Please note this conference is being recorded. I will now turn the conference over to Matthew Barry. Thank you, and 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. As reflected in more detail on slide two, 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. We caution that actual results, including without limitation the results of NANO's microreactor development activities, our plans for vertical integration, customer acquisition, and other strategies and plans, timelines for achieving goals, and other matters relating 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 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's founder, chairman, and president. Thank you, Matt, and thank you to everyone joining the call today. I'd like to begin the call by reminding investors what differentiates NANO Nuclear and why we believe we're well-positioned to capture value in the advanced nuclear industry. We've intentionally built our strategy around six factors we believe will determine commercial success at scale. First is our technology. Kronos is built upon high-temperature gas-cooled reactor technology, which has been demonstrated through decades of global deployments. The TRISO fuel used by Kronos also benefits from extensive qualification work under the U.S. DOE's AGR program, contributing to our confidence in building upon mature advanced reactor technology. At the same time, Kronos' enhanced safety profile using helium as coolant and TRISO fuel positions it well for applications requiring co-location with customers, including AI data centers, industrial applications, military installations, and remote mining operations. The second is design maturity and fuel flexibility. Kronos's high TRL is backed by substantial historic investment over a decade of development. Our confidence in Kronos's design maturity is supported by the NRC's formal acceptance of the University of Illinois's Construction Permit Application for review, making NANO Nuclear the first commercially ready microreactor developer building a full-scale unit and one of only a handful of Generation IV reactor developers to reach this stage. Our reactor is also designed to utilize LEU plus fuel that's commercially available today while maintaining the flexibility to utilize HALEU in the future without redesign once HALEU is available and economically viable. Next is scalability. We believe success will be measured by the ability to manufacture a standardized design economically and at scale. Kronos's small modular architect is intended to support standardized manufacturing and repeatable deployment. We expect this approach to provide one of the clearest pathways to benefit from new expedited licensing pathways, including Part 53 and proposed Part 57, shortened deployment schedules, and economies of scale. Fourth is commercialization. Our first full-scale prototype development at the University of Illinois is advancing through formal NRC licensing with a clear pathway towards first power around 2030. Our commercial pipeline also continues to grow. We recently completed a feasibility study assessing the potential to deploy up to 1 GW of power with BaRupOn. At the same time, we are advancing discussions with potential strategic collaborator and customer advancing planned gigawatt scale data centers in the U.S. and internationally. These discussions continue to progress, and we see a potential to soon reach an initial framework identifying NANO Nuclear as their preferred nuclear technology provider. In parallel, we're exploring strategic alignment mechanisms, which could include milestone-based investments tied to defined commercial and project development milestones we believe would drive meaningful value for shareholders. This proposed structure is designed to align long-term interests and incentivize our joint success. Separately, we are advancing discussions with nuclear power project developer and an AI infrastructure company to jointly evaluate several projects. Lastly, we're also seeing strong interest from earlier-stage discussions with potential defense, mining, and industrial customers. We believe these opportunities provide visibility into multiple gigawatts of potential commercial deployments. Next is vertical integration. We believe one of the greatest challenges facing the advanced nuclear industry over the coming decade will be execution across a broader nuclear fuel cycle, which is why we're strategically focused on expanding our capabilities in that area. Our recently announced acquisition of Secured Transportation Services, or STS, has accelerated our progress by providing the ability to transport nuclear fuel and spent fuel. Our team has already identified opportunities to leverage STS's specialized expertise to de-risk Kronos' advancement and our expansion across the fuel cycle. Equally as important, STS has demonstrated a history of profitability. Our team is excited for several significant opportunities to grow the business organically, as well as through an additional M&A opportunity currently under evaluation. We also continue to advance M&A and partnership discussions targeting fuel facility assets to further de-risk the nuclear fuel cycle. Lastly, execution requires both capital and the right team. We ended the quarter with approximately $580 million of liquidity, providing what we believe is one of the strongest balance sheets among advanced reactor developers. Our strong financial position provides the financial flexibility to advance our first deployment, while also pursuing strategic acquisitions and partnerships across the nuclear fuel cycle. Equally as important, we have assembled an experienced team from the DOE, the NRC, U.S. National Labs, the U.S. military, and advanced reactor developers. Our team has grown significantly over the past year, with our headcount increasing to 85 employees and contractors as of the end of our third quarter, from 31 one year prior, and we have expectations for significant growth. We believe this combination of technology, financial strength, and industry experience has built one of the industry's strongest foundations for long-term value creation. Our team looks forward to additional progress and remains excited for both short and long-term opportunities to create further value for shareholders. With that, I will turn over the call to our CEO, James Walker, who will provide additional details on our progress and recent developments. Thank you, Jay. NANO Nuclear has established a strong foundation within the advanced nuclear industry, and we continued converting that foundation into tangible execution during the third quarter. In May, the NRC formally accepted for review the Construction Permit Application for the deployment of the Kronos MMR at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, initiating formal review activities. The NRC subsequently announced its expectation to complete its environmental assessment in Q1 2027 and its safety evaluation in Q3 2027. These projected milestones remain consistent with our expectation for the review process to complete in 2027, providing the opportunity to begin initial construction activities in the second half of 2027. In parallel, we are advancing several critical engineering work streams. We recently announced progress with an engineering collaboration with Fortil, an internationally recognized engineering and consulting firm, to advance Kronos' fuel handling and storage system. This system is an important element of both our first deployment and our broader commercialization of the platform. We are also advancing an engineering collaboration with another globally recognized engineering firm to advance Kronos' primary helium circulator. This firm has decades of experience supporting gas-cooled nuclear reactor programs, and this collaboration has now advanced into the detailed design phase. Together, these advancements reflect progress across several critical path work streams. They are helping us mature key reactor subsystems, reduce first-of-a-kind execution risk, and establish repeatable designs for future standardized commercial deployments. Another significant area of progress during the quarter was the continued expansion of our