Thank you, operator, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to Cameco's third quarter conference call. I would like to acknowledge that we are calling in from both Toronto and Saskatoon today. Toronto was on Treaty 13 territory in the traditional territory of many nations, including the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabe, Chippewa, Haudenosaunee, and the Windet Peoples, and is now home to many diverse First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples. Our corporate office in Saskatoon, which is on Treaty 6 territory, is the traditional territory of the Cree people and homeland of the Métis. With us in Toronto are Tim Gitzel, CEO; Grant Isaac, President and COO; and Heidi Shockey, SVP and CFO; Rachelle Girard, SVP and Chief Corporate Officer is joining from our Saskatoon headquarters. I'll hand it over to Tim momentarily to speak to the strong financial results we've delivered through the first nine months of the year, which have kept Cameco in a solid position amid growing momentum in nuclear markets. Tim will also touch on the recently announced agreement for the U.S. government to purchase Westinghouse reactors, which is expected to drive significant value to Westinghouse to Cameco, setting up the Westinghouse reactors as the leading technology in the global deployment of gigawatt-scale nuclear. After, we will open up to your questions. Today's call will be approximately one hour, concluding at 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time. Our goal is to be open and transparent with communication, and we want to respect everyone's time and conclude the call by 9:00 a.m. Therefore, should we not get to your questions during this call or if you would like to get into detailed financial modeling questions about results, we will be happy to respond to any follow-up inquiries. There are a few ways you can contact us with additional questions. You can reach out to the contacts provided in our news release. You can submit a question through the Send Us A Message link in the Investors 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 file on our website at cameco.com. Today's conference call is open to all members of the investment community, including the media. During the Q&A session, please limit yourself to two questions and 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. 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 need 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 and MD&A for more information about the factors that could cause these different results and the assumptions we have made. I will now turn it over to our CEO, Tim Gitzel.

