Q2 2026 Cameco Corp Earnings Call

July 31, 2026

Speaker #1: Thank you for standing by. This is the conference operator. Welcome to the Cameco Corporation second quarter 2026 results conference call. As a reminder, all participants are in a listen-only mode, and the conference is being recorded.

Operator: Thank you for standing by. This is the conference operator. Welcome to the Cameco Corporation Q2 2026 results conference call. As a reminder, all participants are in a listen-only mode, and the conference is being recorded. Following the introductory remarks, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. To join the question queue, you may press star then one on your telephone keypad. Should you need assistance during the conference call, you may reach an operator by pressing star and zero. Webcast participants are asked to wait until the Q&A session before submitting their questions, as the information they are looking for may be provided during the presentation. The Q&A session will conclude at 9:00 AM Eastern Time. I would now like to turn the conference over to Cory Kos, Vice President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Operator: Thank you for standing by. This is the conference operator. Welcome to the Cameco Corporation Q2 2026 Results Conference call. As a reminder, all participants are in a listen-only mode, and the conference is being recorded. Following the introductory remarks, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. To join the question queue, you may press star then one on your telephone keypad. Should you need assistance during the conference call, you may reach an operator by pressing star and zero. Webcast participants are asked to wait until the Q&A session before submitting their questions, as the information they are looking for may be provided during the presentation. The Q&A session will conclude at 9:00 AM Eastern Time. I would now like to turn the conference over to Cory Kos, Vice President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Speaker #1: Following the introductory remarks, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. To join the question queue, you may press star, then 1 on your telephone keypad.

Speaker #1: Should you need assistance during the conference call, you may reach an operator by pressing star, then 0. Webcast participants are asked to wait until the Q&A session before submitting their questions, as the information they are looking for may be provided during the presentation.

Speaker #1: The Q&A session will conclude at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time. I would now like to turn the conference over to Cory Kos, Vice President, Investor Relations.

Speaker #1: Please go ahead.

Speaker #2: Thank you, operator, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to Cameco's second quarter 2026 conference call. I would like to acknowledge that we are speaking from our corporate office in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, which is on Treaty 6 territory.

Cory Kos: Thank you, operator, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to Cameco's Q2 2026 conference call. I would like to acknowledge that we're speaking from our corporate office in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, which is on Treaty 6 territory, the traditional territory of the Cree people and the homeland of the Métis. With us on today's call are Tim Gitzel, Chief Executive Officer, Grant Isaac, President and Chief Operating Officer, Heidi Shockey, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Rachelle Girard, Senior Vice President and Chief Corporate Officer, and Dominic Kieran, Global Managing Director of Cameco UK. Tim will provide some commentary to start the call, and we will then open it up for your questions. Today's call will be approximately one hour, concluding at 9:00 AM Eastern Time.

Speaker #2: The traditional territory of the Cree people and the homeland of the Métis. With us on today's call are Tim Gitzel, Chief Executive Officer; Grant Isaac, President and Chief Operating Officer; Heidi Shocke, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Rochelle Girard, Senior Vice President and Chief Corporate Officer; and Dominic Kieran, Global Managing Director of Cameco UK.

Speaker #2: Tim will provide some commentary to start the call, and we will then open it up for your questions. Today's call will be approximately one hour, concluding at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time.

Speaker #2: Our goal is always to be open and transparent with our communications, so if you do not have time to get into your questions during this call, or if you would like to get into detailed financial modeling questions about the quarterly results, we'd be happy to respond and follow up to any inquiries.

Cory Kos: Our goal is always to be open and transparent with our communication. If you do not have time to get into your questions during this call, or if you would like to get into detailed financial modeling questions about the quarterly results, we would be happy to respond and follow up to any inquiries. There are a few ways you can contact us with additional questions. You can reach out to the contacts provided in our news release. You can submit a question through the Send Us a Message link in the Invest section of our website, or you can use the Ask a Question form at the bottom of the webcast screen. We will be happy to follow up after the call. If you join the conference call through our website event page, there are slides available which will be displayed during the call.

Speaker #2: There are a few ways you can contact us with additional questions. You can reach out to the contacts provided in our news release, submit a question through the "Send Us a Message" link in the Invest section of our website, or use the Ask a Question form at the bottom of the webcast screen, and we will be happy to follow up after the call.

Speaker #2: If you join the conference call through our website event page, there are slides available which will be displayed during the call. For your reference, our quarterly investor handout is also available for download in a PDF file on our website at cameco.com.

Cory Kos: For your reference, our quarterly investor handout is also available for download in a PDF file on our website at cameco.com. Today's conference call is open to all members of the investment community, including the media. During the Q&A session, please limit yourself to two questions. Then return to the queue. Please note that this conference call will include forward-looking information, which is based on our current assumptions. Actual results could differ materially. You should not rely on forward-looking statements. We do not plan to update them after this call, except as required by law. For more information on the assumptions we have made and the risk factors involved, please see our most recent annual information form and MD&A. With that, I will turn it over to Tim.

Speaker #2: Today's conference call is open to all members of the investment community, including the media. During the Q&A session, please limit yourself to two questions and then return to the queue.

Speaker #2: Please note that this conference call will include forward-looking information, which is based on our current assumptions, and actual results could differ materially. You should not rely on forward-looking statements, and we do not plan to update them after this call except as required by law.

Speaker #2: For more information on the assumptions we've made and the risk factors involved, please see our most recent annual information form in MDNA. And with that, I will turn it over to Tim.

Speaker #3: Well, thank you, Cory, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us to discuss Cameco's second quarter and first half 2026 results. While the year is flying by, it's the middle of summer here in Saskatchewan, Canada, which is really the inflection point where people here have stopped complaining about the past cold winter and have started worrying about the upcoming cold winter.

Tim Gitzel: Well, thank you, Cory. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us to discuss Cameco's Q2 and H1 2026 results. Well, the year is flying by. It is the middle of summer here in Saskatchewan, Canada, which is really the inflection point where people here have stopped complaining about the past cold winter. They start worrying about the upcoming cold winter. As we move past the halfway point of the year, I want to start by reinforcing the consistent message you have heard from us for a while now. Our strategy is built for long-term value creation. Our decisions and activities will be centered around that strategy. As a result, we are currently on track with our expectations for the year. Year to date, we have seen the support for nuclear energy not only growing, but becoming more tangible.

Speaker #3: As we move past the halfway point of the year, I want to start by reinforcing the consistent message you've heard from us for a while now.

Speaker #3: Our strategy is built for long-term value creation, and our decisions and activities will be centered around that strategy. As a result, we are currently on track with our expectations for the year.

Speaker #3: Year to date, we've seen support for nuclear energy not only growing, but becoming more tangible. Around the world, governments, utilities, energy-intensive industries, and the public are recognizing that nuclear energy is essential to energy security, national security, economic competitiveness, and decarbonization objectives.

Tim Gitzel: Around the world, governments, utilities, energy-intensive industries, and the public are recognizing that nuclear energy is essential to energy security, national security, economic competitiveness, and decarbonization objectives. We see that recognition translating into policy support, new build discussions, life extension decisions, uprates, fuel security initiatives, and improved public perception. Here in Canada, the federal government released its nuclear energy strategy in June. The strategy highlights the role that nuclear is expected to play in achieving national energy security and economic objectives while supporting emissions reduction. In the US, the Department of Energy's conditional commitment to support deployment of AP1000 reactors is another very important indicator of the growing alignment between policy, proven and deployment-ready Gen III+ technology, and the need to execute. We have said many times that the next phase of nuclear growth will be defined by delivery.

Speaker #3: We see that recognition translating into policy support, new build discussions, life extension decisions, uprates, fuel security initiatives, and improved public perception. Here in Canada, the federal government released its Nuclear Energy Strategy in June.

Speaker #3: The strategy highlights the role that nuclear is expected to play in achieving national energy security and economic objectives, while supporting emissions reduction. In the United States, the Department of Energy's conditional commitment to support deployment of AP-1000 reactors is another very important indicator of the growing alignment between policy, proven and deployment-ready Gen III+ technology, and the need to execute.

Speaker #3: We've said many times that the next phase of nuclear growth will be defined by delivery. Ambition matters, but execution is what brings megawatts onto the grid and, important to us at Cameco, brings fuel requirements into the market.

Tim Gitzel: Ambition matters, execution is what brings megawatts into the grid and important to us at Cameco brings fuel requirements into the market. That's why we continue to believe that the value of proven technologies, experienced operators, and established supply chains will be critical to the equation as the sector moves from aspiration to implementation. For Cameco, that alignment is very constructive. We are positioned across the nuclear fuel cycle with tier 1 uranium assets in stable jurisdictions, fuel services capabilities, strategic investments in Westinghouse and Global Laser Enrichment, and strong long-term customer relationships built over decades. On the uranium and fuel market side, conditions continued to improve in H1 of the year. The long-term uranium price strengthened to decade highs, and we saw increased on-market and off-market contracting activity. Customers continued to focus on security of supply, with notable interest from both sovereign and commercial fuel buyers.

Speaker #3: That's why we continue to believe that the value of proven technologies, experienced operators, and established supply chains will be critical to the equation as the sector moves from aspiration to implementation.

Speaker #3: For Cameco, that alignment is very constructive. We are positioned across the nuclear fuel cycle with Tier 1 uranium assets in stable jurisdictions, fuel services capabilities, strategic investments in Westinghouse and Global Laser Enrichment, and strong long-term customer relationships built over decades.

Speaker #3: On the uranium and fuel market side, conditions continued to improve in the first half of the year. The long-term uranium price strengthened to decade highs.

Speaker #3: And we saw increased on-market and off-market contracting activity. Customers continue to focus on security of supply, with notable interest from both sovereign and commercial fuel buyers.

Speaker #3: At the same time, our contracting discipline remains one of our key competitive advantages. We continue to be patient and selective in committing supply. We layer in volumes where we see contracts that support our strategy, and where we believe we can incorporate an appropriate level of downside protection with exposure to improving future market conditions.

Tim Gitzel: At the same time, our contracting discipline remains one of our key competitive advantages. We continue to be patient and selective in committing supply. We layer in volumes where we see contracts that support our strategy and where we believe we can incorporate an appropriate level of downside protection with exposure to improving future market conditions. That discipline matters because sustainable supply does not simply appear because demand is growing. It requires long-term contracts to back long-term investments planned by capable and experienced operators. Over the next 5 years, we have contracts in place for average annual deliveries of more than 28 million pounds of uranium per year. As the market continues to improve, we expect to continue layering in volumes that capture greater future upside. We continued on a positive contracting trajectory in Q2.

Speaker #3: That discipline matters because sustainable supply does not simply appear because demand is growing. It requires long-term contracts to back long-term investments planned by capable and experienced operators.

Speaker #3: Over the next five years, we have contracts in place for average annual deliveries of more than 28 million pounds of uranium per year. As the market continues to improve, we expect to continue layering in volumes that capture greater future upside.

Speaker #3: We continue on a positive contracting trajectory in Q2. However, quarterly results in our business will always reflect the normal variability of customer delivery schedules, product mix, and the timing of activity across the fuel cycle.