vertically integrated nuclear platform. As Jay highlighted, we completed the acquisition of STS in May. STS is a globally operating nuclear logistics, transportation, and services company with a history of profitability. With more than 20 years of experience supporting the movement of radioactive and nuclear materials, STS supports both commercial nuclear customers and critical missions for the U.S. DOE and NNSA. By bringing these capabilities in-house, we can reduce reliance on third-party providers, accelerate our expansion across several aspects of the fuel cycle, and accelerate future reactor deployments. At the same time, we have made strong progress advancing several synergistic acquisition and partnership opportunities across the nuclear fuel cycle. These include an additional fuel transportation business and nuclear fuel facility assets. We see potential for more than one announcement in the coming months, subject to further diligence and closing conditions, with one position to contribute revenue upon closing, and another offering more meaningful revenue potential in or around the 2030 timeframe. The third key area of progress came from the expansion of Kronos' commercial pipeline. During the quarter, we continued progressing our deployment opportunity with BaRupOn by completing the previously announced feasibility study, which evaluated a phased deployment of up to 1 GW of Kronos MMR capacity. We view this as an important milestone, and we are advancing discussions towards initiation of the NRC licensing process. We are concurrently advancing discussions towards an initial framework with a potential strategic collaborator and customer to support their planned multi-gigawatt pipeline of data center projects. If finalized, the framework could position NANO Nuclear as the preferred nuclear technology provider. While terms remain under discussion, we believe this framework and future collaboration could significantly strengthen our path towards commercialization by aligning NANO Nuclear with an experienced infrastructure developer with a strong track record of developing, financing, and executing large-scale projects. We are also evaluating mechanisms to align interests through future investment in NANO Nuclear Energy tied to defined commercial milestones we believe could drive substantial value for shareholders. Moreover, we believe this collaboration could be a meaningful validator of our technology and our commercialization strategy, while also providing visibility into a multi-gigawatt deployment pipeline, which could help accelerate Kronos' commercialization. We also signed an MOU with Supermicro to evaluate the integration of Kronos with Supermicro's AI server and data center infrastructure platforms, as well as potential joint go-to-market opportunities and off-grid deployments for next generation AI infrastructure. By engaging early, we can jointly evaluate how future nuclear-powered data centers may be designed as integrated systems, rather than treating the power source and computing infrastructure as separate development decisions. Moreover, we continue to advance several opportunities within and outside of the data center market, further demonstrating the breadth and scale of the market opportunity for Kronos. To this end, we were recently selected for an SBIR Phase I award by AFWERX, the innovation arm of the Department of the Air Force, to advance the Kronos MMR for the U.S. Air Force. The latest award further expands our opportunity set with the Department of the Air Force following the company's previously announced direct Phase II SBIR award for Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, which continues to progress on schedule. We recently submitted our fourth contract line item deliverable, with the remaining four deliverables expected to be completed over the next 12-18 months. Lastly, we further enhanced our strong balance sheet by raising approximately $26 million in net proceeds from our at-the-market or ATM facility. At quarter end, we held approximately $580 million in liquidity. Overall, the quarter included substantial progress across each of our principal strategic priorities. I would now like to provide additional color on our recent acquisitions of STS, the progress we have made since completing the transaction, and the opportunities we see to create long-term shareholder value. Our acquisition of STS represents more than a fuel transportation business. Beyond its established operating business, regulatory clearances, experienced personnel, and long-standing customer relationships, STS provides a strategic platform to expand our capabilities across the nuclear fuel cycle, helping to further de-risk Kronos's deployments. Since joining NANO Nuclear, STS has continued demonstrating the strength of its platform by supporting several important DOE and NNSA missions, including the successful transport of HALEU from Japan to the United States, the removal of highly enriched uranium from Venezuela, and additional domestic transportation campaigns supporting the U.S. nuclear industry. We believe these missions reflect both the highly specialized nature of STS's capabilities and the confidence key government agencies place in the organization. Looking ahead, we believe STS is exceptionally well-positioned to benefit from the continued growth of the nuclear industry. Increasing reactor deployments are expected to drive demand for fuel transportation and related fuel cycle services, and STS is one of the established leaders in this specialized market. Under the NANO Nuclear umbrella, STS is already advancing initiatives to broaden its capabilities in anticipation of that growth. STS also strengthens NANO Nuclear beyond transportation and logistics. The team includes personnel with decades of experience supporting the industry. We believe this expertise can support future reactor operations while further strengthening our relationships with key government organizations. We have also been encouraged by the feedback we have received from prospective customers, several of whom view our ability to offer a more integrated solution as a meaningful differentiator compared with other reactor developers. STS provides a successful standalone operating business we expect will continue generating a solid base of revenue while offering multiple avenues for significant organic growth. At the same time, we are already evaluating a complementary acquisition we believe could meaningfully expand STS's capabilities, geographic footprint, and revenue base. We look forward to sharing updates on our progress in the coming quarters. With that, I will hand over the call to our CFO, Jaisun, to discuss the financial highlights. Thank you, James. I will now provide a brief overview of our financial performance for the third quarter and the year-to-date period. Our acquisition of STS provides NANO Nuclear with a revenue-generating fuel transportation business with a demonstrated history of profitability. STS generated approximately $3.9 million of unaudited revenue during the first six months of calendar year 2026, including $200,000 from the May 22nd closing of the transaction through June 30th. Operating expenses totaled $15.9 million, driven by higher G&A and R&D expenses as we continue to advance Kronos development, progress Kronos through the formal NRC licensing process, advance activities at the University of Illinois, and expand capabilities across the nuclear fuel cycle. As expected, operating expenses increased versus the prior year period as we scale our engineering, regulatory, commercial, and fuel cycle workstreams. Our Q3 net loss was $10.1 million, compared to $7.6 million in the prior year quarter. The increase reflects higher OpEx, partially offset by higher interest income, driven by our larger liquidity position. Year-to-date net loss totaled $25.8 million, an improvement versus the $32 million in the prior year period, benefiting from substantially higher interest income and lower equity-based compensation. Year-to-date net cash used in operating activities was $18.7 million, primarily reflecting the year-to-date net loss, partially offset by non-cash equity-based compensation. Year-to-date net