for the long lead items, could that be combined in the future with the $80 billion initiative from the DoC? Because it looks like those two programs could be really complementary to each other. Timothy Gitzel: Grant, do you want to take that? Grant Isaac: Yes, Andrew, that's probably a question for the U.S. government more than it is for us. At the moment, we treat them as 2 parallel projects. The DOE had a particular focus on standing up the American nuclear supply chain. That is the -- at the heart of the long-lead item program that Dominic had just explained. The Department of Commerce, you'll recall, was a different driver. That driver was to accelerate the deployment of AP1000s really by harnessing foreign direct investment pledged in the United States. Right now, they are different projects on different tracks. If they are combined, that would be under the direction of the U.S. government. I guess the point is the reason it adds to 20 reactors is because the demand for baseload 24-hour carbon-free power is massive. And so combining them and only settling with 10 reactors would not even begin to satisfy the demand that the U.S. government is seeing and trying to be in front of. So we'll watch it very closely. But at the moment, there are 2 separate programs run by 2 separate departments and both represent a very exciting opportunity for AP1000 as reflected in the updates that we put in the MD&A. Andrew Wong: Okay. For sure. Yes. I mean I was just thinking complementary programs, so it's good to get to end the kind as fast as possible with both programs that they work together. Regarding -- I want to ask about conversion... Grant Isaac: Andrew, just on that point, Dominic made this reference and maybe we'll just put a finer point on it. Whether it's the DOE or the DOC moving forward or all of the programs that you see in the list of 91, it is essential to capture those 3 Ss that we've talked about. We need to standardize and we've standardized to a common design. The AP1000 has a unique competitive advantage as articulated in the MD&A because it's design ready. It's fuel ready. It's licensed, it's regulatory ready, and it's been deployed. So the standardization has been checked. I think what you were referring to was the second S, which is sequence. And it is important that you sequence properly so that these programs are complementary so that you're not standing up a skilled or a trade workforce, and they're all competing with each other at the same time. So standardized sequence. And of course, the third S we always talk about is simplify, which doesn't mean change the design. It means learn the lessons that have come before. And that is the key of good industrial practices to get to that end of a kind as quickly as possible. So to your point, I agree with you. And I didn't -- I hope it didn't sound like I was dismissing it. They are complementary as long as we are standardizing sequencing and simplifying. The 2 programs are different. But if we follow those 3 Ss of good industrial practice, nobody needs to fear nuclear new build. In fact, we need to embrace it in a much more aggressive way than we have. Andrew Wong: Yes, that's great. Much appreciated. And maybe just wanted to ask about actually conversion enrichment prices as well. that we've seen plans for new supply of both that's set to come on over the next, let's say, 5 years or so. But when we look at prices for conversion and enrichment, they haven't really come down even with the new supply announcement. So I was just curious what you make of that? Why do you think that's the case? And what kind of takeaways would you say that, that could imply for the uranium market? Timothy Gitzel: Grant? Grant Isaac: When we -- I think we've talked about a lot, but I'll just remind everybody on the call that you generally buy nuclear fuel backwards. You start with how many fuel bundles do you have? And if you need more, you then go to the fabricator to secure the service and then you go to the enricher, the converter and uranium. And we've always talked about if you want to know where uranium is going, just look at what's happening downstream. And downstream, you're right in pointing out very strong pricing in fabrication, enrichment and conversion. And obviously, strong pricing brings the promise of new supply. But I think what you're seeing in market pricing is the utilities themselves are being very clear-eyed about some of these promises. And so if it's an incumbent enricher, for example, doing an expansion at a brownfield facility, well, that's going to have a high probability of success. But when it's somebody who's never been in the business before with an unknown technology promising new supply, those tend to be doubted by the utilities that have to count on that and don't want to take on that risk. So I think the fact that there's been a lot of announcements, but prices remain strong is just simply as fuel buyers go into security of supply mode, they are going to be very clear-eyed about who's making those promises, they're going to look at their track record, and they're just going to discount some of those promises, especially the new ones on the conversion side. And those that are proven in the business will be the primary beneficiary of the higher prices that includes Cameco. Operator: The next question comes from Brian MacArthur with Raymond James. Brian MacArthur: And again, maybe it falls under the category you can't answer, but I just want to check that there's nothing changed in the partnership with the U.S. government. If you do an IPO, they had an option, if they vested to participate in that IPO. Has any of that changed at the timing of these changes? Timothy Gitzel: I'll just open and then I'll pass it to Grant, but I'll just say that, of course, we're restricted from discussing this, but I tell you that we and Brookfield control Westinghouse today, and we don't expect that to change. So Grant? Grant Isaac: Brian, the only reminder is if you go back to that announcement about the partnership with the Department of Commerce from last fall, it had two important vesting conditions in it. And the first vesting condition was that it was the responsibility of the Department of Commerce to arrange financing of a minimum $80 billion to support the development of AP1000. So that has not changed. That would be the trigger that we would look for under that participation interest. That has not changed. Brian MacArthur: Yes, that's sort of what I was trying to read through here, but I'll leave it at that. Second question, can I just make sure I'm understanding this chart right, which, again, thank you for all the Westinghouse information? But in simple terms, you talk about concrete minus 3. It looks like you get 10% of the value on an AP1000, we're talking $8 billion. So let's call it, $800 million to Westinghouse, and then you get a margin of -- EBITDA margin of 20%. Is that -- am I reading the combination of those two charts properly. And again, I suspect those are averages, so it may be different on a reactor basis. Is that a fair comment? Timothy Gitzel: Dominic? Dominic Kieran: Yes, Brian, yes, thanks for the question. So the way to read the chart is the total sort of cash flow spend, which if you refer to the table, we're saying for what we call a pair, a twin pack is between $20 billion and $26 billion. So that's the total spend. And you can see the difference there between effectively near-term build and end of a kind, reflecting that of the kind, we incorporate all the learnings, which means we can go faster on the build, so a higher spend sooner. So to that total spend, you then apply the Westinghouse share of that, which is circa the sort of 40% to 45%. And then to that, you apply the typical corporate EBITDA margins that we put on the table. Brian MacArthur: Right. And then if I look at the next chart, where you show these lines, where it looks like if I just use not an a current one, it looks like at T minus 4, you have 0, if I'm reading this right. And then at T minus 2, looks like I get 20%. So I book 20% of that, if it's $8 billion for AP1000 near term, I'd book 20% of that in year T minus 3, if I'm reading the chart right, and then get a margin of 20% -- EBITDA margin of 20%. Is that -- I get it, everything is going to be different within a plus or minus. Is that sort of the right way to combine those 2 charts? Dominic Kieran: Yes. Broadly, it absolutely is. And I think what changes a little bit is how that 45% changes throughout the duration of the project. But on an aggregate level, I think your approach is correct. Heidi Shockey: Brian, I might just add that in the first 5 years, we get 50% of the revenue in the initial projects and then that speeds up, of course, as you get to