Tim Gitzel: However, quarterly results in our business will always reflect the normal variability of customer delivery schedules, product mix, and the timing of activity across the fuel cycle. Q2 2026 was no exception. Our financial results were lower than the strong Q2 and H1 that we reported last year, largely because 2025 included a significant contribution from Westinghouse related to its participation in the Dukovany reactor construction project in the Czech Republic. Looking past the impact of that payment, the underlying fundamentals of our business remain strong. A few of our outlook metrics changed as a result of the strength of the US dollar, which drove a change to our exchange rate assumption. Average realized prices continued to improve in both our uranium and fuel services segments, and our annual production outlook is unchanged.

Speaker #3: The second quarter of 2026 was no exception. Our financial results were lower than the strong second quarter and first half that we reported last year, largely because 2025 included a significant contribution from Westinghouse related to its participation in the Dukovany reactor construction project in the Czech Republic.

Speaker #3: But looking past the impact of that payment, the underlying fundamentals of our business remain strong. A few of our outlook metrics changed as a result of the strength of the US dollar, which drove a change to our exchange rate assumption.

Speaker #3: Average realized prices continue to improve in both our uranium and fuel services segments, and our annual production outlook is unchanged. The unchanged 2026 plan, calling for our share of production to be between 19.5 and 21.5 million pounds of U3O8, is important.

Tim Gitzel: The unchanged 2026 plan calling for our share of production to be between 19.5 and 21.5 million pounds of U3O8 is important. That's because to date in 2026, we've been reminded that safely operating complex, heavily regulated uranium mining and milling assets in remote northern Saskatchewan is never without challenges. Spring road conditions affected northern supply routes during the quarter, contributing to temporary unplanned operational disruptions at Key Lake and McArthur River. Subsequent to quarter end, we also experienced operational challenges that had Cigar Lake production suspended for a couple of weeks. While we were able to address and overcome those unexpected developments with no impact on annual outlook, they were good reminders of why we have built flexibility into our supply strategy and why operating experience, risk management, and credible teams matter so much in this industry.

Speaker #3: That's because, to date in 2026, we've been reminded that safely operating complex, heavily regulated uranium mining and milling assets in remote northern Saskatchewan is never without challenges.

Speaker #3: Spring road conditions affected northern supply routes during the quarter, contributing to temporary, unplanned operational disruptions at Key Lake and MacArthur River. Subsequent to quarter-end, we also experienced operational challenges that had Cigar Lake production suspended for a couple of weeks.

Speaker #3: While we were able to address and overcome those unexpected developments with no impact on our annual outlook, they were good reminders of why we have built flexibility into our supply strategy, and why operating experience, risk management, and credible teams matter so much in this industry.

Speaker #3: Our assets are world-class, but they are by no means simple assets. They require disciplined planning, technical capability, and constant attention to safety and reliability and that's what our teams across the company bring to the table every day.

Tim Gitzel: Our assets are world-class, they are by no means simple assets. They require disciplined planning, technical capability, and constant attention to safety and reliability, that's what our teams across the company bring to the table every day. During the quarter, we closed our agreement to increase our ownership interest in the Cigar Lake mine. The high-grade Cigar Lake mine is one of the most important uranium mines in the world, increasing our interest reinforces our commitment to own and operate the scarce, proven tier 1 assets that we expect will be essential in supporting the growth of nuclear energy. In our Westinghouse segment, performance in the H1 was strong. As I said, once you look past the benefit that we realized related to the Dukovany project last year.

Speaker #3: During the quarter, we closed our agreement to increase our ownership interest in the Sagar Lake mine. The high-grade Sagar Lake mine is one of the most important uranium mines in the world, and increasing our interest reinforces our commitment to own and operate the scarce, proven Tier 1 assets that we expect will be essential in supporting the growth of nuclear energy.

Speaker #3: In our Westinghouse segment, performance in the first half was strong. As I said, once you look past the the Dukavani project last year. As an operating business with deep exposure across the nuclear power value chain, Westinghouse is embedded in the day-to-day needs of the global nuclear industry.

Tim Gitzel: As an operating business with deep exposure across the nuclear power value chain, Westinghouse is embedded in the day-to-day needs of the global nuclear industry while also being well-positioned to drive the next wave of new nuclear capacity through its AP1000, AP300, and eVinci technologies. New nuclear capacity creates long-term demand for uranium and conversion and fuel fabrication and related services. That's why Westinghouse is so strategically important to our broader growth thesis. It gives us exposure to the full nuclear fuel cycle and to the technologies that can help shape the next era of nuclear deployment. Our message for the H2 is straightforward. Our annual plan remains intact, the market continues to strengthen, Cameco's long-term strategic position is becoming even more compelling. We have flexible supply, a strong balance sheet, disciplined capital allocation, and decades of experience operating assets in jurisdictions that customers can rely on.

Speaker #3: While also being well-positioned to drive the next wave of new nuclear capacity through its AP1000, AP300, and eVinci technologies. New nuclear capacity creates long-term demand for uranium and conversion and fuel fabrication and related services.

Speaker #3: That's why Westinghouse is so strategically important to our broader growth thesis: it gives us exposure to the full nuclear fuel cycle and to the technologies that can help shape the next era of nuclear deployment.

Speaker #3: So, our message for the second half is straightforward: our annual plan remains intact, the market continues to strengthen, and Cameco's long-term strategic position is becoming even more compelling.

Speaker #3: We have flexible supply, a strong balance sheet, disciplined capital allocation, and decades of experience operating assets in jurisdictions that customers can rely on. We believe the risks to supply continue to outweigh the risks to demand, and we are not prepared to dilute the value of our assets by committing supply into contracts that do not appropriately reflect the durability of market fundamentals.

Tim Gitzel: We believe the risks to supply continue to outweigh the risks to demand, we are not prepared to dilute the value of our assets by committing supply into contracts that do not appropriately reflect the durability of market fundamentals. With tier 1 assets, strategic investments across the fuel and reactor life cycles, strong customer relationships, and a proven operating track record, Cameco is uniquely positioned to support the continued growth of nuclear energy while creating sustainable long-term value for our shareholders, customers, and communities. Thank you for your continued interest and support. Before moving to questions, I want to recognize Dominique Minière, who has stepped down from Cameco's board of directors effective 26 July 2026, to focus on his other professional commitments.

Speaker #3: With Tier 1 assets, strategic investments across the fuel and reactor life cycles, strong customer relationships, and a proven operating track record, Cameco is uniquely positioned to support the continued growth of nuclear energy while creating sustainable, long-term value for our shareholders, customers, and communities.

Speaker #3: So, thank you for your continued interest and support. Before moving to questions, I want to recognize Dominique Minier, who has stepped down from Cameco's board of directors effective July 26, 2026, to focus on his other professional commitments.

Speaker #3: Mr. Minier has served as a director since 2023 and has been a member of the Human Resources and Compensation Committee, the Technical Committee, and the Safety, Health, and Environment Committee since he joined the board.

Tim Gitzel: Mr. Minière has served as a director since 2023 and has been a member of the Human Resources and Compensation Committee, the Technical Committee, and the Safety, Health, and Environment Committee since he joined the board. On behalf of the board and management team, I want to thank Dominique for his contributions to Cameco, we wish him continued success in his many pursuits. With that operator, we are now ready to take questions.

Speaker #3: On behalf of the board and management team, I want to thank Dominique for his contributions to Cameco, and we wish him continued success in his many pursuits.

Speaker #3: So with that, Operator, we are now ready to take questions.

Speaker #2: We will now begin the question and answer session. In the interest of time, we ask that you limit yourself to one question with one supplemental.

Operator: We will now begin the question and answer session. In the interest of time, we ask that you limit yourself to one with one supplemental. If you have additional questions, you are welcome to rejoin the queue. To join the question queue, you may press star, then one on your telephone keypad. You will hear a tone acknowledging your request. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing any keys. To withdraw your question, please press star then two. Webcast participants are welcome to submit questions through the box at the bottom of the webcast frame. The Cameco Investor Relations Team will follow up with you by email after the call. Once again, anyone on the conference call who wishes to ask a question may press star one at this time. The first question today comes from Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.

Speaker #2: If you have additional questions, you are welcome to rejoin the queue. To join the question queue, you may press star, then one, on your telephone keypad.

Speaker #2: You will hear a tone acknowledging your request. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing any keys. To withdraw your question, please press star then two.

Speaker #2: Webcast participants are welcome to submit questions through the box at the bottom of the webcast frame. The Cameco Investor Relations team will follow up with you by email after the call.

Speaker #2: Once again, anyone on the conference call who wishes to ask a question may press star one at this time. The first question today comes from Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs.

Speaker #2: Please go ahead.

Speaker #4: Hey guys, good morning. Thanks for taking the questions. I appreciate a lot of this AP1000 pipeline disclosure in the MD&A. So I wanted to ask first on that.

Brian Lee: Hey, guys. Good morning. Thanks for taking the questions. Appreciate a lot of this AP1000 pipeline disclosure in the MD&A, wanted to ask first on that. Looking at this, it seems like the DOE process with the $17.5 billion loan funding from EDF, that's toward the top of the stack in terms of timing potential. One, is that a fair characterization? Two, can you describe what milestones we could see on that process between now and let's say year-end, then what kind of engagement you're seeing from the utilities since that was launched or announced a few months ago? I had a follow-up.

Speaker #4: Looking at this, it seems like the DOE process with the $17.5 billion loan funding from EDF, that's kind of toward the top of the stack in terms of timing potential.

Speaker #4: First, is that a fair characterization? And then, second, can you describe what milestones we might see in that process between now and, let's say, year-end?

Speaker #4: And then, what kind of engagement are you seeing from the utilities since that was launched or announced a few months ago? And I had a follow-up.

Speaker #5: Yeah, thanks a lot, Brian, for your question. We have our Global Managing Director, Dominic Kieran, here with us this morning, so I'm going to pass it over to Dominic to say a few words about Westinghouse.

Tim Gitzel: Yeah. Thanks a lot, Brian, for your question. We have our Global Managing Director, Dominic Kieran, here with us this morning. I'm going to pass it over to Dominic to say a few words about Westinghouse. Dominic?

Speaker #5: Dominic? Thank you. Good morning, everybody on the call. Good morning, Brian. So let me maybe just start with a comment that, as Tim mentioned, I'm very limited in what I can say about the offering that Brookfield and Westinghouse announced this morning.

Dominic Kieran: Tim, thank you. Good morning, everybody on the call. Good morning, Brian. Let me maybe just start with a comment that as Tim mentioned, I'm very limited around what I can say about the offering that Westinghouse announced this morning. Brian, let me get into your question. In June 2026, Westinghouse announced the $17.5 billion conditional commitment from the Department of Energy, Office of Energy Dominance Financing. This is really to facilitate the ordering of AP1000 long lead items. Why is this important? Because this is an opportunity to really accelerate the deployment of AP1000s in the US. To your specific question around what are the next steps that you can see?

Speaker #5: But Brian, let me get into your question. So, in June 2026, Westinghouse announced the $17.5 billion U.S. conditional commitment from the Department of Energy's Dominion financing team.

Speaker #5: And this is really to facilitate the ordering of AP1000 long-lead items. And why is this important? Because this is an opportunity to really accelerate the deployment of AP1000s in the U.S.

Speaker #5: So, to your specific question around what are the next steps that you can see—well, the next steps are that we will move to definitive agreements, and that is really the next step that you should be looking for: news from us about progressing to definitive agreements, which will involve, obviously, specific utilities in the US as well as the Department of Energy.

Dominic Kieran: Well, the next steps are that we will move to definitive agreements. That is really the next step that you should be looking for is news from us about progressing to definitive agreements, which will involve obviously specific utilities in the US as well as the Department of Energy.

