Thank you for standing by. This is the conference operator. Welcome to The Cameco Corporation First Quarter 2025 Results Conference Call. As a reminder, all participants are in a listen-only mode and the conference is being recorded. 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 first quarter 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 will hand it over to Tim momentarily to briefly discuss the continued positive momentum across the nuclear energy market and our strong Q1 performance alongside a solid financial position. After, we will open it up to your questions. Today's call will be approximately one hour concluding at 9:00am Eastern Time. As always, our goal is to be open and transparent with our communication. However, we do want to respect everyone's time and conclude the call on time. Therefore, should we not get to your questions during this call or if you would like to get into detailed financial modeling questions about our quarterly 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 in the Invest section of our website, or you can use the Ask a Question form at the bottom of the webcast screen and we'll 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. 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. 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. As required by securities laws, we also have to make you aware that during today's discussion, the company will make a number of references to non-IFRS and other financial measures. Cameco believes these measures provide investors with useful perspective on underlying business trends and a full reconciliation of non-IFRS financial measures is available at cameco.com/invest. Please refer to our most recent annual information form in MD&A for more information about the factors that could cause different results and the assumptions we have made. I will now turn it over to our President and CEO, Tim Gitzel.

Well, thank you Cory and hello everyone. We appreciate you joining us on our call today. I hope everyone is doing well and enjoying spring or autumn, depending on where you're listening from. Here in Canada, the snow is gone, it's spring and we just wrapped up a federal election earlier this week. I'd like to personally congratulate Prime Minister Mark Carney and the Liberal Party. We're excited to begin working with the newly elected Canadian government and look forward to Prime Minister Carney's strong leadership in navigating the current uncertain environment of global tariffs, evolving fiscal policy and complex geopolitics. Our hope is that we can work together to advance the development of the nuclear fuel cycle and expand the use of nuclear energy in Canada and abroad. As a country, Canada is blessed with a rich uranium resource base that makes this country a key player in the global nuclear fuel supply chain. But like Cameco, when it comes to nuclear energy, Canada is much more than just mining. Beyond our resources we have a long, deep history in the nuclear sector. So when combined with our advanced technology and generational nuclear expertise, a supportive and collaborative government will be key in helping put Canada on the map as a nuclear industry leader in support of global energy, national and climate security objectives. As we get started, I first want to encourage stakeholders to focus on our long-term strategy and the long-term industry outlook discussions in our disclosure beyond the near-term geopolitical and trade policy distractions. That said, there is no doubt that those distractions have created new and unexpected risks that must be carefully monitored and diligently managed. It is extremely difficult to operate the world's nuclear fleet if the movement of uranium fuel is restricted because those who need it most tend to have the least. At the outset of the quarter in January, the U.S. threatened to impose a 10% tariff on Canadian energy products. But amid the flurry of tariff changes, retaliatory tariffs and ongoing negotiations, energy products that are compliant with the Canada, United States, Mexico Free Trade Agreement are currently exempt. That means, for the time being, there are no tariffs on our natural uranium, UF6 and enriched uranium products, preserving the flow of nuclear fuel imports into the U.S. Market. But regardless of the current exemption, we know that a lot can change overnight. For example, in April, the U.S. launched a new Section 232 investigation to address the risks of reliance on foreign sources of processed critical minerals. Notably, the executive order outlined uranium in the definition of critical minerals, directing agencies to assess the national security risks stemming from U.S. dependence on foreign imports. We went through a similar Section 232 investigation covering steel, aluminum and uranium under the previous Trump administration, and at that time uranium was spared. However, we take nothing for granted. That was a different time and a different trade environment. Following that first investigation in 2019, we proactively took steps to minimize potential future impacts, such as adjusting and clarifying our contract terms and positioning material well ahead of expected deliveries. Those pre-emptive actions helped us prepare for the more recent threat of tariffs on Canadian nuclear fuel products, and we will continue to adapt accordingly and mitigate such risks in the future. I'm sure there will be more to come this year as negotiations continue and policies evolve, but two things are certain. There is no substitute for uranium in a nuclear fuel bundle, and there's no elasticity to the demand for nuclear fuel. You need it to run your reactors and power your economy regardless of tariffs or higher costs. Looking at the future picture for nuclear beyond the near-term noise, it continues to be more positive than we've ever seen. You've heard us consistently express a positive long-term demand outlook quarter-after-quarter for a few years now, so I won't spend much time reiterating the strong industry tailwinds. I would say it's now a regular occurrence to see news and announcements of significant positive industry developments, with nations reaffirming commitments to nuclear, extending reactor lives and saving those that were to be shuttered, and planning new reactors. We've recently seen the world bank announce plans to lift its decades-old ban on funding nuclear projects, and we've had more announcements of reactor operating licenses being extended in the U.S. pushing some reactor lives to 80 years. This week, 10 new builds were approved in China, marking the fourth consecutive year that China has approved at least 10 new reactors. Just yesterday, Poland signed an agreement with Westinghouse Bechtel and Polish utility PEJ launching the next phase of preparatory and engineering work for its three-unit AP1000 project, the first commercial nuclear plant in the country. Those are just a few of the headlines that support our unwavering view that full-cycle demand is durable and stronger than ever. The world remains focused on energy security, national security, climate security and sustainability, all