cash used in investing activities was $297.6 million, driven by our approximate $281 million purchase of short-term investments, approximately $10 million in plant, property, and equipment additions, and approximately $6 million related to the STS acquisition. At quarter end, we held $580 million in liquidity, an increase of roughly $11 million from the prior quarter. This increase reflects approximately $26 million in net proceeds from our ATM program, partially offset by capital deployed to advance Kronos development, NRC licensing activities, and broader fuel cycle initiatives. We believe our balance sheet is among the strongest in the advanced nuclear energy sector, providing a clear competitive advantage as we progress toward our first-of-kind deployment. Our strong financial position could be further enhanced by several non-dilutive funding opportunities for the University of Illinois project, which we believe could meaningfully reduce the capital required. Taken together, this liquidity profile not only positions us well to advance our first-of-kind prototype, but also provides the flexibility to pursue value-accretive acquisitions across the fuel cycle while continuing to advance Kronos towards commercialization. We will continue to deploy capital strategically to de-risk Kronos development and commercialization, and prudently in line with prior successful value-accretive investments such as the acquisition of the Kronos MMR assets and STS. Overall, we remain confident that our financial strength positions us exceptionally well to execute on our growth strategy. With that, I'll turn the call over to the operator for Q&A. Thank you. We will now be conducting a Q&A session. If you would like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad. A confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press star two if you would like to remove your question from the queue. For participants using speaker equipment, it may be necessary to pick up your handset before pressing the star keys. We ask that you please limit yourself to one question and one follow-up. Thank you. One moment while we poll for questions. Our first question comes from Sameer Joshi with H.C. Wainwright. Please proceed with your question. Hey, good afternoon, James, Jay, Jaisun, and Matt. Congratulations on the progress. The CPA acceptance was a real achievement, and the STS acquisition also fits nicely in your strategy. My first question is about just as the regulatory process goes through with the safety evaluation and environmental assessment, on the other side, you said you're working with Fortil and another engineering firm. Are there any long lead items that you might need to order now to start construction in the second half of 2027? The initial construction fortunately focuses more on things like the installation of the citadel. If you think about a big subterranean concrete structure for which the reactor will sit in, for instance, technically right at the start of the construction period, we don't need any reactor-related components. That doesn't mean we haven't started sourcing them already, and we're into vendor negotiations with regard to costs and delivery schedules and all that. But the initial construction isn't waiting on those. Once we get the approval and the turnaround from the NRC, the federal regulator, we'll proceed straight away with the ground excavation, followed by concrete pouring and steel installation for that portion of the project that will house the nuclear reactor. The other parts of the actual system, the Kronos system overall, include the thermal energy storage system, which is the solar salt. The thing that acts as like a battery and the adjacent plant, which converts that thermal output to electric. None of that is nuclear at all. A lot of those components are very standard. You're thinking turbine systems, solar salt, those don't even need to wait for NRC approval. We can get constructing on those straight away, and those are more off-the-shelf components. There's a lot we can do even before we procure components. But we do want to, by the time we get the approval next year, be in a position where we know where everything is coming from, the cost of everything, and we have everything lined out in terms of the pathway to the full build-out of the reactor system. That is reassuring and good to know. My next question is about the acquisitions you spoke about. Of course, STS is in the bag. You spoke about adjacent acquisition and maybe another one. Have you allocated any budget, particular amount, dollar amount that you want to spend during 2026? Or you are more likely to be opportunistic and strategic about this? It is not that there is a ceiling on the limit to which we are about to spend on acquisitions, but we are very capital conscious. I think that is important because we do not want to go after big acquisitions that are in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars, even if it was to acquire big revenue-generating businesses for NANO Nuclear Energy internally. The focus has always largely been on acquisitions that provide us that in-house capability that will facilitate the rollout of our reactor systems. A lot of the time, all that means is acquiring small companies. For instance, even with STS, I think the initial payments as part of that acquisition were only in the region of about $7 million, with some future payments for retention allowances factored in. But that is kind of emblematic of the other acquisitions that we are considering at the moment. They are small scale. It is to bring in-house capabilities to us. The only contradiction to that might be a fuel facility that we are looking at. But again, that fuel facility, there is no acquisition cost exactly. Our equity position in that would be earned through investment into the completion of that facility. So it does need to all be very strategic. All of these acquisitions are, of course, to facilitate the mass rollout of the reactor systems. But we do not want to spend big money on acquisitions. The revenue is obviously beneficial, and it does de-risk the company to some degree, but it is in-house capabilities. It is partially also to take advantage of the massively expanding nuclear market. That STS acquisition, already, we are looking at all sorts of contracts that are way in excess of contracts that STS has been able to solicit for before because it needed more capital backing, which we can now give it. So there is the expansion potential that exists for these small entities. But succinctly to the question, no, we are not looking to have big outlays for big acquisitions. Sameer- Thank you. I would- Go ahead. I would also just add as well that if there are acquisitions that have a bigger outlay relative to some of the acquisitions we've executed upon thus far, we're very conscious of that, as James highlighted, in terms of the capital outlay. We also are ideally evaluating several different funding mechanisms to reduce that, whether it's government programs or other mechanisms to reduce that capital outlay. Also, if there were other larger type acquisitions, it would be safe to say that those capital outlays would occur over a number of years rather than all up front. Understood. Thanks for that color, and thanks. I will step back in queue. Thank you. Our next question comes from Craig Irwin with ROTH Capital Partners. Please proceed with your question. Good evening, and thank you for taking my questions. I wanted to ask about the project outlook. Your prepared remarks make it very clear, the UIUC project is on track, construction start by the end of next year. You have announced a particularly interesting relationship with Ameresco that I do not think is appreciated appropriately by the market. Ameresco has eight enhanced use leases from the Navy, and they are actually bidding for leases right now from the Army, where this gives them land and access to easy permitting or much faster permitting than commercial or non-military land, for power projects to support data centers that would be used both by hyperscalers and by the military itself. They have talked publicly about a $10 billion near-term pipeline. The $1.5 billion in