管理層發言
Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining us, and welcome to Oklo's Second Quarter 2026 Financial Results and Webcast. I will now hand the conference over to Sam Doane, Senior Director of Investor Relations. Sam, please go ahead.
Thank you, operator, and welcome, everyone, to Oklo's Second Quarter 2026 Earnings and Company Update Call. I'm Sam Doane, Oklo's Senior Director of Investor Relations. Joining me today are Jake Dewitte, Oklo's Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer; and Craig Bealmear, our Chief Financial Officer. Earlier today, we released our second quarter 2026 financial results. Today's accompanying slide presentation is available on the Investor Relations section of our website. Before we begin, I'd like to remind everyone that today's discussion, including our prepared remarks and the question-and-answer session that follows, will include forward-looking statements. These statements reflect our current views regarding trends, assumptions, risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed today. We encourage you to review our forward-looking statements disclaimer included in our supplemental presentation. Additional information regarding relevant risks can also be found in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Oklo undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law. With that, I'll turn the call over to Jake. Jake?
Thanks, Sam. I want to start with two developments that are expanding the capabilities available to execute advanced nuclear projects in the United States. The first is the U.S. Department of Energy Genesis mission. We see Genesis as a sizable opportunity for Oklo and for the broader nuclear industry. DOE is bringing together its 17 national laboratories, industry, academia, advanced computing infrastructure, experimental facilities, scientific data and artificial intelligence capabilities. In July, DOE announced the first project selections and more than $800 million in mission-wide partner commitments. Prometheus, an INL-led project in which Oklo is participating, was selected for a $60 million Phase I award over three years, subject to appropriations. Oklo is participating in multiple projects connected to the Genesis mission. One example is our announced collaboration with NVIDIA and Los Alamos National Laboratory. That work brings together Oklo's reactor and fuel capabilities, NVIDIA's AI infrastructure and Los Alamos' expertise in nuclear fuels and materials. Together, we are working to develop and deploy physics and chemistry-based AI models, digital twins, modeling and simulation tools that can accelerate fuel validation and improve the workflows used to design, deploy and operate nuclear facilities. These are not generic AI applications. They are focused on some of the most time-intensive and technically demanding parts of nuclear deployment. The second development is on DOE's Nuclear Life Cycle Innovation Campus initiative. DOE recently selected Utah, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Idaho as potential host states for campuses that could bring together fuel fabrication, enrichment, recycling, reactor development and deployment, power generation, advanced manufacturing and data centers. We have held productive conversations with all five states. We are excited about the potential in each of them and look forward to further engagement as the process advances and the campus plans take shape. The United States is building real execution capabilities across artificial intelligence, national laboratories, fuel infrastructure, manufacturing and deployment. Oklo has deliberately positioned itself to be a central participant in these efforts. Before we move into the quarter's project updates, I want to reinforce how we think about Oklo and reemphasize that we are not building three isolated businesses. We are building one integrated nuclear technology platform across power, fuel and isotopes. We see this as a fundamental and distinctive strategy. Power is the anchor. Our Aurora powerhouses are designed to deliver clean, reliable and affordable electricity and heat under long-term commercial arrangements. Fuel is the enabler. No matter how strong the customer demand or how mature the reactor design, no nuclear deployment can scale without a reliable fuel supply. Fuel has always been a focus for Oklo. That is why we are building capabilities across fuel sourcing, fabrication and recycling rather than relying on a single externally managed pathway. Isotopes expand the value of the platform. They allow us to apply many of the same nuclear materials, processing, licensing, procurement and operating capabilities to high-value markets across space, health care, defense, industry and research. Importantly, vertical integration is not simply about expanding the scope of our platform, it can also create greater flexibility in how we fund growth. By investing in fuel sourcing, fabrication, recycling and related infrastructure, Oklo can capture value across the full life cycle of a nuclear asset, including in structures where third-party capital could fund a greater share of powerhouse deployment. Over time, this model could reduce the amount of direct capital Oklo must invest per deployed megawatt while preserving recurring revenue opportunities across power, fuel supply, operations, recycling and isotope production. This flexibility can improve capital efficiency, expand the range of financing structures available to us and support faster, more scalable deployment of the broader platform. Because Oklo develops, owns and operates these assets, we retain the operating experience, procedures and execution knowledge generated across the platform. This slide shows the practical logic behind the integrated platform. The conventional nuclear fuel cycle is largely linear and extremely fragmented. Mining, enrichment, fuel fabrication, power generation and long-term used fuel management are typically handled by different parties. Each participant is usually involved in only one part of the system and most of the remaining fuel value is not returned to productive use. For the advanced nuclear industry, fuel cannot be treated as a procurement item that gets solved at the end of the project. It is one of the most important constraints on deployment. A reactor strategy without a credible and scalable fuel strategy has a fundamental gap. Oklo is building what we believe to be a distinctive and differentiated model. Initial HALEU feedstock can move through our fuel fabrication capabilities to supply Aurora powerhouses and potentially other nuclear fuel customers. Those powerhouses would generate reliable heat and power while creating used fuel that can ultimately be recycled, both of which use proven technologies. Through recycling, usable material can be recovered, returned through fuel fabrication and reused in future powerhouses. Conventional used nuclear fuel could also provide an additional feedstock source over time. In addition, recycling may create opportunities to recover valuable isotope materials. We are not optimizing the system for one core load or a single reactor. We