in the context of growing clean energy demand. But as we keep emphasizing, the risks to supply are far greater than the risks to demand. Despite the long-term uranium price remaining near its highest level in over a decade, the industry is still not seeing the level of long-term utility contracting necessary to support both brownfield expansion plans and the significant investment in new projects that will be required to meet growing future demand. To meet the total fuel requirements of the world reactors between now and 2045, the world's utilities still have a lot of uranium to buy. In fact, 70% of their needs through 2045 remain uncovered. That's about 3.2 billion pounds that remain to be contracted and for roughly one third, or about 1.3 billion pounds, the source of annual primary production is not yet known. With each passing quarter that long-term contracting remains below replacement rate, the uncovered requirements line continues to steepen. Long-term contracts must be in place to support mining economics and underpin ongoing investments in supply. But with the continued uncertainty driven by global trade policies and unclear market access, fuel buyers have remained focused on adapting procurement plans under the threat of tariffs and securing downstream conversion and enrichment services before buying the natural uranium. Looking ahead, we believe a move upstream to focus on security of uranium supply is inevitable and unavoidable. Shifting to briefly highlight Cameco's first quarter. As always, normal quarterly variability in customer deliveries impacted our results. However, under our strategy, which remains consistent and centered on operational marketing and financial discipline, we delivered strong results. We saw notable improvements across all key financial metrics. With revenue up 24%, gross profit up 44%, adjusted net earnings up 52% and adjusted EBITDA up 5%. And with our first-quarter average realized price increasing year-over-year at a time when the average uranium spot price fell 30%, it remains clear that value creation in our industry requires a long-term contracting strategy and we are clearly well-positioned. As expected, our Westinghouse segment reported a net loss in the first quarter of 2025 due to the normal quarterly variations in customer requirements and the ongoing amortization of the intangible assets related to the acquisition. We continue to expect an annual net loss of $20 million to $70 million for Westinghouse in 2025. We focus on adjusted EBITDA as a key performance measure for Westinghouse as it adjusts for non-operational or non-cash items like amortization costs. In the first quarter this year we saw a 19% improvement in Westinghouse's adjusted EBITDA compared to the first quarter of last year. Beyond Q1, Westinghouse's first-half results are expected to be weaker with stronger performance and higher cash flows expected in the fourth quarter. For the year, our share of adjusted EBITDA is still expected to be between $355 million and $405 million. And needless to say, with all of the growth opportunities that have materialized post-acquisition, we continue to be pleased with the performance and excited about the potential of our investment. Our operational performance across all segments continues to improve and our outlook for the year remains strong and consistent with our expectations. In our uranium segment, our share of production from our two Northern Saskatchewan operations was six million pounds in the first quarter of 2025, slightly higher than the 5.8 million pounds in Q1 last year. We continue to expect 18 million pounds of production on a 100% basis at each of our MacArthur River, Key Lake and our Cigar Lake operations. We also continue to evaluate the optimal mix of production, inventory and purchases to retain the flexibility to deliver long-term value. The first source of supply is our tier one primary production which always has a home under a long-term contract before it is pulled out of the ground. The next source is our purchase material and our inventory, including our share of production purchased from JV Inkai. Following the unexpected suspension of production for most of January, JV Inkai updated its plans to adjust for the suspension and is targeting 8.3 million pounds of uranium for 2025, of which our purchase allocation is 3.7 million pounds. The team is still working on a delivery schedule based on the new production plan, but we do not expect to receive any deliveries from JV Inkai until at least the second half of 2025. And with ongoing acid and other supply chain challenges, the updated 2025 production target is certainly not without risk. In the fuel services segment, production also started the year strong, up 5% over the first quarter of last year. Our annual production expectation for fuel services remains between 13 million and 14 million kg of combined products for the year. In the uranium market, long-term contracting activity is expected to continue to gain momentum. The long-term price increased from $68 per pound in January 2024, holding now around $80 per pound for several quarters. Our marketing team continues to be very busy with a large and growing pipeline of business under discussion that is expected to further grow our long-term portfolio. As contracting picks up, we continue to be selective in committing our uranium inventory and UF6 conversion capacity in order to maintain a contract book that preserves exposure to the rising prices while maintaining downside protection. Maintaining financial balance and balanced liquidity to execute on our strategy remains a priority. Our balance sheet is strong, and we continue to expect strong cash flow generation in 2025. Thanks to our risk-managed financial discipline and strong cash position in January 2025, we made the final repayment of $200 million to fully repay the $600 million term loan we used to finance the acquisition of Westinghouse. As previously disclosed, we received our first cash distribution from Westinghouse, our share being $49 million of the $100 million distribution paid in February. And in April, following the end of the first quarter, we received a cash dividend of $87 million net of withholdings from JV Inkai based on its 2024 financial performance. So, from a financial perspective, we continue to be in excellent shape. We've remained diligent in managing the capital, resources and tools required to deliver on our strategy, maintaining a strong balance sheet guided by our investment-grade rating. Amid the intensifying geopolitical challenges and complex international trade relationships, it's more important than ever to procure nuclear fuel from responsible, reliable, experienced and sustainable suppliers like Cameco. Fuel that supports a future energy supply that is secure, reliable and carbon-free. We believe Cameco's premier tier one fuel cycle assets, complemented by our investments across the reactor life cycle, puts us in a unique position to power a secure energy future. So I thank everyone on the line and on the webcast for your interest today and we will now take your questions.