bookings they had this last quarter, a very large chunk of that actually came from data center. I understand the actual number is mid-20s is the medium term. $20 billion is the medium-term power opportunity they are looking down. Given that they can move faster and they probably have access to DOE and Department of Defense licensing pathways for nuclear power, this could be one of the most interesting customers in the market. Can you maybe expand on your relationship with Ameresco? Have you been in discussions with them about potentially using these alternative pathways for construction approval, for plan approval, given that these would be Department of Defense projects? They have talked about 70% funded by third-party debt, and I think there are names that are big names that are lined up and competing for those slots. Anything you can share about your conversations with that company that can help people understand the real value there? Sure. I am happy to give some background and color on that. The challenge for NANO is that we are a technology company. We have got a great reactor system. When we start commercially deploying the reactors, we are going to be looking at dozens of different sites and many different reactors that will be deploying all around the place. That means a lot of the components coming from a lot of different sources and going to one place. It is going to require a lot of EPC work. The initial conversations with Ameresco were based around that engineering procurement and construction work, the coordination of that, because it is a big operation in and of itself, especially considering the size of the potential scale of some of these operations that we are looking at. Ameresco, I think they are clean energy projects. When they are looking at things like DoD, it is almost similar to how we are dealing with the Air Force and our Air Force contracts. They are also, the DoD, pushing in the direction of trying to get these systems online so they can have that energy sovereignty. But even for the DoD, these are new endeavors. They have a lot of familiarity with naval reactor systems, aircraft carriers reactor systems. But even this is a bit new territory for them. So it is also, whether it is through Ameresco's projects or it is through the Air Force, we still need to go through that feasibility study analysis similar to how we are going through with the Air Force. I would not say that Ameresco's projects could expedite us hugely, just given our existing experience of what we are having to go through at the moment in terms of providing the necessary information for the military to get comfortable with the installation of reactors at their sites. They do need to defer to the NRC on some things, just given these are new reactor systems. I think even for Ameresco's projects, where they will be looking at the introduction of nuclear reactors onto their sites, it is still, no matter how you slice it, a new endeavor for the DoD that they will need NRC assistance and partial, they do benefit from projects like the UIUC project, the University of Illinois construction project, because they can see it being constructed, they can see the NRC working through the process, and it does provide more reassurance. They are in that phase now where they are trying to analyze the real players in this, because there are really only a few handful on that sort of commercial path. They are distilling that down as they get more expert now at understanding this sort of advanced reactor industry in total. Not to convolute the answer, but effectively it is really a factor of- Yeah. conventional licensing frameworks that need to be worked through for reassurance, and the ability to fast-track them is rather minimal. Yeah. Understood. I just wanted to add, with Ameresco, we are in active talks with them. They do have a robust nuclear kind of a group there, so we are working with them actively, and we are looking at different strategies with them. Just to reinforce what you said, they are looking at different areas and one of the areas is nuclear and there are synergies there, as you mentioned. We are ongoing and talking with them about these possibilities. Thank you for that. My second question is about Dioxitek, right? There has been public coverage out there that NANO Nuclear proposed a $230 million investment structured in two phases. I think it is fairly obvious that that did not come from you, but it is out there in the public domain, so maybe that increases the bandwidth or the opportunity for you to maybe discuss this potential investment. I know it was a proposal and that there is a negotiation going on and that you do not necessarily, like there could be other parties that might win the bid in this process. Can you maybe just give us a little bit of color from your perspective where things stand at the moment, and how this could be a strategic fit for NANO over the next couple of years? Sure. So yeah, that- Well, I could quickly answer that. Our proposal is currently under review, and we hope to have an update in the coming months, but we cannot really touch on that right now. But we are looking to be vertically integrated, obviously. So this would be a big kind of achievement for us. But right now it is still under review, so we do not really have too much comment on that. Understood. Completely understood. My last question, if I may. It is not easy to hire people with nuclear expertise, right? NANO Nuclear Energy has done a fantastic job bringing on experienced executives, bureaucrats, engineers from the industry, people with decades of experience, many of them. Can you talk about your hiring plans over the next year? Would you expect the growth in employees to continue at the similar rate that it has been materializing over the course of the last year? Do we need to see a double in the total number of employees in the medium to longer term to have the capabilities that you foresee and that you are planning for the broader NANO Nuclear Energy capacity and execution potential? It is a good question, actually, because NANO Nuclear Energy has obviously transitioned from a small company to a medium-sized company. What came with that was a big reorganization of how we actually run things and integrate the departments. The technical team does still need further expansion, and we need to do that essentially to have that in-house infrastructure to carry a reactor project forward from advanced design all the way through to an actual physical operating reactor system. Already, I am calling from the University of Illinois today. Even the conversations today with the chancellors and the deans involve significant amount of personnel and technical work being required. Even over the next few months, you will probably see a big upscaling in technical staff as we bring on more people. Over the next couple of years, that will expand even further. That expansion is very necessary, and that is only specific to the reactor system. There are additional acquisitions that will bring in additional people in other departments of the nuclear industry as well, including transportation. The other areas that we have alluded to already around fuel supply chain, that we are also making additional recruitment in those areas as well. NANO is expanding very quickly. I think the most important part, though, is to be very sensible in the hiring process, because over-employing and not having the organization in place with the correct reporting lines can quite quickly result in personnel that are not allocated properly and do not have designated tasks that are specific to NANO's mission. We are trying to do it as carefully as we can, but the pressure is on us to upscale as quickly as we can. Thank you. Our next question comes from Nate Pendleton with Texas Capital Bank. Please proceed with your question. Good afternoon, and thanks for taking my questions. In your prepared remarks, you talked about advancing discussions toward a framework with a strategic collaborator and customer for a multi-gigawatt pipeline. Can you provide some insight into what that kind of structure would look like, what it could unlock from a commercialization perspective for you, and maybe