are building the supply, fabrication, recycling and operating capabilities required to support a fleet of reactors that will support the strong demand we continue to see from our potential customers. That creates a flywheel. Power creates recurring fuel demand, scale supports investment in fabrication and recycling. Recycling expands long-term supply and enhances availability in addition to the commercial HALEU fuel markets. Isotopes create additional value from shared nuclear capabilities. Not every part of the system is commercially operating today, but this is the platform we are actively building. It is designed to support repeatable growth across an Oklo fleet. This is where the strategy we just described becomes tangible. We are actively putting capital to work, building physical assets and developing the infrastructure needed to deliver the integrated platform across power, fuel and isotopes. In power, Aurora INL is our anchor deployment and the foundation for future Aurora projects. In Ohio, we are advancing a planned 1.2 gigawatt clean energy campus designed around phased deployment of multiple powerhouses. At Eielson Air Force Base, we are developing an Aurora application designed to provide both electricity and heat for a mission-critical defense installation. In fuel, the Aurora Fuel Fabrication Facility is being developed to fabricate fuel for our first Aurora core. Our advanced fuel center in Tennessee is intended to establish domestic recycling capability and expand the long-term fuel supply available to our fleets. In isotopes, Groves is now complete, and we have reached first criticality and our NRC-licensed Idaho radioisotopes laboratory is supporting initial commercial isotope activities. These assets are at different stages and serve different markets, but they are all part of the same execution strategy. Each project advances an immediate commercial or technical objective while also building capabilities that supports the broader Oklo platform. That includes engineering, licensing, procurement, construction, fuel handling, operations and customer delivery. We are using the capital we have raised to build real assets and the execution infrastructure behind them. This is how the integrated model shown on the prior slide moves from strategy into operation and how we build the foundation to deploy repeatedly rather than one project at a time. Since our last update, we made substantial progress across power, fuel and isotopes business lines within our vertically integrated nuclear technology platform. The most important point is that we are not advancing these business lines independently. We are continuing to build the shared capabilities that support all three. During the quarter, we strengthened our manufacturing, engineering and specialized systems capabilities through the acquisitions of ARMEC and Creative Engineers Inc. We also expanded our use of artificial intelligence through Prometheus and our work with the national laboratories. Across the portfolio, we are taking actions now to reduce future supply chain constraints. That includes advancing fabrication equipment, qualifying suppliers, strengthening internal manufacturing capabilities, accelerating procurement where appropriate and integrating engineering, procurement and construction planning earlier in the development process. We are not only procuring what is needed for the next project, we are building the talent, processes and capabilities with future deployments in mind. At the asset level, Aurora INL further advanced through DOE authorization and construction. Aurora Ohio moved deeper into execution. Our fuel strategy expanded through continued work with Centrus, recycling planning in Tennessee, and potential use of government materials and our isotope business advanced both technically and commercially. A defining milestone since our last company update was Groves reaching first criticality. That achievement brings together many of the themes on this slide: disciplined capital deployment, commercial procurement, construction, execution, authorization, start-up and operations. We will spend the next several slides explaining what Groves accomplished and why it matters for every part of the Oklo platform. This is what the Groves journey looked like. In September 2025, Groves was an undeveloped site in the Texas Prairies. By March of this year, the facility had taken shape. We had completed the major civil work, installed key systems, and were advancing commissioning and authorization activities. By early August, Groves was an operating nuclear isotope facility and had achieved first criticality. That transformation took a little over 11 months from groundbreaking. The pace is remarkable, not only for the nuclear industry, but for any complex industrial project. In that period, we moved from site preparation through construction, installation, commissioning, fuel loading, start-up testing and operation. And we did not accomplish this by stepping into an existing national laboratory facility or borrowing an established operating organization. We built the project on private land, financed it with private capital and developed the execution and operating capabilities all inside Oklo. This timeline is the clearest visual representation of what the team accomplished, but the real value is not just the speed, it is the experience we gained by moving through the full deployment process ourselves. I want to put the scale of this achievement into context. Based on our internal reviews, Groves represents the fastest transition that we are aware of from greenfield to criticality for a full-scale privately funded and privately sited reactor in history. We completed substantial construction in 229 days and reached first criticality in less than a year after groundbreaking. That is a record-setting pace for the nuclear industry, but it is also an extraordinary pace for any complex industrial facility. In that period, the team had to develop in-house the site, design the reactor and the facility, complete civil construction, procure and install specialized equipment, establish the safety basis, source and load fuel, commission the systems, train and qualify operators, complete federal safety reviews and safely bring the reactor critical. Groves was built on private land and financed with private capital. Its major systems, components, fuel and construction services were commercially sourced or manufactured by Oklo. DOE provided rigorous safety oversight and the authorization pathway through the reactor pilot program, while Oklo supplied the capital and led the execution. Groves also became the first reactor pilot program reactor to achieve criticality on privately owned land built from the ground up on a greenfield site. This is an important demonstration of how we are responsibly putting the capital we have raised to work. We are not only funding studies or developing designs for others to build. We are building and operating nuclear assets, and we are doing it at a pace that many people did not believe was possible. But this was not merely an investment in Groves. This was an investment in the organization