Speaker #3: Brian, I should have mentioned as well that Dominic, as probably everyone knows, is the Chair of the Westinghouse board. So I just wanted to put that into context.

Tim Gitzel: Brian, I should have mentioned as well that Dominic, as probably everyone knows, is the chair of the Westinghouse board. I just wanted to put that into context. Grant's on the board, Heidi's on the board as well, so.

Speaker #3: Grant's on the board. Heidi's on the board as well. So, yeah.

Brian Lee: All right. Yeah, appreciate the sensitivity around the different constituents involved. Fair enough. Second question, maybe just on the Uranium segment. Pretty encouraging to see the realized uranium per pound ASP increased a good bit here. Curious, was that all because of the stronger market pricing, or did that have anything to do with restructuring of contracts? How should we think about pricing the construct heading into next year? I know heading into 2026, your view had been mostly flat. It's nice to see this uptick halfway through the year. Would this maybe not also be the sort of baseline to expect for trend line heading into next year as well? Just any thoughts there? Thank you.

Speaker #4: I appreciate the sensitivity around the different constituents involved. Fair enough. Second question, maybe just on the uranium segment. Pretty encouraging to see the realized uranium per pound ASP increased a good bit here.

Speaker #4: Curious, was that all because of the stronger market pricing or did that have anything to do with restructuring of contracts? And then how should we think about pricing the construct heading into next year?

Speaker #4: I know heading into 2026 your view had been mostly flat, so it's nice to see this uptick halfway through the year. Would this maybe not also be the sort of baseline to expect for trendline heading into next year as well?

Speaker #4: Just any thoughts there? Thank you.

Speaker #5: Yeah. Thanks, Grant.

Tim Gitzel: Yeah. Thanks, Grant.

Speaker #6: Yeah. Brian, the uranium side of the market continues to move from strength to strength. Just in general, across the industry, I think what the most notable point to make is we are still at we are still not at replacement rate demand across the industry.

Grant Isaac: Yeah, Brian, the uranium side of the market continues to move from strength to strength. In general, across the industry, I think what the most notable point to make is we are still not at replacement rate demand across the industry. We still don't have utilities coming forward and collectively buying at a volume that replaces what they consume under existing contracts. Yet we found ourselves back into a mid-90s long-term uranium price on its way to 3 digits likely, and that's in the absence of replacement rate demand. As I remind folks, we've never been at this kind of uranium price on the front end of a uranium contracting cycle. We've only ever found ourselves at these prices on the back end. This is really super constructive for the uranium space that on very little demand, that underlying long-term price continues to go up.

Speaker #6: We still don't have utilities coming forward and collectively buying at a volume that replaces what they consume under existing contracts. And yet we found ourselves back into a mid-90s long-term uranium price on its way to three digits likely.

Speaker #6: And that's in the absence of replacement rate demand. And, as I remind folks, we've never been at this kind of uranium price on the front end of a uranium contracting cycle.

Speaker #6: We've only ever found ourselves at these prices on the back end, so this is really super constructive for the uranium space. On very little demand, that underlying long-term price continues to go up.

Speaker #6: And the reason for that is very simple. Utilities, and those who are concerned about future production, are starting to realize that they need to pay production-economic prices to ensure that supply is there.

Grant Isaac: The reason for that is very simple. Utilities and those that are concerned about future production are starting to realize that they need to pay production economic prices to ensure that supply is there in the future. That's a very good news story. Now, you spoke about our average realized price. Of course, that's derived from contracts we've already captured, from business that we've already captured, for deliveries that we're just simply making, not new sales. Really, that increase in the price is a function of the contracts we're delivering into the stronger pricing in the market being reflected in the market-related components as well as some exchange rate effect, the strong US dollar relative to the Canadian dollar. This is all part of our marketing strategy of being disciplined.

Speaker #6: In the future, so that's a very good news story. Now, you spoke about our average realized price. Of course, that's derived from contracts we've already captured, from business that we've already captured, for deliveries that we're just simply making—not new sales.

Speaker #6: And really, that increase in the price is a function of the contracts we're delivering into, the stronger pricing in the market being reflected in the market-related components, as well as some exchange rate effect—the strong US dollar relative to the Canadian dollar.

Speaker #6: But this is all part of our marketing strategy of being disciplined. Those old contracts are showing that upward leverage to the market that we said they would.

Grant Isaac: Those old contracts are showing that upward leverage to the market that we said they would. New contracting going forward is being done in a very constructive, stronger pricing environment. We're not even at replacement rate contracting yet. It's a very exciting segment.

Speaker #6: And new contracting going forward is being done in a very constructive, stronger pricing environment. And we're not even at replacement rate contracting yet. It's a very exciting segment.

Speaker #4: All right. Thanks for the call. I appreciate it.

Brian Lee: All right. Thanks for all the color. Appreciate it.

Speaker #5: Thank you, Brian.

Tim Gitzel: Thank you, Brian.

Speaker #2: The next question comes from Oris Walkadow with Scotiabank. Please go ahead.

Operator: The next question comes from Orest Wowkodaw with Scotiabank. Please go ahead.

Speaker #3: Hi. Good morning. A question around the disclosure regarding the Form S-1 with respect to the potential IPO for Westinghouse. I realize there's not a lot you can say, but could you give us some idea of the strategic rationale for this?

Orest Wowkodaw: Hi. Good morning. Question around its disclosure around the Form S-1 with respect to potential IPO for Westinghouse. I realize there is not a lot you can say, but could you give us some idea of the strategic rationale for this? Is this about the partners not having to put cash into the business in order to fund all the growth that is ahead of it? Just curious how to think about this.

Speaker #3: Is this, sort of, should we think about it as getting a market value for the business outside of Cameco or Brookfield, or is this about the partners not having the cash in the business in order to fund all the growth that's ahead of it?

Speaker #3: Just curious how to think about this.

Speaker #5: Yeah. Oris, consistent with the U.S. SEC rules governing the process, we are extremely limited in what we can say about the offering at this time.

Tim Gitzel: Yeah, Orest, consistent with the US SEC rules governing the process, we are extremely limited in what we can say about the offering at this time. We just can't provide any additional information on that.

Speaker #5: So, we just can't provide any additional information on that.

Speaker #3: Okay, okay. Maybe shifting gears then—Grant, could you please give us an update on where current market terms are with respect to contracting, in terms of floors and ceilings?

Orest Wowkodaw: Okay. Maybe shifting gears. Grant, could you please give us an update just where current market terms are with respect to contracting in terms of floors and ceilings? With the term price having perked up this year, just curious if we're also seeing ceilings move up new contracts. Thanks.

Speaker #3: And with the term price having perked up this year, just curious if we're also seeing ceilings move up in new contracts. Thanks.

Speaker #6: There continues to be upward movement in the floors and the ceilings, certainly as we look to respond to utilities, either on market or off market. Oris, you're familiar.

Grant Isaac: There continues to be upward movement in the floors and the ceilings, certainly as we look to respond to utilities either on market or off market, Orest. You're familiar, and I think most people listening are familiar that there's the two components of the term contracting market, what shows up in RFPs and then what shows up bilaterally or exclusively, and we call that off market.

Speaker #6: And I think most people listening are familiar that there are two components of the term contracting market: what shows up in RFPs, and then what shows up bilaterally or exclusively—and we call that off-market.

Speaker #6: From our perspective, when you look at this supply-demand dynamic, you have a very durable demand building—over 3 billion pounds of uranium that needs to be bought to run reactors on a requirements basis—against a supply stack that is actually increasingly uncertain.

Grant Isaac: From our perspective, when you look at this overwhelmingly favorable supply-demand dynamic where you have a very durable demand building over 3 billion pounds of uranium that needs to be bought to run reactors on a requirements basis against a supply stack that is actually increasingly uncertain in terms of the depletion of existing assets, uncertain in terms of the restarts of existing assets that have been shut down, and of course, promises of greenfield which seem to be sliding sideways if not backwards. That's all very favorable for that supply-demand dynamic. What it suggests is that there should be upward pressure on that pricing dynamic, and we just talked about it with respect to Brian's question on the underlying long-term price.

Speaker #6: Uncertainty remains regarding the depletion of existing assets and the restart of assets that have been shut down. And, of course, there are promises of greenfield projects, which seem to be sliding sideways, if not backwards.

Speaker #6: That's all very favorable for that supply-demand dynamic. And what it suggests is that there should be upward pressure on that pricing dynamic. And we just talked about it with respect to Brian's question on the underlying long-term price.

Speaker #6: Of course, when you think about market-related contracts, they don't reference the long-term price, but they generally have collars around them—floors and ceilings, as you've talked about.

Grant Isaac: Of course, when you think about market-related contracts, they don't reference the long-term price, but they generally have collars around them, floors and ceilings, as you've talked about. We are seeing the floors and ceilings increase commensurate with that underlying long-term price.

Speaker #6: And we are seeing the floors and ceilings increase commensurate with that underlying long-term price. I think it's not unusual to see market-related contracts now where floor prices are in the high 70s, escalated, and where ceiling prices are 160, escalated.

Grant Isaac: I think it's not unusual to see market-related contracts now where floor prices are in the CAD high 70s escalated and where ceiling prices are CAD 160 escalated. I can't speak for everybody. There still seems to be some in the market willing to try to discount floors and ceilings in order to win business. That's not what we do. We are in the business of being disciplined and looking forward to capture that long-term value with those utilities who have come to realize that security of supply is important. As I said in my earlier answer, it is a very constructive uranium segment, and it hasn't even discovered replacement rate contracting yet. That is something that I think everybody on this call and looking at the uranium space should be focused on. These are prices that we've never seen on the front end of a contracting cycle before.

Speaker #6: I can't speak for everybody. There still seems to be some in the market willing to try to discount floors and ceilings in order to win business.

Speaker #6: But that's not what we do. We are in the business of being disciplined and looking forward to capturing that long-term value with those utilities who have come to realize that security of supply is important.

Speaker #6: So as I said in my earlier answer, it is very constructive uranium segment. And it hasn't even discovered replacement rate contracting yet. And that is something that I think everybody on this call and looking at the uranium space should be focused on.

Speaker #6: These are prices that we've never seen on the front end of a contracting cycle before.

Speaker #3: Thanks for the color. Much appreciated.

Orest Wowkodaw: Thanks for the color. Appreciate it.

Speaker #5: Thanks, Oris.

Tim Gitzel: Thanks, Orest.

Speaker #2: The next question comes from Alexander Pierce with BMO. Please go ahead.

Operator: The next question comes from Alexander Pearce with BMO. Please go ahead.

Speaker #3: Great. Thank you. So in the spirit of continuing to ask questions that you may not be able to answer, is it fair to assume that the timing of filing or timing going forward, sorry, would probably the next step would come after finalization of the DOE and DSC agreements?

Alexander Pearce: Great. Thank you. In the spirit of continuing to ask questions that you may not be able to answer, is it fair to assume that the timing going forward would, probably the next step would come after finalization of the DOE and DSE agreements?

Speaker #5: Alex, I have to go back again to our compliance with SEC rules governing the process. We really can't say anything about that at this point.

Tim Gitzel: Alex, I have to go back again to our compliance with SEC rules governing the process. We really can't say anything about that at this point.

Speaker #3: Okay, I'll ask a more technical question then. So, you've pushed up cost guidance a little bit for this year. Is it possible to just break down how much of that cost change is due to on-site cost inflation, etc.?