end of a kind. Brian MacArthur: Right. That makes good sense. And then is that normalized adjusted EBITDA of 20%, is that kind of normalized over the whole cycle? Like in the first 50%, you'd be getting 20%? Or would you get like higher at the front end, get 30% and get 10% on the back end? Or can you even comment on that? Heidi Shockey: Probably can't comment on that. That's -- yes. Just average over the whole project is about 20%. Brian MacArthur: Fair enough. And then on top of that, you get -- do they become operating plants at that time? Obviously, do in addition to that, do you get the $45 million to $60 million that you're talking about at the bottom of the table? Heidi Shockey: Yes. Yes, that's what that means. So once it goes into operation kind of on an annualized basis, we're looking at fuel, refueling, outage services and all that. And then it's kind of -- it flips into our core business, which is -- and that's just recurring opportunity for the core business ongoing. Grant Isaac: And Brian, just on that recurring core business, we're using our interchangeably. That table refers to Westinghouse's share of the core business. It does not refer to any Cameco uranium conversion and one day enrichment that would go into that core business. So that is just a Westinghouse contribution. And then, of course, why we're putting such a shoulder into new build is because we want to create our own 80- to 100-year demand for Cameco's core business of uranium conversion and eventually enrichment as well. Brian MacArthur: Right. No, that makes sense. That was going to be my next question everybody will find these tables very, very helpful. I just want to make sure I'm reading it right. Operator: The next question comes from Craig Hutchison with TD Cowen. Craig Hutchison: Can I just ask where things stand with regards to the Department of Commerce strategic partnership? Like what's the next milestone that we should look for with regards to getting, I guess, a definitive agreement there? Timothy Gitzel: Grant? Grant Isaac: Well, you'll recall, Craig, that we initially agreed to a binding term sheet with the Department of Commerce. And so while there is an effort to achieve definitive agreements, we still have a basis for moving forward on that program as the Department of Commerce envisioned it. So what's critical there is to find the right projects that match up the interest of the Department of Commerce, the interest of the United States government in securing the 24-hour baseload power that will come from the AP1000 with those foreign investors who are interested and capable of investing in U.S.-based projects. So we are free to move ahead and explore all those opportunities. That does not require the definitive agreement because it was a binding term sheet. And that work continues. So what you would watch for is any announcements with those who have pledged foreign direct investment in the United States and the Department of Commerce on moving projects forward. And like a lot of things, a lot of work and a lot of thought is going into it. We just -- we don't have any projects to point to at the moment. But as I answered earlier, these continue to run in parallel, and we view them as separate projects at the moment for that reason. Craig Hutchison: Okay. Great. And just in terms of like potential for cost overruns, like is there a thought on how that would be kind of managed? And would there be any exposure from Westinghouse's perspective if there was cost overruns on new builds? Grant Isaac: The question of cost overruns has been, I think, if not the first, the second question; on the minds of utilities for a while now. But I think where the conversation is going is that there's actually a toolbox of investment tax credits, if there's still available production tax credits as well as the reality that when you deploy an AP1000, you're deploying a reactor that's no longer first of a kind. Yes, there's next of a kind, but it's no longer first of a kind. And as that design certainty and fuel certainty and license and regulatory certainty is combined with the standardized sequence and simplify, the question about managing a project with a known product actually diminishes the conversation around cost overrun. It shifts it over to what is the package of tools that are available. I already mentioned things like investment tax credits; and then really, what is the confidence of those that are supplying long lead items as well as construction services in their own capabilities. And ultimately, what we're seeing is very fruitful conversations that utilities realize if they go with first-of a-kind in a brand-new design, they're probably going to need cost overrun insurance. But if they go with an existing design that's already been deployed, then the tools are appropriate to manage those tail risks. So that's why the conversations are accelerating to ordering long lead items, and that's why you see a very robust list of 91 reactors from front-end engineering design close to FID all the way through to origination because it's just the reality of the competitive advantage of the AP1000. It's just it's diminishing the need to worry about first-of-a-kind tail risks. Operator: The next question comes from Christopher Souther with Truist. Christopher Souther: All the disclosure here around Westinghouse. Could you talk a little bit around the project equity commitments that you and potential utility would be required to put up just like from a timing perspective, if we could marry that with the revenue chart that you gave? And just from a strategic standpoint, is the plan to own projects over the long term or monetize those over time? Like what would be kind of Westinghouse's plan around that? Grant Isaac: I think you're referring to the Department of Energy program for the long-lead items? Christopher Souther: Exactly. Grant Isaac: Yes. So each of those envision that you have something like 5 2 packs. Each 2 pack has a special purpose vehicle that's put together, and it's a combination of equity in the form of the utility as well as Westinghouse. But for Westinghouse, it's actually -- it's margin that goes into that equity as opposed to putting cash in. So the owners and Westinghouse themselves don't intend to do that. That SPV exists until the utility is at FID and ready to commit to a build program and at which time it's sold forward to the relevant utility. It really is an acceleration. It's to take the traditional model where you have a utility who decides on nuclear, goes through a reactor selection process, decides on a technology, then starts all the front-end engineering and design, ultimately to lead to a final investment decision and then starts ordering long lead items. Well, if we did that, that's going to take a lot of time. In order to accelerate new build, we're trying to take the long lead item order and move it in front of FID and have a package of supply chain capabilities available. So it's just a -- it really is a shift in the normal way of building nuclear. And Westinghouse, we're happy to be involved in that because when you look at a global demand stack that we now count at 91 reactors, we're pretty confident that ordering long lead items is a really low-risk thing for us to do because there's going to be demand for those products when you have 91 that are being considered. Christopher Souther: Got it. Okay. So there's no equity role that you guys are looking at for like long-term ownership. That makes sense. Operator: This concludes the question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Tim Gitzel for any closing remarks. Timothy Gitzel: Okay. Thanks, operator, and thanks to everybody who is -- who are on the call today with us. We appreciate it. Cameco remains well placed, as you know, to support the next chapter of nuclear growth while protecting and extending the value of our assets for shareholders, customers and communities. So everybody, have a wonderful weekend, and enjoy the rest of the summer. Thanks. Operator: This brings to an end today's conference call. You may disconnect your lines. Thank you for participating, and have a pleasant day. Before you buy stock in Cameco, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Cameco wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $397,405!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,344,091!* Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 953% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 214% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 7, 2026. This article is a transcript of this conference call produced for The Motley Fool. While we strive for our Foolish Best, there may be errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in this transcript. As with all our articles, The Motley Fool does not assume any responsibility for your use of this content, and we strongly encourage you to do your own research, including listening to the call yourself and reading the company's SEC filings. Please see our Terms and Conditions for additional details, including our Obligatory Capitalized Disclaimers of Liability. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Cameco. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Cameco (CCJ) Q2 2026 Earnings Call Transcript was originally published by The Motley Fool