what attracted the customer to NANO specifically? Sure. We have not publicly released a huge amount of information yet, but I can speak in sort of high levels to the sort of the framework that is been put in place, that is being put in place at the moment with this big partner. They establish a lot of data center campuses. They are looking to integrate NANO systems into these data center campuses over time. They would provide things like finance for campuses, power infrastructure, and NANO would provide things like the reactors, fuel, licensing support, and operational capabilities. The way we have structured this is that we have looked at how other companies have structured PPA agreements. The reason why a lot of these are deficient is that they do not require investment from the potential customer that they are going to be servicing. That can create some level of weakness because any agreement that is non-binding that says if you build a reactor system and it costs this much money for power, sure, we will buy it. If it does not meet this requirement, we have no obligation. That is an insufficient model, I think, for how reactor companies are going to successfully market and deploy their reactor systems. The way we are structuring this is that the partner in this question will have an ability to receive equity grants and warrants in NANO Nuclear Energy, but also give them the ability to invest tens of millions, if not $100 million into NANO Nuclear Energy, as development and reactor purchase milestones are achieved. So it is a very incentivizing arrangement where even NANO Nuclear Energy, for instance, could invest in the nuclear data center project itself. So we could have equity in that position. It could lead towards additional revenue being generated for the company once nuclear construction actually begins. But this way, we are more bound up with the technology partner, and that co-level of investment de-risks both sides and provides a way for us both to double-dip almost into an ability to raise revenue on both sides. But that synergistic partnership is essentially what we are aiming for with this new framework that we are deploying for Kronos in collaboration with the data center partner. Also, if I could just jump in and just add some additional color as well. So this potential partner is a global infrastructure investment and development firm, has experience building, owning, and operating large infrastructure projects globally, which they expect will translate well to some of their ambitious plans for some gigawatt scale AI industrial campuses in the U.S. and also internationally. So I would say, as James highlighted, close to finalizing an initial framework, where NANO Nuclear Energy could be their preferred nuclear technology provider. This would be structured. Obviously, James talked about seeing some of the challenges with types of agreements, whether it is PPA agreements or other. This would be potentially structured a little bit differently as this company would look to purchase NANO Nuclear Energy's reactor. Given their experience with some of these large-scale infrastructure projects, experience identifying land, procuring power, and sort of executing on these, they are very adept and also financing them as well. They are very adept at all of that, which would be very complementary to us, and so they would purchase our reactors in what we envision. But as James highlighted, there would be an opportunity for things like options to potentially have equity interest in some of that nuclear company that would be selling the power, which is really interesting. Lastly, as James highlighted, I think the potential to have an arrangement where there is a level of investment in NANO not only signifies additional capital potentially in the future, but also signifies a level of seriousness to this and a level of, I'd say, belief and confidence in NANO Nuclear and how strongly positioned we are in terms of being the first microreactor developer building a full-scale prototype to enter formal NRC licensing and obviously being able to procure fuel that's commercially available today and having a design that has had significant investment. I think it also signifies confidence in NANO as a company. I think also important is that given the potential planned pipeline, potential multi-gigawatt opportunity for NANO, I think it would really accelerate potentially our commercialization as well, and obviously it being with a credible partner, I think also makes it really important. Hopefully all that kind of helps. Absolutely. Sounds really exciting. I'll stay tuned on the specifics. Then maybe for my follow-up, going back to your prepared remarks on the supply chain, fuel availability tends to be a key critical path item that a lot are focused on right now. Can you provide an update on how your conversations with commercial enrichment providers and TRISO fabricators are progressing? What does that availability look like based on your commercialization timelines at UIUC and beyond? This is, I think, an intrinsically important question for every reactor company at the moment. Look, the conversations with enrichment and fabricators are very different conversations. On the enrichment front, I think the big advantage we have over most of our competitors is the fact that we can use low enriched uranium, so fuel that can actually be manufactured today. Companies like Urenco, we've already started conversations with them about them being able to provide us the enrichment that we would need for the mass rollout of systems. That's obviously different from the University of Illinois project, where we're obviously sourcing the fuel that's necessary for that first of a kind initial reactor system. There are a number of fabricators on that side that I'll discuss in just a second, but the enrichment part fortunately plays into our favor. Now, when HALEU is available, there are a number of companies that we are already speaking with, groups like Centrus, that do intend to make HALEU fuel. We will take that fuel, and we will be able to refuel our reactors without modification. With that HALEU fuel, that will allow for longer periods between refueling. The advantage is we want to get to market soon. We want to get to market sooner, and the ability to actually utilize enrichment companies that don't need any site amendment, license amendment to make our fuel is a big one. Those conversations, thankfully, they've been very positive. The capacity exists to do that, and the other reactor companies are looking at utilizing HALEU. They're not having those conversations with existing enrichment companies because they would not be able to source their type of fuel from them. Now, on the fabrication side of things, the interesting part of this is that there are emerging players in this market. Everyone's probably familiar with BWXT. They've already been manufacturing TRISO for many years. They are looking now for a commercial arm of that venture where they would establish a Category II site, principally because their Category I site creates far too many overheads to make a competitive product. Then there are groups like Standard Nuclear partnered with Framatome and even TRISO-X with the subsidiary of X-energy. The nice part is that as there are more and more players involved in this space, we are in a nice position to negotiate and find the best prices. With everybody that I've mentioned, we are speaking to all of them at the moment, and we are trying to lock down long-term contracts. The ability to fabricate the fuel that we need for the first of a kind reactor system already exists. We aren't worried about getting that fabrication done and meeting our timelines because that capacity and that capability is already there. Now, the long-term strategy could look a bit different as we look at bigger bulk loads, with escalating production of reactors over time. There still might have to be some element of NANO that we would bring online in the future to manufacture certain elements of the fuel, like the SCM that's necessary for our fuel. It could be that we want to be more involved in that and we establish joint ventures in that department for long-term de-risking. The important part is those are considerations, I think, for the future as we want to de-risk the mass rollout of reactor systems. First of a kind is fine, both on enrichment and fabrication. I think already we've turned our focus towards 2030 and beyond, where we want to be in a position where we hit that timeline and we can mass manufacture reactors with mass-fabricated fuel. Thank you. Our next question comes from Craig Shere with Tuohy Brothers. Please proceed with your question. