Good day, everyone, and welcome to today’s Oklo Q3 ‘24 Financial Results and Webcast. [Operator Instructions] Today’s call is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to Sam Doane. Please go ahead.

Thank you, operator. Good day, everyone, and welcome to Oklo’s 2024 third quarter company update and earnings call. Joining us today are Jake Dewitte, Oklo’s Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer; and Craig Bealmear, Chief Financial Officer. Oklo’s Q3 earnings were announced after market close today. You can find the shareholder letter and supplemental slides on the Investor Relations page of our website. The information discussed during the course of our remarks and the subsequent Q&A session includes forward-looking statements, which reflect our current views of existing trends and are not subject to a variety of risks, assumptions, estimates, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from such statements. You are urged to carefully read the forward-looking statements language in our shareholder letter and supplemental slides. You can find a discussion of our risk factors, which could potentially contribute to such differences in our most recent filings with the SEC. Oklo assumes no obligation to update these statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law. I’ll now turn the time over to Jake Dewitte, Oklo’s Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer. Jake?

Thanks, Sam, and thank you all for joining us today. We’re excited to share our quarterly update and provide some insights into the progress Oklo has made over the last quarter. Oklo was born largely out of the view that there is a significant opportunity for advanced nuclear technology. What we observed was an industry that had radically stagnated and there was a massive need to rethink about how a company could approach taking new nuclear technologies to market. Oklo has started to take advantage of this opportunity and deliver our mission to provide clean, reliable and affordable energy on a global scale. Jumping up to the next slide on Slide 4. The last quarter has seen big tech make substantial and comprehensive commitments to nuclear as their technology of choice to reliably and affordably power their AI ambitions. The deals with existing nuclear facilities between Amazon and Talen, and Microsoft and Constellation demonstrate the desire to have access to reliable power. These deals have played an important role in establishing a price for baseload low-carbon electricity with some expected to be at or above $100 per megawatt hour, which supports our discussions with our current and future customers. The small reactor deals announced by Google and Kairos and Amazon and X-energy also demonstrate that big tech is willing to take long-term bets on new nuclear technologies to power their future operations. Oklo signed a similar strategic partnership agreement with Equinix earlier this year for 500 megawatts of power. Equinix also made a $25 million prepayment to the company for power. We believe that the Equinix deal and other small reactor deals serve as a useful road map for how Oklo intends to partner with data center customers in the future. Going to Slide 5. Oklo is differentiated from many…

Thank you, Jake. Moving on to Slide 15. Similar to statements we made last quarter, we have seen a sizable increase in customer interest since the consummation of the business combination in May of this year with AltC, all of which is leading to an increasing customer pipeline. Oklo is continuing to move forward with additional letters of intent with customers, including new non-binding letters of intent with two major data center providers for up to 750 megawatts of power. Due to commercial reasons in this instance, both counterparties consider our stage of activity to be commercially sensitive and hence, have requested we withhold their names until a future point in time. Moving on to Slide 16. As a reminder, at the time of the announcement of our merger with AltC, we noted that we had over 700 megawatts of business that have been signed through a combination of memorandum of understanding and letters of intent. Since that time, we’ve made new announcements in the data center market sector with Equinix and Prometheus Hyperscale, as well as an announcement with Diamondback Energy in the oil and gas sector. With the two LOIs I mentioned earlier, this takes our total level of signed agreements to 2.1 gigawatts. We are already working towards putting in place our first set of power purchase agreements. While we are actively trading term sheets and PPAs, it is important to note that we are focused on commercial term quality over speed such that we have: optimized pricing potentially linked to fuel price; confirmed location given the impact on cost; partnered with the right customer as we deliver first-of-a-kind projects; assessed the opportunity for investments in Oklo, either at the asset or corporate level; ensured access to other intangibles such as access to their supply chains to support asset deployment.

