Thank you for standing by, and welcome to the General Fusion business update call. At this time, all participants are in listen only mode. After the prepared remarks, we will take questions. In order to ask a question, simply press star one one on your telephone. If your question has been answered and you would like to remove yourself from the queue, simply press star one one again. As a reminder, today's program is being recorded. Now I would like to introduce your host for today's program, Scott Kozak, Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Thank you, operator. Welcome to General Fusion's business update conference call. My name is Scott Kozak, and I am the Director of Investor Relations. With me today are Greg Twinney, Chief Executive Officer, Megan Wilson, Chief Strategy Officer, and Rob Crystal, Senior Vice President of Finance. On today's call, General Fusion will provide an update on our business and then open the phone lines for questions. This afternoon, we posted slides for this presentation on our investor relations website. As reflected in the safe harbor statements on slide two, the information set forth in the presentation and discussed during the course of our remarks and subsequent Q&A session includes forward-looking statements which reflect our current views of existing trends and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties. You can find a discussion of our risk factors, which could potentially contribute to such differences, in our Form F-4 and subsequent SEC filings. I will now turn the call over to Greg Twinney, General Fusion's Chief Executive Officer. Greg? Thanks, Scott, and good afternoon, everyone. This will not be a typical quarterly financial call, given that our business combination was completed in July. As a result, we will first present our merged financials at our Q3 call in November. On today's call, I will begin my remarks with an overview of General Fusion, who we are, and the problem we are solving. From there, we will walk through our technology approach and why we believe it is the right one to deliver practical fusion power. After that, we will cover our commercialization strategy and roadmap, followed by a brief financial discussion. We will wrap up with Q&A. Now, to begin. There are several highlights I would like to cover on slide three. First, there is a growing global demand for clean, safe, reliable baseload energy. We believe fusion has every attribute needed to meet the demand and help deliver a net zero path by 2050. From the start, our end goal has been to commercialize cost-effective practical fusion energy. Today, we are operating a demonstration machine, LM26, that positions us to reach our industry-accepted technical milestones at commercially relevant scale. General Fusion is pursuing a milestone-driven, de-risking pathway backed by proprietary IP. We are one of only four private companies globally with meaningful published fusion results. With 37 peer-reviewed publications and 210 patents issued and pending over 20 years, we have built a globally recognized science foundation and a patent portfolio that provides a wide competitive moat. From a capital perspective, we have been highly efficient. All of our accomplishments and progress to date have been achieved while raising approximately $543 million. This compares favorably to competitors that have spent more and progressed far less. Our capital has come from leading institutional investors, strategics, venture capital firms, industry partners, and Canadian federal government, which has been a strong backer from day one. To accomplish all this, you need an incredible team. We have a preeminent group of experienced scientists, engineers, and business builders who have demonstrated our culture of execution through an established track record of successful prototypes and technical results. Looking at slide four, there is a massive global need for secure baseload power. According to a recent McKinsey global energy report, electricity demand is estimated to double by 2050. Current energy sources fall short of what is needed. Coal, nuclear fission, renewables, and natural gas will all play important roles. Meeting the market's needs will require a fundamentally new source of energy. We believe that source is fusion. Next, turning to slide five, fusion is a potential clean source of reliable and dispatchable baseload power that does not produce carbon emissions or long-term high-level radioactive waste. Additionally, fusion is expected to be efficient and scalable with minimal land use, competitive costs, and manageable regulatory and export controls. Our fuel source is deuterium and tritium. Deuterium is an abundant resource that can be easily sourced from seawater, and tritium can be bred while creating fusion energy. The industry's shift to large-scale demonstrations with defined milestones alongside supportive global regulatory frameworks creates a clear path to commercialization. Governments around the world are increasingly recognizing fusion as fundamentally safer than fission and are acting accordingly. In the U.S., the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a dedicated regulatory framework for fusion