We will now begin the question-and-answer session. The first question today comes from Orest Wowkodaw with Scotiabank. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning. Obviously, the balance sheet's in great shape here with paying down the remaining term loan debt on the Westinghouse acquisition. I'm just wondering, given the forecast or the outlook moving forward in terms of solid free cash flow and no real material uses of cash that we're aware of, can you really talk about what the priorities are for capital allocation moving forward here? And I'm wondering whether increasing capital returns or returns to shareholders either be dividends or could we see a buyback coming from Cameco? It really seems like you're in a strong financial position moving forward.

Hi Orest, thanks for the question. We've got the CFO and deputy CFO here. So Grant, why don't you start?

Yeah, happy to do that. Maybe a bit of a tag team if necessary. Hi Orest, thanks and thanks to everybody for joining. We're always excited to talk about Cameco and its really critical role in this nuclear fuel cycle and reactor cycle. There is no doubt that our strategy is playing out. We've simply delivered on what we said we would deliver on. And you're seeing that in the financial results and you're seeing that in the outlook. But I would remind folks that we remain in supply discipline as Cameco for a very specific reason and that is we have yet to see the uranium segment hit replacement rate or above replacement rate contracting. So while in supply discipline, that always reminds us that we must remain financially conservative because you have to design a strategy that's got the right mining plan, the right milling plan, the right marketing plan, and it has to be backed up by a balance sheet that allows you the patience, the patience that utilities can show and has to be matched on the supply side. So, with that backdrop, we remain very conservative in our focus. We are seeing strong cash flow, strong earnings build. But while we're in supply discipline, we always want to make sure we can self-manage the risk of say, a prolonged delay in the contracting cycle so that there are no awkward lurches to the capital markets because we mistimed it, for example, that would be an inappropriate thing for us to do. As we look ahead, what are the things that we might spend capital on? Well, no doubt that our position in a recovering nuclear fuel cycle is an important one. We have opportunities through our Cameco asset base on the uranium side, we have opportunities on the conversion side, obviously opportunities in enrichment. And then of course through Westinghouse, we have opportunities for further investments. But we have to be very careful with making those decisions because there is some uncertainty that we're trying to navigate. I would just point to, for example, making sure we have clarity and certainty over the role of Russia going forward in the nuclear fuel cycle because we've all seen what's happened in the past. So we have not abandoned our conservative financial discipline yet. As we go forward, we will look for appropriate risk-adjusted growth opportunities. After that we would then be looking at maybe it's appropriate to return capital to our owners. Maybe that's appropriate through enhancing our dividend growth strategy, which we have out there right now. Maybe it's appropriate through shrinking the outstanding denominator of our shares through a share buyback. But I would just say that the strategy is paying off, but it's paying off in a market that hasn't yet fully come with its demand. We remain in supply discipline and that's what's driving our conservatism. We will obviously keep this group up to date on any plans on capital allocation, but I just wanted to provide that strategic backdrop.