Thank you for that, Craig. Moving to Slide 17, we are very excited to announce that with the support of our Board of Directors, we have decided to fully incorporate Atomic Alchemy into Oklo via an acquisition. The 2 companies have a long history together. Back in 2018, when Atomic Alchemy was founded, I provided due diligence support to venture capitalists to help them understand the potential for radioisotopes. We stayed in close touch with Atomic Alchemy over the years and formed a strategic partnership that we announced earlier this year focused on supporting technology and market sector advancements. Through our work, we have realized that there are massive synergies between our technologies and overall business approach and believe we can achieve more traction on market and technical advancements if Atomic Alchemy were part of Oklo. Before getting into the elements of the deal, let me walk through some of the basics of what radioisotopes are. So, radioisotopes are radioactive elements. They are vital materials with growing applications in cancer treatment, diagnostic imaging, space exploration, industrial processes and even advanced semiconductor manufacturing and fabrication. However, the U.S. lacks a robust supply chain to support these critical resources. Atomic Alchemy has developed proprietary reactor technologies and isotope production technologies to produce radioisotopes that can utilize unique nuclides sourced from nuclear fuel recycling processes for fast reactors and existing used nuclear materials. Oklo’s fast fission technology can generate electricity using recycled fuel, which can also produce valuable co-products such as radioisotopes. Through the proposed acquisition, Oklo aims to integrate radioisotope production into its fuel recycling process, creating a complementary revenue stream and strengthening the U.S. radioisotope supply chain. The technology opportunity here has been validated through our work completed under the previously announced MOU between Oklo and Atomic Alchemy. Moving to Slide…

Thank you, Jake. Moving on to Slide 20. There have been several multibillion-dollar transactions in the biotech sector related to radiopharmaceuticals, demonstrating market demand for radioisotopes, which is the primary input to radiopharmaceuticals. Atomic Alchemy and Oklo intend to become a premier supplier to this sector as other radioisotope production facilities reach the end of their useful life, resulting in reduced supply. Moving on to Slide 21 to provide some acquisition highlights. Atomic Alchemy will create significant value for Oklo’s shareholders by enhancing the value of our technologies and serving as an attractive stand-alone radioisotope business. We view this as an extremely attractive bolt-on acquisition at the right valuation, which will provide a unique enabler and springboard to enter the radioisotope business, which will be a co-product of our fuel recycling process. Acquisition highlights include the following: complementary technology, radioisotope technologies can significantly enhance the economics of nuclear fuel fabrication and recycling through co-product sales of high-margin radioisotopes. Massive market demand and diminishing supply, the radioisotope market is estimated to be in excess of $55 billion by 2026, which we believe could achieve rapid sector growth. In addition, aging radioisotope facilities are causing acute shortages in supply for critical applications across many sectors. Third, we see a diverse revenue opportunity. Oklo’s reactors will generate radioisotopes as a valuable co-product of its fuel recycling process, allowing revenue from both these co-products and existing used fuel. Fourth, growth opportunities. Joint ventures with customers on radioisotope applications, including radiopharmaceuticals and silicone doping for next-generation semiconductor manufacturing. Finally, we believe this provides an attractive transaction structure. $25 million acquisition will be funded with stock, priced based on Oklo’s most recent 20-day average closing price. All shares issued to Atomic Alchemy are subject to 1 to 3-year lockups with no early release mechanisms. Definitive agreements…

[Operator Instructions] We’ll take our first question from Ryan Pfingst with B. Riley. Please go ahead.

Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my questions. I guess for my first one, have the announcements from the tech giants recently led to an increased customer interest in Oklo and is it may be accelerating certain customer discussions? And when might we see the first contract conversion from an LOI to PPAs? So, a couple in there, but appreciate it.

Yes. Thank you. It’s a great question. This is Jake, by the way. I think it has accelerated. I think we’ve seen a steady pace of acceleration, I should say, a steady rate of acceleration really for some time. We kind of set the market here with the announcement – with the partnership we have with Equinix for 500 megawatts that included their $25 million prepayment back in the spring, and we’ve seen just progression continue. And with the announcements from the Microsoft-Constellation deal now, then the Google and Kairos deal, the AWS-X-energy deal, there’s just this pace of increase that’s happening and a rate of increase there. And I think what is changing the tone towards though is getting more and more towards recognizing that power is one of the biggest bottlenecks on data center deployment and some of the things in nuclear, especially what we’re offering in terms of the business model and our sizing and our sizing flexibility accordingly, opens up significant capabilities and flexibility for data center development as they think about what their scale and their plans for scale are. I think additionally, when we look at one of the indicators for what’s expected here, there’s a lot of eye-popping numbers about power demand, but we’re seeing it supported by what the semiconductor producers are making as kind of maybe a leading indicator, right? They see this enough to invest and produce and to support kind of where these power scales are moving to. And so it’s a pretty exciting kind of – I mean, it’s just an insanely exciting time to be really frank. I don’t think there’s really been a dynamic like this in the world of electric power generation since the advent of electricity. So we see that definitely occurring. That said,…

No, Jake, I think you nailed it.