separate from the more restrictive fission regulations. The comment period has concluded, and industry groups, including the Fusion Industry Association, expect the final rule to be published in the fall. That proposed framework is expected to reduce financial risk, unlock new investment, and accelerate commercialization timelines for the entire industry. Internationally, momentum is just as strong. The U.K. released its 2026 fusion energy strategy, committing over GBP 2.5 billion to support commercial fusion deployment in the 2030s. Germany has released a national fusion roadmap with the explicit goal of building the world's first commercial fusion plant on German soil, backed by over EUR 2 billion through 2029. This regulatory clarity and government commitment, combined with the trillion-dollar plus market opportunity you see on the screen, underscores why we believe the conditions for commercializing fusion have never been more favorable. Now, turning to slide six, accessing and delivering power to this huge market will require industry participants to deliver in a cost-competitive and scalable way. Because the General Fusion power plant design uses many existing materials and balance-of-plant technologies available today, we believe we can reasonably set a target estimate for our levelized cost of electricity, or LCOE, in the $64-$73 per megawatt hour range. The reference plant for our targeted LCOE is a 300 MW plant employing two 150 MW units sharing a balance of plant. This LCOE target is competitive with other nuclear, non-nuclear, and non-dispatchable industry technology on an LCOE basis. Some important context on the cost trajectory. As is true for every large energy infrastructure build-out, our first of a kind, or FOAK, plant will carry premiums that are not representative of the fleet. We expect to realize significant savings as we move from FOAK to Nth of a kind, or NOAK, plant through standardized design, a proven supply chain, and repeatable construction in the same manner that these same drivers have brought down costs in solar, batteries, and serial nuclear builds like the Korean APR-1400 fleet. To be clear, the LCOE range I shared reflects the mature fleet for General Fusion. We are often asked to explain the difference between fission and fusion. Slide seven looks at the competitive landscape. First, fission and fusion offer the potential for supplying baseload, dispatchable power that generates zero emissions. This is incredibly important for a global energy grid that is actively retiring coal plants and largely replacing them with intermittent renewable energy. Next, considering safety, fusion has a fundamentally different risk profile than fission. There is no chain reaction, the fuel cannot be weaponized, there are no high levels of radiation, and fusion does not produce long-term radioactive waste. As a result, we expect fusion's enhanced safety profile to activate a host of advantages, ranging from a far lower regulatory burden to much more flexible siting options. These factors collectively represent the critical difference between the market opportunity for fission versus the much larger one for fusion. Before passing the call on to Megan, let us quickly review, on slide eight, the progress General Fusion has made just this year. As of July 13th, 2026, General Fusion's shares and warrants began trading on Nasdaq. Through that successful listing, we entered the market with approximately $150 million in cash on hand, capitalizing the company to complete our LM26 milestones, which we aim to achieve by the end of 2028. In addition, we have entered a new supplier collaboration with General Atomics to develop advanced diagnostic systems for the LM26 fusion demonstration program. We also executed a framework agreement with Renexia S.p.A. for collaboration on the potential commercial deployment of fusion power in Italy. I will hand it over to Megan to take you through how our technology works and our commercialization roadmap. Thanks, Greg. A quick fusion lesson on slide nine. Fusion is when two light atoms combine into a heavier one, releasing energy. You see this happen every day in the sun and stars. To do this on Earth, we need a machine to create the right environment with the right combination of key physics parameters: temperature, density, and energy confinement time. A practical fusion power machine has to do four things: generate plasma, force it to fuse with that special environment, capture the energy that comes out, and convert it into power. What differs from company to company is how and whether you do that practically, which is what I'll walk you through on slide 10. Fundamentally, our technology is an engineering approach to fusion. It builds on decades of industry scientific achievements, but everything about it is designed with a power plant in mind. Academia, government, and industry have already proven that fusion science works, but they have done it by operating at the extremes of those key physics parameters, either extreme energy confinement with powerful magnets or extreme density with high-powered lasers. Their focus has been on proving the science, not on building a power plant. Our technology operates