Interested in Lightbridge Corporation? Here are five stocks we like better. Fuel testing advanced: Lightbridge removed its first irradiated fuel samples from Idaho National Laboratory’s Advanced Test Reactor in May. Post-irradiation examinations later this year will help validate fuel-performance models and support future U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission documentation. Commercialization planning expanded: The company began feasibility and site-selection work for a commercial-scale fuel facility, is evaluating pilot-scale fabrication, and signed a non-binding memorandum with Quadrant Nuclear Industries to discuss potential HALEU supply and offtake arrangements. Cash increased alongside higher spending: Lightbridge ended the first half of 2026 with approximately $237.5 million in cash, supported partly by $44.4 million in stock-sale proceeds. However, its net loss widened to $12.1 million as research and development and general and administrative expenses increased. Up 135% in the Past Year, Can Cameco Continue Its Run? Lightbridge (NASDAQ:LTBR) reported progress in its nuclear fuel development program during the second quarter and first half of 2026, including the removal of its first irradiated fuel material samples from Idaho National Laboratory’s Advanced Test Reactor and steps toward commercial-scale fabrication and fuel supply planning. Chief Executive Officer Seth Grae said the initial batch of fuel material samples was removed from the Advanced Test Reactor, or ATR, in May. The samples are now undergoing a cooling period, with post-irradiation examination expected to begin later this year. The resulting data is expected to support the company’s fuel-performance models and documentation for eventual submission to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. → 3 Drone Stocks That Should Soar After the Summer Slump Nuclear Stocks Are Melting Down—Should Investors Panic? Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer Scott Holcombe said the samples were irradiated using Fission Accelerated Steady-state Testing, or FAST, an Idaho National Laboratory-developed technique intended to reach high-burnup conditions more quickly than conventional testing methods. According to Holcombe, post-irradiation examination will collect data on fundamental material properties across different burnup levels. He said the information will be used to validate and verify Lightbridge’s fuel-performance models and extend the company’s data framework into burnup conditions relevant to commercial fuel cycles. → Meta’s Earnings Drop Shows Wall Street Wants More Than Ad Growth Is It Too Late to Jump on the Nuclear Bandwagon? Lightbridge also said it is working with Studsvik Scandpower to develop an extension of the Studsvik CMS5 core-management software suite that can model the Lightbridge Fuel design. Holcombe said the partnership is intended to allow utilities considering the fuel to evaluate it using established core-planning, fuel-loading and fuel-cycle management tools. Grae said Lightbridge’s fuel is being designed for use in pressurized water reactors and to support power uprates at operating reactors. In June, he represented the company at the White House launch of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Utility Power Reactor Incremental Scaling Effort, or UPRISE, which targets approximately 5 gigawatts of additional nuclear capacity from currently operating reactors. → Jersey Mike's Serves Fresh Gains After IPO Stumble Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Andrey Mushakov said Lightbridge issued a task order during the second quarter to Momentum Technology under its MAISTY services agreement. The work covers feasibility and site-selection studies, as well as a conceptual design for a standalone expandable fuel facility capable of manufacturing Lightbridge Fuel assemblies at commercial scale. The company is separately evaluating a pilot-scale fuel fabrication capability intended to support future fleet test assemblies, Mushakov said. Lightbridge also added staff across core technical disciplines during the quarter and expects its team-building efforts to continue through 2027 and 2028. In June, Lightbridge reconstituted its Nuclear Utility Fuel Advisory Board. Grae said the board will provide input from utility-industry representatives regarding fuel-development priorities, licensing, deployment strategies, operational requirements and commercialization planning. He emphasized that participation on the board does not constitute a commitment to purchase, license or deploy Lightbridge Fuel. In July, Lightbridge signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding with Quadrant Nuclear Industries, or QNI, covering discussions on a potential long-term supply and offtake arrangement for high-assay, low-enriched uranium, known as HALEU. The material would be produced at QNI’s planned Vanguard facility at Idaho National Laboratory, which is designed to produce up to 18 metric tons of HALEU annually at full capacity. The companies intend to discuss fuel supply planning, technical requirements, commercial terms, regulatory coordination and logistics. Grae said the memorandum does not establish pricing, quantity or exclusivity commitments, and any binding arrangement would require a definitive agreement. Chief Financial Officer Larry Goldman said Lightbridge had approximately $237.5 million in cash and cash equivalents as of June 30, up from approximately $201.9 million at Dec. 31, 2025. The company used approximately $8.3 million in cash for operations during the first half, reflecting continued investment in fuel development and staffing. Lightbridge generated approximately $43.9 million in net financing cash during the first six months of 2026, including $44.4 million in net proceeds from the issuance of approximately 3.8 million common shares through its at-the-market facility. That amount was partially offset by $0.5 million in tax-withholding payments related to the vesting of equity awards. Controller Leslie Mills said Lightbridge recorded a net loss of $12.1 million for the first half of 2026, compared with a net loss of $8.3 million in the prior-year period. Research and development expense rose to $7.3 million from $3.3 million a year earlier. General and administrative expense increased to $8 million from $6 million. Other income increased to $3.2 million from $1 million, primarily reflecting interest income from treasury bills and bank savings accounts amid higher average cash balances. Mills attributed higher R&D spending primarily to increased employee and stock-based compensation, information technology costs associated with the company’s high-performance computer, project development costs related to cladding, critical heat flux testing, safety analysis and feasibility studies, and higher Idaho National Laboratory project labor costs. Grae also said Lightbridge was added to the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index, a benchmark tracked by the Global X Uranium ETF. Lightbridge Corporation is a nuclear energy technology company focused on developing advanced nuclear fuel designs to enhance the safety, efficiency and economic performance of existing and new nuclear power reactors. The company's core technology centers on a patented metallic fuel system that replaces conventional uranium oxide fuel pellets with a uranium-zirconium alloy, configured in a helical rod design. This proprietary fuel form is intended to enable higher burnup rates, reduced fuel cycle costs and improved thermal conductivity, thereby addressing key challenges in the global nuclear industry. Since its inception, Lightbridge has conducted extensive research and development in collaboration with national laboratories, regulatory agencies and reactor operators. This instant news alert was generated by narrative science technology and financial data from MarketBeat in order to provide readers with the fastest reporting and unbiased coverage. Please send any questions or comments about this story to [email protected]. The article "Lightbridge Q2 Earnings Call Highlights" was originally published by MarketBeat. View MarketBeat's top stocks for August 2026.

