NNE

As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Matthew Barry. Thank you. You may begin.

Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Joining me on the call today are Jay Yu, NANO Nuclear's Founder, Chairman, and President, James Walker, our CEO, and Jaisun Garcha, our CFO. Please note that today's press release and slide presentation to accompany this webcast are available on our website. Before moving ahead, I'll quickly address forward-looking statements made on this call. Reflected in more detail on slide 2, today's presentation contains forward-looking statements about NANO's future that are made under the Safe Harbor provisions of the applicable federal securities laws. You are cautioned that actual results, including without limitation, the results of NANO's microreactor development activities, our plans for vertical integration, other strategies and plans, timelines for achieving goals, and other matters related to our future operations may differ materially and adversely from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.

Important risks and other factors that could cause actual results to differ from those in our forward-looking statements are contained in our filings with the SEC, including our annual report on Form 10-K filed this past December, which you're encouraged to review. The forward-looking information provided today is accurate only as of today, and NANO Nuclear disclaims any obligation to update any information provided, except as required by law. With that, I'll turn the call over to Jay Yu, NANO Nuclear's founder, chairman, and president.

Thank you, Matt, thank you everyone for joining the call today. NANO Nuclear remains well-positioned as a leading microreactor developer focused on vertical integration across key aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, and we're delivering against the key strategic milestones we've outlined over the past several quarters. Our Kronos MMR is a high TRL, high temperature gas cooled reactor design backed by nearly a decade of investment and development, and decades of high temperature gas cooled reactor operating history. These advantages position us with a high degree of design maturity, underpinning our ability to advance Kronos towards construction, licensing, and commercialization. Our confidence was recently validated by the formal submission of a construction permit application to the U.S. NRC under Part 50 by the University of Illinois.

The submission for our Kronos MMR deployment on the University of Illinois' campus required years of pre-licensing activities, thousands of pages of technical documentation, and several months of pre-application engagement with the NRC. NANO became one of only a handful of Generation IV advanced reactor developers to reach this stage, and the first commercially ready microreactor to submit a CPA to the NRC, reflecting the maturity of Kronos MMR's design, the growth and expertise of our team, and our strong position as a leading microreactor developer. Alongside our well-established technical foundation, our Kronos MMR system also offers several advantages in its design and deployment profile. We expect its small size and our design philosophy to enable factory fabrication, repeatable construction, and learnings that can accelerate deployment timelines and drive economies of scale.

Second, Kronos benefits from a superior safety profile as a high temperature gas cooled reactor using helium and in-inert gas as a coolant and TRISO fuel, which is engineered to retain fission products at extremely high temperatures. This safety profile is expected to enable a favorable footprint that's ideal for co-location and off-grid deployment, unlocking high-value applications previously unavailable to traditional nuclear. Third, Kronos can leverage LEU+ fuel that is commercially available today, supporting our ability to deploy at scale while maintaining the flexibility to use HALEU fuel once commercially available. We pair this foundation with a focus on vertical integration across critical aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, which we expect to provide an advantage versus our competitors, positioning us to accelerate reactor deployment, enhance long-term economics of our reactors, and benefit as a key supplier to the industry.

Our progress to date differentiated technology and strategies that have positioned us to be a key beneficiary of global nuclear renaissance. Electricity demand tied to AI data centers and other power-intensive applications is expanding faster than the new generation and transmission can be delivered, creating rising concerns around power availability, grid expansion, and energy affordability. Expected demand will require additional grid-independent energy sources capable of delivering high uptime and resiliency. At the same time, climate mandates and decarbonization goals are driving preference for clean energy. In this environment, advanced reactors like our Kronos MMR are best positioned to address these high-value challenges, driving unprecedented bipartisan supports in the U.S. and growing support globally. We're continuing to see strong policy momentum supporting advanced nuclear deployment and development in the U.S.

Most notably, progress towards establishing a new risk-informed NRC licensing pathways under Part 53 and recently proposed Part 57 framework are expected to significantly streamline licensing for microreactors like Kronos. Part 53 is designed to provide a more flexible performance-based framework tailored to non-light water technologies. While Part 57 intends to enable a highly streamlined pathway for lower risk standardized microreactor designs, including features such as a combined or closely aligned construction and operating license processes, reduced review scope, and fleet-wide standardization benefits. In parallel, the establishment of the Defense Production Act Nuclear Fuel Cycle Consortium to strengthen the domestic capabilities could help accelerate our vertical integrated strategy across the nuclear fuel cycle. We also see potential benefits from initiatives like The Genesis Mission and federal actions related to nuclear power for space.

