All right. Well, hello everyone. My name is Esteban Albarracin. I am with the energy team here at TD Cowen. We are here joined with Matt Barry, who is the Director of Investor Relations and Capital Markets at NANO Nuclear Energy. Matt, thanks for joining us here. We could dive right in quick into some of the numerous updates that NANO has had this year, especially on the flagship KRONOS 15-MW reactor that is being deployed at the University of Illinois. Earlier this year, you submitted that construction permit, which the safety evaluation is expected in September 2027, and would expect approval thereafter. You have about a year to go for that, but that is good visibility. My question to you is, how is NANO preparing in this next year in terms of the supply chain, in terms of even just construction that you are able to set up before approval, and when you expect to secure long lead items and fuel? Yeah. Appreciate it, Esteban. Excited to be here. I would say in terms of preparing for construction and building out the supply chain, ordering long lead items. In terms of construction, we are advancing conversations with EPCM firms, construction partners. We are looking to be prepared to begin non-nuclear and nuclear construction as soon as that construction permit application is approved. In terms of preparing for construction, we are in the process of developing our final schedule, continuing to expand the team pretty rapidly, and have multiple additional positions for key roles out there right now. We have put together an RFI, RFP process that is underway, and we are engaging in due diligence with various different vendors there. We are targeting finalization of definitive contracts in the coming one to two quarters. When we think about the EPCM partner that we expect to work with, I would say potentially Q4 to have that contract awarded. When we think about our construction management and general contractor, advancing discussions there and looking at Q1 to have completion of an ongoing RFP and potentially have that award in Q1. I think we are making a great deal of progress there on the construction side of things and procurement side of things. Now, when we look at the supply chain and procurement, things like TRISO fuel, reactor pressure vessel, graphite, we are advancing discussions for each of those key long lead items in some instances. Even advancing key subsystems like the helium circulator and the fuel handling system. We recently had press releases and discussed it on our latest earnings call, progress there with two partners there. In terms of the TRISO, I would say keep an eye on the coming, in Q4, coming months to finalize a contract there to procure the not only enriched uranium, but the TRISO for the U of I project, as well as graphite. That is probably another Q4 timeline there to procure that for the project. In terms of the reactor pressure vessel, we are in advanced discussions with a vendor there who is supporting design finalization, and I would say keep an eye out for a final contract there for the Q1, Q2 timeframe. A lot of moving pieces there, but I think we are making a great deal of progress and hopefully, as we sort of announce a lot of these definitive agreements, investors will be able to see the progress we are making towards that target of second half of 2027 beginning construction there. Okay. Yeah, that is very helpful. I think it sounds like there is a lot of progress, like you mentioned. I think you also mentioned nuclear construction is still targeted as soon as the construction permit is approved as well, which also sounds good for the project as well. Looking past the construction permit approval, what should we be on the lookout in terms of progress? Are you going to be notifying investors of sort of a progress report on how things develop after the nuclear construction begins after the construction permit? Yeah. I would say we are, again, reiterate, we are looking to begin construction as soon as we receive that construction permit. Now, could there be, like, a month or two lag? Possibly. All the work that we are doing right now to engage these EPCM and construction partners and finalize contracts there and refine our schedule and plans there, all of that is very crucial to meeting that deadline. We continue to work on that detailed construction schedule, and I would say as we finalize those contracts and finalize that schedule, we will have, hopefully in the coming quarters, more information to bring to the market as we continue to advance through the licensing process and make progress there. Okay. When should we, if you can give us some visibility on when we should expect the COD for this project and maybe just some updated, or when you expect any updated capital cost estimates that you would expect to get for the project. Absolutely. Based on the current timeline where we are today, advancing through the licensing process, if we look at just the public milestones that you laid out in terms of the NRC, September 2027, having that safety evaluation completed, but ideally an approval shortly thereafter. I think there's potential for that timeline to compress just given where the milestones that the NRC has put out for other public companies advancing through their CPA applications. I think there's several of them where the NRC ended up beating their targets there. I think there's opportunity for that to compress. The next steps there are beginning to immediately work on the operating license application, obviously beginning construction. I think, ideally submitting that operating license application somewhere in the timeframe of the end of 2027 to early 2028, that would ultimately set us up to have approval sometime in 2029, and then beginning to fuel the reactor, commission, etc, in 2029 or 2030. We've stuck to that timeline there. Obviously, we're looking to do everything we possibly can to compress that. In terms of the capital cost estimate, that's another area where I'd say we're making a good amount of progress. We initially put out an estimate in our financial statements over the last several quarters of $300 million - $350 million in gross CapEx. We are currently engaging with our EPCM partner to work on updating that estimate. I think it would be a Class Five estimate. A lot of it would be up to Class Four standards, which I think it would be a good update to provide the market. I'd say we're looking to have that completed probably in the coming months, around year-end, maybe in January, and potentially could update the market on our February earnings call, which I think is something we're certainly targeting. I think another important update that we've spoken about in recent earnings calls just relates to additional financing