And Orest. It's certainly something our board has at the top of their agenda every meeting as well. So we're looking at it closely.

Thank you. And as a follow-up, if I could, can you speak to what the implications are for Westinghouse with respect to the recent IP legal settlement with Korea? What could that mean to that five-year outlook for Westinghouse if there are material builds outside of Korea that are done by that organization?

Yes. Thank you, Orest. At the time of acquiring Westinghouse, there was an outstanding intellectual property dispute between the Koreans and Westinghouse over the use of what is essentially Westinghouse technology in the Korean reactors. There was a very important government-to-government agreement that was signed between the U.S. and the Korean government. And following that was a commercial agreement between Westinghouse and the Koreans. There's a confidentiality agreement wrapped around that for the moment. But let me just step back and say what effectively means. It means that Westinghouse and the Koreans have gone from potentially being competitors in markets for gigawatt scale, new build to be important collaborators, reflecting, in fact, what is the shared contribution each makes to a new build program. And so as markets where Westinghouse may not have been competitive, for example, where utilities or states were looking for a fixed price turnkey solution, which, of course, everybody knows, you've heard us say Westinghouse is not in the market offering fixed price on a turnkey reactor, those were markets that the Koreans were very competitive in. But now instead of being excluded from those markets, Westinghouse has an opportunity to participate in the scope of those new builds. So, if you want to think about it from an energy systems point of view, remember, that's a segment that we valued at zero at the time of acquisition. For Westinghouse and AP1000, we've since seen positive announcements in Poland, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Ukraine, and now there are markets where Westinghouse was not successful like the Czech Republic, Czechia where Westinghouse will now participate. So it actually just grows the scope of the Energy Systems business. It's very exciting. But ultimately, there are some steps that we have to still go through with the agreement before we can say more. But when we can, we're going to be very excited. It's an agreement definitely to the mutual benefit of Westinghouse and the Koreans.

And just finally, how quickly could it impact Westinghouse's performance?

The trigger, if you will, for impacting Westinghouse performance is when the announcement of a new build or a vendor selection in the new build gets to the point where a final investment decision is made by the country that's considering it. And as we've been talking about from the Poland example, once a reactor is chosen, you still go through a series of front-end engineering and design work, not to design the reactor, but to engineer the reactor in a novel location, that's all part of leading towards that final investment decision, which usually coincides with an EPC contract. So if you look at the markets where the Koreans have been successful in bidding their reactor offering, Czechia is a market that is well ahead with respect to going down that process. It is a nuclear market. They're very familiar with operating building nuclear reactors. So really, the trigger becomes when a final investment decision is made and an EPC contract is signed. Now those are incredibly hard to predict, and I'm not going to try to predict them. But that process, let me just say, is well underway in the Czech Republic.

Thank you. Thanks, Grant. Thanks, Tim.

The next question comes from Ralph Profiti with Stifel. Please go ahead.

Thanks, operator. And good morning, everyone. Tim, I wanted to come back to your comments about fuel buyer procurement emphasis upstream versus downstream. And from your comments, it doesn't seem like we are in a phase of normal buying prioritization. Just wondering what the industry markers you're looking for that will mark more of a transition? How far are we away from that type of market? And what are the indications that we can look to see that changing?

Yes, Ralph, thanks for the question. I think you also heard me say that between now and 2045, I think there's over 3.2 billion pounds procured at 3.2 billion and over a billion of those not sure where they're coming from yet what source is going to provide those. So we're not seeing the panic yet. You've heard Grant probably many, many times say, fuel buyers start at the back end and they worry about their fuel bundles and then work backwards from there. Where is your enrichment coming from? You see an enormous pressure on the enrichment space in the last couple of years, especially since the Russian move into Ukraine conversion, same thing, enormous pressure. There is no reason why that's not going to come to the uranium space. It just hasn't got there yet. And so we're being patient. We were saying, I think, to our board yesterday that you can run, but you can't hide. I mean people need uranium to make this whole thing work. And so you can defer and wait and hope for better times, but they have to come to the market, and we have not yet seen replacement rate contracting really in the last 10 years. And so there's a deficit out there that’s going to have to be filled. And as Grant said in his comments, we're patient. We make sure our production is patient, our marketing is patient. We have a very strong financial position that we're ready and we can wait it out, but it's coming. We're sure of that.