and capabilities required to deliver future assets. Criticality validated the reactor. The entirety of the completed project validated the execution engine around it. We now have real construction data, trained operators, operating experience, DOE authorization experience and project controls in-house at Oklo. That does not remove the unique work required for future facilities, but it meaningfully reduces execution uncertainty because we have now completed the full journey ourselves from an open field to an operating nuclear facility. The significance of Groves goes far beyond the reactor physics. We did not build the smallest possible experiments simply to reach criticality. We built a complete nuclear facility and in doing so, created the organizational infrastructure required to deploy nuclear assets repeatedly. That capability creation was substantial. We developed a private greenfield site, worked through local permitting and environmental requirements and established the procedures needed to manage construction and nuclear operations on private land. We built the safety basis and engineering documentation required to support DOE review. We created quality assurance programs, configuration controls, document controls and the processes needed to manage technical changes as the facility moved from design through construction and start-up. We established security programs, physical access controls, material controls, emergency preparedness, radiation protection, environmental health and safety procedures and maintenance programs. We built the operating organization. That meant hiring, training, qualifying and managing the people responsible for operating the facility. It meant writing the procedures they would use, testing those procedures and demonstrating to DOE that both the facility and the organization are ready to operate safely. In terms of procurement, we qualified suppliers, negotiated commercial terms, managed purchase orders, completed factory acceptance testing, coordinated delivery and took specialized systems through installation and commissioning. We also developed the project controls behind the work, cost management, schedule management, risk management, execution governance, supplier performance, construction sequencing and readiness planning all had to function together. These were not capabilities we borrowed from a national laboratory or inherited from an established nuclear operator. Oklo built them. We used them and demonstrated them successfully through the Groves project, and now we'll implement them in the deployment of other assets. That distinction matters because our integrated build, own and operate model allows us to retain and leverage the experience. The procedures stay inside Oklo. The experiences with suppliers stay inside Oklo, the operators, project controls, safety programs and lessons learned stay inside Oklo, and we learn from all of them. The next asset being built may be different, and the engineering and safety basis will be specific to each project and each product, but the organization and capabilities required to deliver those assets is no longer theoretical. As a result of the Groves facility, Oklo has developed a functioning nuclear deployment organization that has now designed, procured, constructed, authorized, commissioned and operated a full-scale reactor. That is a significant capability, and it can strengthen execution across every part of the company. This is how the capabilities we built through Groves translate across the broader company. Future Oklo assets do not have to start from zero. Every product line will still require its own engineering, safety analysis, licensing work and execution plan. An Aurora powerhouse is different from an isotope reactor and a fuel facility is different from both. But each future asset can now start with an experienced team that has already moved a nuclear project from an undeveloped site through construction, authorization, commissioning, start-up and operation. That meaningfully changes the starting point. For future isotope facilities, the transfer is the most direct. We have now built a full-scale operating reactor that is repeatable. And now we can reuse and improve the deployment model, operating programs, authorization experience and workforce capabilities established at Groves for future isotope facilities. Our next isotope facility is already in the planning stage. For Aurora powerhouses, we can adapt the project controls, procurement processes, construction sequencing, commissioning practices and procedures, readiness preparation and operating experience to a larger and more complex power facility. For our fuel fabrication and recycling assets, we can apply the nuclear quality systems, material handling procedures, radiological controls, security programs, access controls and authorization experience built through Groves. Our build, own and operate model is important here because Oklo retains and through repetition, iterates and refines these capabilities. We retain the people, we retain the procedures, we retain the cost and schedule data, the operating experience and the lessons learned. Each project can build on the one before it rather than transferring that knowledge to a customer or recreating it with a new operating organization. Groves was an exceptional execution achievement. We believe it also reduced future execution risk across our platform. It did not eliminate the project-specific risks associated with future facilities, but it demonstrated that Oklo can create and operate the organization required to deliver a nuclear asset. Future projects can begin with experienced teams, tested systems, real suppliers and an execution model that has already been used successfully. By building a full-scale nuclear facility, including full-scale civil engineering and construction on private land and fully commercially sourced fuel, we are learning at full scale. That is what makes Groves more than a single reactor milestone. It is reusable execution infrastructure for the rest of Oklo. The experience and capabilities we built through Groves are already informing how we approach our Aurora powerhouse deployments from authorization and construction through procurement, commissioning and operations. At Aurora INL, the primary regulatory milestone this quarter was DOE approval of the Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis or PDSA. This is an important step because the PDSA establishes the preliminary safety basis for the facility, including the hazard analysis, accident analysis, safety controls and design commitments that support continued advancement of final design and construction. With the PDSA approved, the next DOE milestones are completion and approval of the documented safety analysis, which we expect will be nearer to the commercial operations, followed by the readiness review and start-up authorization. This is the same authorization process and steps we successfully utilized for the Groves deployment. Execution at the site is also advancing. Site mobilization is underway and excavation for the reactor area is near completion. In parallel, we continue