Well, thank you, Cory, and hello, everyone. We appreciate you taking the time to join our discussion today. Hope everyone is doing well and has had the opportunity to enjoy some quality time with friends and family over the past few months. The baseball fans out there, what a ride it was for the Toronto Blue Jays and the L.A. Dodgers in the World Series this past week. As Cory said, we're actually calling in from Toronto, Canada today, and I can tell you the air is still a little heavy. Even though the home team Blue Jays didn't come out with the trophy as the only major league baseball team here in Canada, they certainly gave us all a thrilling run and plenty to be proud of. We're here in Eastern Canada for this call because we had the opportunity as a Board and a management team to head south to Georgia yesterday, where we took a tour of Vogtle Units 3 and 4, which are Westinghouse AP1000 technology and the two newest reactors in the U.S. Seeing that technology in action was a powerful reminder of what's possible when innovation, policy, and industry align. Speaking of alignment, I'm delighted to start today by touching on the recent announcement of the transformative partnership between Cameco, Brookfield, and the U.S. government and Westinghouse, marking a major milestone for the company and for the entire sector. Backed by at least USD 80 billion in planned investments in Westinghouse nuclear reactors, we expect this milestone will accelerate the global deployment of Westinghouse's reactor technology, strengthening energy security, revitalizing domestic supply chains, and creating significant growth opportunities for both Westinghouse and for Cameco. For the nuclear industry, this long-term commitment to new nuclear is a clear sign that the growth story continues to build momentum. It's not just about energy security; it's about powering the infrastructure behind AI, data centers, and hard-to-abate sectors with the next generation of clean, reliable electricity. For Westinghouse, the partnership highlights clear support for its best-in-class reactor technology from the nation that hosts the largest nuclear fleet and has the most significant experience in operating nuclear reactors. Support from the U.S. bolsters confidence for the global jurisdictions that are currently advancing toward AP1000 deployment. And for those countries still deciding on a technology for their nuclear build-out, this partnership should provide an incredible amount of confidence that the Westinghouse designs are the technology of choice. For us at Cameco, the agreement adds significant support to the industry growth story. It's positive for the outlook for nuclear across North America and globally and therefore, positive for Cameco's long-term contracting and production strategy. If it wasn't already clear from the press release this week, let me reiterate that the agreement signed with the U.S. government is about support for nuclear energy and Westinghouse reactor technology. That's a great development for Cameco and our stakeholders, thanks to our investment in Westinghouse. We directly addressed some of the misinformation we've seen published in the last few days. U.S. government partnership interest does not extend to Cameco's core business. Although our uranium products and fuel services are certainly well positioned to support the build-out and long-term operation of the global fleet as it grows. Partnership strengthens our footprint to create meaningful value for our stakeholders, but the participation interest by the U.S. government is only focused on the Westinghouse business. It's a rare opportunity to combine policy momentum, proven technology, and commercial scale. And we believe it positions both Cameco and Westinghouse to deliver sustainable growth, ongoing innovation, and energy leadership for decades to come. As we look ahead, it's clear that today, nuclear energy is not just maintaining relevance as the global energy landscape evolves; it's undergoing an expansion and meaningful transformation. In that transformation, the entire fuel cycle is now receiving more significant attention than ever, not just the front end of uranium mining. From conversion and enrichment to fuel fabrication and reactor deployment, the momentum is real, and we're frequently seeing new promises of future supply and capacity within each stage. Unfortunately, a compelling narrative alone won't turn a turbine. Execution is key, and Cameco is in an exceptional position to execute and deliver value. With decades of experience operating unique and complex assets, we play a critical role in the long-term health of the nuclear industry. That experience gives us the ability to be selective and strategic, committing unencumbered productive capacity under long-term contracts that align with customer needs. Our approach ensures downside protection while preserving exposure to future market price improvements. It's a disciplined strategy that balances risk and opportunity, built on trust performance and a deep understanding of how to build value across market cycles. This demand continues to grow, driven by energy security, decarbonization, and digital infrastructure; we're confident Cameco, with assets that are critical to the industry, is well positioned to support the next chapter of nuclear growth. Turning to a discussion centered on those assets, I want to run through a few brief highlights for the quarter and year to date. I'll first note that the update we shared in late August regarding our McArthur River and Key Lake operations, where development delays in 2025 resulted in a decreased annual production forecast. We previously expected 18 million pounds of McArthur/Key and we now expect packaged production of between 14 million and 15 million pounds on a 100% basis. Depending on operational performance at the Cigar Lake Mine in the fourth quarter, we may be able to make up some of the shortfall from McArthur, but we do not expect to make up all of it. We've therefore reduced our consolidated production outlook for 2025, and we now expect our share of production to be up to 20 million pounds of uranium. Remember that while our mine production is expected to be lower, our supply sourcing flexibility is one of our many competitive advantages. At JV Inkai, which, as a committed purchase, is among our sources, production is going well. We continue to expect production of 8.3 million pounds, of which our purchase allocation is 3.7 million pounds. A portion of that allocation is currently in transit to Canada, including about 900,000 pounds that had remained a JV Inkai from our 2024 purchase allocation. In our Fuel Services division, our annual production outlook remains on track, totaling between 13 million and 14 million kgU of combined fuel services products. To meet our sales commitments and deliver full-cycle value, we plan years in advance and always provide for flexibility in how we source the supply we need, including production, inventory, product loans in both market and long-term purchases. This quarter reflects our flexibility as we adjusted a number of the supply levers that we have at our disposal, including our planned market purchases and product loans to help offset the impact of the production changes. We will continue to balance all available sources with a focus on value creation, risk management, and sustainability. Moving to Cameco's financial results. After a solid first nine months, we're in a position for a strong finish to the year, supported by the higher expected deliveries in our uranium and fuel services segments in the fourth quarter and a solid quarter for Westinghouse. Key contributor to the positive performance year-to-date was the increase of over USD 170 million in our share of Westinghouse's revenue recorded in the second quarter. While quarterly uranium and fuel services sales volumes were lower overall, we saw continued improvement in average realized prices in both segments. As we always highlight, quarterly results will vary due to the timing of our customers' requirements, and it's our annual expectations that matter most. As I said earlier, those expectations continue to point to higher deliveries in the fourth quarter. Looking at our financial position, we've remained disciplined in managing liquidity to support our operations and sourcing decisions. Our discipline enables us to deliver on our strategy, take advantage of opportunities, and self-manage risk. We're maintaining a strong balance sheet, guided by our investment-grade rating and supported by strong cash flow generation. So from a financial perspective, we are in excellent shape with $779 million in cash and cash equivalents, $1 billion in total debt, and a $1 billion undrawn revolving credit facility. Subsequent to the quarter, in October, we received USD 171.5 million from Westinghouse related to the Korean reactor build in the Czech Republic, which was announced in the second quarter. With our improving financial performance and the receipt of the additional distribution from Westinghouse, our Board of Directors elected to accelerate our plan to grow the dividend and have declared a 2025 annual dividend of $0.24 per common share. These are incredibly exciting times for this industry, and the outlook is becoming stronger with each passing day. That strength is reflected in Cameco's improving performance as we navigate challenges and seize opportunities. It's about more than just supplying fuel. It's about enabling a future energy system that is secure, reliable, and carbon-free. We remain focused on strong partnerships and long-term value creation, enhancing energy and national security objectives and advancing nuclear as a cornerstone of the clean energy transition. We are not just participating in the energy transition; we're shaping it. Before we conclude, I'd like to highlight a couple of changes to our executive team. Our Chief Marketing Officer, David Doerksen, has announced his intention to retire at the end of the first quarter of 2026. It has been an absolute pleasure to work with David during his 28-year career with Cameco, over which he has held senior positions in corporate strategy, corporate development, treasury, and marketing. On behalf of the Board and management team, I'd like to thank David for his significant contributions not only to Cameco, but to the entire nuclear industry and for sharing his deep industry knowledge and expertise over the years. We wish him the absolute best in his retirement. Beginning January 1, 2026, David will assume the role of Senior Adviser Marketing until his retirement date of March 31, 2026. Lisa Aitken, currently Vice President, Marketing has been with Cameco's Marketing Group for nearly 20 years. She will be appointed Senior Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer effective January 1, 2026. I'm pleased to welcome Lisa with her strong leadership and the market experience that she brings to the senior executive team. Tim Sherkey, currently Senior Director in the marketing group, will move into Lisa's previous role of Vice President, Marketing. So thank you all for joining us today, both on the line and via webcast. We appreciate your continued interest, and we'll now open the floor to your questions.