Alexander Pearce: Okay. I'll ask a more technical question then. You pushed up cost guidance a little bit for this year. Is it possible to just break down how much of that cost change is due to kind of on-site, maybe cost inflation, et cetera? Or is there any of the cost change just because of the purchases you've made this quarter?

Speaker #3: Or is any of the cost change just because of the purchases you've made this quarter?

Speaker #5: That's a good question that we can answer. I'm going to ask Heidi. Heidi Shock, URCF, would answer that one.

Tim Gitzel: That's a good question that we can answer. I'm going to ask Heidi. Heidi Shockey, our CFO, to answer that one.

Speaker #7: Hi there, Alex. The change in the cost going forward was really as a result of the impact of the foreign exchange, mainly on our purchases, as you noted.

Heidi Shockey: Hi there, Alex. The change in the cost going forward was really as a result of the impact of the foreign exchange, mainly on our purchases, as you noted. Any inflation we're seeing and whatnot would've been covered by the range, and the big difference was really that FX rate.

Speaker #7: So, any inflation we're seeing and whatnot would have been covered by the range, and the big difference was really that FX rate.

Speaker #3: Okay. Thank you.

Alexander Pearce: Okay. Thank you.

Speaker #5: Thanks, Alex.

Tim Gitzel: Thanks, Alex.

Speaker #2: The next question comes from Mohammed Fadabi with National. Please go ahead.

Operator: The next question comes from Mohamed Faidebi with National. Please go ahead.

Speaker #3: Good morning. Good morning, Tim, and everyone else. Thanks for taking my question. I appreciate the additional color provided on Westinghouse and the outlook there.

Mohamed Faidebi: Good morning. Good morning, Tim, and everyone else. Thanks for taking my question there. Appreciate the additional color provided on Westinghouse and the outlook there. Maybe just on the new pipeline or global AP1000 pipeline outlook, or call it economics that you've shared with us, we've call it the better share of revenue there. I was wondering if the 91 reactors pipeline included opportunities that you would take on with the Koreans, or if that excludes that category. Thank you.

Mohamed Sidibé: Good morning. Good morning, Tim, and everyone else. Thanks for taking my question there. Appreciate the additional color provided on Westinghouse and the outlook there. Maybe just on the new pipeline or global AP1000 pipeline outlook, or call it economics that you've shared with us, we've call it the better share of revenue there. I was wondering if the 91 reactors pipeline included opportunities that you would take on with the Koreans, or if that excludes that category. Thank you.

Speaker #3: So maybe just on the new pipeline, our global AP 1000 pipeline outlook or call it economics that you've shared with us, we've called it the better share of revenue there.

Speaker #3: I just was wondering if the 91 reactors in the pipeline include opportunities that you would take on with the Koreans, or if that excludes that category.

Speaker #3: Thank you.

Speaker #5: Dominic, do you want to answer that?

Tim Gitzel: Dominic, do you want to answer that?

Speaker #4: Yeah, of course. Good morning. No, the pipeline, the 91 that we've sort of spelled out in our MD&A, is very specifically focused on deployment of just the AP1000 technology.

Dominic Kieran: Yeah, of course. Mohamed, good morning. No, the pipeline, the 91 that we've sort of spelled out in our MD&A is very specifically focused on deployment of just the AP1000 technology. We have not included in that any opportunities related to the Koreans deploying their technology globally. That is in addition to our list of 91.

Speaker #4: So, we have not included in that any opportunities related to the Koreans deploying their technology globally. So that is in addition to our list of 91.

Speaker #3: That's great. And maybe just a follow-up to that on the second question. When you disclosed the expected share of project value at 40 to 45 percent, is this something you expect to be consistently applied across jurisdictions, or does it vary drastically between, call it, Europe, North America, or maybe the Middle East?

Mohamed Faidebi: That's great. Maybe just a follow-up to that on the second question. When you disclose the expected share of project value at 40% to 45%, is this something you expect to be consistently applied across jurisdictions, or does it vary drastically between, call it Europe, North America, or maybe the Middle East? Thank you.

Mohamed Sidibé: That's great. Maybe just a follow-up to that on the second question. When you disclose the expected share of project value at 40% to 45%, is this something you expect to be consistently applied across jurisdictions, or does it vary drastically between, call it Europe, North America, or maybe the Middle East? Thank you.

Speaker #3: Thank you.

Speaker #4: Yeah, absolutely. Maybe let me just answer that with a little bit more detail around where we're at with the AP1000. So, we talk a lot about EPC to build reactors—engineering, procurement, construction.

Dominic Kieran: Absolutely. Maybe let me just answer that with a little bit more detail around where we're at with the AP1000. We talk a lot about EPC to build reactors, engineering, procurement, construction. Of course, where we're really focused is on delivering a little bit of engineering that is site-specific engineering and the procurement of the parts to build the AP1000. Two comments on that, if I may. Firstly, we're very unique in that we have a finalized design for our reactor, and that allows us to have a very specific and fixed scope of procurement. To answer your question, why we see real value and competitive advantage in the AP1000 is that there is no more design needed, and therefore the procurement is fixed, which is the majority of that scope for Westinghouse that we've listed in the table.

Speaker #4: Of course, where we're really focused is on delivering a little bit of engineering that is site-specific engineering and the procurement of the parts to build the AP 1000.

Speaker #4: So two comments on that, if I may. Firstly, we're very unique in that we have a finalized design for our reactor, and that allows us to have a very, very specific and fixed scope of procurement.

Speaker #4: So, to answer your question, why we see real value and competitive advantage in the AP1000 is that there is no more design needed, and therefore the procurement is fixed—which is the majority of that scope for Westinghouse that we've listed in the table.

Speaker #4: So, in summary, we're expecting to see very similar percentages irrespective of what jurisdiction the AP1000 is deployed in.

Dominic Kieran: In summary, we're expecting to see very similar percentages irrespective of what jurisdiction the AP1000 is deployed in.

Speaker #3: Yeah. Thanks so much for that, caller. Thank you.

Mohamed Faidebi: Thank you. Thanks so much for that, Colin. Thank you.

Mohamed Sidibé: Thank you. Thanks so much for that, Colin. Thank you.

Speaker #5: Thanks, Mohammed.

Tim Gitzel: Thanks, Mohamed.

Speaker #2: The next question comes from Bob Brackett with Bernstein Research. Please go ahead.

Operator: The next question comes from Bob Brackett with Bernstein Research. Please go ahead.

Speaker #6: Good morning. And thanks for all the Westinghouse disclosure again in the MDNA. I'd like to dig into the backlog numbers and new order numbers that you disclosed.

Bob Brackett: Good morning. Thanks for all the Westinghouse disclosure again in the MD&A. I'd like to dig into the backlog numbers and new order numbers that you disclosed. Should I think of that backlog as the amount of business pre-2025 that sort of flows through in sort of 10 years and then becomes revenue, and that that new order line that you talked about there is a significant step up, and that was business gained in 2025? Is that the new steady state for the level at which you're capturing business?

Speaker #6: But I think of that backlog as the amount of business pre-2025 that sort of flows through and, over about 10 years, becomes revenue.

Speaker #6: And that new order line that you talk about there is a significant step up. And that was business gained in 2025. Can you talk about whether that is the new steady state for the level at which you're capturing business?

Speaker #5: So, Bob, thanks for the question. You may just hear in the background a beeping noise here. We're just hearing an alarm, but we'll carry on until further notice.

Tim Gitzel: Bob, thanks for the question. Just you may hear in the background a beeping noise here. We're just hearing an alarm, but we'll carry on until further notice. Dominic, go over to you.

Speaker #5: So Dominic, over to you.

Speaker #4: Yeah, absolutely.

Dominic Kieran: Yeah, absolutely. Bob, thanks for your question. Maybe let me do it in reverse order. Let me talk about new orders entered. New orders entered, and this is a point in time at the end of last year, is the cumulative number of orders entered into within last year. Now, those orders, some of those, and the smaller percentage, will have been executed and taken to revenue in the year. The larger percentage of those orders that have not been delivered on will enter backlog. Backlog then is at a point in time of December the 31st, how much contracted business does Westinghouse have for delivery and revenue recognition in the future? I hope that explains just what do we mean by backlog and new orders entered. Your second question was, are we expecting to see this as our steady state going forward?

Speaker #3: Bob, thanks for your question. So maybe let me do it in reverse order. Let me talk about new orders entered. So, new orders entered—and this is a point in time at the end of last year—is the cumulative number of orders entered into within last year.

Speaker #3: Now, those orders, some of those and the smaller percentage will have been executed and taken to revenue in the year. The larger percentage of those orders that have not been delivered on will enter backlog.

Speaker #3: So backlog then is at a point in time of December the 31st how much contracted business does Westinghouse have for delivery and revenue recognition in the future?

Speaker #3: So I hope that explains just what we mean by backlog and new orders entered. Your second question was then, are we expecting to see this as our steady state going forward?

Speaker #3: What I would just maybe draw your attention to is, when you look at the list of AP1000 pipelines, the 91 identified opportunities for AP1000, you can see many of those are in the future.

Dominic Kieran: What I would just maybe just draw your attention to is when you look at the list of AP1000 pipelines, the 91 identified opportunities for AP1000, you can see many of those are in the future, and we're at a pretty early stage with some of those projects. While I can't give you any specific details on what we expect to happen to the backlog, I think what you can expect as we start to see the AP1000 being contracted and deployed, we are expecting to see a very positive trend on the backlog as we go forward through time.

Speaker #3: And we're at a pretty early stage with some of those projects. So, while I can't give you any specific details on what we expect to happen to the backlog, I think what you can expect is that as we start to see the AP1000s being contracted and deployed, we are expecting to see a very positive trend in the backlog as we go forward through time.

Speaker #3: Very clear. Quick follow-up on your ends of a kind unit economics for the AP 1000. You've got a range for a two-pack of 14 to 17 billion US.

Bob Brackett: Very clear. A quick follow-up. On your Nth-of-a-kind unit economics for the AP1000, you've got a range for a two-pack of $14 to 17 billion. Is that a conservative number? One could imagine that Nth-of-a-kind economics could be lower than that $14 billion. How do you think about the range of outcomes of that number?

Speaker #3: Is that a conservative number? One could imagine that, under some kinds of economics, it could be lower than that $14 billion. How do you think about the range of outcomes for that number?

Speaker #4: Well, thank you for your question. I think the honest answer is it's pragmatic, right? We've given a range, but because it is pragmatic and why am I being a little vague?

Dominic Kieran: Well, thank you for your question. I think the honest answer is it's pragmatic, right? We've given a range because it is pragmatic and why am I being a little vague? Some of this also depends on sort of jurisdiction. If we think about countries that are going to deploy multiple units, we're probably at the bottom end of that range. Where countries are maybe just deploying a single unit or a twin pack, we're probably towards the top end of that range. As you say, at the moment, those are really estimates and depend on situation. I would say that is our best view at the moment of where we could get to.

Speaker #4: Because some of this also depends on sort of jurisdiction. So if we think about countries that are going to deploy multiple units, we're probably at the bottom end of that range.

Speaker #4: Where countries are maybe just deploying a single unit or a twin pack, we're probably towards the top end of that range. But as you said, at the moment, those are really estimates and depend on the situation.

Speaker #4: And I would say that is our best view at the moment of where we could get to.

Speaker #3: Very good. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Bob Brackett: Very good. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Speaker #5: Thank you.