in a sweet spot of parameters to help us achieve fusion in a practical way. No huge magnets, no lasers, using existing materials to ultimately be a power plant, not a research machine. Our technology is called Magnetized Target Fusion, or MTF, and we like to describe it as the diesel engine of fusion. We combine fuel injection and compression. On slide 11, you can see how it is designed to work in a commercial machine. Our approach is designed to first form a chamber by spinning a vessel full of liquid metal into a hollow cylinder. That hollow cylinder is our liquid metal wall and our compression chamber. Next, at the top of the machine, we form our plasma, that's our fuel, and inject it into that hollow cylinder of liquid metal. Then we use an array of pistons to compress and reshape that wall of liquid metal, encasing the plasma and compressing it to fusion conditions. That forces the particles to fuse and release large amounts of energy into the liquid metal. The whole system then resets and repeats once per second, just like a diesel engine. This is our commercial concept. Now, I am a longtime fission geek and former fusion skeptic. Slide 12 is the heart of why I chose to join General Fusion. Our approach to fusion is designed to solve the challenges that prevent academic approaches from becoming power plant technologies. From our perspective, there are four main challenges. First, the neutrons from fusion can damage and degrade a conventional machine within months. Second, tritium fuel doesn't naturally exist on Earth, so it has to be created inside the machine. Third, traditional approaches don't have an efficient way to capture the fusion energy and put it to work. Finally, the cost of superconducting magnets, lasers, or frequent replacements can drive the overall energy cost too high for commercial use. Our differentiated approach is designed to solve for all these challenges. That liquid metal wall that will encase and compress the plasma is the secret sauce. It will protect the machine from neutron damage, so we can build a machine with stainless steel to last 40-plus years, the life of a power plant. That is also designed to produce its own fuel through neutron interactions with lithium. That gives us enough fuel to run the plant over its lifetime, plus provide startup fuel for a broader fleet of General Fusion plants. The liquid metal is also designed to capture the fusion energy and send it to a heat exchanger to drive steam, then a turbine, then produce electricity. With no huge magnets, no lasers, no frequent replacements, we expect to do it all in a cost-competitive way. This is General Fusion's value proposition. As seen on slide 13, we have built and are operating a fusion demonstration machine that is the first of its kind, LM26. The machine is forming and compressing plasmas, and we are executing a demonstration program to hit transformative milestones. First, we are targeting heating to 1 keV, or about 10 million degrees Celsius. From there, we aim to progress to 10 keV, or 100 million degrees, and ultimately, we aim to be the first company to achieve the Lawson Criterion, the combination of fusion parameters that can produce net fusion energy in the plasma. On slide 14, you see our full commercialization path. We aim to have the LM26 program complete by the end of 2028. As we make progress with this machine, we intend to move into our commercial systems demonstration program, which is a technology development and engineering program to design and demonstrate key commercial systems and components such as seals and valves, heat exchange systems, pulse power systems, and other key components, focused on leveraging existing technologies and existing supply chain as much as possible. In parallel, we are advancing preparation for our FOAK plant, including site evaluation and selection and the commercial agreements and related government and regulatory activities needed to support our goal of operating a net energy plant around 2035. This pathway and our value proposition are validated by the ecosystem of collaborators, suppliers, and potential early adopters working with us. As seen on slide 15, we work with a wide array of technical and commercialization partners, including the UK Atomic Energy Authority and U.S. Department of Energy Labs on R&D and technology development, commercial collaborators like Hatch on power plant engineering, Kyoto Fusioneering on fuel cycle and liquid metal, and a major automaker on piston compression technology development. We are also engaged with 13 potential end users who have signed agreements to join our Market Development Advisory Committee, or MDAC, to work with us on our technology development and commercialization efforts. We are engaged with a number of these companies on potential siting for that FOAK plant. The MDAC includes Bruce Power in Canada, which has signed an MoU to evaluate developing a fusion power plant in Ontario, as well as Renexia, which, as Greg mentioned, signed a framework agreement with General Fusion in June. Next, let me introduce Rob Crystal to update on some financial items. Rob? Thanks, Megan. Now let's shift to business execution on slide 16. General Fusion intends