Taken together, we're confident our Kronos MMR system is competitively well-positioned to deliver reliable baseload power across a range of applications and benefit from increasingly supportive policy backdrop. I'll now highlight several recent milestones and provide an overview of additional potential milestones in the coming quarters. Last quarter, we outlined four potential catalysts offering the opportunity to drive shareholder value, regulatory advancement, commercial progress, expansion of our vertical integration across the nuclear fuel supply chain, and strategic partnerships. We've made strong progress in each during our second quarter. First, the recent CPA submission to the U.S. NRC for our full-scale prototype at the University of Illinois represented a substantial milestone, validating our design maturity and offering the potential for initial construction activities to begin in mid to late 2027.

Second, we completed the feasibility study evaluating our Kronos MMR, providing up to 1 gigawatt of power to BaRupOn's AI data center and manufacturing campus in Texas. As a result, our Kronos MMR solution is designed to reach their desired 1 gigawatt needs in stages over time, and we're now advancing work on project timelines and licensing. We also continue to see potential for additional commercial announcements in the coming quarters as our pipeline of opportunities continues to grow. Third, we're advancing M&A and partnership discussions focused on commercial opportunities across the nuclear fuel supply chain, including areas like nuclear fuel transportation and fuel supplying chain facilities. We're in late-stage discussions for 1 such opportunity. Equally as important, we're advancing discussions around strategic partnerships we believe can accelerate and de-risk large-scale deployment of our reactors.

Our recent MOU with Supermicro represents an important step towards aligning advanced nuclear power with next-generation AI and data center infrastructure by exploring opportunities for our Kronos MMR solution to pair with one of the leading providers of high-performance computing and liquid-cooled data center systems. Our recently announced collaboration with EHC Investment also reflects this strategy, creating a path toward a joint venture in the UAE with a partner that brings strong regional presence, decades of experience with large-scale energy infrastructure projects, and an in-house EPC capabilities. Our collaboration with DS Dansuk represents an important step towards supporting Kronos deployment and localization efforts in South Korea, including the potential development of a reactor core manufacturing facility and component production capabilities within one of the world's most advanced nuclear industrial markets. With that, I'll turn the call over to our CEO, James Walker.

Thank you, Jay. Turning to our Q2 highlights, we continue executing across all areas of the business, making important progress towards advancing Kronos. As Jay mentioned, a CPA was formally submitted to the U.S. NRC by the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign for our first full-scale Kronos MMR prototype. This marked a critical milestone as we transition from engineering design to construction on the campus of the U of I. The CPA submission required years of engineering development, thousands of pages of technical documentation, coordinated input across reactor design, safety analysis, environmental review, and regulatory compliance, and a viable supply chain. With the submission, NANO Nuclear becomes one of only a handful of Generation IV advanced reactor developers to reach this stage, and the first commercially ready microreactor developer to submit a CPA to the NRC.

We anticipate an approximate 12-month review period following formal acceptance of the application, providing the opportunity to initiate initial construction activities at the U of I in mid to late 2027. In parallel, we're advancing discussions with supply chain partners for long lead components. In addition to enrichment and TRISO fuel suppliers, as we work towards solidifying formal agreements, we also made notable progress with 2 partners focused on advancing the design of our refueling system and helium circulator. It's important to highlight our expectation that Kronos's design philosophy, modularity, and assembly strategy should enable greater use of commercially off-the-shelf components relative to the larger SMR designs. We believe this expands the pool of qualified suppliers able to manufacture key components, strengthening our position in commercial negotiations. This progress reflects continued execution on critical path items, further positioning NANO Nuclear for initial construction and future commercial deployment.

On the commercial and strategic partnership front, we've completed the previously announced feasibility study with BaRupOn, evaluating up to 1 gigawatt of power generation with our Kronos MMR solution, demonstrating the scalability of our platform for large energy-intensive applications such as AI data centers. The study confirmed our Kronos MMR solution is designed to reach their desired 1 gigawatt needs in stages over time, with potential to even expand from there over time. We are now jointly moving the project toward the initiating the licensing process. We also continue to grow our pipeline of commercial opportunities across data center, industrial, and defense-related customers, and continue to see strong interest from credible strategic partners highlighted by previously announced MOUs with Supermicro, EHC Investment, and DS Dansuk.