And the one thing I’ll just add is, like we announced yesterday, I mean, we announced those agreements and those partnership agreements, people want to move quickly and – I mean there’s a lot of exciting things happening. So I think one of the things we really see is good validation of kind of our differentiated approaches or with our business model, kind of our time-to-market advantages, all of those things are lining up to support some of those activities to be more constructive to near-term power deployment, which is also a pretty exciting thing to see coming together.

Jake, maybe one thing as well, it’s great to have the data center customers in our order book, but it’s also – we’re still glad that we’ve got diversity in our order book across a number of other market sectors as well.

Got it. Appreciate that, guys. And then just for my second one, could you give your high-level thoughts on how the changing political landscape might affect nuclear and Oklo’s opportunities specifically?

Like the broad, just nuclear competitive landscape?

Yes. Nuclear obviously enjoys pretty nice bipartisan support. But just with the change in administration, are there any additional benefits or changes that you might expect to see?

Yes. I think we see – I mean, I think, it’s been pretty clear the support has been bipartisan, like you said, between whether it was going to be a Trump administration or a Harris administration and a Democrat or Republican Congress. And I think what we’ve seen is levels of support on the nuclear side continue to ramp up across the board from, frankly, one administration to the next to the next. I think we see a lot of focus on continued roles of regulatory modernization going forward, which I think will be particularly enabling for more and faster new nuclear. I also think you’re going to see some evolution. Obviously, it depends on a number of factors, but of the different support mechanisms on hand, given that nuclear has a lot of bipartisan support, I think any modifications or developments that happen with like the Inflation Reduction Act or different structures like that out there, I think you’re going to see that support continue for nuclear. That said, it depends on what happens, right? But when you read the news, it’s possible that there’s maybe a reduction in some of those benefits to non-nuclear sources of generation. So, that will kind of shift some of those, I think, implications and dynamics accordingly. The other part of this, I think is, I think we see some interesting dynamics on the kind of gas power generation side. And I actually think there’s a lot of opportunity in the gas to nuclear combo that’ll be in play for data centers, sort of the gas bridging to nuclear. So I think there’s some interesting opportunities that will continue to emerge there. But at the end of the day, like, we see a lot of constructiveness to nuclear policy as a whole here, probably with a heavy focus on regulatory as well as amplifying and accelerating the levels of support that we’ve seen already in place.

Thanks, guys. I will turn it back.

Thank you. And we will next take our next question from Vikram Bagri with Citi. Please go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon, team. Thanks for the thorough review of developments at the company. I have two questions, one on Atomic and one on Oklo. Can you talk about the response from hyperscalers regarding the size of reactors and you have plans to increase the size to 100 megawatts and higher. Where are we in that process? And do you see an opportunity to expand the pipeline meaningfully once you have more details and a design ready for a larger reactor?

Yes. I think just on the size part, I think it’s – okay, so it’s kind of an interesting strategic advantage given our sizing. I think the way to think about this is while there’s eye-popping big numbers in terms of like, data center campuses being multi-hundred megawatt. And I think we’re going to see convergence more and more into the multi-hundred megawatt data center campus size. You got to think about how these things are built, which is quite modular. And the data halls that are building out these things, what we’re finding talking to a number of different customers, seeing a number of different architectures, is a size range that matches quite well with what we’re offering. We’re seeing more of it offering and matching the 50-megawatt size. That’s tense how we’re thinking about that driving a lot of the growth here. But that’s important because when you think about these data center campuses, as they build out, it’s nice to be able to build out incrementally with them as these things scale up and out from a power generation side. And then additionally, that allows us to site multiple units to offer the right kind of reliability and resilience. That’s ultimately quite critical, especially in the wake of different dynamics following sort of the FERC ruling and other implications that may exist at the sort of local and state level energy market regulatory paradigms, which may heavily incentivize, like really significantly incentivize near-term deployment in more of an islanded mode behind the meter. Obviously, a lot of that’s evolving still. But that said, having multiple reactors reduces single shaft risk and our deployment strategy allows us to build up in parallel without having to overhang all that – a bunch of fixed capital to accommodate that growing…

Thank you. Very helpful. And then moving on to Atomic. I was wondering like how big this business could be? And I realize I’m jumping the gun here, but is there a per reactor formula linked to fuel recycling that we should think about longer term based on how Atomic grows with number of installations you have? And then in the near-term, is there an independent revenue stream that Atomic could participate in before the complementary fuel recycling growth with Oklo that you highlighted? And then on the same topic, if there is, when do you think we will see some partnerships or pipeline of orders being built on Atomic site? Thank you.

