Thank you for standing by. This is the conference operator. Welcome to the Cameco Corporation Fourth Quarter 2024 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. The Q&A session will conclude at 9 a.m. Eastern Time. I would now like to turn the conference over to Cory Kos, Vice President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you, operator, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to Cameco's fourth quarter and annual conference call. I would like to acknowledge that we are speaking from our corporate office, which is on Treaty 6 Territory, the traditional territory of the Cree People and the homeland of the Metis. With us today are Tim Gitzel, President and CEO; Grant Isaac, Executive VP and CFO; Heidi Shockey, Senior VP and Deputy CFO; and Rachelle Girard, Senior VP and Chief Corporate Officer. I'll hand it over to Tim momentarily to briefly discuss the current market fundamentals, which we believe are stronger than they've been for decades, as well as our progress with the continued execution of our strategy, which in 2024 saw us deliver strong marketing, operational and financial performance. After we will open up to your questions. Today's call will be approximately 1 hour concluding at 9 a.m. Eastern Time. As always, our goal is to be open and transparent with our communication. However, we want to respect everyone's time and conclude the call on time. Therefore, should we not have time to get to your questions during this call or if you would like to get into detailed financial modeling questions about our results, we would be happy to respond to any follow-up inquiries. There are a few ways to 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 on the Investors 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 this call. If you joined the conference call through our website event page, there are slides available, which will be displayed during the call. In addition, for your reference, our quarterly investor handout is available for download in a PDF 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 and then return to the queue. Please note that this conference call will include forward-looking information, which is based on a number of assumptions and actual results could differ materially. You should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially from these forward-looking statements, and we do not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statements we make today, except as required by law. Please refer to our most recent annual information form and MD&A for more information about the factors that could cause these different results and the assumptions we have made. With that, I will hand it over to Tim.