Tim Gitzel: Thank you.

Speaker #2: The next question comes from Lawson Winder with Bank of America. Please go ahead.

Operator: The next question comes from Lawson Winder with Bank of America. Please go ahead.

Speaker #1: Thank you very much, operator. Good morning, Tim and Grant and team. I really appreciate the update and also echo those comments that I really appreciate the additional disclosure here on Westinghouse.

Lawson Winder: Thank you very much, operator. Good morning, Tim and Grant and team. I really appreciate the update and also echo those comments that I really appreciate the additional disclosure here on Westinghouse. When we look at the huge pipeline of 91 reactors, what % of those 91 units would you characterize as high probability opportunities? Maybe being more specific on some of the different stages, like you have front-end engineering and design projects of around 11. If you look historically, what % of those more advanced discussions would typically convert to a full reactor build?

Speaker #1: When we look at the huge pipeline of 91 reactors, what percentage of those 91 units would you characterize as high probability opportunities? And then maybe being more specific on some of the different stages, like you have front-end engineering and design projects of around 11.

Speaker #1: If you look historically, what percentage of those more advanced discussions would typically convert to a full reactor build?

Speaker #5: Dominic, please.

Tim Gitzel: Dominic, please.

Speaker #3: Yeah, thank you. So, Lawson, thank you for your question. We have ordered the list in terms of how close the opportunities are to making what we call final investment decisions.

Dominic Kieran: Yeah. Thank you. Lawson, thank you for your question. We have ordered the list, in terms of how close the opportunities are to making what we call final investment decisions. Obviously, the closer you are to making a final investment decision, there is a couple of things to bear in mind. One of which is there has been considerable effort to get ready for a final investment decision. A huge amount of work preparing for that. Obviously, the probability increases as you get to final investment decision. We have not put specific probabilities on the list because, quite frankly, it is very, very difficult to estimate that. Let me make a couple of comments. If we go to the bottom of the list, maybe some of our early stage opportunities that we have listed a number of countries there.

Speaker #3: And obviously, the closer you are to making a final investment decision, there's a couple of things to bear in mind, one of which is there's been considerable effort to get ready for a final investment decision.

Speaker #3: So, a huge amount of work goes into preparing for that. But obviously, the probability increases as you get to final investment decision. We haven't put specific probabilities on the list because, quite frankly, it's very, very difficult to estimate that.

Speaker #3: But let me make a couple of comments. If we go to the bottom of the list, so maybe some of our early stage opportunities, we've listed a number of countries there.

Dominic Kieran: It is not that we see them as lower probability, it is just that we see them as slightly earlier in the process of getting to a final investment decision. The countries that are listed there, we are seeing very, very strong recognition of the need for nuclear in base load energy generation. Some very, very common themes around the need for decarbonization, the need for energy security, the need for a decent proportion of base load power on these countries' grids. Which gives us really quite a high degree of confidence we will convert a significant number of these opportunities into real projects and pass through a positive final investment decision. We are not really in a position to give specific numbers, I hope that gives a little bit of color as to how we think about these opportunities.

Speaker #3: It's not that we see them as lower probability. It's just that we see them as slightly earlier in the process of getting to a final investment decision.

Speaker #3: And the countries that are listed there, we are seeing very, very strong recognition of the need for nuclear in baseload energy generation, and some very, very common themes around the need for decarbonization, the need for energy security, and the need for a decent proportion of baseload power on these countries' grids.

Speaker #3: Which gives us a really quite high degree of confidence that we will convert a significant number of these opportunities into real projects and pass through a positive final investment decision.

Speaker #3: So we're not really in a position to give specific numbers, but I hope that gives a little bit of color as to how we think about these opportunities.

Speaker #1: Yeah, that is helpful, Dominic. Thank you very much. And then AP300s and the eVinci—again, the color there is very helpful. Obviously, a huge opportunity, particularly for the AP300, but just how would you characterize the CAPEX remaining for Westinghouse internally and the timeline for each of those two technologies to get to a commercial deployment level?

Lawson Winder: Yeah, that is helpful, Dominic. Thank you very much. Then AP300 and the eVinci, again, the color there is very helpful. Obviously, a huge opportunity, particularly for the AP300, just how would you characterize the CapEx remaining for Westinghouse internally and the timeline for each of those two technologies to get to a commercial deployment level?

Speaker #3: Yeah, absolutely. So let me start with the AP-300. Just to be clear, what the AP-300 is, is a scaled-down version of our very proven AP-1000 technology.

Dominic Kieran: Yeah, absolutely. Let me start with the AP300. Just to be clear, what the AP300 is a scaled-down version of our very proven AP1000 technology. Why we think this is really unique and we are in a unique position is because we are basically taking the proven AP1000 technology and really just adapting it for those customers and those markets that are looking for a smaller reactor. What does that mean? That means the capital needed to bring that AP300 technology to a final design ready for deployment is actually pretty modest, and I think we have put the numbers in the MD&A, they are there to read. Thereafter, of course, once you are into deployment, it is our customers, our utilities, our government CapEx as we move into deployment of that. I hope that explains the AP300.

Speaker #3: And while this is widely we think this is a really unique and we're in a unique position is because we are basically taking the proven AP 1000 technology and really just adapting it for those customers and those markets that are looking for a smaller reactor.

Speaker #3: So what does that mean? That means the capital needed to bring that AP 300 technology to a final design ready for deployment is actually pretty modest.

Speaker #3: And I think we've put the numbers in the MD&A, so they're there to read. I mean, thereafter, of course, once you're into deployment, it is our customers, our utilities, our governments' CAPEX as we move into deployment of that.

Speaker #3: So I hope that explains the AP300. As I say, we benefit from very, very modest amounts of capital—I’d say quite uniquely modest amounts of capital—to finalize that design, because of the pedigree of the AP1000.

Dominic Kieran: As I say, we benefit from very modest amounts of capital, I'd say quite uniquely modest amounts of capital to finalize that design because of the pedigree of the AP1000. I would just draw your attention to, this is not just about design, this is about ensuring there is a robust supply chain for the delivery of these reactors. Of course, the AP300 has huge commonality with the AP1000 supply chain. On eVinci, different technology. This is what we call a Generation IV technology, and we're really focusing the eVinci as a much smaller reactor. It isn't 1.1.2 gigawatts. It's not 330 gigawatts. It's in the small number of megawatts range. We're very focused at the moment on some opportunities with the US government, and those opportunities currently are self-funding.

Speaker #3: And I would just draw your attention to this: this is not just about design. This is about ensuring there is a robust supply chain for the delivery of these reactors.

Speaker #3: And of course, the AP300 has huge commonality with the AP1000 supply chain. On eVinci, different technology. So this is what we call a Generation IV technology.

Speaker #3: And we're really focusing the eVinci is a much smaller reactor. It isn't 1.1, 1.2 gigawatts. It's not 330 gigawatts. It's in the small number of megawatts range.

Speaker #3: We're very focused at the moment on some opportunities with the US government. And those opportunities currently are self-funding. And what this presents us with is an opportunity to make decisions in the future to commit capital to these projects should we decide within our capital deployment process that they warrant additional capital.

Dominic Kieran: What this presents us with is an opportunity to make decisions in the future to commit capital to these projects should we decide within our capital deployment process that they warrant additional capital.

Speaker #1: Okay. Thanks, Dominic. That's very helpful.

Lawson Winder: Okay. Thanks, Dominic. That's very helpful.

Speaker #5: Thanks for the questions, Lawson.

Tim Gitzel: Thanks for the questions, Lawson.

Speaker #2: The next question comes from George Eady with UBS. Please go ahead.

Operator: The next question comes from George Eadie with UBS. Please go ahead.

Speaker #6: Yeah. Hi, Tim. Just firstly on the duration piece for the AP 1000. How does last month's DOE commitment change things? Is that sort of brought forward timelines much?

George Eadie: Yeah. Hi, team. Just firstly, on the duration piece for the AP1000, how does last month's DOE commitment change things? Has that sort of brought forward timelines much, and is that included sort of thoroughly in the nine to 10 and 10 to 11-year guidance estimate?

Speaker #6: And is that included sort of thoroughly in the 9:00 to 10:00 and 10:00 to 11:00 year guidance estimate?

Speaker #3: Yeah, George, thank you. Good question. I mean, you will have read that one of the purposes of last month's announcement is to really stand up the supply chain for AP1000 as it pertains to those items that are traditionally on the critical path.

Dominic Kieran: Yeah, George. Thank you. Good question. You will have read one of the purposes of last month's announcement is to really stand up the supply chain for AP1000 as it pertains to those items that are traditionally on the critical path. I think it's a very valid question, is this really providing acceleration to these numbers? What we're really showing here in terms of the duration of the project, I think you can see that we've put in first projects, but also where we expect to get to with Nth-of-a-kind. We're expecting the first project to include the LLI timelines, but what we're expecting is very quickly to get to Nth-of-a-kind, very much supported by the announcement of the long lead item opportunity that we are working with the Department of Energy on.

Speaker #3: And so I think it's a very valid question is this really providing acceleration to these numbers. What we're really showing here in terms of the duration of the project, I think you can see that we've put in first projects, but also where we expect to get to with nth of a kind.

Speaker #3: We're expecting the first project to include the LLI timelines but what we're expecting is very quickly to get to nth of a kind. Very much supported by the announcement of the long lead item.

Speaker #3: Opportunity that we are working with the Department of Energy on.

Speaker #6: Yeah. Okay. So I guess outside of sort of supply chain, what is the biggest headwind to getting this in production? Is it labor and getting the sites ready?

George Eadie: Yeah. Okay. I guess outside of sort of supply chain, what is the biggest headwind to getting this in production? Like, is it labor and getting the sites ready? I guess if I take the 29 units in the table, getting them all in operation in, say, 12 years from today, how confident are you that's still manageable given there's potentially another 60 in study and origination phase? I guess that's a huge profile of work to manage, but equally, the potential earnings are quite eye-watering.

Speaker #6: I guess if I take the 29 units in the table, getting them all in operation in, say, 12 years from today—how confident are you that that's still manageable, given there's potentially another 60 in the study and origination phase?

Speaker #6: I guess that's a huge profile of work to manage, but equally, the potential earnings are quite eye-watering.

Speaker #5: Dominic?

Tim Gitzel: Dominic?

Speaker #3: Yeah, thank you. So maybe let's break the answer into a number of different buckets if I may. So bucket number one is go back to what I said earlier.

Dominic Kieran: Yeah. Thank you. Maybe let's break the answer into a number of different buckets, if I may. Bucket number 1 is, go back to what I said earlier, do we have any design to do? Well, no, we have no design to do on the reactor. There is always some design to do around the sites, but because the design of the reactor is finished, the amount of design we need to do around the sites is not expected to be

Speaker #3: Do we have any design to do? Well, no, we have no design to do on the reactor. There is always some design to do around the sites, but because the design of the reactor is finished, the amount of design we need to do around the sites is not expected to be significant for this technology.

Dominic Kieran: significant for this technology. The second bucket is, are we well-positioned to provide the P, the procurement part of EPC? The answer is yes, we are. We are very focused to make sure that we have the processes and the suppliers to stand behind the numbers that are on this table. Maybe just go back to my comments about the long lead item opportunity in the US. Finally, we're into sort of construction. You will see from the list, and construction can be seen as a bottleneck, but you can see on the list that a number of these reactors are being deployed in different countries around the world. We don't have, outside of the US, a lot of perceived bottlenecks around construction.