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions. In a pure SMR industry earnings call, an argument was made that most deployment opportunities that take advantage of both the power and thermal applications can utilize 400- 450 degrees fast reactor technology as readily as high temperature gas cooled reactors, and that HTGRs are only uniquely optimally suited for perhaps niche applications. We've kind of made a bigger deal about the HTGR differentiation, though, noting X-energy's most advanced deployments with Dow and that NANO Nuclear Energy in particular has a great many opportunities, from Korea to the Middle East, to those remote off-grid cold weather Canadian markets, whether they be communities or mining operations. Can you chime in on just how important that higher temperature run rate, even versus metallic fueled fast reactors may actually be? Sure. As a bit of technical background, and thankfully, I've got a nuclear engineering background to speak to this somewhat. The background to what was said about high temperature gas reactors is that they have been previously deployed in the past. There's been many deployed internationally around the world, and people are very familiar with their operating profile. The only criticism really of them is that the capacity factors were low because the time to ramp up power and ramp down power could be fairly long. For industrial applications where you might have fluctuating demand, it could be ill-suited. In the advanced reactor systems like ours, the solar salt loop acts as an energy storage. The reactor can actually just maintain constant output, and it's the thermal energy storage system that you can take up and take down and fluctuate demand enormously. That's been specifically designed around that operating history that's given us that information. The problem with fast reactors, though, if you are comparing the two, is that they've never been deployed commercially. In order to, if I'm just going off the top of my head, to actually deploy a fast reactor, you would need a very enriched central core of fuel, which would either have to be some sort of HALEU fuel or some sort of blend of plutonium. The problem with both of those is, one, HALEU is not available, and it might not be available for a long time. A commercial company being allowed to handle some plutonium is also not allowed, it would also require legal changes. If you had to choose from the two of them, you would choose a high-temperature gas reactor over a fast reactor any day of the week at the moment, especially given the fact that it lacks operating history and commercial deployment. The reason why high-temperature gas reactors would be better as well for industrial applications, given the thermal energy storage system, is that they do produce a high thermal output, which would be ideal for foundries, but it doesn't require fuel that is just not available, and it's available now. The other part is that if you make a fast reactor, the bigger the better. The reason why is that you have a lot of neutron flux, and you're not moderating it. It's called a fast reactor because the fast fission that takes place as a result of the fission incident. You are compacting your core with things like uranium-238, which isn't that fissile, but with enough neutron flux, you can create that fission reaction. But on a small scale, it's difficult, so you need a big reactor system. If you're making a massive reactor system to cater towards the efficiencies of fast reactor, you're already limiting the flexibility of your deployment because you cannot make them as small and as mobile and as portable and as modular as you can a high-temperature gas reactor. Very different strategies. I would say if you put me into a fast reactor company today, one, I would have to look at the fuel straight away and try and come up with a solution. Two, I would be targeting bigger, going bigger almost straight away. I think you would be being very selective with your information if you said fast reactors had an advantage over high-temperature gas reactors when it came to thermal output for industry. Very difficult to make that case unless you're being very carefully selective. Very helpful. My second question, some of this has already been touched on when you were responding to questions about the potential strategic developer partner relationship and the fee-based versus some retained equity ownership potential. But I'm interested in kind of the tension between those two across your entire business prospects. We've got kind of like on the one end, the Oklo ownership PPA model, and then a few others, X-energy, Newcleo, Terrestrial Energy, with more of a fee-based or fuel sales model. Now, I realize you're open to both, and that probably the fee-based approach may ultimately comprise the lion's share of deployments. But is there a geographic distinction where you may be, for example, more likely to provide services versus retain ownership internationally? That's a very interesting question. Actually, funnily enough, it kind of ties into your first question because we have a lot of interest coming from countries like South Korea, and a lot of their interest is around industrial heat for manufacturing operations because they don't have access to the same level of gas or coal or oil that the U.S. might have or other countries. The long-term de-risking of their own heavy industry is they're looking at nuclear as being a solution. Because they are looking at nuclear as being a solution, there is more of an interest, I think, there of being able to mass deploy these reactor systems. There is a bit of a mix there between wanting ownership of those systems, so you don't have to worry about the long-term payments of those reactors. You would just have to pay for servicing, maintenance, and refueling. I would still say that is a minority, even compared to just paying a monthly or quarterly agreed contractual price for the power, because a lot of these industries, even though they are heavy industries trying to de-risk their long-term security, they still are not as interested in owning and operating a reactor and being responsible for it. They are still happy to put in capital investment into these projects, but they ultimately want the responsibility to sit with somebody else, but they just want that long-term de-risking power to come in. Thank you. Our next question comes from Jake Sekelsky with Alliance Global Partners. Please proceed with your question. Hi guys. Thanks for taking my questions. Just circling back to STS and the $7 million or so in revenue last year, can you provide any color on how we should think about this, heading into 2027? I'm just wondering if you have plans to scale the business in the near term here, or is it better viewed as a complementary business to secure fuel transport? It is both. We were always very commercially focused as a company. Even from inception, we were looking at how we really get reactors out there. It became very clear that it is a very specialized industry. The ability to move yellowcake to a conversion facility, uranium hexafluoride to enrichment, enriched uranium hexafluoride to deconversion, deconverted fuel to fabricators fuel to a reactor, every single component of that requires some level of transportation capability. When we realized that there were very few players in this space, and that as the advanced reactors advanced towards deployment of the reactor systems, that would be squeezed substantially, we realized we had to go after a transportation capability to have that ability in-house so we did not get stuck at that juncture. Now, the advantage here is that because it is going to be a big growth area, we