Yes. No, thank you for asking those, Vik, and digging into that. I think this is an exciting one, that kind of a bit – I guess, is a little bit borne out of the long-term familiarity we’ve had with the business, and honestly, supporting a lot of venture capital investors looking at the business and wanting to talk to me about it and having done similar support for a number of medical and radioisotope companies just kind of at the different levels of maturity and development. It’s a space I’ve long been excited and interested in. Obviously, we’re super pumped about kind of the core vision of Oklo. It’s hard not to get motivated by a technology that can truly be a terminal energy and climate solution set. But we saw a lot of constructiveness the more time we spent with – I’m sorry, a lot of complementariness, the more time we spent with Atomic Alchemy to some of the things we’re doing with respect to expanding our fuel supply chains. The ability to monetize the co-products from recycling and not have to develop those sales channels and leverage some of their technologies to actually separate those into sellable products is great. We don’t have to do that then. So there’s a natural harmony there that then just is what sort of, in many ways, set the hook here to be pretty intrigued. But what we see as additional opportunities is because of what’s happening broadly in the radioisotope space. I think the recent announcements that we highlighted from – just in the last like week or 2 about China and making this a geopolitical priority and extract – basically projecting a $55-billion-plus impact in 2026 to their economy for this gives you a sense that there’s some massive…

Yes, Jake, I think the word I would use is stand-alone that Atomic Alchemy has got near-term and potentially long-term stand-alone capabilities to produce isotopes. And the other thing, I think, quite complementary, it’s actually one of the things that got me excited about Oklo when I joined the company 1.5 years ago is, we’ve always taken a customer-oriented approach around building – selling power to customers because that’s what they want. And I think what excites me about Atomic Alchemy is, if they – the near-term production capability that we may have means that we will have near-term market access. And as these markets are developing for these isotopes, I think we’re at the early stages for that. With Atomic Alchemy, we can be part of that near-term market development. And then as our recycling business comes online and we will have additional supply, we will be that much better positioned.

Thank you.

Thank you. And we will take our next question from Jeffrey Campbell with Seaport Research Partners. Please go ahead.

Hi, Jake, a very good. Really enjoying it. I’ll ask an AA question as well. I was wondering if Oklo’s ability to recycle nuclear waste at pennies on the dollar, will provide any margin uplift or advantage for AA and its various radioisotope applications?

Yes. I think I’d give an answer kind of around some of that and definitely, Craig, feel free to jump in, too. I mean, I think what we see is the way that there’s some opportunities on how these are complementary aspects of the business is. When you think about what recycling is, you have multiple, I’ll call it, sort of product streams, right? And products include services to some degree here and what I’m going to say. But from the recycling perspective on the business, you have the ability to take in used fuel. And then when you recycle it, you’re breaking it into different constituents. Those are largely the fission products, the byproducts of fission themselves. The transuranics mixed up with some uranium. Those are things like americium, neptunium, plutonium, uranium, so on and so forth that are at the bottom of the periodic table and to the right and then just pure uranium. We see opportunities for sales of all of those products. The transuranic uranium and uranium parts are what we use direct to fuel in our systems. There’ll be some unused uranium that could be potentially sold into the market. And then on the fission product side, while a lot of those are, frankly, a waste stream, there are some high-value radioisotopes in that, and that’s what sort of was some of the initial partnership dynamics that formed between us and Atomic Alchemy that ultimately led to this, is how to then pull those, separate them, package them and put them in the right sales channels. And some of the revenue – some of the like revenue potential for that is quite significant for the recycling facility as well as then the benefits of actually consolidating the waste and all the things that come from reducing its size and all those other factors that recycling gives you. So that opens up a number of revenue streams. And we see the co-product sales as a pretty significant one because that market is pretty clear, right? Radioisotopes are bought and sold around the market today. So a pretty clear one to be able to take advantage of, if we were to otherwise just be throwing this stuff away. So that definitely will contribute and add additional revenue streams. And look, there’s – as we get more and more into the recycling story of the business as we grow, what we will be talking more and more about is all the different revenue knobs that may exist to turn and sort of what that does will just further help reduce the costs of those facilities, if you will, that are ultimately borne by us on the fuel side. So yes, there’s potential to further reduce costs. So it’s kind of a roundabout way of answering somewhat on that. Craig, I don’t know if you want to get into anything more on that. If there’s anything you’re curious to dig deeper on.