Cameco CCJ reported second-quarter 2026 results on Friday. Total revenues were down 7% year over year to CAD 814 million ($588 million) on lower sales volumes despite higher prices. Adjusted earnings plunged 75% year over year to CAD 0.18 per share or 13 cents. While revenues beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate, earnings fell short. Alongside its earnings release, Cameco announced that Westinghouse Electric Company, jointly owned with Brookfield Renewable Partners, has confidentially submitted a draft Form S-1 registration statement to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for a proposed initial public offering of its common stock. Investors looked past the earnings miss, sending Cameco shares up 7% following the results. In the past six months, Cameco shares have declined 21.9% compared with the industry’s 3.2% dip. Meanwhile, the broader Oils-Energy sector has moved up 7.1%, while the S&P 500 has climbed 10.8%. Cameco has outperformed peers like Ur-Energy Inc. URG and Energy Fuels UUUU, which have declined 22.6% and 46.1%, respectively. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Let us delve deeper into the company’s second-quarter results and long-term prospects before assessing whether to buy, hold or sell the stock. Uranium production declined 15% year over year to 3.9 million pounds. Output at McArthur River/Key Lake increased 28% to 2.3 million pounds, but this was more than offset by a 43% decline at Cigar Lake to 1.6 million pounds following its scheduled annual maintenance outage. Uranium sales volumes fell 18% to 7.1 million pounds, reflecting normal quarterly delivery timing and Cameco's disciplined contracting strategy, which calls for lower planned deliveries in 2026. Cameco’s uranium revenues were down 7% to CAD 659 million ($469 million). The 18% decline in sales volumes was offset by a 15% increase in the Canadian dollar average realized price to CAD 93.13 per pound due to the impact of market-priced contracts on its portfolio. Fuel Services also posted weaker results. Production decreased 6% to 3 million kgU, while sales volumes fell 18% to 3.6 million kgU. Segment revenues declined 6% to CAD 152 million ($108 million), as higher realized prices were unable to offset lower deliveries. Overall, Cameco’s revenues were down 7% to CAD 814 million ($588 million) due to weaker performance in both segments. Total cost of sales inched up 1% to around CAD 624 million ($446 million). In the uranium segment, costs climbed around 3% due to a 26% increase in the average unit cost of sales, partially offset by lower sales volume. Costs were higher due to higher purchased material costs, product loan impacts and the Cigar Lake maintenance shutdown. Costs in the Fuel Services segment rose 1% as a 21% increase in the average unit cost of sales due to mix of products and services was offset by lower sales volume. Adjusted EBITDA was down 42% year over year to CAD 391 million ($279 million). Adjusted earnings declined 75% year over year to CAD 0.18 per share or 13 cents. The decline was due to lower uranium sales volumes and a sharp reduction in equity earnings from Westinghouse. In the prior-year quarter, Westinghouse recognized significant revenues from its participation in the Czech Republic's Dukovany nuclear project, contributing roughly $170 million to Cameco's share of Westinghouse's revenues and adjusted EBITDA. Cameco maintained its uranium production projection between 19.5 million pounds and 21.5 million pounds for 2026 despite temporary operational disruptions at Key Lake and McArthur River in May, and at Cigar Lake in July. Production guidance for the fuel services segment is 13 million to 14 million kgUs. Cameco expects uranium deliveries of 29–32 million pounds for 2026. Uranium revenue guidance now stands at CAD 2.7-2.9 billion, based on a higher realized price assumption of CAD 91-96 per pound. At the midpoint, uranium revenues would decline about 2% from 2025 due to lower delivery volumes. Fuel Services revenues are projected at CAD 610-650 million, implying roughly 12% year-over-year growth. Overall, Cameco expects total 2026 revenues of CAD 3.32-3.57 billion. The midpoint represents about a 1% decline from 2025. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for Cameco’s earnings for both 2026 and 2027 has moved up over the past 60 days, as shown in the chart below. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research The consensus estimate for Cameco’s earnings for 2026 indicates year-over-year growth of 27.2%. The same for 2027 implies growth of 55.8%. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research CCJ stock is trading at a forward price-to-sales ratio of 15.97 compared with the industry’s 4.99. CCJ’s Value Score of F suggests that the stock is not so cheap and a stretched valuation at this moment. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Energy Fuels is trading higher at 16.20 while Ur-Energy is a cheaper option, trading at 4.70. Cameco continues to benefit from its strategic investment in Westinghouse, which helps broaden its exposure beyond uranium mining into nuclear technology and reactor services. In June, the U.S. Department of Energy announced a conditional commitment of up to $17.5 billion through its Office of Energy Dominance Financing to support procurement of long-lead components for up to 10 new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors in the United States. Westinghouse has a pipeline of 91 potential AP1000 reactor opportunities (105 GWe) globally, providing a significant long-term growth runway. Westinghouse’s proposed IPO, if completed, could unlock shareholder value, improve financial flexibility and increase visibility into the business, creating another potential catalyst for Cameco investors. Cameco continues to strengthen its long-term portfolio. It has long-term obligations to deliver an average 28 million pounds of uranium annually over the next five years. These agreements provide strong revenue visibility, stable cash flows and support future investment plans. Cameco’s uranium production capacity accounts for nearly 15% of global output and it is further investing to expand production to capture favorable market conditions. This includes extending Cigar Lake’s mine life to 2036 and ramping up output at McArthur River and Key Lake toward their licensed annual capacity of 25 million pounds (100% basis). The company recently increased ownership interest in Cigar Lake to 57.418%, which further supports its focus on proven tier-one assets. Growing energy security concerns, geopolitical uncertainty and the global transition toward low-carbon electricity continue to support long-term uranium demand. Combined with its exposure to Westinghouse's reactor business, Cameco remains well-positioned to benefit from the ongoing nuclear power renaissance. Cameco remains one of the strongest long-term investment opportunities in the uranium space, supported by world-class mining assets, long-term contracts and increasing exposure to nuclear technology through Westinghouse. However, new investors can wait for a better entry point, considering the premium valuation and the lower revenue expectations for the year. The stock currently carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Cameco Corporation (CCJ) : Free Stock Analysis Report Ur Energy Inc (URG) : Free Stock Analysis Report Energy Fuels Inc (UUUU) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research (zacks.com). Zacks Investment Research