Yes, Tim, I’d like to add my thoughts. Predicting a turning point always carries some risk, but I’ll take a shot at it. At the recent WFC conference in Montreal, our Vice President of Global Marketing, Lisa Akin, shared some significant insights during a panel discussion. If everyone could refer to Slide 6 in Tim's comments or Slide 16 in the Q1 2025 investor handout, it highlights the changes currently unfolding in the long-term contracting market for uranium. The challenge depicted on that slide is increasingly weighing on fuel buyers. In the left-hand panel, the shaded area indicates something positive; consider it as the segment of uncovered requirements, which represents the demand Tim mentioned. This area now extends to 2045, amounting to 3.2 billion pounds of uranium that must be procured over the next 20 years. That translates to 70% of the needs for that period that remain unpurchased. When you examine the right-hand panel, the worrying trend becomes evident. Following a decade of underinvestment due to low prices and a decade of depleting inventories and secondary supplies, you can see both the primary and secondary supply stacks in decline over the same timeframe. If we account for some known proposed production — projects that have been promoted for many years — we can still expect a shortfall of 1.3 billion pounds of uranium, and we have uncertainty about its future sources. I echo Lisa's sentiments from the panel: without stronger market demand and without utilities calling for more uranium, the necessary investments to address this shortfall won’t happen. This environment is beneficial for existing uranium producers who have not yet operated at full capacity and have not fully utilized their Tier 1 assets, and they are not even considering the restart of their Tier 2 assets yet. This is why we are maintaining a patient approach and adhering to supply discipline, as the market conditions are poised to strengthen significantly.

Understood. Well said. Thanks very much. If I could follow up on your recent meetings with the Kazakhs, we now have some production visibility for 2025 at Inkai. I am curious about what your discussions over the past several weeks and months since the production shutdown have produced in terms of future commitments. What are your thoughts on achieving those long-term production targets and your confidence in the long-term sustainability of the Chemicals Kazakhstan business?

Yes, we have met with them several times in Canada and other locations, and I will be visiting again soon for the Foreign Investors' Council meeting with the President. I believe things are back on track after the uncertainty we faced in January. They have reestablished licensing and restarted operations. We are now targeting 8.3 million pounds of production for the year, with 3.7 million allocated per share. Additionally, we expect to receive just under a million pounds this year. Our relationship with Kazatomprom has improved, and we hold great respect for their team, especially Mr. Yussupov. While risks related to acid and the supply chain still exist, we feel our relations have stabilized, and we are on a positive path.

And from a sulfuric acid availability and procurement, what does that outlook look like?

I'm going to ask Cory Kos, who's our Kazakh expert, the latest on sulfuric acid.

We haven't seen any indication that an agreement has been signed to proceed with the construction of a plant, but they continue to state that they expect the plant to be operational by 2027. However, construction has not started, and no agreements have been finalized. Therefore, no solution is currently in place.

Okay, thanks. Important answers.

The next question comes from Alexander Pearce with BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Good morning, all. I have a follow-up question on Inkai. So Tim, you mentioned that you weren't expecting to get deliveries until, I think you said at least H2 this year. Is it fair to say that you think the deliveries are more likely to be weighted in the back end of the year, i.e., kind of Q4? And could you see a situation where actually there's any more delay to those deliveries?

Yes, I don't have any specific information. We know it's probably a second half of the year is what we said. And so, Alex, I really don't have any more specific timing on that yet. And as soon as we do, we'll let everybody know, but we're confident it will come in the second part of the year.

Okay. Thanks, Tim. And then maybe I can ask just a question on McArthur River. So can I just ask where you stand with some of the studies you're doing there for potential production upside? I know there's no mention of it in the MD&A this time. Are you still looking at the potential upside towards the line capacity levels? Thanks.