to go to market with an asset-light, scalable, technology-centric model. We intend to leverage a proven partnership model rather than financing, constructing, owning, or operating power plants ourselves. Each fusion island is designed to deliver approximately 150 MW electric. In the construction phase, we plan to focus on the sale, engineering, installation, and commissioning of the fusion island and its components while partnering with EPCs to provide the overall power plant engineering, procurement, and construction services for the ultimate owner. We also expect to license our technology. Once the plant is operating, we anticipate providing annual ongoing technical support for the fusion island and related systems, plus recurring maintenance, refurbishment, and replacement of key components. This model allows us to deploy at an acceptable risk and time-to-market profile while engaging and earning high-margin, predictable revenue over the approximately 40-year life of each plant. We also anticipate the opportunity to replace an existing or decommissioned power plant's heat source while keeping the rest of the plant recognizable. That lets customers repower existing infrastructure with equipment they already know, which greatly expands our addressable market. We spotlight our Nth-of-a-Kind or NOAK, revenue model further here on slide 17. We expect our revenue to come through capital sales and services pre and post the commercial operation date, or we call this the COD, allowing us to participate economically throughout the full life cycle of a power plant. Prior to COD, we expect to generate revenue from engineering and project management services, intellectual property licensing, procurement, assembly, commissioning, and training for the fusion island. The construction period is expected to be about three and a half years. Following COD, revenue is expected to transition to a portfolio of annual recurring, long-duration service offerings relating to technical support for the fusion island and related systems, as well as scope of supply for fusion island equipment, such as the plasma injector and replacements of pistons. These annual recurring activities are designed to support the ongoing safe and efficient operation of this facility while providing a durable revenue stream over the approximate 40-year life of the plant. Separately, on a different topic, I'd like to briefly address General Fusion's assessment of Spring Valley Acquisition Corp. III's pre-merger standalone financial filings, for which a 6-K was filed today. We will refile the SVAC Q1 financials as soon as practicable via a 10-Q/A. This adjustment related to a liability overstatement is non-cash in nature and does not impact the economics of the financing, the disclosure of the details of the PIPE subscription agreements, our liquidity position, cash balances, operating results, or near or long-term business outlook. With that matter resolved, we remain focused on executing our operating plan and commercialization objectives. Now I will hand it back to Greg to close us out. Thanks. Thanks, Rob. As you can see on slide 18, significant market tailwinds combined with strong investor and government support are creating a streamlined path for fusion energy deployment. Our fusion technology approach is designed to uniquely address the barriers to commercialization with a durable fusion machine, abundant tritium fuel, simple energy conversion, and economical fusion power. Our Magnetized Target Fusion technology is being demonstrated through our LM26 program, which is on a path to transformative milestones, including the next major technical milestone of 1 keV. I want to thank the entire General Fusion team for their tireless work and boundless creativity. We are proud of how far we have come and excited about where we are heading. We look forward to updating you on our progress. Operator, please open the line for questions. Certainly. Our first question for today comes from the line of Matthew Picioccio from Canaccord Genuity. Your question please. Hi, everyone. Thank you for taking my questions and congrats on closing the transaction. Really, really big news there. Thank you. Maybe just to start off, you are progressing towards 100% Lawson in the 2028, 2029 timeframe with the LM26. What are the key technical risks remaining between today's results you published and getting to that 100% Lawson? Sure. Yeah, that is a great question. For us, it is really important that we demonstrate these milestones because these milestones are industry accepted, and for us, we are doing this in a way that can ultimately turn into a power plant. The upcoming milestones of 1 keV or 10 million degrees, 10 keV and ultimately Lawson are super important. We are laser focused on those right now, and we know that with the capital we have on the balance sheet now, we have got sort of that last piece of the puzzle to go ahead and execute against those milestones. But before we built that machine, we spent the last two decades de-risking our technology. The plasma injector, small-scale plasma compressions, liquid cavity formations, these types of things which all set us up and fed into the design for the LM26 