The first question today comes from Ralph Profiti with Stifel.

Tim or Grant, on the issue of the standby product loan facilities, which are part of the supply levers, are those discussions as flexible? And is that material as accessible as in the past, say, the last one or two years? And what can you tell us about the timing of when those pounds need to be repaid?

Thanks for the question. I'll get Grant to handle it.

Yes, Ralph, I'm just going to use a word you did, which is flexible. We don't have a standard arrangement. It differs by counterparty. Availability continues to be strong, as demonstrated by the adjustments to our outlook. Production was down, but our market purchases didn't go up. And then in terms of what the actual repayment looks like, that just differs from counterparty to counterparty, and we just always aim to create the most amount of value under our contract portfolio for doing it. So we've a really important tool in our toolbox. I can't emphasize that enough. It is a very unique incumbent advantage that Cameco has that others don't, an advantage we continue to take full use of when required. And ultimately, it comes from the fact that you can only store uranium at a few places. And we just happen to have a couple of those licensed facilities, and therefore, it gives us a tremendous advantage.

Okay. And I have a follow-up that's sort of on a different topic. The U.S. seems to be taking a much more of a leadership role when we think about the demand outlook. And do you think that we're close to a market where chemical production decisions may be viewed differently on pricing dynamics, if that material is sourced from within the U.S. versus non-U.S. production? Or do you still see this as a one-price homogeneous market?