Yes, thanks, Alex. We have not made a decision to expand. As Grant has mentioned repeatedly, we are maintaining supply discipline and will not move forward until our contract book indicates that it is necessary. Therefore, we are not planning to produce more than 18 million pounds at McArthur River and Key Lake. Currently, Key Lake is on shutdown as we are performing our annual maintenance this month, which will result in slightly reduced production there. However, there has been no change to our plan of 18 million pounds at McArthur. We are still assessing ways to mitigate risks and improve operations in case we decide to increase production in the future, with a potential capacity of up to 25 million pounds. Everyone understands those additional 7 million pounds are likely the most valuable on the market, but for now, there are no changes planned.

Okay. Thanks, Tim.

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

Thank you very much, operator. And good morning, Tim and Grant. Thank you very much for the update today. There was an interesting comment in your MD&A, just noting that prices from fixed price contracts had increased. Can you provide any color in terms of the direction of travel relative to the current $80 per pound long-term price indicator? And would you describe the situation as one where the balance sheet shifting more towards fixed-price contracting?

Yes, there's a lot to consider in that question, Lawson. Let me approach it from a market perspective. When examining the interest in long-term contracts, some utilities prefer market-related contracts while others favor fixed ones, and this preference can shift depending on the cycle. For the utilities looking at our Slide 6, which shows 1.3 billion pounds of uranium, we face an unknown source against the $3.2 billion that needs to be purchased. This poses a significant risk for fuel buyers. We anticipate that buyers will want to fix prices as they recognize that prices need to rise significantly to encourage supply to enter the market. In a scenario where the price is fixed but is actually lower than market expectations, utilities may be hesitant to accept that risk. It’s critical to avoid being penalized for misjudging price volatility. This situation truly depends on the cycle and the specific risk metrics relevant to the utilities. For Cameco, as we mentioned in Q4 and continue to emphasize, we remain disciplined in this market. We require market-related exposure if we are to commit to long-term purchases and we seek that at floors and ceilings that acknowledge the structural gap ahead, rather than the softening we observed in the spot market during the first quarter of this year. We believe the current conditions do not reflect the appropriate pricing for long-term contracts that will start delivering in a few years and cover the structural deficit period. Therefore, we remain disciplined, seeking market-related exposure with favorable floors and ceilings. For utilities that understand the need to secure these supplies, we can still have productive discussions. However, for those wanting to lower the floors and ceilings due to current spot market softness, I should note that there's been some recent strengthening, but the difference between bid and ask prices makes it challenging for us to engage in meaningful conversations. It feels like we are at a turning point, with growing recognition that it's time to start contracting. We're noticing increased momentum around some RFPs, both on-market and off-market, particularly in bilateral discussions.

That's very helpful commentary. As a follow-up, I would like to get your perspective on the transportation and logistics challenges the industry might be facing today. This topic came up frequently at WNFC and hasn't been a focus at other recent conferences. Concerns raised included lingering effects from the pandemic, constraints related to the Panama Canal, and the reshuffling of Ocean and Alliances. Additionally, there are concerns regarding USTR Section 301. What are your thoughts on potential transportation bottlenecks, and are you experiencing any in your supply chains?

Lawson, yourself and others who have been dialing in and listening to us for a long time know that we have been warning about falling asleep on uranium for years. And we've been warning about it because we said, look, building new uranium supply is hard. It's not as easy as I will tell you in a feasibility study. Restarting assets that are already licensed and already permitted is hard, as you see from the efforts from some of the smaller producers to come back to the market. And we've always said this is a highly trade-dependent commodity. It is one where the vast majority of production occurs in nations where the supply risks are greater than the risk to demand. So in our industry, we tend to have long lead times on the transportation requirements. So for example, when somebody wants delivery, there's a nonbinding notice that's sent over a year in advance of delivery beginning to signal that it's time to start putting in place and the actual transportation commitments can be made. So unlike other commodities, we are not just in time for stumbling around and looking for transport options. Having said that, it is still challenging. The tariff overhang. The uncertainty around who owns the Panama Canal. The transportation logistics of establishing new channels like we saw in Central Asia. These are all challenges for the industry that are now adding to that getting rather full bucket of risks to supply. So I would watch the transportation piece. I wouldn't fall asleep on it. Cameco has never missed a delivery. We never will miss a delivery, but that doesn't mean others aren't going to struggle with the transportation challenges.

Thank you very much.