Centrus Energy LEU reported second-quarter 2026 earnings of 77 cents per share, surpassing the Zacks Consensus Estimate of 74 cents by 4.05%. However, the figure declined 51.6% from $1.59 per share in the prior-year quarter. The year-over-year decline was primarily due to the higher cost of sales in the Low-Enriched Uranium segment and increased administrative and advanced technology expenses. These headwinds were partially offset by higher uranium revenues and investment income. Adjusted earnings per share, which exclude growth costs and stock-based compensation, were $1.77 compared with $1.90 in the prior-year quarter. Revenues rose 14% year over year to $176.1 million and surpassed the consensus mark of $146 million. Centrus Energy Corp. price-consensus-eps-surprise-chart | Centrus Energy Corp. Quote Total cost of sales rose 25.4% to $126.2 million, resulting in a 7% year-over-year decline in gross profit to $49.9 million. Gross margin contracted to 28.3% from 34.9% in the prior-year quarter. Advanced technology costs increased to $10.8 million from $3.3 million as Centrus Energy supported its uranium enrichment expansion. Selling, general and administrative expenses nearly doubled to $26.2 million, primarily reflecting higher stock-based compensation. Operating income dropped to $10.4 million from $33.5 million, while operating margin narrowed to 5.9% from 21.7%. The Low-Enriched Uranium segment revenues increased 22% year over year to $153.4 million. Uranium revenues totaled $53.4 million in the reported quarter compared with no uranium revenues in the prior-year period. Separative work units (SWU) revenues declined 20% year over year to $100 million as sales volumes fell 23%, partly offset by a 3% increase in the average selling price. Low-Enriched Uranium segment’s cost of sales rose 36% to $101.8 million, mainly due to higher uranium volumes.  SWU costs decreased as a result of a 23% decline in the volume of SWU sold, partially offset by a 13% increase in the average unit cost of SWU sold. Technical Solutions revenues declined 21% year over year to $22.7 million. The decrease primarily reflected a $5.9 million reduction in revenues generated from the DOE’s High-Assay, Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) operation contract, while the remaining change was related to other contracts. Cost of sales for the segment was $24.4 million compared with $25.6 million in the year-ago quarter. The decrease was mainly due to a $1.9 million decline in costs incurred under the HALEU Operation Contract, while the remaining change was generally attributable to other contracts. The segment recorded a gross loss of $1.7 million against a gross profit of $3.2 million a year earlier. Centrus Energy signed a $900 million HALEU enrichment award with the DOE and selected Geiger Brothers as the construction contractor for its major enrichment expansion. The company also expects to complete its first new centrifuge in Oak Ridge, TN, by the end of 2026. Centrus Energy’s total backlog was $4.5 billion as of June 30, 2026, which extends through 2040. The Low-Enriched Uranium segment accounted for approximately $3.7 billion, including $3 billion of contingent LEU and High-Assay, Low-Enriched Uranium sales commitments. Of the contingent commitments, $2.4 billion was covered by definitive agreements. These contracts support the potential construction of new LEU and HALEU production capacity at the company’s Piketon, OH, facility. Technical Solutions backlog totaled roughly $800 million. However, the proposed DOE budget for fiscal 2027 does not include additional funding for operation of the existing HALEU cascade, which represents most of Technical Solutions’ backlog. Separately, DOE has stated that it does not currently plan to exercise further options under the HALEU Operation Contract. Cash and cash equivalents totaled $1.87 billion at quarter-end. Operating activities used $16.7 million during the first six months of 2026, while capital expenditures increased sharply to $94.8 million from $5.7 million a year earlier. Centrus Energy continues to expect 2026 revenues between $450 million and $500 million. Total capital deployment is projected in the range of $350-$500 million, reflecting increased investment in centrifuge manufacturing and the broader industrial buildout. The company raised its Piketon hiring target to at least 175 net new employees from the prior goal of 100. It continues to expect at least 100 net new hires in Oak Ridge, completion of a Certified-for-Construction package and finalized contracts with all partners identified as critical to the expansion. The company’s shares have lost 19.2% in the past year against the industry’s 71.7% growth. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research LEU currently carries a Zacks Rank #4 (Sell). You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here. Cameco Corporation CCJ reported earnings per share of 13 cents, missing the Zacks Consensus Estimate of 26 cents per share. Earnings declined 75% year over year. Quarterly revenues came in at CAD 814 million ($588 million), topping expectations despite declining 7% year over year. Uranium revenues were reported at CAD 659 million ($469 million), down 7% year over year. An 18% decline in sales volumes was offset by a 15% increase in the Canadian dollar average realized price to CAD 93.13 per pound due to the impact of market-priced contracts on its portfolio. The Fuel Services segment’s revenues were down 6% to CAD 152 million ($108 million) due to an 18% decrease in sales volume, offset by a 13% increase in realized price. Ur-Energy Inc. URG is scheduled to release second-quarter 2026 results on Aug. 10. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for Ur-Energy’s bottom line is pegged at a loss of four cents per share, in line with the year-ago quarter. The consensus estimate for Ur-Energy’s top line is pegged at $13.43 million, indicating 28.7% growth from the prior-year reported figure. Uranium Energy Corp. UEC is expected to release fourth-quarter fiscal 2026 results soon. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for Uranium Energy’s bottom line is pegged at a loss of four cents per share, an improvement from the loss of seven cents reported in the year-ago quarter. The consensus estimate for Uranium Energy’s revenues is pegged at $9 million. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Centrus Energy Corp. (LEU) : Free Stock Analysis Report Cameco Corporation (CCJ) : Free Stock Analysis Report Ur Energy Inc (URG) : Free Stock Analysis Report Uranium Energy Corp. (UEC) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research (zacks.com). Zacks Investment Research