Speaker #3: The second bucket is, are we well positioned to provide the P, the procurement part of EPC? And the answer is yes, we are. We're very focused to make sure that we have the processes and the suppliers to stand behind the numbers that are on this table.

Speaker #3: And maybe just go back to my comments about the long lead item opportunity in the US. And then finally, we're into sort of construction.

Speaker #3: And you will see from the list and construction can be seen as a bottleneck, but you can see on the list that a number of these reactors are being deployed in different countries around the world.

Speaker #3: So, we don't have, outside of the US, a lot of perceived bottlenecks around construction. So, back then, really just to sort of summarize your question, we have put this in because we have considered the risks around this.

Dominic Kieran: Back then, really just to sort of summarize your question is, we have put this in because we have considered the risks around this. It is certainly not without risks, but we've been, we believe, prudent when we put this in as our view of what the potential future may look like.

Speaker #3: It is certainly not without risks, but we believe we've been prudent when we put this in as our view of what the potential future may look like.

Speaker #6: Okay. Yeah, no, that's super helpful. Thank you.

George Eadie: Okay. Yeah, that's super helpful. Thank you.

Speaker #5: Thank you, George.

Tim Gitzel: Thank you, George.

Speaker #2: The next question comes from Andrew Wong with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Operator: The next question comes from Andrew Wong with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Speaker #1: Hey, good morning. Just wanted to ask with the USDOE loan programs that are available for the long lead items, could that be combined in the future with the 80 billion dollar initiative from the DOC?

Andrew Wong: Hey, good morning. Just wanted to ask, with the US DOE loan programs that are available for the long lead items, could that be combined in the future with the CAD 80 billion initiative from the DOC? It looks like those two programs could be really complementary to each other.

Speaker #1: Because it looks like those two programs could be really complementary to each other.

Speaker #5: Congratulations.

Tim Gitzel: Grant, do you want to take that one?

Dominic Kieran: Yeah. Andrew, that's probably a question for the US government more than it is for us. At the moment, we treat them as two parallel projects. The DOE had a particular focus on standing up the American nuclear supply chain. That is at the heart of the long lead item program that Dominic had just explained. The Department of Commerce, you'll recall, was a different driver. That driver was to accelerate the deployment of AP1000s, really by harnessing foreign direct investment pledged in the United States. Right now, they are different projects on different tracks. If they are combined, that would be under the direction of the US government. I guess the point is, the reason it adds to 20 reactors is because the demand for base load 24-hour carbon-free power is massive.

Grant Isaac: Yeah. Andrew, that's probably a question for the US government more than it is for us. At the moment, we treat them as two parallel projects. The DOE had a particular focus on standing up the American nuclear supply chain. That is at the heart of the long lead item program that Dominic had just explained. The Department of Commerce, you'll recall, was a different driver. That driver was to accelerate the deployment of AP1000s, really by harnessing foreign direct investment pledged in the United States. Right now, they are different projects on different tracks. If they are combined, that would be under the direction of the US government. I guess the point is, the reason it adds to 20 reactors is because the demand for base load 24-hour carbon-free power is massive.

Speaker #4: Yeah, Andrew, that's probably a question for the U.S. government more than it is for us. At the moment, we treat them as two parallel projects.

Speaker #4: The DOE had a particular focus on standing up the American nuclear supply chain. That is at the heart of the long-lead item program that Dominic had just explained.

Speaker #4: The Department of Commerce, you'll recall, was a different driver. That driver was to accelerate the deployment of AP 1000s, really by harnessing foreign direct investment pledged in the United States.

Speaker #4: Right now, they are different projects on different tracks. If they are combined, that would be under the direction of the US government. I guess the point is the reason it adds to 20 reactors is because the demand for base load 24-hour carbon-free power is massive.

Speaker #4: And so combining them in only settling with 10 reactors would not even begin to satisfy the demand that the US government is seeing and trying to be in front of.

Dominic Kieran: Combining them and only settling with 10 reactors would not even begin to satisfy the demand that the US government is seeing and trying to be in front of. We'll watch it very closely, but at the moment, they're two separate programs run by two separate departments, and both represent a very exciting opportunity for AP1000 as reflected in the updates that we've put in the MD&A.

Grant Isaac: Combining them and only settling with 10 reactors would not even begin to satisfy the demand that the US government is seeing and trying to be in front of. We'll watch it very closely, but at the moment, they're two separate programs run by two separate departments, and both represent a very exciting opportunity for AP1000 as reflected in the updates that we've put in the MD&A.

Speaker #4: So we'll watch it very closely, but at the moment, they're two separate programs. Run by two separate departments and both represent a very exciting opportunity for AP 1000s as reflected in the updates that we've put in the MDNA.

Speaker #1: Okay, for sure. Yeah, I mean, I was just thinking about complementary programs, so it's good to get the nth of a kind as fast as possible with both programs, that they work together.

Andrew Wong: Okay. For sure. Yeah, I was just thinking complementary programs, it's good to get to Nth-of-a-kind as fast as possible with both programs if they work together. I want to ask about-

Speaker #1: Regarding I want to ask about the version and yeah.

Dominic Kieran: Andrew

Grant Isaac: Andrew

Andrew Wong: conversion and, yeah.

Speaker #4: Andrew, just on that point—Dominic made this reference, and maybe we'll just put a finer point on it—whether it's the DOE or the DOC moving forward, or any of the programs that you see in the list of 91, it is essential to capture those three S's that we've talked about.

Dominic Kieran: Andrew, just on that point, Dominic made this reference, and maybe we'll just put a finer point on it. Whether it's the DOE or the DOC moving forward or all of the programs that you see in the list of 91, it is essential to capture those three S's that we've talked about. We need to standardize, and we've standardized to a common design. The AP1000 has a unique competitive advantage as articulated in the MD&A because it's design-ready, it's fuel-ready, it's licensed, it's regulatory-ready, and it's been deployed. The standardization has been checked. I think what you were referring to was the second S, which is sequence. It is important that you sequence properly so that these programs are complementary, so that you're not standing up a skilled or a trade workforce, and they're all competing with each other at the same time.

Grant Isaac: Andrew, just on that point, Dominic made this reference, and maybe we'll just put a finer point on it. Whether it's the DOE or the DOC moving forward or all of the programs that you see in the list of 91, it is essential to capture those three S's that we've talked about. We need to standardize, and we've standardized to a common design. The AP1000 has a unique competitive advantage as articulated in the MD&A because it's design-ready, it's fuel-ready, it's licensed, it's regulatory-ready, and it's been deployed. The standardization has been checked. I think what you were referring to was the second S, which is sequence. It is important that you sequence properly so that these programs are complementary, so that you're not standing up a skilled or a trade workforce, and they're all competing with each other at the same time.

Speaker #4: We need to standardize and we've standardized to a common design. The AP 1000 has a unique competitive advantage as articulated in the MDNA because it's design ready.

Speaker #4: It's fuel-ready. It's licensed. It's regulatory-ready. And it's been deployed. So, the standardization has been checked. I think what you were referring to was the second S, which is sequence.

Speaker #4: And it is important that you sequence properly so that these programs are complementary, so that you're not standing up a skilled or a trade workforce and they're all competing with each other at the same time.

Speaker #4: So, standardized sequence. And of course, the third S we always talk about is "simplify," which doesn't mean change the design; it means learn the lessons that have come before.

Dominic Kieran: Standardized sequence, and of course, the third S we always talk about is simplify, which doesn't mean change the design. It means learn the lessons that have come before. That is the key of good industrial practices to get to that Nth-of-a-kind as quickly as possible. To your point, I agree with you, and I hope it didn't sound like I was dismissing it. They are complementary as long as we are standardizing, sequencing, and simplifying. The two programs are different, if we follow those three S's of good industrial practice, nobody needs to fear nuclear new build. In fact, we need to embrace it in a much more aggressive way than we have.

Grant Isaac: Standardized sequence, and of course, the third S we always talk about is simplify, which doesn't mean change the design. It means learn the lessons that have come before. That is the key of good industrial practices to get to that Nth-of-a-kind as quickly as possible. To your point, I agree with you, and I hope it didn't sound like I was dismissing it. They are complementary as long as we are standardizing, sequencing, and simplifying. The two programs are different, if we follow those three S's of good industrial practice, nobody needs to fear nuclear new build. In fact, we need to embrace it in a much more aggressive way than we have.

Speaker #4: And that is the key of good industrial practices—to get to that nth-of-a-kind as quickly as possible. So, to your point, I agree with you.

Speaker #4: And I didn't mean—I hope it didn't sound like I was dismissing it. They are complementary as long as we are standardizing sequencing and simplifying.

Speaker #4: The two programs are different. But if we follow those three S's of good industrial practice, nobody needs to fear nuclear new build. In fact, we need to embrace it in a much more aggressive way than we have.

Speaker #1: Yeah, that's great—much appreciated. Maybe I just wanted to ask about conversion and enrichment prices as well. We've seen plans for new supply of both that's set to come on over the next, let's say, five years or so.

Andrew Wong: Yeah. That's great. Much appreciated. Maybe just wanted to ask about actual conversion and enrichment prices as well, that we've seen plans for new supply of both that's set to come on over the next, let's say, five years or so. When we look at prices for conversion and enrichment, they haven't really come down even with the new supply announcements. I was just curious what you make of that. Why do you think that's the case, and what kind of takeaways would you say that that could imply for the uranium markets?

Speaker #1: But when we look at prices for conversion and enrichment, they haven't really come down, even with the new supply announcement. So, I was just curious what you make of that.

Speaker #1: Why do you think that's the case? And what kind of takeaways would you say that could imply for the uranium markets?

Dominic Kieran: Grant. I think we've talked about a lot, I'll just remind everybody on the call that you generally buy nuclear fuel backwards. You start with how many fuel bundles do you have, if you need more, you then go to the fabricator to secure the service, then you go to the enricher, the converter, and uranium. We've always talked about if you want to know where uranium is going, just look at what's happening downstream. Downstream, you're right in pointing out very strong pricing in fabrication, enrichment, and conversion. Obviously, strong pricing brings the promise of new supply.

Tim Gitzel: Grant.

Speaker #4: When we I think we've talked about a lot, but I'll just remind everybody on the call that you generally buy nuclear fuel backwards. You start with how many fuel bundles do you have?

Grant Isaac: I think we've talked about a lot, I'll just remind everybody on the call that you generally buy nuclear fuel backwards. You start with how many fuel bundles do you have, if you need more, you then go to the fabricator to secure the service, then you go to the enricher, the converter, and uranium. We've always talked about if you want to know where uranium is going, just look at what's happening downstream. Downstream, you're right in pointing out very strong pricing in fabrication, enrichment, and conversion. Obviously, strong pricing brings the promise of new supply.

Speaker #4: And if you need more, you then go to the fabricator to secure the service and then you go to the enricher, the converter, and uranium.

Speaker #4: And we've always talked about if you want to know where uranium is going, just look at what's happening downstream. And downstream, you're right in pointing out very strong pricing.

Speaker #4: In fabrication, enrichment, and conversion, and obviously, strong pricing brings the promise of new supply. But I think what you're seeing in market pricing is the utilities themselves are being very clear-eyed about some of these promises.