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

Good morning. I'm struck by last week's announcement of 10 new reactors from China, the $27 billion number that you alluded to. And in that context, how do you think of Westinghouse's relationship with China amidst the tariff and trade disputes we're having?

Thank you for the question, Bob. We're definitely paying close attention to the situation as well. China is a significant player in the nuclear space, having announced plans for 10 reactors each year for the past four years. If this continues, they could reach 100 reactors by 2030 and potentially 200 by 2040. This raises important questions about where the necessary fuel will come from to support these reactors and others around the globe. When we talk about optimism, durable demand, and a promising future, China's role is substantial. Westinghouse has established a relationship with China, particularly with the CAP 1000 reactors currently being built, which are based on Westinghouse technology. There are also ongoing agreements between Westinghouse and China concerning work on these units. Overall, I believe the relationship is very strong, and Cameco also maintains a positive relationship with China.

And is there an opportunity there where China doing more business with Westhouse helps balance out some of the trade balance? And what would the timing of that look like? If the announcement of the reactors hits April '27, when do those turn into feed or when do those turn into sort of capital commitments?

Yes, that's a great question. Your first question touches on a geopolitical issue that we've been facing in recent months concerning the relationships among China, Canada, the U.S., and the rest of the world. As you know, Canada has a new Prime Minister and government as of this week, so it will be interesting to see how their political dynamics with China evolve. However, on a business-to-business level, the relationship has been robust and longstanding. Let me ask Grant if he has anything to add.

Yes. One of the common threads to all of the tariff discussion and trade disruption is we want a better deal. And what we've discovered after spending a lot of time in Washington, a deal on energy is a really compelling story. So any time you have an opportunity for a U.S. business to expand and project U.S. energy strategy, it tends to be favorably well received. So we're delighted to see the CAP1000 become a really important part of China's new build. Westinghouse enjoys what Dan Littman and team call Phase 2 of their relationship with the Chinese. There are instrumentation and control contracts. There are fabrication contracts, which benefit the United States to be a participant in that. And also, let's just remind ourselves that for everybody out there who says we don't know how to build gigawatt scale reactors, the Chinese are building essentially the AP1000 in 60 months at a cost of about $2.5 billion per reactor. So the world knows how to do this, and it's done by starting and not stopping, continuing that momentum, getting to the Nth unit. So, I think there's two really important messages: One, an energy deal is always well received; and number two, we see the benefits of a nation that starts to build and continues to build in every country, the Western countries included, can certainly follow in those footsteps.

Very clear. Thank you.

The next question comes from Gordon Johnson with GLJ Research. Please go ahead.

Hey, gentlemen, thanks for taking the question. I have, I guess, a more general question. I have a lot of clients asking those. But can you guys talk about the extent to which your projected demand on your output is affecting your current investment in new exploration? And I ask because given the global slowdown in exploration we've seen over the past two years after Fukushima, you guys laid off a bunch of people, a number of people laid off. It seems like there's a big gap in the cycle. I'm just trying to figure out how you guys are planning for that?

Yes. Thanks, Gordon. So obviously, exploration is very important to our strategy. We just put a new Vice President in place. Alexandre Aubin is our new VP of Exploration. We continue our efforts. As we've said many times in the past, we've held onto through those lean years all of the best properties in the Athabasca Basin, and we continue to work them. We've been growing our exploration budget over the last few years. So yes, absolutely, exploration continues to be a very, very important part of our business. We don't stand up and brag too much about it; it's just something that we do. We try not to blow too hard on it. But we do have some very good projects.

Operator test, it's Tim Gitzel. Can you hear us?

I can hear you guys now. You guys have cut out a bit.

Okay. Sorry about that. Hopefully, you got the answer to our bottom-line exploration remain...

Yes. Operator, can you hear us?

Yes, you are coming in loud and clear now.

Okay. Thank you.

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

Hi, good morning. I have a question regarding the fuel services business. You experienced significant pricing improvement in the quarter compared to both the previous year and the previous quarter. This seems to be mainly due to contracts made in a better pricing environment. Can you provide some insight? Is this related to the product mix you were selling, and is there potential for an increase in your guidance considering the strong demand for certain services? Thank you.

I'm going to ask Heidi Shockey to provide some comments.