Collectively, these relationships reinforce the strategic interest in our technology and strategy, support our path towards commercialization, and create a potential pathways to broader long-term partnerships over time. As it relates to our focus on vertical integration across key aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, which we believe is a key differentiator between us and our competitors. We're advancing efforts to address key bottlenecks within the nuclear fuel supply chain, including progress towards solidifying acquisitions and partnerships for nuclear fuel supply chain facilities and fuel transportation. As Jay mentioned, we are in a late-stage discussions for one such opportunity and see strong potential to announce additional progress in the near term. From a financial perspective, our balance sheet remains strong with cash equivalents, and short-term investments totaling approximately $569 million.

In March, the SEC declared effective our $900 million shelf registration statement, including a $400 million at-the-market facility. While we are extremely well-funded for our near-term cash needs, our Form S-3 approval provides additional flexibility to access capital markets opportunistically in the future, further strengthening our ability to advance Kronos towards commercialization. Building on this progress, I'd now like to provide additional detail on several recent strategic announcements that we believe collectively strengthen our commercialization strategy and help to de-risk future Kronos MMR deployments. A great example of this strategy is our recent announced collaboration with Supermicro, a global leader in AI infrastructure, high-performance servers, and advanced liquid cooling data centers systems, serving many of the world's leading hyperscale enterprise and cloud computing customers.

Through this MOU, we plan to explore strategic collaboration opportunities focused on integration of NANO Nuclear Kronos MMR with Supermicro's industry-leading AI server and data center platforms, explore joint go-to-market strategies, and evaluate off-grid deployment opportunities for next-generation grid-independent AI infrastructure. Importantly, we believe this collaboration further reinforces Kronos' positioning as a potential long-term power solution for AI data centers and high-performance computing infrastructure, which represents one of the largest emerging electricity demand markets globally. By combining our advanced reactor technology with Supermicro's leadership, we believe there is meaningful opportunity to support future deployment and commercialization efforts through strategic collaboration with a leading technology infrastructure provider. More broadly, these efforts reflect our strategy of aligning with highly credible strategic partners to help accelerate commercialization, reduce execution risk, and expand long-term deployment opportunities for Kronos.

At the same time, our recently announced MOU with EHC Investment reflects another important component of our strategy, establishing regional partnerships that can help accelerate and support future reactor deployments. EHC Investment is a diversified Abu Dhabi-based investment holding company with a portfolio spanning energy, infrastructure, safety, and advanced technologies with a strong track record of operating and expanding strategic infrastructure and energy businesses. Notably, we signed an MOU to explore a joint venture focused on deployment of our Kronos MMR platform in the Gulf region. This includes working together to evaluate market entry opportunities, assess pathways for establishing a localized nuclear supply chain, identify potential end users and host sites, and engage with key stakeholders across regulatory, financing, and commercial frameworks. What makes this collaboration particularly compelling is the combination of EHC's capabilities and regional positioning.

They bring decades of experience executing large-scale energy infrastructure projects in the UAE and broader Gulf region, offering the potential to material accelerate project development timelines. EHC also benefits from in-region engineering, construction, and project delivery capabilities, creating a strong foundation at execution and scale. Importantly, their broader platform across energy, safety, and advanced technologies, along with their regional relationships, position them as a strong partner for executing on future Kronos deployments. Taken together, we believe this collaboration offers the potential to significantly de-risk and accelerate our entry into one of the most attractive emerging markets for advanced nuclear. While the progress we've outlined in expanding strategic partnerships is important, it's ultimately enabled by the strength of our underlying technology, which we're confident offers clear advantages.

First, we believe our Kronos MMR reflects a high TRL level platform focused on integrating proven technologies into a compact modular system optimized for licensing and deployment. Kronos builds on high temperature gas cooled reactor technology that has been deployed and validated across multiple countries for decades. Core elements of the design, including TRISO fuel, helium coolant and graphite moderation, are mature technologies supported by real-world operating data. The platform itself is supported by a strong technical foundation, including nearly a decade of prior development and more than an estimated $120 million of historical investment. Beyond the reactor, our balance of plant strategy prioritizes commercially proven systems such as steam generators, turbines, and thermal energy storage technologies already used in concentrated solar plants. We also expect to operate with conservative temperature and pressure parameters aligned with successful historical deployments.