to progress procurement, engineering and system integration across the project. The objective is to keep the major work streams moving together. Safety review informs design, design informs procurement and construction. Field execution then provides real information that improves planning and coordination across the project. The experience from Groves is already relevant here. We now have firsthand experience managing construction, supplier coordination, DOE safety reviews, readiness preparation and start-up planning within one integrated operating organization. Aurora INL is a larger and more complex asset than the Groves isotope reactor, but we are carrying those execution capabilities forward as we continue progressing toward operations. At Aurora Ohio, we are carrying the execution model from our first deployment into planning for a much larger fleet. During the quarter, we entered into an MOU with Kiewit to support engineering, procurement, construction and execution planning for the initial phase of the Ohio Power campus. This builds on our existing relationship with Kiewit at Aurora INL. The experience we are developing together in Idaho can now inform the work required to supply Meta power from the Oklo 1.2 gigawatt power campus in Ohio. That continuity is important. We are working with Kiewit to carry forward lessons across design, procurement, constructability, scheduling, cost reduction and control and field execution. The objective is to establish repeatable approaches that can support multiple Aurora powerhouses rather than one stand-alone facility. Grid planning is part of that same strategy. We are advancing PJM interconnection applications, transmission planning and related technical studies while integrating those requirements into site layout, infrastructure planning and the sequencing of future phases. Oklo is building for fleet deployment. The work underway at Aurora INL, the capabilities demonstrated through Groves and the planning now advancing with Kiewit in Ohio are intended to compound across projects rather than remain isolated within a single asset. We are also strengthening the internal capabilities that support execution across the platform. During the quarter, we acquired ARMEC and Creative Engineers. Those acquisitions have specialized engineering, manufacturing, testing and capabilities that can support repeatable deployment across the Oklo business lines, while also continuing work with existing third-party customers. ARMEC is already contributing to engineering and procurement work for Aurora INL. We are leveraging the team's experience, manufacturing capabilities and supplier network to support critical component development and improve the connection between design and fabrication. We are also seeing the benefit of ARMEC's deep roots in the Oak Ridge nuclear community. The acquisition expands our access to experienced talent and has increased interest from people who want to contribute to Oklo's mission. The manufacturing impact is beginning to show as well. Multiple new parts have already moved through production since the acquisition, demonstrating how bringing these capabilities closer to our engineering organization can improve the pace of execution. Creative Engineers, or CEI, adds roughly 30 years of experience in sodium and other alkali metal systems. Since the acquisition, CEI scope has expanded beyond its prior work with Oklo and now supports both our reactor and recycling organizations. The strategic rationale is straightforward. These acquisitions shorten the feedback loop between engineering, procurement, manufacturing, testing and deployment. The experience gained on one project can then be retained and applied across the next. These internal capabilities also strengthen one of the most important enablers of deployment and power delivery, fuel. Our strategy is to build a diversified domestic fuel supply across sourcing, fabrication and recycling. So future Aurora deployments are not dependent on a single fuel pathway. Our fuel strategy is intentionally diversified because fuel availability remains one of the most important constraints on advanced nuclear deployment. We are not relying on a single supplier, a single feedstock or a single part of the fuel cycle. We are advancing multiple complementary pathways across commercial HALEU, government materials and recycling. On commercial HALEU, the Centrus letter of intent supports the creation of a domestic supply pathway with enough material contemplated to support up to five Aurora powerhouses for multiple years. We are also advancing potential government material pathways. DOE selected Oklo for advanced negotiations regarding surplus plutonium that can be fabricated into reactor fuel. If awarded, this fuel could provide an important bridge for earlier deployments while new domestic enrichment capacity continues to scale. That opportunity remains subject to a final DOE agreement, safeguards and material allocation. Equipment required for our Aurora Fuel Fabrication Facility, or A3F, is now in production, supporting planned installation and start-up activities in 2027. This builds the fabrication infrastructure needed to convert our first core load of EBR-II used fuel into usable fuel for Aurora INL. We continue advancing our advanced fuel center in Tennessee. Facility and process line engineering are progressing. NRC license application readiness work is underway and civil engineering and site grading permitting are advancing. Our relationship with Standard Nuclear also creates a potential third-party commercial pathway for recycled material. Each fuel pathway opens up supply optionality and strengthens our ability to continue deploying as the fuel market evolves. The Centrus letter of intent advances an important domestic fuel pathway for our Aurora deployments. Under the letter of intent, which anticipates a further definitive agreement, Centrus would supply HALEU for multiple years of initial core and reload needs for up to five Aurora powerhouses with deliveries expected to begin in 2029. The agreement could also include prepayments from Oklo, either directly or via customer contributions to support fuel production for our planned Ohio campus build-out. The strategic significance extends beyond the fuel supply itself. In Southern Ohio, several of the critical elements needed for deployment are beginning to come together in one region: domestic HALEU production, Oklo's planned 1.2 gigawatt clean energy campus, customer demand, existing energy infrastructure and execution planning with Kiewit. Building a credible domestic supply pathway helps reduce fuel constraints and provides greater visibility as we advance project development. We are connecting fuel planning directly to customer demand and asset deployment rather than treating fuel as a separate supply chain issue to be addressed at some undefined point in the future. Fuel certainty supports deployment and power delivery certainty. This LOI strengthens both the planned Ohio campus and the domestic advanced nuclear ecosystem developing around it. With that, I will now turn it over to Craig for a financial update. Craig?