Well, thank you, Cory, and good morning, everyone. We appreciate you joining us for today's call. Earlier this morning, we released our fourth quarter and annual 2024 results, and in a word, from both a quarterly and an annual perspective, those results were strong. And I'll touch on them shortly. We expect our strong performance to continue in 2025, supported by our long-term contract portfolio, our Tier-1 assets, and our strong financial position. The reason for our optimism is relatively simple. We continue to see supportive market conditions throughout the fuel cycle, and across the nuclear sector. Those supportive tailwinds continue to improve the outlook for existing nuclear reactors, for the reactors returning to service after previously being slated for decommissioning, and for the nuclear new builds that are underway and those on the horizon. That positive outlook for the installed reactor base and for new growth is expected to benefit both Cameco as well as our investment in Westinghouse. In fact, we believe the outlook for nuclear power and nuclear fuel fundamentals is more favorable than it has been for decades. Global geopolitical uncertainty continues to bring energy security and national security into focus, alongside the need to ensure that energy is clean. As you've heard us say for over a year now, we believe that is putting nuclear into a durable growth mode. And as we see that growth translate into demand and evolve into a cycle of replacement rate contracting, we as a significant supplier of nuclear fuel and nuclear fuel cycle services expect to have the ability to durably grow from our existing assets. Any additional supply will therefore have a home in our long-term contract portfolio, which does not expose us to a discretionary spot market and provides upside potential and downside protection from geopolitical changes and trade policy decisions. Positive market conditions that we expect to benefit our core uranium and fuel services businesses are also presenting significant future growth opportunities for Westinghouse, with continued interest in their technology and expertise for new build opportunities in nations, including Poland, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Slovenia, just to name a few. We continue to believe that the risk to uranium and nuclear fuel supplies and services are far greater than the risk to that durable demand and the growth we see coming, that belief is anchored in how we've seen the nuclear fuel market evolve over the past couple of years. Fuel buyers tend to work backwards across the fuel cycle starting downstream and working their way up to the uranium. In 2024, there was a lot of downstream focus and with good reason. Whether it was the U.S. legislation to ban Russian enriched uranium imports or Russia reacting with an export restraint, a lot of attention remained on Western sources of fabrication, enrichment and conversion services. That makes sense for a global market that is diversifying away from the Russian fuel cycle. And even if those geopolitics were to change, the self-sanctioning by many Western utilities has translated to long-term contracts that will now be in place for years to come. However, that downstream focus has also meant that there has been a persistent distraction from a focus on the natural uranium, the product to which those services are applied and for which there is no substitute. When those downstream bottlenecks are resolved, utilities do not rely on the spot market for the uranium needed to meet their fuel requirements. Producer with an unhedged strategy that expects to see that kind of near term demand to absorb their uncommitted supply has not spent much time at all buying and selling uranium. We have and I can tell you, the spot market is not where utilities go to meet their annual run rate requirements. It's completely discretionary and its non-fundamental. Of the 46 million pounds of uranium that transacted in the spot market last year, only about 15% was bought by utilities. As is the case every year, a great deal of the spot activity was churn. Traders, brokers and financial players passing around 100,000 pounds five times, which becomes 500,000 pounds of reported volume, that's not a reliable source of supply for the more than 175 million pounds a year needed to fuel the global nuclear fleet annually. And that's not a source of supply that can underpin the long-term operation of a nuclear reactor for 60 or more years. Instead, utilities are buying uranium and the fuel cycle services in the long-term market, years ahead of time, sometimes even for the decade to come or longer. Despite relatively muted long-term contracting volumes in 2024, which remained below 120 million pounds, well below the replacement rate contracting level, Cameco continued to successfully negotiate off-market contracts, selectively adding to our long-term portfolio. Start 2025, we have commitments to deliver an average of about 28 million pounds of uranium over the next five years with commitment levels higher than average in 2025 through 2027, and lower than average in 2028 and 2029. Our long-term book of business in the uranium segment now totals approximately 220 million pounds of uranium with a large and growing pipeline under negotiation. The pounds we are adding have pricing terms that provide downside protection while allowing us to retain exposure to improving demand. And at 220 million pounds, it only represents about a quarter of our current reserve and resource base. Meaning, we can be strategically patient in our contracting as that demand forms. We're already seeing demand in the conversion segment driving prices to historic levels and we also added to our fuel services long-term contract book last year, which now totals approximately 85 million kgU of UF6, supporting our fuel services operations for years to come. We expect the strength we are currently seeing in the other segments of the fuel cycle to continue moving upstream to uranium because there is no way to avoid buying uranium for a nuclear fuel bundle. We've heard the negative bearish views of those concerned about the pace of long-term contracting. But we don't share those concerns. In fact, a delay only serves to enhance our optimism, that's because demand is being pushed into a shorter contracting window where supply is tight and requirements are growing. And those requirements are only tied to high confidence demand such as the current operating reactor base and the 62 reactors under construction today. The industry growth story to date does not rely on the blue sky potential demand from jurisdictions that are only thinking about adding nuclear or from data centers in the tech sector or from a meaningful build out of small advanced reactors. Those potential developments only add to the positive outlook for nuclear energy, which is already strong. Based on global fuel requirements, utilities have bought less than 40% of the uranium they need to operate through to 2040, that translates to about 2.1 billion pounds of uranium that is yet to be purchased and is putting an awful lot of pressure on supply in the mid-2030s, a time when several major global primary supply sources are thinning out, and the investments in construction of new mines required to replace them have not even started. In fact, our own Cigar Lake mine is expected to reach the end of its mine life in 2036. We plan our supply accordingly with our Tier-2 assets and a pipeline of potential future projects in mind, but Cigar Lake satisfies 10% of global