Second, the safety profile is fundamentally different from other reactor types. TRISO fuel retains fission products at extreme temperatures. Helium is an inert coolant, and the design relies on passive heat removal. As such, we don't expect a credible meltdown pathway, and the core can shut down itself without reliance on active safety systems. Third, prismatic high temperature gas cooled reactors are inherently simple. There are few active systems and high-stress components, and a substantial number of components are commercially off-the-shelf rather than safety grade. The core configuration itself has no moving parts other than the control rods, and the materials are inert and well understood, contrasting with the complexity of certain other advanced designs. Fourth, prismatic high temperature gas reactors like Kronos are especially well-suited for export.

The use of TRISO fuel presents minimal proliferation risk compared with other fuel technologies, and the strong safety case may support more streamlined engagement with international regulators. Fifth, we believe this architecture is particularly flexible, with the standard design able to be deployed for smaller capacities by adjusting operating pressure, allowing Kronos' output to scale without redesign. The standard design can also use different enrichment levels without redesign as well. Lastly, we believe these characteristics should enable stronger economies of scale, and inert coolant, passive safety, and advanced fuel reduce the need for complex chemistry controls and high maintenance systems. Combined with a simpler design and greater use of commercial components, we see potential for lower operating costs, reduced maintenance requirements, and favorable cost scaling over time. With that, I'll turn the call over to our CFO, Jaisun, to provide financial highlights.

Thank you, James. I'll now provide a summary of our Q2 financial performance. Our overall liquidity position remains robust, ending the quarter with approximately $569 million in cash equivalents, and short-term investments. This was a slight decline from the prior quarter as we continue to fund development of our Kronos MMR and related fuel cycle initiatives. During the quarter, our previously filed $900 million shelf registration became effective, including a $400 million at-the-market facility or ATM, enhancing our financial flexibility and ensuring we have efficient access to capital as needed in the future. While we have yet to use the shelf or ATM, and while they do not reflect immediate financing needs, they provide us with flexibility to be opportunistic in the future as we execute on key milestones and further demonstrate the value of our technology, strategy, and platform.

At the same time, we believe our current cash and short-term investments positions us well to support the development and advancement of our full-scale U of I prototype through construction and commissioning. This position is further strengthened by our ongoing evaluation of several non-dilutive funding opportunities, which we believe could reduce the capital requirements associated with the project. Taken together, this positions us with significant financial flexibility, not only to fund our core development efforts, but also to selectively pursue value-accretive opportunities, including potential transactions across the nuclear fuel cycle that could enhance our competitive positioning and vertical integration over time. Turning to the income statement, Q2 net loss totaled $9.2 million, an increase of approximately $3 million from the prior quarter.

This primarily reflected higher headcount and associated expenses as we continue to advance development and licensing of our Kronos MMR, highlighted by submission of a CPA to the U.S. NRC, while also pursuing strategic growth opportunities. Looking ahead, we expect expenses to trend higher as we continue to scale our team and initiate procurement of long lead items and testing equipment in support of our engineering and demonstration facility. Q2 net loss declined by approximately $12 million from the prior year comparative period, primarily due to an increase in interest income and decline in equity-based compensation. Year-to-date net cash used in operating activities increased by approximately $4 million from the prior year period to $9.3 million, primarily due to an increase in personnel fees excluding equity-based compensation and an increase in professional fees.

Year-to-date net cash used in investing activities increased by approximately $368 million to approximately $381 million, primarily driven by an approximate $371 million increase in short-term investments to earn a higher yield on our cash balance. Before turning the call over to the operator for Q&A, I'd like to reemphasize we are well-positioned to execute our strategy of advancing our Kronos MMR toward commercialization, while also enhancing our vertical integration through partnerships and M&A. As we look ahead, we will remain disciplined in deploying time and capital toward opportunities that are strategically accretive and offer compelling return on investment. With that, I'll now turn the call over to the operator to open up the call for Q&A.

Our first question comes from the line of Nate Pendleton with Texas Capital Bank. Please proceed with your question.

Good evening, congrats on the continued progress. Regarding the BaRupOn feasibility study, can you provide some more detail around the potential timing of that 1 gigawatt of capacity and what the next steps look like from here?