machine. Between now and the end of 2028, we believe that if we can continue to execute at the pace that we are executing, we can achieve these really important industry milestones with this. That will help to retire the major science risk behind our unique engineering commercializable approach to fusion. These are important milestones. We are tracking nicely against them. We just did a nice release in June that showed progress on the first major one. Yeah, we will continue to let people know how we progress as we do that. Yeah. Maybe just to hone in on that. So the June release, you are kind of nearing the 1 keV milestone there. Throughout those tests, were there any sort of technical challenges that maybe you didn't initially account for that popped up throughout those tests? And maybe just how has performance kind of tracked versus your initial expectations? Yeah. Also another good question. Look, this is a First-Of-A-Kind, 50% power plant scale machine demonstrating Magnetized Target Fusion, our unique approach. With that, there is a lot of newness. We managed to design, commission, and start shooting plasmas incredibly fast. In an industry that is spending billions of dollars to build large science machines, we did it with a fraction of the cost and at an extraordinary speed. When we started to see the results of initial plasmas being formed in a way that we need them to be formed so that we can compress them and see them heat up and the density increase, we were excited. So kept moving along that path and then started compressing those plasmas. Through compressing those plasmas, we started to see one of the most important things, which is compressional heating. Our entire approach, this mechanical approach for fusion, means we must be able to heat these plasmas up through compression. When we started to see heating through our early compressions of our plasmas, that was fantastic news. Then we just continued to turn the dials as we do, and as we have done in other test beds to increase the temperature, increase the density. Then achieving that 8.4 million degrees really gave us a good indicator that we are making good progress towards all of those milestones and really close to that first one of 1 keV, which is 10 million because that result was 8.4 million degrees. So, I would say, I guess just to put a final piece on it, we expected that there would be challenges as we progress a machine like this. But the fact that we have 20 years under our belt of building and executing on these types of machines and then peer-reviewed papers for them, we know how to navigate this. I wouldn't say anything that was unexpected or unmanageable and we are making good progress. Great. And maybe just on the fuel front, what is your current strategy, if you could elaborate a bit more on securing your startup tritium? And what gives you the confidence that you can successfully extract that from the wall once you get a commercial plant going? Yeah. The fuel we are using, of course, is deuterium and tritium. Deuterium, extracted from seawater, very abundant. Tritium needs to be bred. One of the reasons we chose the design that we have ultimately for our power plants, Magnetized Target Fusion, using this liquid metal wall, is because it enables the breeding of more than sufficient amount of tritium fuel when running a power plant. It is important that we start with a design that is going to, once executing, breed enough fuel to begin with. We have run some external work with parties to confirm that we can achieve a greater than, I think it is a 1.6 breeding ratio with our liquid metal wall and our power plant design. What that means is we will be able to generate more tritium than we even use in the power plant and once up and running. The ability to extract that tritium from the liquid metal wall is something that is part of our next phase, post LM26 phase, but the sort of commercial systems phase will be sorting out and working through, and this will be done with partners most likely, how to extract that tritium from the liquid metal wall. This is an industry challenge, not just ours. Not something that we see as insurmountable, but something we definitely need to work on the next phase post LM26 and something the industry is going to need. We have established some partnerships already. There are parties in Canada and in Japan, Kyoto Fusioneering, that are working on technologies related to this. We will be working with those partners and others on that. Great. Thank you. Thanks, Matthew. As a reminder, ladies and gentlemen, if you do have a question at this time, please press star one one on your telephone. Our next question comes from the line of Ryan Fickas from B. Riley Securities. Your question please. Hey guys. Thanks for hosting the call and taking our questions. First, can you go through your work on the supply chain a bit more? What long lead items will be important to secure early on, and maybe what kind of partnership announcements could we expect in the coming quarters and years? Sure. It's a good question and something that we considered also when looking at the design for creating these fusion conditions ultimately for a power plant is, creating fusion