Energy Fuels Inc. UUUU is scheduled to report second-quarter 2026 results on Aug. 6, after market close. While the company is expected to post another quarterly loss, revenues are projected to surge year over year on significantly higher uranium sales. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for UUUU’s revenues for the quarter is $30.2 million, indicating a solid 617.3% growth from the $4.21 million reported in the year-ago quarter. The estimate for earnings has remained unchanged at a loss of five cents per share over the past 60 days. It indicates a narrower loss than the loss of 10 cents reported in the second quarter of 2025. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Over the trailing four quarters, Energy Fuels’ earnings beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate once while missing thrice. The company has a trailing four-quarter negative earnings surprise of 46.28%, on average. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Our proven model does not conclusively predict an earnings beat for Energy Fuels this time. The combination of a positive Earnings ESP and a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy), 2 (Buy) or 3 (Hold) increases the odds of an earnings beat. But that is not the case here. Earnings ESP: UUUU has an Earnings ESP of 0.00%. You can uncover the best stocks before they are reported with our Earnings ESP Filter. Zacks Rank: The company currently carries a Zacks Rank of 2. You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank stocks here. In July, Energy Fuels announced it had produced “over 1.5 million pounds” of uranium during the first half of 2026, already exceeding the low end of its full-year production guidance of 1.5-2.5 million pounds. After producing 790,000 pounds in the first quarter, this suggests second-quarter production likely exceeded 710,000 pounds. The company had also ended the first quarter with 2.24 million pounds of finished and contained uranium inventory.In the second quarter of 2025, the company generated uranium revenues of $3.9 million through the sale of 50,000 pounds of uranium in the spot market for $77 per pound, and from alternate feed materials, processing and others. Meanwhile, heavy mineral sands (HMS) contributed $0.28 million, taking total quarterly revenues to $4.2 million. Notably, the company’s HMS output was sourced from the Kwale Project, where mining was concluded in December 2024, and the final HMS product was shipped in April 2025. Since then, HMS has no longer been contributing to Energy Fuel’s revenues. Uranium prices averaged roughly $85.18 per pound during the second quarter of 2026, up 17% from the prior-year period. We expect Energy Fuels to have capitalized on this pricing environment and sold some uranium during the quarter, backed by its solid production numbers and inventory. The year-over-year higher volumes and prices are expected to have driven revenues to around $30 million. However, exploration, development and processing expenses are expected to have risen due to inflationary pressures and continued project advancement. Selling, general and administrative expenses are also anticipated to have increased, reflecting higher salaries and benefits associated with a larger workforce. However, the commencement of processing lower-cost ore from the Pinyon Plain mine in the fourth quarter of 2025 is expected to have lowered uranium production costs. Overall, while Energy Fuels is likely to report another quarterly loss, robust revenue growth and improved production efficiencies are expected to have narrowed losses from the prior-year period. Cameco Corporation CCJ reported earnings per share of 13 cents, missing the Zacks Consensus Estimate of 26 cents per share. Earnings declined 75% year over year. Quarterly revenues came in at CAD 814 million ($588 million), topping expectations despite declining 7% year over year. Uranium revenues were reported at CAD 659 million ($469 million), down 7% year over year. An 8% decline in sales volumes was offset by a 15% increase in the Canadian dollar average realized price to CAD 93.13 per pound due to the impact of market-priced contracts on its portfolio. The Fuel Services segment’s revenues were down 6% to CAD 152 million ($108 million) due to an 18% decrease in sales volume, offset by a 13% increase in realized price. Centrus Energy LEU is set to release its second-quarter 2026 results on Aug. 5, after market close. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for Centrus Energy’s second-quarter revenues is pegged at $145.61 million, suggesting a year-over-year decline of 5.7%. Over the past 60 days, the earnings estimate for second-quarter 2026 has moved down 16.3% to 77 cents per share. The figure reflects a 51.6% decline from the year-ago quarter’s earnings of $1.59 per share. Shares of Energy Fuels have gained 25% in a year compared with the industry's 64.5% growth. In comparison, the Zacks Basic Materials sector has gained 24.8%, while the S&P 500 has risen 23.3% in the same period. Energy Fuels has outperformed Cameco, which has gained 19.2% in the past year. Meanwhile, Centrus Energy declined 12%. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research UUUU stock is currently trading at a forward sales multiple of 15.86, well above the industry average of 4.59. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Meanwhile, Cameco and Centrus Energy are trading at price-to-sales ratios of 15.20 and 7.76, respectively. Energy Fuels remains one of the leading uranium producers in the United States. It continues to scale uranium production while developing rare earth element (REE) capabilities, backed by its solid balance sheet. UUUU is pursuing strategic deals that expand its resource base, strengthen its position across the rare earth value chain and diversify revenue streams. The planned acquisition of Australian Strategic Materials will strengthen its position in REE metals and alloys. In June, it also announced another significant step toward becoming a fully integrated rare earths and magnetics company with its announcement to acquire Germany-based VAC Group (Vacuumschmelze) in a deal valued at approximately $1.9 billion. UUUU remains an attractive long-term play, providing meaningful exposure to the strong fundamentals of both uranium and rare earth markets. In the second quarter, the company is expected to deliver a solid improvement in revenues backed by its production momentum, sales volume and favorable pricing environment. However, elevated expenses are expected to have resulted in a loss for the second quarter and a beat is unlikely. No matter how the earnings play out, the company's long-term growth prospects in both uranium and rare earths continue to support a constructive investment outlook. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Energy Fuels Inc (UUUU) : Free Stock Analysis Report Cameco Corporation (CCJ) : Free Stock Analysis Report Centrus Energy Corp. (LEU) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research (zacks.com). Zacks Investment Research