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

I mean, the good part now is that the reactor construction at UIUC, that will gift us obviously a commercial product that we can deploy and is subsequently licensed. There's still the licensing process for the site itself needs to be done. That's what we're working on with them at the moment. We're working out the step, who, the involvement, the contributions and the partners that will be involved in that geotechnical work as well with BaRupOn. After that stage, once the construction permit application is done, then you can start moving into the point where you can start site prepping. It would go off to the NRC. The NRC would go through an examination process similar to UIUC of just examining the geotechnical data.

Then once approved, you would be authorized to start construction. Now, it's still gonna be dependent on the licensing process happening at UIUC for the, for the ultimate deployment of the reactor systems. We can get everything in place. One of the nice parts about, you know, future operations similar to BaRupOn, is that once the reactor is licensed and it's more of a known quantity with the NRC, you could even expect an expedited CPA approval process, given when we give them geotechnical data for the specific sites the reactor launched to. That's how it's gonna look now. Feasibility study done, moving into examining licensing for the particular site, once the reactor is commercially ready for deployment, it can go straight in for construction at the deployment site.

That's great. I appreciate all that detail, James. Then maybe for Jaisun, you called out evaluating non-dilutive funding opportunities. Can you provide more details about what those are, opportunities are and directionally the size of the potential opportunity there?

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

Understood. Thanks. Take my questions.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Sherif Elmaghrabi with BTIG. Please proceed with your questions.

Hi, thanks, and good afternoon. The new regulatory pathways for the NRC, parts 53 and 57, is that something that could expedite UIUC or do you view this as more of like a commercial opportunity?

I would say it's very, very, especially Part 57. I can go into a bit of both of them. The reason why it's very important commercially is that Part 57 in particular, I mean, it's already focused on microreactors, which falls exactly into our, you know, our ballpark. It's really focused on fleet deployment. What they're trying to do here is that if you look at nuclear historically, you've got long deployment timelines for singular large systems. For an anticipated market of small module reactors and more in particular microreactors, which is what that Part 57 is focused on, how do you deploy dozens or hundreds of these things on an annual basis without being held up by that extremely long historic licensing and construction process?

Part 57, maybe it has some benefits on the licensing front for small reactor systems, but the real benefit of that system is it is way more commercially focused. It, you know, aligning construction operating licensing processes, the scope of safety characteristics, fleet-wide standardization benefits. The Part 57 is gonna be crucial for us because by 2030 when we have the reactor fully constructed, outputting power, licensed and ready to commercially deploy, we wanna be in a position at that point to deploy these things en masse. The Part 57 facilitates that a lot. We've been reading through, obviously, all the releases as they've come out. That has been extremely beneficial.

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

What I could say is an advantage for the industry, you could see that the NRC is actually putting in real concerted efforts to facilitate the rollout of advanced nuclear is Part 53 is a different approach in that it's a more risk-informed approach to licensing, where a lot of the responsibility is put back on the reactor developer and the responsibility lies with them. That is a crucial factor difference because it's no longer a thing of the NRC proving to the NRC that every single aspect is safe. It's, you know, you submit an application where you look at the risk profiles and that's really what's assessed, and you need to submit all of that information to them and that's your responsibility. That should actually shorten things substantially for future licensing processes for advanced reactor systems.

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

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

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

All right. Thanks. Thanks for taking my questions.

No problem.

Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Sameer Joshi with H.C. Wainwright. Your line is now live.

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

Obviously everyone saw that we formally announced the submission of that CPA just at the end of March. There is a standard acceptance window. Actually, that window is now. It could be any time from today actually all the way through to early next week where we can really expect that formal acceptance from the NRC. Obviously, I don't want to speak for them, there are always delays with organizations, but that formal acceptance we're also expect imminently. There's that process and then obviously there's the expected 12 months turnaround once formally accepted for the permission to then go and construct. That formal acceptance is expected very soon.

Thanks for that color. Just switching subjects. The, I think, in the commentary, the M&A opportunities were mentioned, including for transportation and some other areas. Are you looking at specifically transportation partners that will help you transfer nuclear fuel?

This is a very important question and, you know, to be honest with everybody as well, we have some things that we're working on at the moment, and we hoped they would have been ready in time for this earnings call so we could speak about them more publicly. I don't think it's any secret that we've identified that the transportation element of the nuclear industry, especially advanced nuclear industry, will be very crucial to the successful mass deployment of reactor systems and refueling spent fuel, everything like that. We've accepted actually that we're going to have to create more in-house capabilities within NANO Nuclear to ensure that when there's not going to be a bottleneck on operations due to constrictions around the delivery of materials, nuclear materials, fuel, anything like that.