Yes, there were a couple of factors at play. We are seeing the gradual implementation of new contracts, which means older contracts are expiring and we are benefiting from improved pricing. In this quarter specifically, the timing of one contract that had a higher price was significant, rather than the mix of products we offered. The combination of contracts this quarter played a key role in our results.

As we look ahead, it's important to remember that our strategy focuses on contracting forward. If I refer to Slide 6 from Tim's comments or Slide 16 in the handout, that particular segment is the same for conversion as it is for uranium. There is no utility in the world that will be loading a fuel bundle in 2025 that needs to purchase uranium and conversion in that same year. We are always selling forward. In response to your question about what to expect, the historic pricing from the conversion business has not yet been realized by us. All of that improved pricing is ahead of us. You are starting to see the early stages of strong performance due to much stronger pricing in conversion, but there is certainly more to come. This is how we build our strategy, and you can see it being executed, which is another reason we are pleased with our position in the nuclear fuel cycle.

Great. Thanks. Maybe just a quick follow-up question for me. In the past, you guys have given great color on floors and ceilings. Can you just kind of give some color on where those sit right now in terms of your discussions?

Yes, I'm happy to address that. We remain quite persistent, Craig. As I mentioned in Q4, there is some connection between the spot market and the long-term market concerning market-related contracts. These are contracts that we do not attempt to price today but rather at the time of delivery in the future. However, many discussions tend to focus on that aspect. Operator, do we still have you?

I'm still there; you're kind of coming in and out on my line.

Okay. I'm not sure what's going on. The floors and ceilings, we orient around where the structural demand and supply is in the market on a forward basis. But no doubt, when you have primary producers bringing small volumes of production to the spot market and putting downward pressure on it or when you have a fund like a fund out of Central Asia that was being dissolved rather clumsily, it puts down or to where we should be with respect to floors and ceilings in contracts out into the future. So, we're still holding out for floors that are in the $70 escalated.

We have lost connection with our speakers. Please wait while we reconnect. The next question comes from Andrew Wong with RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Hey good morning. So aside from China, India, the other country with pretty ambitious nuclear energy plans and obviously, it's taking a little bit of time to get it going. But seems like they've taken some actions to speed that up recently. Can you just talk about that nuclear growth opportunity in India and the potential there for Cameco Westinghouse specifically? I recall a few years ago, there was a then AP1000 project that was shelved because of liability issues, but it seems like those issues might be getting addressed. So maybe just talk about that? Thanks.

Yes, thanks, Andrew. Your question was about India and some of the recent announcements. India has ambitious nuclear energy plans, and we have strong relations there. We've been supplying them since 2015 through Cameco, and our discussions continue. Hopefully, the political relationship between Canada and India will improve over time, but that hasn't affected our business-to-business interactions. From Cameco's perspective, we have a solid relationship with India and will play a significant role in meeting their future fuel needs. Westinghouse is also engaged, with teams working in India on prospective growth opportunities. I don't have any specific updates at the moment; I believe a site for Westinghouse units is still designated. So, while there's nothing concrete to report right now, we are still actively engaged, and India is set to be a major player in the nuclear market moving forward.

Okay, thank you. Maybe just another question. In your conversations with utility customers, you have a lot of those. How much of the inventory that's held by the physical funds come up in the conversation? And just curious from your perspective, is there still a view among the utilities that those pounds may be available in the future at some point? Or is there a better understanding that those accounts mostly aren't going to be available?

Hi Andrew, it's a bit mixed. You would have picked up some of that messaging in Montreal while you were there as well. I think we're in one of those markets where folks are looking at that structural deficit and then they're cleaning to hope of something. And one of that areas of hope is, well, maybe if you can get your hands on uranium that's already in a can and already in North America, well, that's my that's my hope that's going to bail me out from the fact that I haven't been contracting. So, we've seen a lot of what I might call noise around the SPET vehicle, for example, where we've seen a lot of noise around the yellowcake vehicle. And I would just say that it seems like it's noise. I haven't heard anything from either of those two that suggest they're not in it for the long run. But more importantly, those are almost irrelevant volumes now in the face of the structural deficit. I mean they couldn't even begin to plug a one-year gap just a few years out. So yes, there are some who point to it and say, well, this material must come to the market at some point. I'd tell you, we worry about it less and less and less every day.

That's great. Thank you.

This concludes the question-and-answer session. Ladies and gentlemen, we'd like to apologize for the clarity of the audio. I would like to turn the conference back over to Tim Gitzel for any closing remarks.