Well, the other thing I just like about the recycling business, and that’s why we use the word co-product in that byproduct is it’s going to produce things that we’re going to be glad to have and monetize as a co-product, whereas like when I was selling asphalt for BP in Europe, that was definitely selling a byproduct, like what are we going to do with it. So I think there’s huge margin upside as we get recycling up and running. And I think now that once our deal is complete, I think we will find all sorts of additional synergy points between Oklo and Atomic Alchemy.

Okay. Great. No, that was very helpful. Jake, you added excellent color on the COLA license process. To clarify, do you view each subsequent Aurora application taking the same 24 months as the first? Or could it be quicker? And if so, how quick? And also, do you think once the first powerhouse is up and approved, that it will be possible to apply for multiple COLAs simultaneously?

Yes. Actually, so to answer your question in reverse order, we could actually have multiple applications in review at the same time. They don’t have to wait for the first one. In fact, we anticipate having multiple applications that follow in relatively short order after our first one is in – before that first one is issued. That’s a really important strategy that we have to be able to scale up elements, scale up deployment across the business. So in other words, just to summarize that, we don’t need the first one to be approved before we submit additional ones. And there is some timing benefit of having a staggered parallel review going on for those subsequent applications. That said, the real benefit to get to the first part of your question is on those subsequent applications. This is one of those features that’s embedded in the regulation that’s really exciting, that was actually kind of envisioned for this model of repeatable deployment that we’re just maybe going to be one of the first ones to actually fully take advantage of. It’s this reference license, subsequent license dynamic. In other words, your first plant you get a license for, becomes your reference combined license. Your second, third, fourth, everything beyond that can become the subsequent license that references that actual reference first license. And the NRC just in the last few months, issued a white paper outlining subsequent high-volume deployment pathways, leveraging this approach where they projected being able to get the total review times for those subsequent licenses down to 7 months. So from time to submit to time to approval is as little as 7 months. I mean that’s a game changer, not just in nuclear, but that’s faster permitting for pretty much anything on energy in many ways. And that’s pretty dang exciting, frankly. So – and that’s what we’ve been building towards. We’ve heard numbers that range in those levels, but it was really exciting to actually see some clear things come out in terms of how that could be achieved. Again, I mean, there’s aspirational dynamics to that, and that’s not what we’re going to realize on our second wave of applications necessarily. But I think we expect significant acceleration in that second wave and maybe even hitting to those numbers by the time we kind of hit the stride later in that second wave into the third wave. And what I mean by waves is like submitting applications after we’ve largely gotten that first one either proved or approved and the ones that kind of come after that. So we see some acceleration benefits pretty quickly and then some significant acceleration benefits down the road.

Now, that’s really great. And that helps to make this massive backload of LOIs that you have feel more tangible. So I appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Max Hopkins from CLSA.

Hey, guys. Many of my questions have already been asked. But I guess on the construction side of things, two there. What’s the time line for, I guess, groundbreak on Idaho? Obviously, that was announced last week or weeks before. And then with that, are there specific citings, I guess, issues for earthquakes, water, accessibility and everything in all the sites you’re looking for that could potentially change how you cite things?

Yes. I mean, generally speaking, it depends a little bit on various elements on the specifics on the regulatory review plan and all those other details. But we anticipate that there’s opportunities to break ground as soon as 2026 for that Idaho plant. It depends on a couple of factors that we will have to optimize to for all the various reasons you need to do that from a project and asset management optimization perspective, but that’s when we’d expect to be able to do that. Generally speaking, one important thing is given how we’re approaching the plant and the nature of how you consider what’s sort of in the safety envelope and what’s not and things like that, there are elements that allow you to do a lot of parallel development and construction while the license is under review within the right scope and bounds, of course, but that’s something that we can use to deploy things accordingly. The other dynamic in terms of like where we’re at in Idaho is, we outlined this in the slides, but yes, there’s a lot of steps to kind of progress this into full build-out because this is on DOE land, which is great because it’s well understood land. We have access to it. And we get fuel with it, right, as part of – I mean, not with it, but we get fuel there as well as part of what we got in 2019 with the site-use permit as well as the fuel award. That said, we got to follow, obviously, the DOE regulatory protocols about that facility to get the site ready to go and then also the NRC regulatory requirements that are part of the ultimate license to turn the – build the plant and turn it on commercially to operate. But all these things are kind of progressing forward. Generally speaking, just to go back to that, these sites are extremely well characterized because this is on the Idaho National Laboratory. We’re not far just down the road, frankly, from where there’s already an operating react – two operating test reactors and where EBR-II operated before. So all this land is well characterized, and that’s one of the reasons we like it. So obviously, there’s still work to do to fully get into build and everything else, but that continues at pace, and we’re pretty thrilled by the progress made so far, and know that there’s some inherent risk mitigation just by working with the government on already well characterized and understood land.