Thanks, Jake. 2026 continues to be a strong year for the company as we added strength to our balance sheet while deploying capital into flagship projects across our platform. Oklo's year-to-date net loss for the second quarter was $81.6 million, made up of loss from operations of $124.2 million, offset by $44.5 million of net interest and dividend income. Our year-to-date cash used in operating activities of $65.5 million includes our net loss of $81.6 million, primarily adjusted for noncash charges of $29.9 million from stock-based compensation as well as $13.8 million of net changes in working capital and other adjustments. Year-to-date, cash used in investing activities was $912.7 million, including net cash used for purchases of marketable securities of $743.6 million. In addition, capital spend of $126.9 million increased as we continued planned investments into property, plant and equipment across all three business lines. Oklo ended the second quarter with cash and marketable securities of $3 billion, comprising cash and cash equivalents of $1.6 billion and marketable securities of $1.4 billion. This balance includes the additional $1.9 billion of capital generated from the execution of our ATM programs in 2026. We are updating our 2026 cash flow guidance to reflect our strategy to bring forward select project activities to increase execution confidence. Although capital spending through the first half of the year remains below the expected full year range, the spending profile is expected to be weighted towards the second half of the year. We now have better visibility into specific procurement, construction, fuel and project payment milestones supporting the updated ranges on our first-of-a-kind deployments. We now expect cash used in operating activities to be in the range of $120 million to $150 million compared with our prior range of $80 million to $100 million. The increase in operating cash used primarily reflects certain first-of-a-kind project costs at Aurora INL that were expensed, cash used to support the build-out of grid interconnections at Aurora INL and acceleration of early-stage deployment costs on other projects. The increase in operating cash used does not reflect materially higher cash burn for general corporate purposes. It reflects research and development costs to support the build-out of our projects. We also now expect cash used for purchases of property, plant and equipment to be in the range of $400 million to $500 million compared with our prior range of $350 million to $450 million. The increase in spending on PP&E is primarily driven by accelerated procurement and construction activity at Aurora INL and an opportunistic fuel purchase at attractive terms to support future isotope projects. Given the strength of our balance sheet and ongoing capital raise activity, we chose to spend opportunistically rather than allow procurement timing to potentially put project delivery at risk. This is not a change in strategy, but rather a reflection of actions taken by Oklo to ensure project delivery across all three business lines. As engineering, procurement, construction, fuel and interconnection activities continue to advance for our first-of-a-kind projects, we are gaining greater visibility into opportunities to bring forward critical work that supports Aurora INL's planned 2028 start-up. This is why we have raised capital proactively and built a strong balance sheet. Our liquidity allows us to secure critical path items, advance work when it is ready and make execution decisions to prioritize project schedules. The updated 2026 plan is supported by our existing liquidity of cash and marketable securities, combining to stand at just over $3 billion at the end of the second quarter. Before we close, I want to summarize why we believe Oklo is differentiated. We are building an integrated nuclear platform across power, fuel and isotopes. Our fast reactor technology is designed for simpler, repeatable deployment, while our fuel sourcing fabrication and recycling strategy is intended to strengthen long-term supply security. Our build, own and operate model allows us to retain the economics, operating experience and capabilities created across the platform. Just as importantly, we are now demonstrating that we can execute, translating strategy into constructive assets, operating experience and commercial progress. Together, these elements position Oklo to convert growing customer demand into operating nuclear assets and recurring revenue. With that, thank you again for joining us. We will now open the call up for questions.
分析師問答
Your first question comes from the line of Nate Pendleton with Texas Capital Securities.
Congrats on reaching criticality at Groves. I wanted to dig a little bit deeper into the use of plutonium as a bridge fuel. Can you update us on the timeline for allocations? And then perhaps more specifically, following the Flattop campaign, how does the measured reactivity coefficients compare to your models with the delayed neutron fraction below U-235? I'd be curious how the feedback mechanisms come together to give you the transient response you're looking for in a fuel.