demand, that's an 18 million pound hole in supply that the market has not yet fully appreciated. And bringing on new production of that scale is incredibly challenging. So we continue to see exciting times ahead for us in the nuclear sector and we've positioned ourselves to benefit while remaining protected should it not evolve as expected. We have more than 35 years of experience operating across the fuel cycle, and we've designed our strategy of full cycle value capture to be resilient. We have good visibility into when and where we need to deliver material, allowing us to carefully plan and prudently invest in our existing and potential supply sources well into the future. When we consider the supply tools and flexibility we have in place to work with our customers and satisfy their ongoing fuel requirements, we can be selective and opportunistic with our sourcing of supply. And we can be disciplined when considering future investments in our primary supply pipeline. We will continue to align our production with our contract portfolio and market opportunities demonstrating that we are responsibly managing our supply in accordance with our customers' needs. We will also continue to look for opportunities to improve and operate our assets with more flexibility and efficiency, while working to improve our safety performance and reduce our impact on the environment. Our balance sheet is strong. And we expect it will enable us to self-manage risk, including risks related to global macroeconomic uncertainty and volatility as well as uncertain trade policy decisions. Looking briefly at 2024. Our disciplined strategy has delivered a number of highlights worth noting. We delivered strong fourth quarter and annual net earnings and adjusted net earnings, which reflect a return to our Tier-1 production level, as well as higher sales volumes and an improvement in average realized price. Those earnings incorporate the expected full year net loss from Westinghouse, which was primarily due to the impact of purchase accounting. So we view adjusted EBITDA as a measure that better reflects Westinghouse's strong underlying performance. And Westinghouse's adjusted EBITDA was indeed very strong. In our Uranium segment, we delivered just under 34 million pounds of uranium in 2024 and produced about 23.4 million pounds. Production was slightly higher than our expectation as a result of very strong production from the McArthur River/Key Lake operation. In fact, the operation's 20.3 million packaged pounds last year sets both a new annual production record for the Key Lake mill, as well as a world record for annual production from any uranium mill. The increased run rate at the mill was made possible by our off-cycle investments in automation, digitization and optimization projects to improve the Key Lake mill during care and maintenance, supported by our access to stockpiled ore. It's critical to remember that when you see higher Tier-1 primary production from Cameco, it has a home, and does not flow into the spot market as some like to speculate. The additional pounds are not only positive for our bottom line but they have a home in our portfolio and merely serve to offset a drop from our other sources of supply such as inventory, long-term purchases being pulled forward or product loans. In addition, in 2024 the production flexibility from MacArthur/Key offset lower production from our other Tier-1 sources. Uranium production at Inkai continued to be impacted by the ongoing supply chain issues in Kazakhstan, most notably related to the stability of sulfuric acid deliveries. As a result, total 2024 production from Inkai on a 100% basis was 7.8 million pounds, about 600,000 pounds lower than in 2023. Cigar Lake also came up a bit short of its plan due to some challenges earlier in the year at the McClean Lake mill. In 2025, with the long-term contract book we've put in place and ongoing pipeline of both on and off-market contracting discussions, our plan is to produce 18 million pounds on a 100% basis at each of McArthur River/Key Lake and Cigar Lake. At Inkai production plans for 2025 and subsequent years remain uncertain and we remain in discussions with JV Inkai and our partner Kazatomprom to determine our purchase allocation for 2025. Over the coming years, we are undertaking capital projects to help ensure reliability and sustainability of our existing operations, including projects to address aging infrastructure and potential bottlenecks at Key Lake, and the advancement of freezing at McArthur River. And while no decision has been made on changes to future production levels, we will continue to position ourselves for future production flexibility in alignment with our contract book. And if our contract book supports it, we expect to be in great shape to take advantage of that flexibility, thanks to our financial discipline. Our balance sheet is strong and we expect strong cash flow generation in 2025, successfully refinanced $500 million in unsecured debt in 2024, extending the maturity to 2031. And of note, we did so with credit spreads that reflected a higher credit rating than we have currently been assigned. As of January 2025, we have also fully repaid the $600 million U.S. floating rate term loan that was used to finance the acquisition of Westinghouse. Although we're only about 50 days into the New Year now, there are already a few key developments subsequent to 2024 yearend that are worth highlighting. To start-off the year, at JV Inkai production was halted on January 1 at the direction of Kazatomprom, the controlling partner in the JV due to the delayed submission of certain regulatory documents to the Ministry of Energy. Production resumed on January 23, but we are still working with Kazatomprom and JV Inkai to determine the impact of the production suspension, as well as the continued issues with sulfuric acid supply on the operation's 2025 production plans. Also in January, Westinghouse reached a resolution in its technology and export dispute with KEPCO and KHNP, which establishes a framework for additional deployments to the mutual and material benefit of all parties. And we've now received our first distribution from Westinghouse. $100 million was paid out to the partners of which our share was $49 million. Before going to Q&A, a quick comment on the topic that's on everyone's mind as we approach March, the threat of U.S. tariffs on Canadian energy, has been a focal point ever since the new U.S. administration took office in January, and it's an area we are carefully monitoring. However, keep in mind that our industry faced a similar threat several years ago related to a Section 232 investigation in the U.S. related to critical minerals, including uranium. In any cases where there is a changing policy that could potentially impact our operating environment, we manage risk and plan accordingly to optimize the value of our portfolio. In the past, we've taken actions such as positioning material ahead of expected deliveries and revising our contract terms to protect us from unexpected future implementation of taxes or tariffs. The U.S. threatening the imposition of a 10% tariff on Canadian energy products, we have proactively taken some steps to minimize the potential impact. While we currently do not expect that a direct 10% tariff would have a material impact on Cameco's financial results in 2025, there continues to be uncertainty around the exact details of how any potential tariff may be applied. So with that, I'll stop there and we are happy to take your questions.