Thank you. And then I guess a follow-up to that in some sense is these announcements from competitors, they’re kind of thermal neutron versus fast – your guys’ fast neutron reactors. Are you guys seeing slower progress or I guess, customer questioning given your guys’ fast neutron reactor type and the potential, I guess, for more proliferation from that technology. Is that a concern for clients and it might be potentially dangerous from that sense?

No because – no, that’s. I guess, it is not. I mean this is one of the beautiful things about Fast Neutron technology. This is – so okay, let’s just kind of run through kind of a quick history on some of these pieces, right? Initially, fast neutron reactors were envisioned for their significant potential on fuel efficiency, right? Slow neutron reactors, just because what happens, right, is neutrons are born going fast from fission, they just are. So you slow down in slow neutron reactors to make them easier to catch, so you need less fuel to run. But you can’t get that much energy out of the fuel because the slow neutrons are far easier to intercept by the byproducts of fission itself, like fission products – like these fission products as well as other materials in the reactor and everything else. They also aren’t very good at fissioning very many isotopes, really only a few fissile isotopes. So you get a lot less energy and you’re a lot more susceptible to significant challenges on the fuel side in terms of the ability to run for longer and be able to even recycle, you cannot do that in a slow neutron reactor. In a fast reactor, you don’t slow those neutrons down. You need more fuel, but you have the benefit now of allowing for much better material selections that are cheaper, that are better, that are just more resilient. There, you have the ability to also be relatively impervious to these kinds of fission products as well as be able to actually fission a lot more of the actinide so you can actually recycle fuel and comprehensively get a lot more energy out, right? So just to use one metric, if you look at today’s reactors or…

Awesome. Thank you very much for all the detail. It clears a lot of things up, I think for many of us.

Thanks.

Thank you. We will next go to Craig Shere with Tuohy Brothers. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions and congratulations on the very positive announcements. My first question, if I understand it correctly, ultimately, looking into the late part of this decade, early 2030s, fuel recycling is going to ultimately need some potentially sizable external capital raise to fund that effort. Do you see the Atomic acquisition commingling helping to increase prospective low-risk project finance for such an undertaking?

Yes. I will just start with a little bit, Craig, feel free to chime in. I mean so, what we see is recycling is, first of all, just – we see this as a big catalyst and enabler for growth and for margin enhancement. It’s not a thing we have to do to exist. So, it’s just something that, look, if we can reduce our fuel cost by over 90% or so, that’s pretty compelling. Not to mention add additional revenue streams and pieces like that. But as we structured kind of when we – the transaction, the SPAC going through with AltC and how we thought about the capital retained from that and everything else, focuses on getting through our first plant built and beyond, knowing that in the recycling part of the story, we really didn’t try to capture either in the valuation part of it or really in the core elements of that because you are not going to see some of those benefits until a bit later. So, we think that has a lot of upside that remains there to be, I will say, potentially tapped into. And accordingly, as that matures and comes together, yes, there may be opportunities where we go back to market to support what that looks like, but that’s going to be largely supported by the additional growth accordingly that comes from that. And part of why we see there are some synergies with, for example, Atomic Alchemy is helping to prove out and verify some of those radioisotope sales channels accordingly so that there is some off-take examples that can be used to sort of support the economic case of why we would do that and then the according value add that we think can be made accordingly. So, that’s how I think we think about some of those dynamics. I don’t know, Craig, if you want to add anything on that front, but that’s kind of how I see it.

Yes. I think the only thing I would add is, I look at the recycling business as kind of having three sources of value. One is the value it brings to reduced fuel cost. Two is our – we may potentially be able to extract rent by storing the spin fuel that needs to be recycled. And last but certainly not least is the co-products production of the isotopes. And I think as we have a better view on what a buildup of that recycling business looks like following all the work that we are doing with the DOE, I think it will be – we have always said that, that would be a separate fundraising event for the company, but I think we will have a lot of sources of value to point to that hopefully should give us a lot of optionality around the fundraising, including potentially project financing.

Great. And then my second question, it’s kind of tied to a three-parter. So, across data centers, oil and gas, industry, and military, how do you think about the mix of your first 5 to 10 powerhouses? Do you intentionally want to diversify your mix versus concentrating with any single industry or counterparty that may be paying a higher PPA price point today? And finally, how do you see the mix over the first 5 or 10 deployments roughly in your mind today across the 15-megawatt versus 50-megawatt applications?