Thank you. It's a great question. Actually, we were just talking about that yesterday and the day before, post criticality at Groves, talking about how the comparisons are from the dynamic response and a very fast plutonium system versus the moderated system here at Groves. So anyway, I appreciate it. I think to go to part of your question on the plutonium part, the allocations, we were excited about what came out with respect to the Department of Energy moving forward with us as part of the process here. It's still developing and pending engagement with them in terms of specific allocations. As a reminder, the overall total that they are allocating out in this tranche is about 20 tons, which would be divided up across a couple of recipients, which translates out to quite a bit of HALEU equivalent fuel. Just for a quick recap, the concept here is you take the plutonium and you can blend it with uranium, whether that be natural or depleted or even low enriched depending on how you want to design the system. But to get a HALEU equivalent material, you typically blend it with a depleted or natural uranium stock and you can achieve HALEU equivalent performance at about somewhere between 10% and 13% plutonium content depending on the load, maybe flex up a little bit depending on the exact characteristics of the material. So that is still in development and progress, and we'll keep folks updated as that comes along. With respect to the work we did out at Los Alamos, so that was one of the things that we were excited about, partnering with the lab to take an assembly critical for the first time. We did it in a fast reactor system back in December. And we also ran it through various reactivity feedbacks. We didn't just take it at effectively zero power critical. We did put up to about, from the calculations, about two kilowatts or so of power into the system, and we're able to heat it up and then watch the reactivity feedbacks come in and work. Between being a fast system and being a plutonium system with the uranium reflector, it moves quick, but it also demonstrates the incredibly strong reactivity feedback coefficient, particularly the thermal expansion coefficient as well as some of the Doppler effect to be a very tightly coupled, very responsive system where we were able to heat it up until it turned itself basically off by thermal expansion and then even going into maximum reactivity insertion at those temperatures, we could not turn it back on. So a great validation point. The thing that was surprising to me was how fast—when I say surprising, I've been around fast reactors and involved in fast reactors in the past—but this thing just went so quick and so fast to come to be so responsive. It was like a perfectly tuned and engineered sports car to the max with respect to how quickly it would ramp, but also how quickly it would stabilize. So that was the key thing. The reactivity feedback coefficients, the overall behavior, all those things that we did, the power maneuvers, all those things that we went through and that came out generally in the expected ranges, I'd say, is what we calculated. It's great to get higher fidelity and great to come in with that. But you're right to note between being a fast system, so you have a very short neutron generation lifetime and then on top of that, having a pretty low delayed neutron fraction compared to U-235, it's a quickly resolving system, but that gives you great stability and very tight responses in the system. I was debriefing the team on the way back from those experiments and said it was—I think like driving that system is—I've never driven one, but it feels like it's probably like the equivalent of going into an F1 car; nothing gets really faster and more responsive than that system. Everything else we build afterwards would be a lot more pedestrian, but it was pretty cool to see those dynamics and great validation of the inherent feedback effects in a small fast system like that.
Your next question comes from the line of George Gianarikas with Canaccord Genuity.
Could you please provide an update on the radioisotope production roadmap at Groves, which specific isotopes are you prioritizing for initial production? And when do you anticipate recognizing first revenue?
Yes, I'll start with what we did at Groves, which is really important. It is a full-scale isotope reactor. That said, we're going to be going through operational commissioning and everything else for a bit. As we are positioning ourselves, generally speaking, the key thing we got out of this was execution. We got execution repetition of building a real full reactor. This wasn't something we put in a national lab. This wasn't subscale. It was full-scale, full civil construction. We excavated 60 feet deep. We've built this the way we will build our future isotope reactors with the ability to take direct lessons learned and iterate on them. One of the things we try to do is focus on iterating at scale and not subscale. So that was a big win for us with this plant. In doing so, we'll turn on a full civil reactor in under a year, which is notable. That said, to get to the point on isotope production, it's going to depend on a couple of factors, but we anticipate in the next year, about 12 months or so, we'll get through all those commissioning capabilities and we'll start producing some R&D quantities of material. In parallel, we are ramping up our next isotope projects that would be producing at more scale. On top of that, we also have additional isotope opportunities that are not reactor-based. Our Idaho radiochemistry lab is NRC licensed and is able to work with various quantities of material, and we continue to operate there and scale up. There are opportunities on isotope recovery and refinement that are independent of the reactor and the reactor adds a ton of value into those. So those are things we're actively moving into and embarking upon, and those are the timelines for how we're seeing in-reactor production with the potential possibly for some production by refining existing inventories or recovering and purifying other isotopes that are in stranded sources that we can package into product through that lab. We have the potential to possibly be producing before the 12-month window. Craig, I don't know if you want to add anything on the details of that.
Yes, George, we think the first revenue coming out of the isotope business will more likely be from the lab facility in Idaho as opposed to Groves. We have commercial discussions ongoing with several companies around potential offtake, and revenue from that is more likely to come in the first part of next year, given the timing of those pieces.
Your next question comes from the line of Joseph Osha with Guggenheim.
To return to the fuel question, I want to make sure I understand that you've got the initial couple of loads for INL from EBR-II. Is the plan to go to the blended plutonium after that? Or is Centrus going to come online before that? I just want to make sure I understand the order of operations here.
Both—this is the key thing that's really important for us. We're uniquely positioned between having line of sight and partnerships on the Centrus HALEU side from commercial production, government materials from EBR-II fuel, and the plutonium fuel pathway. We're positioned to use a multivariate fuel strategy and add recycling over time. That versatility allows us to take a diverse mix of fuels, which gives us fuel independence. That's one of the most underestimated aspects of what we're doing as a company. We have the ability to use all of the sources we can access, and we're investing in developing that capability set. That's a unique characteristic of a fast reactor, and we're designing for that. In summary: the first reactor will use recovered EBR-II material; scale-up is supported by blended plutonium fuel as a bridging fuel while uranium enrichment scales up. Over the long term, enriched uranium use and, ultimately, recycling will extend resources tremendously. So it's a three-pronged approach—commercial HALEU, government materials and recycling—that provides an enduring advantage.
And to add, because we're progressing more than one fuel pathway, the optimization of which fuel comes next in the pecking order is something we keep updated. We keep pushing on more commercial opportunities to ensure fuel is not a constraint but an opportunity.
I would assume we'll get more detail once we know what the allocation of plutonium from the DOE looks like. Can you remind me what the expected timing is on that allocation?
That timing is not dictated by Oklo. I would not want to throw out a date because it's really not under our control. But the flippant answer is we're closer than we were.
Your next question comes from the line of Ryan Pfingst with B. Riley Securities.