conditions is of course necessary, but if you can't do it in a way that can enable partners and suppliers and manufacturability and scalability and economics, then it's just a big science project. Our approach, Magnetized Target Fusion, because it's mechanical, because it's using a lot of existing technologies and materials, we can leverage a lot of existing technologies and supply chains out there. We're not relying on superconducting magnets, lasers, or exotic materials. What we are relying on is the ability to build pistons, valves, seals, bearings, these types of things that will enable ultimately our power plant. The beauty of this approach is that there is an abundant amount of capabilities in IP and partners that can help in those types of technologies. We started to develop some of those relationships already. As we enter into the commercial systems phase of the company, we will be building out those partnerships in more depth and hopefully bringing them closer to us to work on some of those technologies and adapting them to our ultimate power plant design. Appreciate that. Then maybe a follow-up on the technology. Could you talk a bit more about the differentiators between your Magnetized Target Fusion approach and what some of the others in the industry are doing? Sure. Yeah. The industry has been really focused on the science of fusion, which, of course, is important. You need to make sure that you have the science sorted out in order to ultimately build power plants. But a lot of those other approaches are really not looking far enough into the future to think about after you have achieved those fusion conditions with your machine, are you going to be able to build power plants and deploy them around the world globally if you need superconducting magnets, new materials, very complicated lasers, and these kinds of things? Or if you are pushing physics to extremes using very high confinement or high density approaches. As Megan sort of describes in our presentation, we took this approach that is more moderate, not at the extremes of physics. That allows us to be balanced and use mechanical compression in a liquid metal system, rather than some of the machines that are costing billions of GBP to demonstrate science and are going to be very challenged to move from that large demonstration to commercial power plant. So we often describe it as climbing the right mountain. We are embracing what we believe to be the easiest form of fusion using the easiest fuel, deuterium and tritium, and then taking the challenges with that and actually turning them into positives, into benefits with our liquid metal wall and being able to use those neutrons, which damage other machines, to our advantage to produce the fuel, to convert the heat, to do all of those things that other machines are challenged. So we have sort of taken the challenges and turned them into opportunities. But it is on us to prove with the LM26 machine that we can continue to compress the plasmas so that this approach, which is highly commercializable in all those ways, is ultimately long-term viable. That is what we are working on. Appreciate that, Greg. Then maybe just a last one. You talked about some of the differences between fusion and fission, particularly on the regulatory side. Could you lay out what you expect the regulatory paths will be like for fusion technology in both Canada and the U.S., and how that contrasts with nuclear fission? Yeah. So fusion is inherently safe, as Megan sort of described and I described in the presentation as well. What that means is no long-lived radioactive waste. There is no chain reaction. So you cannot have a meltdown. You are not using fuels that can be weaponized. So these are all the inherent benefits. We are not engineering those into the power plants necessarily. It is just an attribute to fusion, which makes this so incredible of an opportunity and a bigger market. If the regulations do not recognize the safety profile of fusion, then we would end up with a much smaller, more challenging market, similar to what you would see in the traditional nuclear fission space. So we are involved closely. I sit on the Fusion Industry Association board working closely with governments around the world, not just in the U.S. and the U.K. and Canada, but around the world to ensure that the regulations are appropriate for the safety profile of fusion to open up the speed and the market size that fusion can deliver. I would say we are making, there is really good progress on that front around the world. The U.K. was really a first mover, and the U.S. is following behind, and we are in discussions in Canada. So I do not see or anticipate at least, regulations being a major bottleneck for us. But it is important that we keep our eye on it and that we see continued progress so that the market size and the real opportunity of fusion can be realized. We will do our best to share developments in that regard in these future calls. Great. I appreciate all that detail. Thank you. This does conclude the question and answer session, as well as today's program. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your participation. You may now disconnect. Good day.