opportunities around the project that could reduce that $300 million - $350 million estimate significantly. We recently spoke about investment tax credits of 30%-40%. That's something that we're working with legal counsel, the University of Illinois tax specialists there, because this is a unique project, right? The University of Illinois will be owning and operating the assets. It's technically classified as a research reactor. It is a little bit different than the standard commercial project. I think we've been doing a great deal of work around ITCs. We're getting excited to sort of get more detail and clarity around there, potentially looking at a private letter ruling with the IRS, so that could get some earlier clarity there, which could significantly reduce that $300 million - $350 million capital cost. Also, that Class Five or Class Four estimate that we're working on is going to be integral to our request to the State of Illinois to get additional funding there, which is important. The DOE also has a university fuel services program that can pay for the enriched uranium or lease it to the university. So that could also be another reduction in cost there. Obviously pursuing funding from the University of Illinois. This is a very important project for them, so all of this is under discussion. I think we're making a lot of progress here. So ideally in the coming quarters or so, we'll have an updated estimate, but also updated information around each of these potential funding mechanisms that could significantly reduce that capital cost. Got it. That's very helpful. Thanks for that, Matt. Maybe shifting to the broader customer pipeline here, all the focus is, of course, on this first reactor deployment and University of Illinois. But could you give us a little bit of color on when we might expect some of these, it's multi-gigawatt pipeline that you have progressing to the next stage, maybe even regulatory submissions on future projects. Could we expect maybe as the technology's validated in the first deployment at Illinois, that we might expect to see some updates, or could it be before that? What would you say about that? Yeah. So I would use as a really good reference, this sort of announcement we had at the end of August related to Tillman Global Holdings and their portfolio company, Tillman Digital Gateway. We reached an initial commercial framework for them to invest $100 million into NANO. Now, that announcement at that point in time, still non-binding, but we since are advancing work on definitive warrant and restricted stock agreements that would make this a definitive agreement and really provide the market with the details around some of these potential milestones. The reason why I bring this up is, one, I think we're very excited about working with Tillman, just given their experience building out telecommunication infrastructure for well over a decade or two decades for companies like AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile. They have experience building, owning, operating these assets, financing them, raising capital at significant scale. They've also expanded into fiber optic infrastructure, which I think is really important. It's public information that they're building out a data center as we speak in the U.A.E., and they have a joint venture there. They also have internal expertise in terms of people who have decades of experience building data centers. So they're leveraging all of that experience to now expand to gigawatt scale data centers in the U.S., and they look at NANO as their preferred nuclear vendor. As part of that commercial framework, we announced that they're looking at $100 million investment into NANO. As we said in the initial press release, a majority of that is tied to firm purchase orders. But before that, there's also a minority of that that would be tied to key development milestones along the way. When we think about the things for investors to look out for related to this opportunity, we also mentioned in the press release, we're targeting 2 GW of nuclear capacity by the mid-2030s and potentially 6 GW by 2040. Around 2040. The type of energy needs that Tillman is looking at for their data centers, that they're targeting for hyperscaler customers is obviously very significant. As it pertains to that milestone agreement, I think it's very pertinent to this question because you would look at initial milestones such as a joint development agreement for an initial site, and then looking at next milestone agreements for Tillman to earn equity in NANO through warrants. Beginning the formal NRC licensing process, and Tillman funding NANO for that, and also doing the site characterization and drilling at site. I think it's a really unique structure, and we like it because it's going to strengthen our relationship with Tillman as they earn equity in NANO. I think our partnership will strengthen, and it's going to incentivize them to want to continue to work with NANO for their gigawatt scale projects. It's also going to provide the market clear milestones to watch out for ahead of a firm purchase order. As we advance through the licensing process, we advance with the University of Illinois project, and we reach COD sometime in 2029, 2030. I think the likelihood of, once we demonstrate that the technology works as expected, it's a high temperature gas-cooled reactor. These have been deployed before, but I think that will just accelerate firm purchase orders. I wouldn't rule out even purchase orders ahead of that, potentially, as we continue to de-risk the project and the company and make a great deal of progress. I'd say, first things first, things like joint development agreements, beginning the formal NRC licensing process, I think there's certainly opportunity, and we expect that that would happen ahead of the University of Illinois project being online, in 2029 or 2030. These are things that we could accomplish in the coming year or two with Tillman. As we make progress together, they'll have the opportunity to invest in NANO at an agreed-upon price that once we sign these definitive agreements, it will be available to investors. I think that the way we structure that is very exciting. Yeah. I think those are the kind of the key things to watch out for as it pertains to Tillman and other opportunities as well. Taking a similar approach in terms of things like feasibility studies, joint development agreements, beginning the formal NRC licensing process. These are things that can happen ahead of the University of Illinois project coming online. Got it. Okay. That makes sense. Thanks. We're talking gigawatt numbers here, right, for the future. The KRONOS reactor is 15 MW. Is there any interest from the customer to