Vancouver, British Columbia--(Newsfile Corp. - August 4, 2026) - Cosa Resources Corp. (TSXV: COSA) (OTCQB: COSAF) (FSE: SSKU) ("Cosa" or the "Company") is pleased to report results of a property-wide airborne radiometric survey at the Aurora project ("Aurora" or the "Project"). Aurora is located in the southeastern Athabasca Basin approximately 16 kilometres east of Cameco's Key Lake Mill and historical Mine. The survey and supporting work were fully funded by Traction Uranium Corp. ("Traction") (CSE: TRAC) (OTCQB: TRCTF) (FSE: Z1K) per the option agreement (the "Agreement") between Cosa and Traction dated 10 February 2026. Traction has the right to earn up to an 80% interest in the Aurora project by sole-funding $9.15 million in exploration expenditures and completing cash and share payments. Highlights Multiple uranium-source radiometric anomalies identified in proximity to prospective basement features High-resolution magnetic model significantly advances the understanding of basement geology Planned fall 2026 follow-up drill program to be 100% funded by Traction Andy Carmichael, VP Exploration of Cosa commented: "Excellent work by SPI has delivered high-resolution magnetic and radiometric data sets that have advanced our understanding of prospectivity and basement geology at Aurora. In combination with electromagnetic and gravity surveying completed by Cosa in 2024, this survey has identified or improved several target areas worthy of follow up work. We are looking forward to commencing a planned fully partner-funded fall drilling program at Aurora later this year following completion of drilling at the Company's Murphy Lake North and Darby joint ventures with Denison Mines." Radiometric Survey Results Surveying was completed by Calgary-based Special Projects Inc. ("SPI"), an experienced airborne geophysical survey contractor with expertise in radiometric and magnetic surveying. Flown at 50-metre line spacing, the survey successfully produced high-resolution magnetic data and identified several radiometric anomalies interpreted to be related to a uranium bearing source. Of the radiometric anomalies identified, several are adjacent to or down-ice of prospective basement features previously identified by Cosa (Figure 2). Next Steps Interpretation and integration with existing geophysical and drilling data is ongoing. Results will be used to guide a proposed inaugural drill program at Aurora currently scheduled to commence in fall 2026. Drilling at Aurora is planned to follow completion of Cosa's ongoing drilling program at the Murphy Lake North joint venture, and planned summer drilling at the Darby joint venture. About Aurora Aurora covers a 17-kilometre section of the southeastern rim of the Athabasca Basin located 16 kilometres east of Key Lake, the site of an operational uranium mill and past producing uranium mine, and 40 kilometres south of the GMZ (Figure 1). Sandstone cover is expected to be less than 100 metres thick in the northern third of Aurora and absent in the remainder. Though no diamond drilling has been completed on the Project since 1979, review of historical drill hole logs has identified several zones of hydrothermal alteration. Airborne gravity gradient and Versatile Transient Electromagnetic (VTEM) surveying completed by Cosa in 2024 identified initial target areas at Aurora (Figure 2). The project is considered drill ready after completion of a property-wide high-resolution airborne magnetic and radiometric survey that identified or upgraded multiple target areas in July 2026. Figure 1 - The Aurora Project LocationTo view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/9865/307861_5e099c6644f268f1_003full.jpg Figure 2 - The Aurora Project Target AreasTo view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/9865/307861_5e099c6644f268f1_004full.jpg About Cosa Resources Corp. Cosa Resources is a Canadian uranium exploration company operating in northern Saskatchewan. The portfolio comprises roughly 237,000 ha across multiple underexplored 100% owned and Cosa-operated joint venture projects in the Athabasca Basin region, the majority of which reside within or adjacent to established uranium corridors. In January of 2025, the Company entered a transformative strategic collaboration with Denison Mines (TSX: DML) (NYSE American: DNN) that has secured access to several additional highly prospective eastern Athabasca uranium exploration projects. As Cosa's largest shareholder, Denison gains exposure to Cosa's potential for exploration success and its pipeline of uranium projects. The Company's primary focus through the remainder of 2026 will be drilling at the Murphy Lake North and Darby projects in the eastern Athabasca Basin. Drilling at Murphy Lake North will follow up uranium mineralization within an extensive zone of strong structure and hydrothermal alteration at the Cyclone trend. Drilling at Darby will follow up on intersections of anomalous geochemistry, structure, and zones of hydrothermal alteration from both winter 2026 drilling and historical drilling. Cosa's award-winning management team has a track record of success in Saskatchewan. In 2022, members of the Cosa team were awarded the AME Colin Spence Award for the discovery of the Hurricane uranium deposit. Cosa personnel led teams or had integral roles in the discovery of Denison's Gryphon deposit and held key roles in the founding of both NexGen and IsoEnergy.About Traction Uranium Corp. Traction Uranium Corp. (CSE: TRAC) (OTC: TRCTF) (FRA: Z1K) is in the business of mineral exploration and the development of discovery prospects in Canada, including its uranium project in the world-renowned Athabasca Region. Technical Disclosure Historical drilling results from Aurora are available within the Saskatchewan Mineral Assessment Database references 74H-0024, 74H07-0017, and 74H07-0031. Confirmatory relogging of these drill holes has not been completed as the core storage locations are unknown or have been destroyed by wildfire. Ground truthing of selected radiometric anomalies is planned to validate the airborne survey results and prioritize targets for the planned drilling program. Qualified Person The Company's disclosure of technical or scientific information in this press release has been reviewed and approved by Andy Carmichael, P.Geo., Vice President, Exploration for Cosa. Mr. Carmichael is a Qualified Person as defined under the terms of National Instrument 43-101. This news release refers to neighbouring properties in which the Company has no interest. Mineralization on those neighbouring properties does not necessarily indicate mineralization on the Company's properties. Contact Keith Bodnarchuk, President and [email protected]+1 888-899-2672 (COSA) Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release. Cautionary Statements This press release contains forward-looking information within the meaning of Canadian securities laws (collectively "forward-looking statements"). Forward-looking statements are typically identified by words such as: believe, expect, anticipate, intend, estimate, plans, postulate and similar expressions, or are those, which, by their nature, refer to future events. All statements that are not statements of historical fact are forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements or information may relate to anticipated exploration, development and/or expansion activities, including exploration of the Company's current Projects; the collaboration with Denison, including the Joint Venture, and the anticipated benefits thereof; and the outlook regarding Cosa's business plans and objectives. Such forward-looking information and statements are based on numerous assumptions, including among others, that the results of planned exploration activities are as anticipated, the cost of planned exploration activities are as anticipated, that general business and economic conditions will not change in a material adverse manner, that