Congrats on the criticality milestone. I wanted to ask about the Nuclear Life Cycle Innovation Campuses and what that program could do for a project like the advanced fuel center in Tennessee in terms of premium capital or other resources.
Yes. We see it as full-throated support for moving toward a more effective, constructive and scalable solution for nuclear fuel life cycle management. The prior approaches have not always scaled well. The initiative is opening up different disposition pathways and capturing innovations in technology. The NLCIC is widely underappreciated but has potential impact on energy's future in the United States because it encourages communities to host a combined life cycle ecosystem. That includes recycling as a cornerstone, disposal via more capital-efficient approaches like boreholes, advanced fuel fabrication that can take recycled material, and isotope production co-products. If you consider the used fuel inventories in the United States today, the content is extremely large—comparable to a very large energy resource. These states, if they participate, would be hosting incredible value. There are a number of capital-level implications being pursued and developed, and it's a government approach to solve for this. We saw many states express interest and five were downselected. We're excited because Oklo can play across recycling, reactors to use recycled fuel, and monetizing co-products—capabilities that align with what the NLCIC envisions. It's a tremendous move to help unleash an advanced nuclear innovation ecosystem.
Your next question comes from Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs.
A two-part question. First, could you provide more detail on what exactly is being pulled forward with the higher CapEx budget this year and any way to quantify the pull forward in terms of whether it's quarters or months? Second, there was a step-up in OpEx this quarter—both R&D and G&A. Can you walk us through that and how to think about OpEx growth for the balance of the year?
I'll take both of those. In terms of capital spend and pull forward, it's not just dedicated to one business, but a good portion is related to Aurora INL. It's about making sure we've got long-lead procurement spend and interconnection work in place. It's less about moving the overall timeline—2028 is still the targeted go-live—but more about creating assurance so long-lead items don't impact the critical path. For OpEx, we are growing headcount, primarily in engineering and technical roles. Part of the higher OpEx is due to the accounting determination between capitalized and expensed items for first-of-a-kind projects; a few more items needed to be expensed this quarter given the nature of the spend. But the spend is about project delivery and assurance, not materially higher general corporate burn. This also supports equipment delivery and installation for the Aurora Fuel Fabrication Facility.
Your next question comes from Christopher Souther with Truist.
Can you give a sense as to how the all-in spend at Aurora INL is shaping up with Kiewit? Any update around the costs you expect for that first-of-a-kind project would be helpful. Also, regarding EBR-II fuel from the DOE, are you able to secure the full fuel for the 75-megawatt operating level yet?
Yes. On the fuel, between Centrus and what we're seeing evolving on the plutonium side, we feel confident in having all the fuel we need for that plant to run at full power without changes in course.
In terms of costs, we're not yet providing full guidance on the total cost for the project because we're still narrowing the total with Kiewit and evaluating the glide path for not just the Idaho project, but future projects likely to take place at the Ohio campus. As we narrow those numbers through the rest of this year, we'll provide more detail.
You mentioned partner capital opportunities. Historically, you've talked about partner opportunities on the fuel side. On the powerhouse side, are those discussions advancing? Any emphasis intentionally there?
On the power side, customer discussions are more advanced with commitments like the Meta payment and the Equinix payment. The NLCIC campuses present opportunities to create new energy corridors where third parties could invest at the asset and project level. In isotopes, we're in earlier days for what a customer investment could look like. We've brought in Ray Wang as our business unit leader for isotopes, and that's a high priority for him.
Your next question comes from the line of Jeremy Tonet with JPMorgan.
You've been using M&A to bulk up the supply chain. Are there other areas of interest you might pursue in acquisitions?
We continue to look. We focus on targets in the scale of ARMEC and CEI that bring in strong teams and capabilities we can retain in-house. When we see opportunities to accelerate asset deployment capability at the right price point, we have the capital to execute and will do so.
Given the progress, has it impacted the pace or tone of commercial conversations on offtake?
Every time we do something, it creates more credibility and it helps those conversations.
Your next question comes from the line of Rinny Singh with Bank of America.
Focusing on the customer landscape: out of the buckets of regulatory, fueling, execution and cost, which is giving customers the most confidence in moving forward? What pathways should we watch?
We see unconstrained demand; the question is how to unconstrain supply. It depends on the customer and their education level—some focus more on regulatory acceleration, others on fuel. We are working to deconstrain the system across regulatory, fuel, procurement and capital so we can meet demand. As customers climb the learning curve, they recognize the importance of fuel and our fuel diversification strategy resonates.
Your next question comes from the line of Derek Soderberg with Cantor Fitzgerald.
Can you provide a status update on the specific PJM interconnection applications required for the near-term deployment roadmap? Where do you sit in the interconnection queue and do you see any potential setbacks given backlog issues?
We are participating in the interconnection process and have more than one opportunity on the docket with PJM. The watch point is turnaround time; we've brought in Mike Donohue and his team to lead that effort, and we're making sure we're not relying on a single path to connect power to the grid in that area.
Your next question comes from the line of Jed Dorsheimer with William Blair.
First, do you think advanced reactors will follow historical down-selection to two or three designs, or will multiple designs persist? Second, technology sometimes loses politics; how do you resolve local opposition similar to what's been seen with data centers?