potentially want to upsize that number? Is there something about having a 15-MW reactor that really differentiates NANO in terms of why the customer may have picked your technology? Is there a possibility of increasing that power capacity? Yeah. I'd say in terms of increasing the power capacity, it's not something that we're discussing at this point in time. I think there is potential for that power capacity to increase to potentially, I've heard numbers thrown around 20 MW electric on HALEU fuel in the future, but there may be some engineering considerations there for that to occur. I wouldn't make that anyone's base case. As it pertains to the size of our reactor, I think customers, there are some, I'd say, important benefits and there's a reason why we're getting interest from customers for 500 MW, gigawatt scale projects. It's things like speed to power. With a 15 MW electric solution, customers can have initial power along the way rather than waiting for a larger solution to come online, but less on-site construction as well. I think this is a totally different deployment model than even some larger SMRs. Certainly relative to a GE Hitachi or a TerraPower, but we would also say relative to even an X-energy or a NuScale or an Oklo, having I think around 75-MW, 80-MW electric per unit. I think we're trying to identify ways to make this as much of a manufacturing operation as we can. Given the size of our solution, being relatively smaller, we have smaller components, more simplicity to a lot of different components. We have Part 57 coming out, which is ideal for microreactors and fleet scale deployment. Having a standard design approved that can ultimately bring sort of the NRC licensing process down to six months or less maybe in the future, but having a design approved to be manufactured, I think that's ideal for our solution. Ultimately, given this simplicity, smaller components, we believe it'll open up the door to more suppliers, potentially less and nuclear qualified components, which could support in that. I think having the same construction teams, building the same units over and over and over again, when you're talking about hundreds of units, that's really where you have the opportunity to really have construction and manufacturing learnings and have the nuclear industry do something that's never been done before, which is actually benefit from learnings that other industries have that can bring costs down significantly. On a dollar -per -kilowatt CapEx basis, at least initially, we will not be the cheapest solution, but I think on a levelized cost of energy basis, there certainly is opportunity to bring down cost significantly to have quicker speed to power for customers for these data centers that every month that goes by and there is not power, they are losing revenue. I think that is a very underappreciated aspect of the size of our solution as well. Got it. Okay. Thank you for that. Let us shift gears a little bit to the other part of the business. I know NANO has a big vertical integration strategy. You guys had done the STS acquisition earlier in the year, or earlier this month, you had Radnostix acquisition. Can you unpack a little bit more about those opportunities and how they fit inside NANO, especially with the microreactor strategy? Sure. I will quickly start with the Radnostix acquisition. Just in a nutshell, I know we are running up on time here, but we were able to acquire an NRC-licensed facility for, I believe, around $13.5 million total purchase price. Also, we were able to acquire IP, and significant engineering documentation that can really give us optionality on a future fuel facility, whether that is what Radnostix planned, which is a deconversion facility for tails. I think it is very important to note that Urenco's enrichment facility is about 30 miles from this site. But again, it provides us optionality in the future to, if we are looking at a deconversion facility for tails, we already have a licensed site. If we look at deconversion of enriched uranium, we can make an amendment, and it really cuts down years off of a potential facility there. It makes it very attractive also for potential partners as well who can benefit from the fact that their timeline can be compressed by years in terms of NRC licensing. I think that is really important. The STS acquisition, I think, when NANO talks about being vertically integrated and also providing the picks and shovels to the industry, I think it is very underappreciated. It is very difficult for outsiders to fully appreciate the importance of this acquisition. Today, the business is only $7 million. But when you think about what STS is doing today, they are handling coordination of enriched fuel, HALEU, TRISO, other fuel, as well as spent fuel. They are transporting that. They are working on refueling as well for some of the existing reactors. They are subcontracted by our subcontract with Orano, NAC International, Holtec, some of the leading companies. These are very niche capabilities and relationships that they have. When we think about now this relationship with Tillman Global Holdings, I'd say something to look out for in the coming earnings call, or at least one of the next two, is us bringing a revenue model to the market that outlines when customers own and operate our assets, what are their different revenue streams. I think something we're very excited about as we're working with the STS team to identify the things that they can do. When you start looking at 210-MW electric packs of our units, we're 14 of our units, and you think about refueling needing to occur every three to four years, these are million-dollar opportunities per unit. You think about the transportation of the fuel across the full supply chain, adding millions of dollars over the life of the project of services that we can provide. I'd say similar to a company like X-energy, we're obviously not fabricating the TRISO, but there's a number of different ancillary revenue streams that really can increase the revenue and the margin over the life of the project significantly. We have a company in-house today that can do this, and they have clear ideas and ways that they can expand their pie, and they're one of the few companies with niche capabilities and relationships to actually do it. The big thing that has prevented them from growing significantly in the past has been capital, and that is something that being under the NANO Nuclear umbrella, we can allocate some capital there. I think the return on investment on that in the future could be very compelling. Got it. Thanks, Matt. We're at time here. Really appreciate the time. Thank you so much for joining us, Matt. Appreciate it. Appreciate it, Esteban. Okay. Take care.