Yes. I will start and just say, I think the diversification is a valuable thing to have. I think there is three macro trends, right, that are catching all this excitement about new – just new nuclear builds and AI and data centers clearly dominates that. But even before that, there was actually, I think a couple of major macro trends that were kind of carrying the day, too. So, all of these – and they are all constructive to each other and complementary. But broad efforts on energy transition, you see people talk about needing 2x to 3x more electric power generating capacity just to support electrification as we strive for that across transit and domestic use and all these other things. So, that’s one big drive, of course. I think another drive is what we are seeing happening on the reindustrialization perspective. There is a lot of factors that I think have dictated where we saw electric usage and demand, therefore, kind of be relatively low growth for a couple of decades in the U.S. But one contributing factor there was the sort of offshoring of a lot of manufacturing capacity and the jobs associated with that. As we see increasing dynamics to drive that back into the country, they need – factories need base load power. They need 24/7 power and across all the different verticals, ranging from semiconductors to paper mills, oil and gas production, all these different industrial use cases. And so that’s another big drivers we see that occurring kind of supportive of this as well. And we see that being something that’s going to continue. And we think from various market perspectives, those are giant markets as well. In some cases, they aren’t moving as fast as data centers. And I would argue that in some cases, some of those are a little bit more a better – I would say the 15-megawatt solution better suits a number of those, not all of them and it’s a mix. That’s why we see the need for both of those, whereas we see on the data center side, a lot more pull on the 50-megawatt piece. But yes, we think it’s pretty important to kind of support those things. But we also recognize that data centers are going to be moving faster. And so some of the near-term deployments are likely to be sort of more data center focused. But from developing relationships and developing business partnerships, we see a lot of support on the sort of the diversified deployment by customer models, and that’s why we have tried to do that, and we will continue to build that up accordingly.

Thank you.

Thank you. We will take our next question from Ivan Feinseth with Tigress Financial Partners. Please go ahead.

Thank you for taking my question and congratulations on the great progress and the acquisition announcement today. So, focusing on the opportunity for getting into other industries and maybe is there opportunities for like co-R&D development partnerships? And in that case, what do you feel your value proposition would be to working with some of the companies in biotech or pharmaceutical or semiconductors?

Yes. I think – I definitely think that’s a possibility. I think one of the things we see as enabling here is our ability to share some of the kind of capabilities we have to help accelerate Atomic Alchemy, and then similarly, what they bring to the table to help accelerate on their side to ultimately be able to scale into these markets and deliver, which opens the door for a lot of different things. I think right now, we are seeing on the value chain on the radiopharmaceutical side, a lot of focus on the potential of these radiopharmaceuticals. We are so early in the game on this, and they have been so severely supply constrained that the more – as this kind of, I would say, pull on the market continues to grow and accelerate as more and more of these drugs kind of hit the market, you are just going to see a big pull up on the supplies. That’s I think one of the things we really like about the Atomic Alchemy play is a diversified approach on radioisotopes actually, too, not just to focus on sort of the big name jitters like Lutetium, or Actinium or Mol-e, like we are looking at a number of different isotopes that they can be well produced to supply to. And as you open the door for even more of those, you are going to just see even more pharmaceutical development, because right now, one of the big constraints even on R&D is the lack of availability. So, I think we see a lot that comes from that. And then there are strategic partnerships that come accordingly from a totally different pool of folks because of what you can supply here, which I think is neat. And you hit…

Because Slide 20 really shows some significant investment from Bristol-Myers, Novartis and Eli Lilly into this area.

Right. And I think what we see is as we – as this continues to mature and develop, you are going to see I think the maturation of this to the point where you can really attractively attract some of those partners in the right way to be even more constructively engaged. I know just from the diligence side of providing sort of being a reference point for Atomic Alchemy and some others in the space before talking to some folks from the big pharma companies who are looking around and watching the space, but I think waiting for a couple more pieces to come in before they start to sort of jump to partner, but it feels like it’s largely just a function of sort of development and inevitability, which brings them to the table, which is part of what planted the seed that this could make a lot of sense to help accelerate into those opportunities potentially.

Alright. Looks very exciting, congratulations again.

Thank you.

Thank you. We will take our last question from Pavel Molchanov with Raymond James. Please go ahead.

Thanks for taking the question. Let me go back to one of the earlier points about the SMR competitive landscape. Given the sheer number of new entrants in the space, do you find that prospective customers are getting confused or bewildered just by the scope of offerings that are out there and trying to differentiate between them?