financing will be available if and when needed and on reasonable terms, that third party contractors, equipment and supplies and governmental and other approvals required to conduct Cosa's planned exploration activities will be available on reasonable terms and in a timely manner. Although the assumptions made by Cosa in providing forward-looking information or making forward-looking statements are considered reasonable by management at the time, there can be no assurance that such assumptions will prove to be accurate. By their nature, forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause our actual results, performance or achievements, or other future events, to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors and risks include, among others: Cosa may require additional financing from time to time in order to continue its operations which may not be available when needed or on acceptable terms and conditions acceptable; Cosa may not be able to maintain compliance with its contractual obligations with third parties; Cosa may not be able to maintain compliance with extensive government regulation applicable to its operations; domestic and foreign laws and regulations could adversely affect Cosa's business and results of operations; the stock markets have experienced volatility that often has been unrelated to the performance of companies and these fluctuations may adversely affect the price of Cosa's securities, regardless of its operating performance; the ongoing military conflict in Ukraine, and other risk factors set out in Cosa's public disclosure documents. The forward-looking information contained in this news release represents the expectations of Cosa as of the date of this news release and, accordingly, is subject to change after such date. Readers should not place undue importance on forward-looking information and should not rely upon this information as of any other date. Cosa does not undertake any obligation to update these forward-looking statements in the event that management's beliefs, estimates or opinions, or other factors, should change. To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/307861

Cameco Corporation CCJ used its second-quarter 2026 earnings call to reinforce two priorities: preserve uranium contract value and convert a growing reactor pipeline into durable fuel-cycle demand.Operational disruptions did not alter the production plan, while management framed stronger uranium pricing, customer focus on supply security and Westinghouse's AP1000 pipeline as the main forward drivers. The call also provided clearer markers for U.S. reactor deployment and cost assumptions. Tim Gitzel, chief executive officer, said Cameco continues to expect 2026 uranium production of 19.5 million to 21.5 million pounds of U3O8 on an attributable basis.Challenging spring road conditions disrupted supply routes serving Key Lake and McArthur River. Cigar Lake also suspended production for about two weeks after quarter-end because of operational issues.Gitzel said operating flexibility and supply diversity allowed Cameco to absorb those setbacks without changing annual guidance. The increased ownership interest in Cigar Lake further supports the company's focus on proven tier-one assets. Grant Isaac, president and chief operating officer, said the long-term uranium price had moved into the mid-90s even though industry contracting remained below replacement-rate demand.A Scotiabank analyst asked how current contract collars were changing. Isaac said market-related contracts with escalated floors in the high 70s and escalated ceilings around $160 were no longer unusual.Cameco has contracts covering average annual deliveries of more than 28 million pounds over the next five years. Gitzel said the company would remain selective rather than commit supply on terms that fail to reflect durable market fundamentals. Dominic Kieran, global managing director for Cameco UK Ltd., said Westinghouse's pipeline of 91 reactor opportunities covers AP1000 deployments only and excludes potential projects involving Korean technology.A Goldman Sachs analyst asked about the U.S. Department of Energy's $17.5 billion conditional commitment for AP1000 long-lead items. Kieran identified definitive agreements involving specific utilities and the department as the next milestone.A Raymond James analyst tested the project economics. Kieran said Westinghouse's share represents roughly 40% to 45% of project value, while Heidi Shockey, senior vice president and chief financial officer, said the average EBITDA margin is about 20% over a project. CCJ reported second-quarter 2026 earnings of 13 cents per share, missing the Zacks Consensus Estimate of 26 cents. Revenues of $588 million beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $534.4 million by 10%. Cameco Corporation price-consensus-eps-surprise-chart | Cameco Corporation Quote Gitzel said the year-over-year decline in reported performance largely reflected the unusually strong prior-year contribution from Westinghouse's participation in the Dukovany reactor project.A BMO analyst asked why cost guidance increased. Shockey said foreign exchange, mainly on uranium purchases, drove the change, while inflation remained within the prior range. Updated outlook metrics also reflected a stronger U.S. dollar and a higher UxC spot price. A UBS analyst questioned whether Westinghouse could execute across a large reactor pipeline. Kieran said the AP1000 reactor design is complete, leaving limited site-specific engineering, while procurement processes and supplier readiness remain central.An RBC Capital Markets analyst asked whether the Department of Energy and Department of Commerce programs could converge. Isaac said they remain separate, with one focused on long-lead supply-chain capacity and the other on foreign direct investment, though proper sequencing can make them complementary.A TD Cowen analyst raised cost-overrun risk. Isaac said AP1000's existing design, fuel readiness, licensing and deployment record reduce first-of-a-kind exposure, while available policy tools and supplier confidence can help manage remaining project risks. Gitzel said the risk to uranium supply continues to outweigh the risk to demand. He tied Cameco's patience to its flexible supply position, strong balance sheet and disciplined capital allocation.Isaac linked successful reactor deployment to long-duration demand for Cameco's uranium and conversion businesses, with enrichment representing an additional future opportunity. CCJ currently carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold), placing it outside the favored Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) and 2 (Buy) categories. Its Momentum Score of A is the strongest style signal, while the Growth Score of C, Value Score of D and VGM Score of D are less favorable. You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank stocks here.The Style Scores are designed to complement the Zacks Rank, with A or B scores most useful alongside Zacks Rank #1 or 2 stocks. CCJ's Zacks Rank can change as analysts revise estimates following the just-reported results. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Cameco Corporation (CCJ) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research (zacks.com). Zacks Investment Research