We will now begin the question-and-answer session. The first question today comes from Adam Wijaya with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.

Yeah. Good morning, Tim, Grant and team. Thank you for taking my questions. Wanted to first start on contracting activity. I know in 2024, we spent a lot of time on the year-over-year decline in reported contracting activity. I wanted to get your updated views on what you're seeing in the term market right now, more near and medium-term. Are you seeing utilities and fuel buyers really step back into the market to secure longer contracts with more volumes or do you think there's really anything keeping fuel buyers sidelined for now? Thanks.

Good morning, Adam. Thanks for the questions. It's Tim. I'm going to pass it over to Dr. Grant Isaac for response. Grant?

Thanks, Tim. Adam, that's a great place to start. The key point I want to emphasize is that although term volumes were down year-over-year, with 160 million pounds in 2023 compared to 120 million pounds last year, term prices have increased significantly. This indicates that we are not yet at production economic pricing for future supply. While some focus on the spot market may overlook this, the term market is crucial. We are not yet at replacement rates, with 120 million pounds contracted for 2024. As Tim highlighted, this means utilities will need to purchase a substantial amount of material moving forward. Considering this demand, especially with the nearing end of Cigar Lake and significant depletion in Kazakhstan, it creates an optimistic outlook for pricing. We need to be patient in the Uranium segment, as we are currently focusing on conversion and fabrication opportunities with Westinghouse, allowing us to wait for the market to adequately respond to the upcoming challenges in uranium supply. Regarding the term market, there has been some downward pressure on the industry floors, as spot prices have declined and some have attempted to lower the floor prices. However, ceiling prices have remained strong, holding at mid-130s or even higher, indicating that a significant challenge is approaching for uranium supply if we don’t begin to send stronger price signals now. For Cameco, these market conditions allow us to take a step back. We have a substantial book that constitutes about a quarter of our future reserves and resources. To consider pursuing additional pounds, we need to see stronger price formations. We are well-protected with our contracts, and when spot market fluctuations impact longer-term indicators, we can afford to be patient. We will focus on historical conversion prices and the values developing downstream from uranium, capturing that value while we wait for the term market to progress. We are genuinely excited about the current dynamics and how they are shaping up for us as an established producer.

Got it. That's super helpful. Thanks, guys. Maybe switching gears over to Inkai. Understand that you're in discussion with Inkai and Kazatomprom to determine how the recent production suspension could impact the 2025 production levels, and then the subsequent purchases. But maybe can you just tell us how these conversations have trended thus far? And then maybe more broadly, is there any fundamental change on how you guys are thinking about Cameco's relative position in Kazakhstan going forward? Thanks.

Yeah. Thanks, Adam. It's Tim. Listen, we've been working with the Kazakhs now for I think it's 25 or 30 years. I think we went over there 30 years ago. And so our relationship is still strong. They're good partners. Yes, we have some hiccups from time to time. We've had some asset hiccups. There's been some changes in personnel over there that we have to adapt to. And now this piece on January 1 that came as a surprise to us, I have to say. But we were on it right away and we did get a result by January 23, we're back in production. So what, it's a long-term relationship. Our lease extends out to 2045 there. We intend to stay there and work with the Kazakhs and so, no change really. We'll be meeting with them next week. Grant and I will be seeing them next week and spend some time with them. So no change to our strategy at this point.

Thanks, Tim. Thanks, Grant.

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

Hey. Good morning. I'd like to ask a few questions regarding AP1000 builds. So when the Westinghouse deal closed, I think you provided a framework on the value capture of a new build. Can you maybe just update us on that framework if anything has changed? And then, regarding the Westinghouse and KHNP, does the settlement open the door for future cooperation? Does that open or widen the opportunity set potentially for new builds? And then just lastly, if you can provide an update on some of the major AP1000 project milestones that we should be watching for the next 12 months or so? Thank you.

Yeah. Great questions, all of them, Andrew. I'd just say, we're super excited about our Westinghouse deal and just the way it's behaved and operated in the first year and change, that we've had our share of the ownership with Brookfield and the potential there is just outstanding and the results are strong. They're like we predicted. So, but Grant's on the Board of Westinghouse for us. So Grant, do you maybe want to comment on those three pieces?

Yeah, Andrew. Thanks for your questions. That's about three hours’ worth of answers. So I'll try to be super brief about it. On AP1000, no change, no fundamental change to kind of that value flow the way we look at it. It's obviously about finding a utility or quite frankly, a non-utility user. We have to contemplate those models going forward now with the hyperscalers looking at nuclear in a very, very significant way, but it begins with choosing the design. It then falls into a period of finalizing the engineering and the design of the technology to make it fit-for-purpose for the location. So if I use as an example, the Poland model, the first three reactors in Poland are going through this SPEED-1 process to figure out how to properly deploy the technology at the chosen location in Poland. That then gives rise to the second feed contract, that feed contract, again, a lot of engineering and design work also begins to trigger the final investment decision. And with that comes the procurement part of the nuclear island, which is a very important scope for Westinghouse, that then gives rise to the broader construction program. And of course, Westinghouse doesn't participate in that broader construction program, another constructor would. And then ultimately, as that kind of seven year process peaks and comes down, then you have an asset that's just been built to run for 80 years and now will be part of the core at Westinghouse in terms of fuel fabrication and reactor services going forward. So every AP1000 is a unique step change in value for the energy systems, and then it gets pulled into the core of the business. It's a model that we obviously are very, very attracted to. When you think about the AP1000 opportunities, we talked about the six reactors in Poland. There's the two in Bulgaria, Slovenia is looking at reactors already running, Westinghouse reactors. There's obviously opportunities in place in UK, perhaps Sweden, but make no mistake, the DOE lift-off report was very, very clear of the role that AP1000s, the only gigawatt scale reactor out there, American designed, technology is locked down, fuel cycle is locked down, doesn't have regulatory risk, doesn't have licensing risk. It's just big project deployment risk. So four of the five boxes are already checked. The lift-off report from the DOE was very clear on the powerful role AP1000s can play in helping the U.S. achieve its tripling nuclear pledge, 200 gigawatts of additional nuclear power. So those opportunities just continue to grow and don't fall asleep on Canada. I think the announcements in Canada are really poised to deliver the benefits of nuclear quickly rather than wait for a new design that doesn't yet exist. This is a deployable design that somebody can go down to Georgia today and see one operating and see it performing at really industry leading operational standards. I'm going to bridge you over to the Korean deal. I mean, the Korean deal is more to come on this, but really it's taken Westinghouse and Team Korea and moved them from being competitors to potentially very powerful collaborators to provide solutions to countries that want energy security, they want the national security that comes from these 80-year assets of baseload, durable hardened power that only really nuclear can offer. So watch that space. It's now expanding, Westinghouse's energy systems business into where the Koreans have a lot more access. United Arab Emirates potentially considering two more reactors. The Czech Republic already choosing the Korean reactors, two-plus two at Dukovany and the Temelin sites. And they're very active in pursuing other markets and now Westinghouse participates in all of that. And really important to emphasize all upside to the acquisition case. Everything I just described was not valued as part of the acquisition of Westinghouse. So we're very excited at the opportunity that's being created. We're very excited about Westinghouse's position with the leading technology. And we're very excited about the new models that are emerging that we can take full advantage of to really achieve the tripling nuclear pledge.