Grant Isaac: I think what you're seeing in market pricing is the utilities themselves are being very clear-eyed about some of these promises. If it's an incumbent enricher, for example, doing an expansion at a brownfield facility, well, that's going to have a high probability of success. When it's somebody who's never been in the business before with an unknown technology promising new supply, those tend to be doubted by the utilities that have to count on that and don't want to take on that risk. I think the fact that there's been a lot of announcements, but prices remain strong, is just simply as fuel buyers go into security of supply mode, they are going to be very clear-eyed about who's making those promises.

Speaker #4: And so if it's an incumbent enricher, for example, doing an expansion at a brownfield facility, well, that's going to have a high probability of success.

Speaker #4: But when it's somebody who's never been in the business before, with an unknown technology promising new supply, those tend to be doubted by the utilities that have to count on that and don't want to take on that risk.

Speaker #4: So, I think the fact that there's been a lot of announcements, but prices remain strong, is just simply because, as fuel buyers go into security of supply mode, they're going to be very clear-eyed about who's making those promises.

Speaker #4: They're going to look at their track record, and they're just going to discount some of those promises—especially the new ones on the conversion side.

Grant Isaac: They're going to look at their track record, and they're just going to discount some of those promises, especially the new ones on the conversion side. Those that are proven in the business will be the primary beneficiary of the higher prices. That includes Cameco.

Speaker #4: And those that are proven in the business will be the primary beneficiary of the higher prices. That includes CAMECO.

Speaker #1: Okay. Much appreciated. Thank you.

Andrew Wong: Much appreciated. Thank you.

Speaker #3: Thanks, Andrew.

Tim Gitzel: Thanks, Andrew.

Speaker #2: The next question comes from Brian MacArthur with Raymond James. Please go ahead.

Operator: The next question comes from Brian MacArthur with Raymond James. Please go ahead.

Speaker #5: Good morning, and thank you for taking my questions. Again, maybe this falls under the category you can answer, but I just want to check that nothing has changed in the partnership with the US government.

Brian MacArthur: Good morning, and thank you for taking my question. Again, maybe it falls under the category you can't answer, but I just want to check that there's nothing changed in the partnership with the U.S. government. If you do an IPO, they had an option if they vested to participate in that IPO. Has any of that changed if the timing of this changes?

Speaker #5: If you do an IPO, they had an option, if they vested, to participate in that IPO. Has any of that changed at the time of these changes?

Tim Gitzel: I'll just open, then I'll pass it to Grant, but I'll just say that, of course, we're restricted from discussing this, but tell you that we and Brookfield that control Westinghouse today, we don't expect that to change. Grant.

Speaker #3: I'll just open, and then I'll pass it to Grant, but I'll just say that, of course, we're restricted from discussing this. But I'll tell you that we, in Brookfield, control Westinghouse today, and we don't expect that to change.

Speaker #3: So Grant.

Speaker #4: Brian, the only reminder is if you go back to that announcement about the partnership with the Department of Commerce from last fall, it had two important vesting conditions in it.

Grant Isaac: Brian, the only reminder is if you go back to that announcement about the partnership with the Department of Commerce from last fall, it had two important vesting conditions in it. The first vesting condition was that it was the responsibility of the Department of Commerce to arrange financing of a minimum CAD 80 billion to support the development of AP1000. That has not changed. That would be the trigger that we would look for under that participation interest. That has not changed.

Speaker #4: And the first vesting condition was that it was the responsibility of the Department of Commerce to arrange financing of a minimum $80 billion to support the development of AP 1000.

Speaker #4: So, that has not changed. That would be the trigger that we would look for under that participation interest. That has not changed.

Speaker #5: Yeah, that's sort of what I was trying to read through here, but I'll leave it at that. Second question, can I just make sure I'm understanding this chart right? Again, thank you for all the Westinghouse information. But in simple terms, you talk about concrete minus three.

Brian MacArthur: Yeah, that's sort of what I was trying to read through here, but I'll leave it at that. Second question, can I just make sure I'm understanding this chart right? Which again, thank you for all the Westinghouse information, but in simple terms, you talk about concrete minus three. It looks like you get 10% of the value on an AP1000. We're talking CAD 8 billion, let's call it CAD 800 million to Westinghouse, then you get an EBITDA margin of 20%. Am I reading the combination of those two charts properly? Again, I suspect those are averages, so it may be different on a reactor basis. Is that a fair comment?

Speaker #5: It looks like you get 10% of the value. On an AP1000, we're talking about $8 billion, so let's call it $800 million to Westinghouse.

Speaker #5: And then you get an EBITDA margin of 20%. Am I reading the combination of those two charts properly? And again, I suspect those are averages, so it may be different on a reactor basis.

Speaker #5: Is that a fair comment?

Tim Gitzel: Dominic?

Speaker #3: Yeah, Brian. Yeah. Thanks for the question. So the way that we read the chart is the total sort of cash flow spend, which if you refer to the table, we're saying for what we call a pair, a twin pack is between 20 and 26 billion.

Dominic Kieran: Yeah, Brian. Thanks for the question. The way to read the chart is the total sort of cash flow spend, which if you refer to the table, we're saying for what we call a pair or twin pack is between CAD 20 billion and CAD 26 billion.

Brian MacArthur: Yeah.

Speaker #3: So that's the total spend. And you can see the difference there between effectively near-term build and nth of a kind reflecting the nth of a kind we incorporate all the learnings, which means we can go faster.

Dominic Kieran: That's the total spend, you can see the difference there between effectively near-term build and Nth-of-a-kind, reflecting that Nth-of-a-kind, we incorporate all the learnings, which means we can go faster on the build, so higher spend sooner. To that total spend, you then apply the Westinghouse share-

Speaker #3: On the build, so higher spend sooner. So to that total spend, you then apply the Westinghouse share of that. It's circa the sort of 40 to 45 percent.

Brian MacArthur: Yeah

Dominic Kieran: of that, which is circa the sort of 40% to 45%, then to that you apply the typical corporate EBITDA margins that we've put on the table.

Speaker #3: And then to that, you apply the typical corporate EBITDA margins that we've put on the table.

Speaker #4: Right. And then, if I look at the next chart where you show these lines, it looks like if I just use, not an nth, a current one, it looks like at P minus four, you have zero, if I'm reading this right.

Brian MacArthur: Right. If I look at the next chart where you show these lines where it looks like if I just use, not an Nth, a current one, it looks like at T minus four, you have zero if I'm reading this right, then at T minus two, looks like I get 20%. I'd book 20% of that if it's CAD 8 billion for an AP1000 near term, I'd book 20% of that in year T minus three, if I'm reading the chart right, then get an EBITDA margin of 20%. I get it, everything's going to be different within a plus or minus. Is that sort of the right way to combine those two charts?

Speaker #4: And then at T minus two, it looks like I get 20%. So I'd book 20% of that—if it's $8 billion for an AP1000 near-term, I'd book 20% of that in year T minus three, if I'm reading the chart right—and then get a margin, an EBITDA margin, of 20%.

Speaker #4: Is that I get it. Everything's going to be different within a plus or minus. Is that sort of the right way to combine those two charts?

Speaker #3: Yeah, broadly, it absolutely is. And I think what changes a little bit is how that 45% changes throughout the duration of the project. But at an aggregate level, I think your approach is correct.

Dominic Kieran: Yeah. Broadly, it absolutely is. I think what changes a little bit is how that 45% changes throughout the duration of the project. At an aggregate level, I think your approach is correct.

Speaker #6: Brian, I might just add that in the first five years, we get 50% of the revenue in the initial projects, and then that speeds up, of course, as you get to nth-of-a-kind.

Heidi Shockey: Brian, I might just add that in the first five years, we get 50% of the revenue in the initial projects, that speeds up, of course, as you get to Nth of a kind.

Speaker #4: Right, that makes good sense. And then, is that normalized adjusted EBITDA of 20% — is that kind of normalized over the whole cycle? Like, in the first 50%, you'd be getting 20%, or would you get higher upfront and get 30%, and then get 10% on the back end, or can you even comment on that?

Brian MacArthur: Right. That makes good sense. Is that normalized adjusted EBITDA of 20%, is that kind of normalized over the whole cycle? Like in the first 50%, you'd be getting 20%, would you get higher up front and get 30 and get 10 on the back end, can you even comment on that?

Speaker #6: I probably can't comment on that. Yeah, just averaged over the whole project, it's about 20%.

Heidi Shockey: Probably can't comment on that. Yeah, just average over the whole project is about 20%.

Speaker #4: Fair enough. And then on top of that, for when they become operating plants at that time, obviously, you’d do an addition to that, so you get the 45 to 60 that you’re talking about at the bottom of the table?

Brian MacArthur: Fair enough. On top of that, do they become operating plants at that time, obviously? In addition to that, do you get the CAD 45 to 60 that you're talking about at the bottom of the table?

Speaker #6: Yeah. That's what that means. Yeah. That's what that means. So once it goes into operation, kind of on an annualized basis, we're looking at fuel, refueling, outage services, and all that.

Dominic Kieran: Yeah. That's what that means. Once it goes into operation, kind of on an annualized basis, we're looking at fuel, refueling, outage services, and all that. It flips into our core business.

Heidi Shockey: Yeah. That's what that means. Once it goes into operation, kind of on an annualized basis, we're looking at fuel, refueling, outage services, and all that. It flips into our core business.

Speaker #6: And then it kind of flips into our core business, which is— and that's just recurring opportunity for the core business ongoing.

Grant Isaac: Right.

Brian MacArthur: Right.

Dominic Kieran: That's just recurring opportunity for the core business ongoing.

Heidi Shockey: That's just recurring opportunity for the core business ongoing.

Speaker #4: And Brian, just on that recurring core business, we're using our interchangeably. That table refers to Westinghouses. Share of the core business. It does not refer to any CAMECO, uranium conversion, and one day enrichment that would go into that core business.

Grant Isaac: Brian, just on that recurring core business, we're using "our" interchangeably. That table refers to Westinghouse's share of the core business. It does not refer to any Cameco uranium conversion, and one-day enrichment that would go into that core business. That is just a Westinghouse contribution. Then, of course, why we're putting such a shoulder into new build is because we want to create our own 80 to 100-year demand for Cameco's core business of uranium conversion, and eventually enrichment as well.

Speaker #4: So, that is just a Westinghouse contribution. And then, of course, why we're putting such a shoulder into new build is because we want to create our own 80- to 100-year demand for Cameco's.

Speaker #4: Core business of uranium conversion, and eventually enrichment as well.

Speaker #5: Right. No, that makes sense too. I was giving my next question. Great, thank you very much. But again, thanks very much. I think everybody will find these tables very, very helpful.

Brian MacArthur: Right. No, that makes sense, too. That was going to be my next question. Great. Thank you very much. Again, thanks very much. I think everybody will find these tables very, very helpful. I just want to make sure I'm reading it right. Thank you very much.

Speaker #5: I just want to make sure I'm reading it right. Thank you very much.

Speaker #3: Thanks. Thanks to you, Brian.

Grant Isaac: Thanks to you, Brian.

Tim Gitzel: Thanks to you, Brian.

Speaker #1: The next question comes from Craig Hutchinson with TD Cowen. Please go ahead.

Operator: The next question comes from Craig Hutchison with TD Cowen. Please go ahead.

Speaker #7: Hi. Good morning, guys. Can I just ask where things stand with regards to the Department of Commerce strategic partnership? What's the next milestone that we look for with regards to getting, I guess, a definitive agreement there?