can grow that business very substantially. STS is incredibly expert company, but they have more experience in the back end of the fuel cycle. We are looking at acquisitions at the front end of the fuel cycle to complement what they do and give us a more holistic business that can do everything in the nuclear industry. One, for us internally, but two, also it just taps into that ability to grow that business very substantially this decade before the reactors are actually even out. But yes, it did begin as a de-risking operation for the deployment of reactor systems, but we see the massive potential for business to be generated through the growth of that industry. Okay. That is helpful. Just to follow up on M&A opportunities. Realizing you cannot speak to specifics, but can you maybe just touch in broad strokes on some of the areas of the supply chain you are honing in on and seeing the most opportunity from a vertical integration standpoint? Yep, absolutely. I think Jay and I, when we were building the company up, we realized at a very early stage the fuel supply chain was going to be a major issue just because of lack of investment over the previous decades into bolstering that. With more reactors coming online, that being squeezed even more. Because of that, we have made very strategic investments into things like, Sayless Technologies as an example, is a related transaction company. It does specialize in enrichment. It was old Cameco Tech, with very decent results in the 1990s that also got mothballed just because cheap Russian material was available. Having that partnership is a great call option if they are successful in their ventures for the only enrichment side. Either side of that, we are looking at both conversion and deconversion projects at the moment. One was referred to earlier on in this call today, but we want to solidify that and get those contracts into place and get that in-house capability to control certain parts of the fuel supply chain. Not just to de-risk our reactors, but it also is going to be massive growth area for our own business over the coming years. Everyone's going to need fuel. No matter what kind of reactor you're going to put in place, everyone's going to need that fuel supply. Whether you're a fast reactor, a molten salt, or a high temperature gas reactor, it's going to be very crucial to have some level of control over that fuel supply chain to ensure that you can mass manufacture reactors. A lot of the acquisitions and investments we're making at the moment are centered around those particular areas to de-risk. Not mining so much, I would say, but the yellowcake industry exists to a certain extent that we are comfortable with, we can source the material as we need it, but beyond that, heavy industry, heavy infrastructure is going to be necessary. Thank you. Our next question comes from Jeff Grampp with Northland Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question. Yes. In the prepared remarks, you mentioned some potential non-dilutive funding opportunities to potentially help finance the University of Illinois deployment. I was just hoping to get a little bit more detail on what kind of opportunities, if there's any kind of ranges of quantum of capital that could be out there to help fund this. Thanks. Sure. Hey, Jeff. Oh, go ahead. Oh, sure. Hey, Jeff, I can just chime in really quick. I think there's a couple of different opportunities we're evaluating. Things like investment tax credits. I think the University of Illinois project is a pretty unique project in that we're building our first unit next to the Abbott Power Plant there. There is potential not only for a base 30% ITC for that project, but also potentially an extra 10%. Energy community bonus is things that we're evaluating. I think that's number one. Also obviously evaluating DOE programs to potentially pay for portions of the fuel, as well as opportunities, whether it's with our partner in this endeavor, the University of Illinois or the State of Illinois, to potentially support us. Obviously, given that this is a research reactor, we are saving on the NRC licensing fee. I think that's something we've been very proud of, that we've been very mindful about capital allocation here. But yeah, we're very excited about some of these other funding opportunities as well to potentially significantly reduce the capital cost of the project. Got it. Thanks for that. For my follow-up with BaRupOn, can you guys update us on just the project a bit more? I know you can't speak too specifically for them, but you mentioned a potential licensing application. Any preliminary estimates of when that could be, and what are the main drivers there that dictate the timing of maturing that project a bit further? Hey, I'm sorry, Jeff. Can you repeat that? I apologize. Something got broke off. Yeah, sure. The question was on BaRupOn and the potential licensing application that you guys referenced. Just wondering if there's any preliminary estimates of the timing of when that project could be in a position to submit a licensing application, and what are the factors that dictate that potential timing. Sure. James actually just he got cut off, so I could quickly answer this. I'd say, obviously, we completed the feasibility study there. We're excited about the opportunity with BaRupOn and continuing to engage in discussions with them. As we said in the prepared remarks, evaluating the beginning of the licensing process, evaluating project timelines, working towards early-stage product development activities. At this point in time, we don't want to put a definitive timeline on any of this because discussions are ongoing, but we are obviously discussing initiation of the licensing process. I think, obviously, given where we are with the University of Illinois project, we still have a few years and time is on our side. But obviously, we would look to move as quickly as possible. Hopefully in the coming quarters, we'll have additional updates there. Thank you. Our next question comes from Adam Kelsey with Titan Partners. Please proceed with your question. Great. Thank you. Plenty asked and answered already, so just two quick ones for me. I know you already touched on the NRC process, but it is obviously a major near-term driver for the stock. I am curious if there are any upcoming visible signals or checkpoints between the major milestones that would demonstrate NRC process or that process remains on schedule. Hey, Adam. Yes. I think there are a couple of different milestones we are evaluating. As the NRC publicly put out, there is an environmental assessment in, I think, February 2027, is based on their public timeline, and then obviously a safety analysis slated for September of 2027. Obviously, those are not the only two big milestones. When we think about this review, it is an iterative process. We are going through audit questions as we speak, receiving questions from them, providing answers, to address areas where the NRC is looking to have more completeness and a better understanding. I think the two big milestones I just touched upon are two of the big ones. But, obviously, this is, like I said, an iterative process, and we are obviously going to keep engaging with them. I think ultimately, as we mentioned in our prepared remarks, the timeline that the NRC put out is in line with our expectation to begin construction in the second half of this year. As seen in some other Construction Permit Applications with some other public peers or private peers, hopefully, there is an opportunity to maybe even compress that licensing timeline from what the NRC has publicly slated. Great. Thanks. Any additional insight on where you sit in terms of their staff's bandwidth or prioritization? Just based on conversations we've had internally with our NRC licensing team, we have not heard any issues regarding staffing. I think we continue to engage with them quite frequently. I don't think we have yet to see any instances where staffing has prevented continued engagement with them. We've been engaging with them pretty actively since June, as I mentioned earlier, answering some of their audit questions and things like that. We've actually been having