There are acquisitions that we're already identified, we're in late-stage discussions about. And those late-stage discussions should lead to announcements, I think, in the short term that we can publicly talk about. I'm just trying to not be offside with what our lawyers advise us on, but it is a very important aspect of the business. It is actually an area of the nuclear industry that is already a bit squeezed, and we are trying to get ahead of that problem right now, and we are very, very close, as I say. It should be a very short turnaround before we can actually formally announce something on this one.

Yeah, I know. It is an important aspect, because everyone is focused on the reactors and the fuel-

Yeah.

enrichment and other aspects, Transportation has not been a subject of focus so far. Glad you're working on that. My last question is regarding the proposed Part 67. Correct me if I'm wrong, the NRC is still accepting comments on this. If so, do you have any comments that you may be submitting as part of this process?

On the Part 73, we are part of a lot of the consortiums, and that's sort of physical protection special nuclear material. It probably is going to be an increasing consideration of ours, just because we're going to be involved in some level of transportation. Even though we're part of the consortiums with the NEI that are examining this kind of thing, I would say at the moment, until we complete, you know, those prospective acquisitions, we probably won't concentrate too much on them. They almost certainly be the security aspects of things like that, like 10 CFR Part 73.

They are going to be a focus of some of the specialists that we're going to inherit as part of any potential acquisition that will have to focus on these different aspects. At the moment, I wouldn't say we've allocated any personnel to them. What we expect is that the personnel we're gonna bring into the company will address these things with the NRC, probably through consortiums run by the NEI.

Thank you. We have reached the end of the question and answer session. Therefore, I'd like to turn the floor back to Jay Yu for closing remarks. Actually, I'm sorry. We have one more question in the line of Subash Chandra with StoneX. Please proceed with your question.

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

Actually, kind of near term because now that the technical team is finished with the construction permit application, and that was really occupying almost all of them, like 60 numbers of people. The team has immediately shifted focus onto the supply chain, so the vessels, the graphite, fuel, the fabrication, helium circulators, whatever it is. Including the non-nuclear components like the turbine systems, the mechanical systems, the salts. We do, I mean, prior to the submission of the CPA, we already had identified suppliers involved. Now what is going down is contract negotiation. That started with all the different vendors so that the subsections we can get a much more granular appreciation of what the overall cost will be.

I would say at the moment, the estimations that we've provided so far, that $300 million-$350 million, which were conservative, are still accurate. As we get deeper into the examination and the negotiations, that's not shifting. Now, I would just preface as well that that number is not, certainly not gonna be representative of Nth of a kind reactor systems. Everything is being bespoke for this particular reactor, and maybe we might double them up if we go ahead with the Canadian project. The, yeah, it's so far that initial first of a kind, full power, fully operating, power producing, full scale reactor system at UIUC. The estimates are so far looking to be pretty accurate.

That's good to hear. On the BaRupOn, just curious, when do they secure a tenant?

So-

You know Yeah, go ahead. Sorry.

I was just going to say, obviously that's their business. We have a very close relationship with them. They keep us updated. There are actually two major hyperscalers that are examining their facility at the moment. Obviously we're, you know, I wouldn't say their business is dependent on those two being successful, but they're attracting obviously a lot of interest to get the tenants onto that particular site. The nice thing about Baruch Point is that they are suitably flexible. I know that we've learned a little bit about how hyperscalers and data centers operate just through discussions with them. The nice part is that they do have alternative sites, even if the site is considered not ideal for a lot of these different areas.

The nice part is if we, because we've gone through this process with them anyway, wherever they do deploy, whether it's Texas or Virginia or Wyoming or wherever they're currently looking to deploy these sites and attract tenants, we're already earmarked in to provide the nuclear power for these different sites. Even though we've only publicly spoken about Texas, there are other opportunities with them even beyond that site. Yeah, they're currently going through the due diligence process with 2 big hyperscalers at the moment.

Thank you. Again, now we have reached the end of the question and answer session. Therefore, I'll now turn the call back over to JU for closing remarks.

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

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference, and you may disconnect your lines at this time. We thank you for your participation.