I think at times, I think what we have seen though is a lot of these folks are – a lot of the customer side here are getting pretty savvy on the different opportunities, and they are talking to a lot of different groups. I mean I think yes, and there is a mix. There is a spectrum, right. And I think at the end of the day, there are some, I will call it, frothiness in the space. And I think that’s a good indicator of innovation and a good reflection of that. But look, I think this is where we see differentiation from a number of perspectives being to our advantage and how we have seen validation of that from the customer side. I think we were one of the first out, right. I mean we were the first out with the data center deal with Equinix. So, like months before everything else, it kind of reflects some of that validation point. And for us, we really like that approach and that model because this keeps versatility and flexibility with our partners because of the COLA model and who they serve. So, we don’t – you can imagine that sometimes hyperscalers know they have a lot of leverage in a dynamic and might want to lock in some things that prohibit your ability to be flexible. That’s – there is ways that you can then find more versatile partners, and that’s one of the things we really liked about what we have with Equinix and then the others we have announced and talked about. That said, we see like – I think what we see is some of the signals that we think are pretty powerful that have been purpose-built for how we have started the company and…

Appreciate the color on all of that. Let me also follow-up on the recent politics. Can you just remind in the economics of – or the indicative economics of your projects that you spelled out more than a year ago, was there any assumption for either ITC or PTC for nuclear?

The models we put out do not include those directly in there. I don’t know, Craig, if you want to add any commentary on that, but yes…

Yes. I mean we have always viewed it as upside. I think we did have some levelized cost of energy metrics in our last 2Q update on Investor Day presentation. It showed a range of $90 to $40, and the $40 did include the benefit of ITCs, but we have always viewed that as not a requirement to generate an appropriate return.

Got it. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And now, I would like to turn the call back over to Sam Doane, Oklo’s Director of Investor Relations, to present a couple of retail investor questions.

Thanks Marjorie. Yes, we have had a number of inbound retail investors questions, I would like to just ask a couple here. The first one is, when can we expect Oklo to produce a physical plant? And is the timeline solely dependent on legislative changes?

Yes. So no, not dependent on legislative changes, we see legislative changes as possibly being accelerative and in-conducive to this. But I think in many ways, we see a lot of the legislative activity probably going to be more geared for the following units to be more, I guess more constructive for acceleration on those units, just given all the other factors that kind of dictate the timeframe for that first plant. But we are targeting beginning the initial operations of that plant in late 2027.

Great. The next one is, will you explain the moat Oklo is building out to protect against other competitors? And why Oklo is poised to power an increasingly large share of the nuclear-powered AI market?

Yes. I think we see this manifest in a couple of ways, but it’s pretty comprehensive throughout the business, right. One is the business model where we are selling power and not kind of the conventional model that allows us to consolidate the deployment partnerships through us where we bring in the partners like the Siemens of the world, like the Centrus of the world and others to help actually deliver the plants and therefore, the power. Additionally, we see value in the size we have, which gives us flexibility to offer kind of redundant, frankly, shaft redundancy, having more plants than just one to power, especially industrial assets that want high reliability power. And the size allows us to target the markets from a slightly different angle, which we think is pretty important. And then from the technology side, it sounds kind of funny, but building off a very mature technology base and optimizing that for operations and deployability and not necessarily for a lot of fundamental R&D requirements to go forward from that or to deliver that gives us some advantages on that front because we design on the technology side accordingly to cost and a few supply chain capabilities that exist today that help us negate some of the significant supply chain investment requirements that otherwise exist for some design choices that one could make. So, we have tried to avoid those. And accordingly, that gives us some supply chain scalability that’s faster, frankly, and less volume limited. I think that’s a differentiated factor, right. We don’t need to build like a factory to build a bunch of reactors to get out. That’s, I think arguably less constraining because you need all the capital to put in the factory. And then you are inevitably going to have…

Thank you. I would now like to turn the conference back over to Jake for any closing remarks.

Awesome. Well, thank you all for joining us today and I appreciate the attention and engagement as always. I think it’s a particularly exciting time in nuclear, especially in the last month, 1.5 months with all the activity in the space. We see all these announcements that are being made as extraordinarily constructive and validating of the opportunity that nuclear is well positioned to meet, which is the opportunity to provide abundant, affordable, reliable and clean energy. And I think we are pretty excited at Oklo about the position we have in the market to do that, validated by our customer partnerships and our general traction to deployment. So, look forward to keeping you all updated in the next quarter, and appreciate the time again.

Thank you. And ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude today’s program. We thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.