Great. Thank you for that. Maybe just switching over a little bit onto some of the Russian sanctions. There's been a lot of discussion on what might happen if there's a peace settlement. And obviously, we don't know how it will all play out, but maybe if you just put on your hypothetical hat, like, how does lifting sanctions on Russia impact the uranium market? And I'm also curious, how your utility customers are thinking about this given some of these contracts are much longer dated and we don't really know how that roughly Ukraine situation could play out even four plus years from now, like, how does that impact our decision making?

Well, Andrew, it's Tim. I'll start on this at least. I'd say, let's wait and see what happens. We haven't seen the sanctions lifted yet. The U.S. has worked, and I mean bipartisan support to put in place all of those sanctions, all of the restrictions on Russian uranium and Russian LEU that are still in effect, and our legislative prohibitions would take a long time to remove. Another point is that allowing Russian material to flow into the U.S. goes against the new administration's goal of onshoring and energy dominance, and they just established the National Energy Dominance Council led by Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and energy expert Doug Burgum, which has clearly included nuclear and the nuclear fuel cycle in its plans to become a dominant player in the world. So, we will wait and see. We'll see what happens. But as Grant mentioned earlier, our growth plan at Cameco doesn't depend on these factors; rather, the fundamental supply and demand dynamics in the market will ensure we do very well going forward. Grant, do you want to add anything to that?

I do, I want to just go back to risk is basically a function of likelihood and consequence. And I think, Tim covered the likelihood piece really well. It is fair to ask if ending the Russian ban is consistent with the U.S. energy dominance. And the answer is clearly, no, it was quite the opposite. Russian fuel in the U.S. created energy dependence. It undermined energy and national security and it undermined U.S. nuclear leadership. The facts are really clear. And it's hard to imagine, when the Energy Dominance Council was created, part of the objective was actually to become dependent on not an ally, but an adversary, a state-sponsored adversary. So that doesn't really make sense. On the HEU notion, or a new HEU, we just find this in the very slim chance category. Remember, Cameco was party to that agreement. We were part of the time and effort required to put an agreement in place and I would just point out two things. One, that was a very long period of time that it took to put the agreement. So there's no quick solution. And secondly, the conditions that existed then in order to essentially for the West to take advantage of Russian nuclear materials and purpose them for the commercial market, those are not conditions that exist today from a real politic point of view or from an international relations point of view. So on the likelihood side, we're seeing all of this rate really, really low. You did ask about consequence. If Russian material showed up, let's face it, there have been significantly greater tailwinds for global nuclear. There's just simply more demand than there was before. So it's not like the Russian material doesn't have a home out in the future. We're talking about a very significant structural deficit. Uncovered requirements in uranium have continued to grow and quite frankly, the Russians are not a big uranium supplier. So it really doesn't change that dynamic at all. Primary supply has continued to face challenges and depletion. New capacity is not at replacement rate. And then, the final piece from a consequence point of view, we didn't go into any markets to replace the Russians on a spot basis or a short-term basis. We did it under long-term contracts and we did it with utilities that had absorbed the switching costs to go to Cameco fuel, to go to Westinghouse's fabrication. Utilities that won't be eager to bear those switching costs again. So there's a durability to what's been set up here that really insulates from a consequence point of view any impact. So we see likelihood low, we see consequence low. We're watching this space closely, but I think some of the narratives around the peace talks in the Ukraine, which by the way, everybody hopes for peace have been absolutely overblown with respect to the uranium and nuclear fuel segment.

Great. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Andrew.

The next question comes from Alexander Pearce with Bank of Montreal. Please go ahead.