ongoing weekly meetings with them, and supplementing that with additional interactions as necessary to close any gaps that are identified. So, yeah, I think it's been pretty constructive dialogue with them thus far. Thank you. Our next question comes from Sherif Elmaghrabi with BTIG. Please proceed with your question. Hey, thanks, and good afternoon. First question. STS gels pretty nicely with some of the work you're already doing in fuel, and you've touched on how you might look to grow your fuel footprint. When it comes to M&A and Kronos, how are you thinking about strategic opportunities that might help get Kronos built and commercialized? Sure. Sherif, obviously, when we think about commercialization of Kronos, there are many different aspects to that. I would say the acquisition of STS, I think really importantly adds a couple of key things. The team has decades of experience supporting the industry. They even have people who have experience operating reactors. When we think about having those capabilities in-house and even think about some projects that we have at this point, and we are looking to build reduced scaled mock-ups of Kronos in our Oak Brook demonstration facility and are actually advancing plans there. Having this expertise in-house can support us in some of these endeavors, whether it is obviously their experience operating, but some of these other endeavors. Then also, obviously fuel is integral to deploying future commercial units, but obviously even our first of a kind unit and obviously evaluating DOE programs. I would say STS has great relationships with not only national labs, but the DOE and the NNSA. We think some of those relationships as well could potentially benefit us. Lastly, obviously STS has experience not only handling spent fuel, but also transporting fuel across the cycle. I think all of this experience can not only help us with future commercial deployments, but even just advancing development of Kronos, having this additional expertise in-house can enable us in each of these areas, to support us in each of these areas. Thanks, Matt. Then a process question that would be helpful for my understanding, which might make it a James question. If I start a Kronos reactor on conventional fuel and later switch to HALEU, is there any power plant retooling associated with that, or is that just a matter of dropping in the new fuel? Unfortunately, James got kicked off the call, but our understanding is based on conversations with the technical team that we really could just plug and play and remove the LEU plus fuel and replace it with HALEU fuel. Okay. Super helpful. Thanks, Matt. We would not need a redesign, I think that's like of the Kronos MMR design. I think that's really important is that we can do that without redesign, and really provides us the flexibility to not only use fuel that's commercially available today, but once HALEU is available and economically viable to use, we could basically plug and play. Yeah, it's good to hear. Thanks again. Thank you. Our next question comes from Christopher Souther with Truist. Please proceed with your question. Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my questions here. Great to hear some of the advanced discussions with the project developer and AI infrastructure company. Is that something you think we might be getting more clarity on this year? I am just wanting to kind of level set, I guess how intense the conversations are, and where we see those kind of evolving from here in the near term. Yeah. Appreciate the question, Chris. I think there is two elements to this. Obviously, there is the opportunity with the potential strategic partner and data center developer for their planned multi-gigawatt pipeline. I would say we are excited about the potential to and we have been advancing discussions with them. I would say near term, the things to look out for would be, and obviously there is no way to guarantee timelines on any of this, but I would say a near term potential framework agreement that outlines the potential relationship that we discussed. That would obviously include potential things like milestone investment opportunities tied to key value-creating commercial milestones. So that would be like initially I would look out for a framework agreement, and then obviously from there we would look to obviously make a great deal more progress on more definitive agreements, whether that is things like joint development agreements for specific sites. I think there is a number of the way we have envisioned this at this point in time. There is a number of development milestones, but ahead of potential milestones relating to actual firm commercial purchase orders. So I think there is a number of development milestones potentially, whether it is, like I said, joint development agreements, securing site, initiating the NRC licensing process, doing things like site characterization and drilling that can clearly demonstrate that there is a strong partnership and progress being made ahead of firm purchase commitments and more definitive agreements. So I think that is the way to look at that one. Separately, as we highlighted in our prepared remarks, we are evaluating potential opportunities with an AI infrastructure company as well as another nuclear project developer. This potentially could be us evaluating amongst the three parties joint opportunities, which I think given that these two companies are pretty credible and have each bring their own unique experience in the space, it is something that is pretty exciting. So I would say keep out in the near term potentially for things like an LOI or things like that there, assuming we can continue to advance discussions. Got it. That is super helpful. Maybe just how should we think about you guys entering the NRC process, and upcoming construction as catalysts for customers as they are looking for proof of execution and de-risking of future commercial developments. Are you seeing increased inbound or credibility on your end around being able to enter that process with a real project here that you are going to be starting construction basically a year from now? Yeah, Chris, I could tell you the answer is absolutely. We have gotten direct feedback after we submitted the Construction Permit Application and it was accepted for review. We have gotten direct feedback from several potential customers for several opportunities that we are working on, that they view NANO as being very credible, just given by the fact that we are really the first, as we said earlier, microreactor developer building a full-scale commercial unit. Well, it is technically a research reactor, but it will be a full-scale 15-MW electric unit. Just by that alone, given where we are in the licensing process, is viewed very favorably. We have gotten that feedback. Complementary to that, we have also gotten direct feedback regarding the acquisition of STS and having the in-house capabilities not only to transport the fuel, but also have a clear plan for spent fuel and having people in-house who also have those capabilities. So yeah, it is something we are very excited about. We have already seen, I would say, growing interest, whether it is from mining companies or even military-related opportunities. There has been specific mentioning of the fact that we are in formal NRC licensing, and there appears to be clearly a direct path to a commercial license relating to that a commercial license will be very easily achievable once the University of Illinois project, we receive that operating license. So, yeah, I think we are very excited about our progress and some of these opportunities. Thank you. This now concludes our Q&A session. I would like to turn the floor back over to Jay for closing comments. I want to thank everyone again for joining us on today's call. We are very grateful for your continued support, and we have never been more excited for NANO Nuclear's future. We look forward to additional progress and updates in the coming quarters. Have a great evening. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your participation. This does conclude today's teleconference. Please disconnect your lines and have a wonderful day.