Great question. The market opportunity is large and I expect a vibrant ecosystem of different reactor sizes and applications: microreactors, small-to-midsized scalable reactors, and very large reactors. Multiple players will exist across these segments. Over time, a common thread will be used fuel production, and recycling combined with fast reactors offers significant long-term resource benefits. Regarding politics and perception, we've observed concerns around data centers and other projects, but the data center community and hyperscalers need to tell their story more effectively. We're seeing a shortened cycle around perception gaps and more community engagement. Advanced nuclear, when explained, tends to change minds. We see constructive moves on the ground in places where we're building, especially in Ohio, where communities are stepping up. There's work to do, and some coverage can be sensationalized, but on-the-ground engagement and factual communication are effective.
Your next question comes from the line of Max Hopkins with CL King.
Regarding the NVIDIA and Microsoft partnerships—AI is everywhere. Is there a specific function of Oklo's strategy that will benefit most from integrating AI? How fast can that accelerate time to commercialization?
There is a lot to unpack. On administrative tasks, AI helps, but the transformative effects are on design analysis and data processing. Our partnership with Los Alamos and NVIDIA applies state-of-the-art compute and Oklo's practical expertise to modernize how we design, manage and fabricate fuel from plutonium inventories. That matters because turning material into fabricable fuel has losses and performance dynamics; aggregating data and applying AI helps accelerate usability and extend resources. Prometheus and Project Genesis are unlocking AI design agents that accelerate design characterization, analysis and uncertainty quantification. This translates to higher-performing designs sooner and more margin recovery, effectively lowering dollars per delivered power. We're seeing dramatic acceleration in workflows—tasks that used to take weeks or months are being completed in hours or a day. We used AI to accelerate commissioning at Groves and to support control system iterations. It's very impactful in design, documentation, manufacturing feedback loops and operating optimization. Further down the road, with a fleet of powerhouses and isotope facilities, plant operating data will enable optimization at scale via AI.
Further out, when we have fleets of powerhouses and isotope facilities, the operating data and optimization potential with AI is significant. It's an exciting area to look forward to.
Your next question comes from the line of Sherif Elmaghrabi with BTIG.
If you can achieve HALEU-equivalent performance by blending plutonium with LEU, why isn't that a long-term fuel solution given it's available today?
You can achieve that performance and plutonium is an excellent fuel, but plutonium is a limited inventory. It doesn't make sense to rely on it for large-scale long-term supply given costs and availability. Transuranic material produced from recycling can offer similar performance and greater scalability. The amount of plutonium available in this tranche supports potentially a couple of gigawatts as a bridge fuel to transition to HALEU and recycling. The multipronged strategy—plutonium as a bridge, commercial HALEU and recycling—makes sense for scalability and cadence. The terminal state for nuclear, in my view, is fast reactors with recycling using transuranic fuel from recycling, because it provides a nearly limitless source of heavy metal resources when managed through recycling.
Your final question comes from the line of Craig Shere with Tuohy.
Data centers are an exciting opportunity, but there are off-grid and industrial heat applications for SMRs. Regarding the Alaska Air Force Base deployment, can you elaborate on Aurora powerhouses' thermal integration and output compared to SMR peers with high-temperature gas-cooled designs running on TRISO fuel? You mentioned 400–450 degrees C—can you expand?
A large amount of industrial process heat is well served below 450 degrees Celsius. The marginal increase in market opportunity above that to 600 or 650 degrees is present but smaller. Above 850 to 1,000 degrees Celsius, opportunities exist but transporting heat at those temperatures is costly and materials-intensive, often making electrification or alternative carriers like hydrogen more sensible. Many reactors can economically deliver useful heat under 200 degrees Celsius, and sodium systems like ours can comfortably deliver between 400 and 450 degrees Celsius. There are niche applications above that, but the majority of industrial heat needs fall into the lower ranges. Given the power density advantages and cost dynamics, sodium and other non-light-water reactors can deliver compelling heat solutions for those markets. We're excited about opportunities such as the Air Force deployment and heat-driven cooling solutions for data centers, which align well with our temperature range and system capabilities.
We have reached the end of our Q&A session. I will now turn the call back to Jake Dewitte, CEO, for closing remarks.
Yes. Thank you, everyone, for joining us today. It's been an exciting last quarter and an exciting couple of days for us turning on our first reactor. To sum up, we've proven execution by turning on a full asset and doing the entire stack. A key differentiation is we built a full nuclear reactor with full civil excavation and full construction, not a slab or a borrowed facility. We chose to learn at scale. The reactor pilot program enabled us to build a full-scale reactor, perform full civil work, procure and manufacture what we needed and develop in-house operators to commission, start up and operate the facility ourselves. We're the only company that did all of those things internally, and that allowed us to learn and create repeatable blueprints to do it again. The delta between this project and the next is relatively small because we can incorporate lessons learned. That's a huge advantage, enabling us to repeat and refine. We'll carry these lessons into Aurora powerhouses and complex facilities like fuel fabrication and recycling. We proved execution and are executing at scale and iterating at scale, which has always been key to moving quickly. We're very proud of the team and what it took to get here, especially over the last few days. We're excited to celebrate this milestone and eager to move on to what's next. Thank you all for joining us, and I appreciate the time.
This concludes today's call. Thank you for attending. You may now disconnect.