Good morning, everyone. Tim, you mentioned some of the steps you're taking to lessen the impact of tariffs. Could you share some additional opportunities within the portfolio? Also, does your existing contract book include terms that address potential tariffs, and who is responsible for covering those costs? Thank you.

Thank you, Alex, for the question. It’s a great question. We have learned many lessons from the 2017 and 2018 situation regarding uranium tariffs. At that time, we spent considerable time in Washington, D.C., discussing with elected officials and the White House the importance of Canadian uranium to the U.S. I believe we were successful since the Department of Energy withdrew uranium from the 232 tariffs. Now, they are discussing a potential 10% tariff. We have taken various measures based on those past experiences, and I think Grant would agree that our contracting portfolio has included new clauses to address this. Any new contracts signed since then have provisions that allow us to pass such costs onto our customers. We are capable of managing material logistics across different jurisdictions and have done so effectively. We also have production resources in the U.S. that we are currently maintaining because they are not operating at the desired level. However, these resources are quite valuable now. Therefore, we believe we can handle this situation, Alex. Last week, Grant and I met in D.C. with other commodity producers and realized the consequences could be much worse if these tariffs are implemented. For us, we don’t see it being financially detrimental, and we are confident in our ability to manage it.

That final point is very important. We are stating there will be no significant impact due to the contracting provisions we have implemented and our preparations for tariffs. If tariffs do not occur, it won't affect us at all. However, the discussion around tariffs often overlooks their impact on the uranium market. It’s relatively straightforward to understand the effect of tariffs here. For instance, a proposed 10% tariff from a major supplier like Canada would likely raise uranium prices by 10%. This is because U.S. domestic demand for contracted volumes is inelastic, and there is limited ability to substitute domestic supply. We would still need to import from both tariff and non-tariff countries to satisfy this inflexible demand. History shows that non-tariff countries will likely raise their offer prices to slightly below 10%. Therefore, we expect a structural increase in uranium prices, as tariffs act as a sales tax on imported goods that will ultimately be passed on, benefiting those not subject to it. Cameco is well positioned to manage this, but the market will face additional structural challenges that will likely support prices.

Thank you both. I'd like to ask a second question regarding McArthur River production. It's clear that the guidance for this year is slightly lower compared to last year. Does this indicate a return to producing 18 million pounds indefinitely, or is this just a result of managing CapEx again? Could we potentially see production back up to 19 million pounds or more by 2026?

We're still maintaining supply discipline without any changes. McArthur Key had an outstanding year in 2024 with favorable conditions. The mill operated extremely well, and we had some extra inventory that we could process, which we did. Currently, we're down to 18 million pounds at McArthur Key and 18 million pounds at Cigar. We have committed to never producing any extra pounds without a clear home in our contract portfolios. Regarding capital expenditures, we will continue to invest to ensure the reliability and sustainability of our assets. Some require upgrades, but our goal is to optimize production. So, we're back to 18 million pounds and will maintain that level until further notice.

Great. That's very clear. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Alex.

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

Hi. Good morning. I just wanted to delve in a little bit more on the tariff issue. I guess, if I understand correctly, you're saying your contract book is a mix of contracts where some of the contracts chemicals, responsible for a tariff. And then the other part is the customer importing the uranium or fuel would be responsible? Do I understand that correct?

Let me elaborate on that, Orest. A tariff, which is essentially a border tax, is paid by the importer. With the Section 232 investigation, we've realized that the idea of North America as a free trade zone may no longer hold true. Our neighbor to the South has recognized tariffs as a tool they can utilize, and we prepared ourselves for a future where this might happen. We revised several contracts to incorporate tariffs into the tax clause. In cross-border contracts, it's explicit: taxes in the seller's country fall on the seller, while those in the buyer's country are the buyer's responsibility. The Section 232 investigation taught us that a tariff is a tax, and if it's within the buyer's country, it's their responsibility. We had some older contracts, which account for less than half of our U.S. deliveries, based on the presumption of free trade that might not have been as clear. This could lead to discussions about who is responsible for any border tax, but instead of preparing for a dispute, we decided to adapt. The market is highly integrated, and we can move materials inside a tariff wall if necessary. We’ll proceed with this approach to avoid any significant impact. As older contracts expire and our newer contracts become more prevalent, this issue will diminish. This reflects our strategy to position for rewards while managing risks. It's a clear illustration of how we navigate future uncertainties, and as a result, we are experiencing no material impact.

Orest, let me provide some context that we use when engaging with legislators and officials in the White House. The U.S. has about 94 operating reactors that consume approximately 45 to 50 million pounds of materials annually. Currently, domestic production is less than 1 million pounds a year, which means they rely on imports. They source around 27% of their needs from Canada. This information is part of the arguments and facts we present during these discussions, giving you a clearer picture of the topic at hand.

Thanks for that. I'm curious if you've noticed any changes in the behavior of your U.S. utility customers as you negotiate new contracts. Specifically, is the proposed 10% tariff affecting contracting activities right now, or is it not a factor?