Craig Hutchison: Hi. Good morning, guys. Can I just ask where things stand with regards to Department of Commerce strategic partnership? What's the next milestone that we should really look for with regards to getting, I guess, a definitive agreement there? Thanks.

Speaker #7: Thanks.

Speaker #3: Brett?

Grant Isaac: Brian? Well, you'll recall, Craig, that we initially agreed to a binding term sheet with the Department of Commerce. While there is an effort to achieve definitive agreements, we still have a basis for moving forward on that program as the Department of Commerce envisioned it. What's critical there is to find the right projects that match up the interest of the Department of Commerce, the interest of the United States government in securing the 24-hour base load power that will come from the AP1000s with those foreign investors who are interested and capable of investing in US-based projects. We are free to move ahead and explore all those opportunities. That does not require the definitive agreement because it was a binding term sheet, and that work continues.

Tim Gitzel: Grant?

Speaker #4: Well, you'll recall, Craig, that we initially agreed to a binding term sheet with the Department of Commerce. And so while there is an effort to achieve definitive agreements, we still have a basis for moving forward on that program as the Department of Commerce envisioned it.

Grant Isaac: Well, you'll recall, Craig, that we initially agreed to a binding term sheet with the Department of Commerce. While there is an effort to achieve definitive agreements, we still have a basis for moving forward on that program as the Department of Commerce envisioned it. What's critical there is to find the right projects that match up the interest of the Department of Commerce, the interest of the United States government in securing the 24-hour base load power that will come from the AP1000s with those foreign investors who are interested and capable of investing in US-based projects. We are free to move ahead and explore all those opportunities. That does not require the definitive agreement because it was a binding term sheet, and that work continues.

Speaker #4: So what's critical there is to find the right projects that match up the interests of the Department of Commerce, the interests of the United States government in securing the 24-hour baseload power that will come from the AP1000s, with those foreign investors who are interested in and capable of investing in US-based projects.

Speaker #4: So we are free to move ahead and explore all those opportunities. That does not require the definitive agreement because it was a binding term sheet.

Speaker #4: And that work continues. So, what you would watch for is any announcements from those who have pledged foreign direct investment in the United States and the Department of Commerce on moving projects forward.

Grant Isaac: What you would watch for is any announcements with those who have pledged foreign direct investment in the United States and the Department of Commerce on moving projects forward. Like a lot of things, a lot of work and a lot of thought is going into it. We don't have any projects to point to at the moment, but as I answered earlier, these continue to run in parallel, and we view them as separate projects at the moment for that reason.

Speaker #4: And like a lot of things, a lot of work and a lot of thought is going into it. We just don't have any projects to point to at the moment.

Speaker #4: But as I answered earlier, these continue to run in parallel, and we view them as separate projects at the moment for that reason.

Speaker #7: Okay, great. And just in terms of potential for cost overruns, is there a thought on how that would be kind of managed? And would there be any exposure from Westinghouse's perspective if there were cost overruns on new builds?

Craig Hutchison: Okay, great. Just in terms of potential for cost overruns, is there a thought on how that would be managed, and would there be any exposure from Westinghouse's perspective if there was cost overruns on new builds? Thanks.

Speaker #7: Thanks.

Grant Isaac: The question of cost overruns has been, I think if not the first, the second question on the minds of utilities for a while now. I think where the conversation is going is that there's actually a toolbox of investment tax credits, if they're still available, production tax credits, as well as the reality that when you deploy an AP1000, you're deploying a reactor that's no longer first of a kind. Yes, there's next of a kind, but it's no longer first of a kind. As that design certainty and fuel certainty and license and regulatory certainty is combined with the standardized sequence and simplify, the question about managing a project with a known product actually diminishes the conversation around cost overrun. It shifts it over to what is the package of tools that are available. I already mentioned things like investment tax credits.

Speaker #4: The question of cost overruns has been I think, if not the first, the second question, on the minds of utilities for a while now.

Speaker #4: But I think where the conversation is going is that there's actually a toolbox of investment tax credits, if they're still available, production tax credits, as well as the reality that when you deploy an AP1000, you're deploying a reactor that's no longer first of a kind.

Speaker #4: Yes, there's next of a kind, but it's no longer first of a kind. And as that design certainty and fuel certainty and license and regulatory certainty is combined with the standardized sequence and simplification, the question about managing a project with a known product actually diminishes the conversation around cost overrun.

Speaker #4: It shifts it over to: what is the package of tools that are available? I already mentioned things like investment tax credits. And then really, what is the confidence of those that are supplying long-lead items, as well as construction services, in their own capabilities?

Grant Isaac: Really, what is the confidence of those that are supplying long lead items as well as construction services in their own capabilities? Ultimately, what we're seeing is very fruitful conversations that utilities realize if they go with first of a kind and a brand-new design, they're probably going to need cost overrun insurance. If they go with an existing design that's already been deployed, then the tools are appropriate to manage those tail risks. That's why the conversations are accelerating to ordering long lead items, and that's why you see a very robust list of 91 reactors from front-end engineering design close to FID all the way through to origination, because it's just the reality of the competitive advantage of the AP1000. It's diminishing the need to worry about first of a kind tail risks.

Speaker #4: And ultimately, what we're seeing is very fruitful conversations that utilities realize if they go with first of a kind and a brand new design, they're probably going to need cost overrun insurance.

Speaker #4: But if they go with an existing design that's already been deployed, then the tools are appropriate to manage those tail risks. So that's why the conversations are accelerating regarding ordering long-lead items.

Speaker #4: And that's why you see a very robust list of 91 reactors—from front-end engineering and design, close to FID, all the way through to origination—because it's just the reality of the competitive advantage of the AP1000.

Speaker #4: It's diminishing the need to worry about first-of-a-kind tail risks.

Speaker #7: Thanks, Brent. Appreciate the call.

Craig Hutchison: Thanks, Brian. Appreciate the color.

Speaker #3: Thanks, Craig.

Grant Isaac: Thanks, Craig.

Tim Gitzel: Thanks, Craig.

Speaker #1: The next question comes from Christopher Souther with Truist. Please go ahead.

Operator: The next question comes from Christopher Souther with Truist. Please go ahead.

Speaker #5: Hey, thanks so much for taking my question. And all the disclosure here around Westinghouse. Could you talk a little bit around the project equity commitments that you and potential utility would be required to put up just from a timing perspective if we could marry that with the revenue chart that you gave?

Christopher Souther: Hey, thanks so much for taking my question and all the disclosure here around Westinghouse. Could you talk a little bit around the project equity commitments that you and potential utility would be required to put up, just like from a timing perspective, if we could marry that with the revenue chart that you gave? Just from a strategic standpoint, is the plan to own projects over the long term or monetize those over time? What would be Westinghouse's plan around that?

Speaker #5: And just from a strategic standpoint, is the plan to own projects over the long term, or monetize those over time? What would be kind of Westinghouse's plan around that?

Speaker #4: I think you're referring to the Department of Energy program for the long-lead items.

Grant Isaac: I think you're referring to the Department of Energy program for the long lead items.

Speaker #5: Yes. Exactly. Yeah.

Christopher Souther: Yeah. Exactly.

Christopher Souther: Yeah. In each of those, envision that you have something like five two-packs, though each two-pack has a special-purpose vehicle that's put together, and it's a combination of equity in the form of the utility, as well as Westinghouse. For Westinghouse, it's margin that goes into that equity as opposed to putting cash in. The owners and Westinghouse themselves don't intend to do that. That SPV exists until the utility is at FID and ready to commit to a build program, at which time it's sold forward to the relevant utility. It really is an acceleration. It's to take the traditional model where you have a utility who decides on nuclear, goes through a reactor selection process, decides on a technology, starts all the front-end engineering and design, ultimately to lead to a final investment decision, starts ordering long lead items.

Christopher Souther: Yeah.

Speaker #4: So each of those envision that you have something like five two-packs. Each two-pack has a special purpose vehicle that's put together and it's a combination of equity in the form of the utility as well as Westinghouse.

Grant Isaac: In each of those, envision that you have something like five two-packs, though each two-pack has a special-purpose vehicle that's put together, and it's a combination of equity in the form of the utility, as well as Westinghouse. For Westinghouse, it's margin that goes into that equity as opposed to putting cash in. The owners and Westinghouse themselves don't intend to do that. That SPV exists until the utility is at FID and ready to commit to a build program, at which time it's sold forward to the relevant utility. It really is an acceleration. It's to take the traditional model where you have a utility who decides on nuclear, goes through a reactor selection process, decides on a technology, starts all the front-end engineering and design, ultimately to lead to a final investment decision, starts ordering long lead items.

Speaker #4: But for Westinghouse, it's actually its margin that goes into that equity as opposed to putting cash in. So the owners and Westinghouse themselves don't intend to do that.

Speaker #4: That SPV exists until the utility is at FID and ready to commit to a build program and at which time it's sold forward to the relevant utility.

Speaker #4: It really is an acceleration. It's taking the traditional model, where you have a utility that decides on nuclear, goes through a reactor selection process, decides on a technology, then starts all the front-end engineering and design—ultimately to lead to a final investment decision—and then starts ordering long-lead items.

Speaker #4: Well, if we did that, that's going to take a lot of time. In order to accelerate new build, we're trying to take the long-lead item order and move it in front of FID, and have a package of supply chain capabilities available.

Grant Isaac: Well, if we did that's going to take a lot of time. In order to accelerate new build, we're trying to take the long lead item order and move it in front of FID and have a package of supply chain capabilities available. It really is a shift in the normal way of building nuclear, Westinghouse, we're happy to be involved in that because when you look at a global demand stack that we now count at 91 reactors, we're pretty confident that ordering long lead items is a really low-risk thing for us to do because there's going to be demand for those products when you have 91 that are being considered.

Speaker #4: So it's just a it really is a shift in the normal way of building nuclear. And Westinghouse we're happy to be involved in that because when you look at a global demand stack that we now count at 91 reactors, we're pretty confident that ordering long lead items is a really low-risk thing for us to do because there's going to be demand for those products when you have 91 that are being considered.

Speaker #5: Got it. Okay, so there's no equity role that you guys are looking at for long-term ownership. That makes sense. Thank you.

Christopher Souther: Got it. Okay. There's no equity role that you guys are looking at for long-term ownership. That makes sense. Thank you.

Speaker #3: No. No. Thanks, Chris.

Grant Isaac: Nope.

Tim Gitzel: No. Thanks, Chris.

Speaker #1: This concludes the question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Tim Gitzel for any closing remarks.

Operator: This concludes the question and answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Tim Gitzel for any closing remarks.

Speaker #3: Okay. Thanks, operator. And thanks to everybody who was on the who were on the call today with us. We appreciate it. CAMECO remains well placed.

Tim Gitzel: Okay. Thanks, operator, and thanks to everybody who were on the call today with us. We appreciate it. Cameco remains well-placed, as you know, to support the next chapter of nuclear growth while protecting and extending the value of our assets for shareholders, customers, and communities. Everybody, have a wonderful weekend, and enjoy the rest of the summer. Thanks.

Speaker #3: As you know, to support the next chapter of nuclear growth while protecting and extending the value of our assets for shareholders, customers, and communities.

Speaker #3: So, everybody, have a wonderful weekend and enjoy the rest of the summer. Thanks.

Operator: This brings to an end today's conference call. You may disconnect your lines. Thank you for participating, and have a pleasant day.

Q2 2026 Cameco Corp Earnings Call

Request DemoDemo

Cameco

Earnings