I would argue that it's mostly irrelevant right now because it's a threat that isn't currently in effect. As I mentioned earlier, the demand for contracted volumes is completely inelastic. Our customers understand that there is a very limited availability of domestic supply, which means they still need to import significant amounts of material to satisfy their requirements. Therefore, future contracts will likely be focused on established producers who have various asset sources and a proven track record of managing risk while offering numerous options to utilities. We are not seeing any reduction in our pipeline concerning U.S. demand. However, with the many demand opportunities in other markets, we are assessing the most effective diversification strategy moving forward, especially considering the market risks associated with potential trade actions compared to more stable markets. This is the advantage of having a diversified marketing portfolio and the benefit of acquiring new customers in Central and Eastern Europe that we didn't have before. The market recovery is broader than it has ever been. I believe that the U.S. poses these threats at the risk of compromising their supply security, which brings me back to my earlier point about the inconsistency with an energy dominant strategy.

Great. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Orest.

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

Thank you, operator, and good morning, Tim and Grant. Nice to hear from you, and thank you both for the update. Can I maybe ask about the conversion market? And there is this narrative about overfeeding on the enrichment piece of the fuel cycle being limited by a lack of conversion. And I mean, there's no arguing that the fact that conversion prices are at multiples of prior cycle highs right now. Should this not incentivize either further expansions at Port Hope or a restart of CCJs 49% on Springfield's conversion facility?

Grant, do you want to take that one?

There is undoubtedly significant pressure on the conversion market at this moment, and the reasons for that are clear. For many years, utilities around the world have insisted that they will not pay $15 per KGU when the market price is at $8 per KGU, and they have succeeded in their stance. They are currently paying $50 per KGU instead of $15. When prices remain low for an extended period, it ultimately harms their own supply, leading to the necessity for a sharp correction. This dynamic is increasingly evident in the uranium market. To restart the market, we need two critical components from the term supply perspective. First, we require transparent market access rules. There have been questions regarding Russia, and it’s essential that discussions of Russia re-entering Western markets remain just discussions, as their capacity for enrichment relies on conversion capabilities as part of an integrated system. Clarity is needed to ensure that Russian participation does not undermine the market, as their past involvement significantly impacted conversion prices and harmed Western supply. Tim has been vocal about this in Washington and elsewhere. We are not seeking financial aid; we are simply looking for clear regulations on market access. Second, it’s important to understand that it’s not merely about price; it’s about securing long-term contracts. Utilities must demonstrate commitment through long-term agreements that facilitate the resumption of operations. For example, Constellation’s recent announcement about collaborating with Microsoft to restart Unit 1 at the Three Mile Island facility is significant. Constellation made the decision to invest $1.8 billion based on a 20-year contract with Microsoft, not on speculation. The rationale that drives a utility to reactivate a dormant reactor is identical to what suppliers need to justify the resurgence of supply. Thus, it’s not solely about pricing; it also hinges on the nature of demand, which, up to this point, has not met expectations. Currently, we have not made any announcements. When we do, we’ll ensure that the quality of demand has been established in the market, as we avoid pre-emptively increasing supply without ensuring demand is present.

Okay. Those are very helpful comments. You've made several comments as well on the call today on Westinghouse. I just wanted to follow up on the guidance there. First of all, is there any purchase accounting rules factoring into the EBITDA guidance for 2025 just in the context of the impact that those had in '24? And then when you think about the 6% to 10% growth in EBITDA guidance for the next five years, what would it take to be at the 10% level versus the 6%? What's the differentiator between those ranges? Because on a compounded five-year basis, that's actually a huge difference, like if you are growing at 6% and 10%? And then what about getting outside of that range, particularly on the higher end? Thanks.

Yeah. Thanks, Lawson. So I'm going to ask Heidi maybe to tackle that first point that you made and then Grant on the 6% to 10% going forward. So Heidi, have any comments on the first part?

Sure. In terms of the purchase accounting, there were two main factors that affected us in 2024. First, we had to adjust the inventory to reflect its fair market value, which was a significant impact. The inventory situation has mostly been resolved now, so there's only a minor adjustment remaining. Secondly, we also had to recognize the purchase price across all assets, leading to increased depreciation and amortization that will persist for several years, continuing to affect our results. This is a major reason for our net loss, with some effects being ongoing and others specific to 2024.

Thanks, Heidi. Grant on the growth?

And the way to look through that, Lawson, is we have that adjusted EBITDA number out there. And so we take that effect out and that gives you a way to look at what the operational performance is there. So we would encourage you to do that. On your second question, it's a good one. And it really does require a bit of explanation. We are, as everybody who's been following us for some time knows, we are very conservative in our forward disclosures. We require evidence based triggers in order to go to, say, for example, higher growth rates in Westinghouse. So let me give you an example on the 6% side. That really reflects the core of the business, growing into new markets like Eastern and Central Europe for fuel fabrication and reactor services. And it really reflects reactors being saved and reactors going through subsequent license renewal. There's some upside to the core. You began by asking about bringing back the natural conversion line at Springfield. If we did that and if we brought back a REFU line at Springfield, that's upside to the core. That would take you beyond the 6% growth rate from the core alone. When you drift over to the 10%, that's really starting to see the early days of the energy systems uptake. But again, it's conservative. All that's in there right now is the front end engineering and design work being done in places like the first three reactors for Poland or the first reactor in Bulgaria, the one of two. So as those progress to final investment decisions that will then trigger the guidance required for the broader scope around the nuclear island. It's just we don't get out in front. That decision hasn't been made. It would be wrong to include it in the growth. But you need to understand those decisions alone would be upside to the growth case. And now we have to add-in the opportunities with the Korean collaborations. Now keep your eye on every project the Koreans are working on, like in Czechia, for example, or Units 5 and 6 in the United Arab Emirates if those go ahead, that will add upside to the 10%. So we are conservative. We wait for those triggers to come. But when they do come, that is upside to the Westinghouse story. And it really puts Westinghouse basically double the industry growth rate as we see it, which we think is a very, very strong story and beyond the underwriting cases, part of why we continue to be so excited about this acquisition.

And you haven't mentioned AP300s or eVinci reactors in that 10%. So that would be beyond the 10% as well?

It would be beyond like it gets silly really fast. So I'm trying to keep it into sort of what is the basis for our conservative disclosures. But again, that is all upside. If you see good news on eVinci reactors, if you see a utility working with Westinghouse on AP300, that is all upside to what I just talked about.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Lawson.

We have time for one more question today. The last question comes from Craig Hutchison with TD Cowen. Please go ahead.

Good morning. It's great to see that Westinghouse has issued its first dividend. Have you established a formal return of capital strategy at Westinghouse? If so, could you provide some insight into what we might expect in the future?

I will provide a general overview as the situation is developing. Our partner, Brookfield, and I view Westinghouse similarly. Westinghouse has a strategy and business plan that adequately covers its operating expenses, capital expenditures, general and administrative costs, debt obligations, and also offers a dividend. Our goal is not to invest additional money; instead, we aim to receive distributions. Westinghouse is benefiting from favorable market conditions, similar to what Cameco is experiencing, which is creating investment opportunities. Previously, we discussed investing in a natural conversion line when conversion prices are at historic highs, which leads us to consider whether it makes sense to retain funds with Westinghouse for them to invest in these opportunities, or if it would be better to withdraw the funds and use them directly as owners. This is an important and timely consideration for the right reasons, especially with potential investments in LEU plus fuel, BWR fuel, the natural conversion business, the REFU business, further market development for AP1000s, or collaborations with South Korea. These investment decisions were not part of our initial discussions during the acquisition, but now they can significantly enhance future growth, exceeding what we initially expected. We anticipate continued distributions unless we find compelling reasons to retain money with Westinghouse. However, I have many plans for those distributions, so they need to be very compelling.

Okay. Great, guys. And maybe just one quick follow-up. Just on the capital expenditures this year, obviously up quite a bit year-over-year. Is most of that just sustaining growth, sustaining capital story or is there any of that growth capital?

I would look at it as a revitalization for optimization. It's no surprise, we're pretty bullish on the structural deficit that's coming to the uranium space. And we see a market yet that quite frankly has not priced in the end of Cigar Lake and it has not priced in the depletion in Kazakhstan and a market that believes perfection is going to be achieved with some of these new projects that are at the feasibility stage and don't even have a license and a permit yet. And that is all going to lead to stronger price discovery in our industry. We're strategically patient. We're waiting for that demand to show up. But it feels like for us, this is a time to prepare our assets for maximum exposure to those higher prices. So this is a period where just like we were countercyclical with respect to the digitization and automation spend, we want to be forward-footed with respect to preparing our assets for when we need to call for more production because the demand has been there and do it for better value and start deploying some of this capital and doing this work at a time when there aren't a lot of resources available in Northern Saskatchewan. So I don't know what others who are going to do, who think they're going to bring projects forward. I don't know where they're going to find the skilled labors and the contractors to deliver on their project when we're delivering on our revitalization and optimization projects. It's prudent and it's based upon a fundamental view that's very supportive, but we haven't yet made a decision to grow. It's just about being prepared.

All right. Great. Thanks guys.

Thanks, Craig.

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

Thank you very much, operator, and thanks to everyone on the call today. These are certainly busy, but exciting times for Cameco. So Cameco, as you know, is a responsible commercial supplier with long-lived Tier 1 assets and a proven operating track record. We're invested across the nuclear fuel cycle and we believe we have the right strategy to help achieve a secure energy future, in a manner that reflects our values. Embedded in all our decisions is a commitment to address the risks and opportunities that we believe will make our business sustainable over the long-term. So thanks again everybody. Have a great day.

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