That's a great question. I would say this market is already recognizing the value of established producers, especially in safe sovereign jurisdictions. To illustrate, let's look at the long-term price of uranium, which is around USD 84 per pound. It's important to note that this long-term price only reflects information from those willing to fix a portion of their forward sales, as market-related contracts do not influence this price. At Cameco, we can achieve a price higher than today's long-term average if we were to fix part of our supply moving forward. Therefore, if the long-term price is an average, it suggests that some are fixing below $84, indicating that Cameco can secure premiums in the market. This pricing dynamic is already taking shape, although certain jurisdictions may need to offer discounts. Unfortunately, price reporters tend to highlight the lowest offers instead of where the demand truly lies, which is a characteristic of our market. While this construct is improving, it clearly shows that stronger pricing exists not only for the origin of the material but also for the supplier's quality. When working with counterparts, they are aware that Cameco has never missed a uranium delivery, which is a significant advantage.

The next question comes from Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs.

Condolences on the Blue Jays on a great series. But on the flip side, kudos on the Westinghouse, Cameco, Brookfield, U.S. government deal. I think a lot of folks are trying to hone in on some of the details here. Not sure what you can share here, but I'll do my best. With regards to the sort of $80 billion agreement here with the government, I guess, there's a lot of questions just around how the mechanics are going to work. It sounds like the government will be responsible for ultimately reaching the FID go, no-go decision? And then maybe thoughts around including the required IPO type of event, if that were to come to fruition between now and January 29, and also what the 20% equity stake from the government and the $17.5 billion of cash distributions. Just maybe walk us through some of the mechanics of how those pieces came together. But just starting from the top of the funnel, maybe first, just government FID, what's involved there? What are the milestones between now and then?

Brian, I want to express how thrilled we are to partner with Brookfield. We formalized our agreement about a week ago on Tuesday, October 28. I met with several CEOs from U.S. utilities yesterday, and we have been eager to initiate nuclear construction in the United States and globally. I believe this agreement allows us to do that. Grant and Dominic have worked closely with Brookfield and the U.S. government to make this happen. Grant, could you provide an overview of what we know so far? We're still in the early stages, and details are being finalized. Please share what you can with us, Grant.

Yes. What this reflects, obviously, is a very clear signal from the U.S. government that it is time. We were, I think, struggling as an industry in the United States to find lift-off conditions. What is going to get reactors going and not just a first two pack, but a meaningful order of reactors that would stimulate sufficiently the supply chain in the U.S. and quite frankly, globally. And I think the U.S. government just recognized that for it to have energy security, for it to take advantage of the tremendous technology that is the AP1000, it would need to be a bigger investment than just sort of the next two. So what the U.S. government has done is committed to step in and be that stimulant, if you will. Their commitment is to facilitate the financing. And just on that point, I would say we are assured there are a number of options that are available to the U.S. government in order to facilitate that financing. That ranges from direct support through known structures like perhaps the Department of Energy's loan program office, all the way through to project financing dollars that may come from other jurisdictions. We're assured that there is a lot of interest in investing this minimum $80 billion in order to begin the process. The next step then is to figure out what an order looks like, when are we at FID? And that is part of the next steps of coming to a definitive agreement. We've got a lot of things to work out. We are just absolutely delighted by the fact that this is entirely performance-based. And in order for the U.S. government to meet its vesting interest in this potential partnership, they have to deliver, and they have to deliver fast. And we just think that's a wonderful alignment for Westinghouse and the U.S. government and therefore, for Brookfield and Cameco with the U.S. government. After that, if we see FID on this $80 billion minimum worth of spend, stimulating the supply chain, getting the reactor technology going, identifying sites, removing any of the impediments to approvals, licenses, and permits, then the U.S. government will have gone a long way to meet its vesting condition. And that $80 billion then allows it to consider participating in the Westinghouse business. I'm just going to draw a point on that. The Westinghouse business only. It's not a participation interest in either Cameco or Brookfield. It is only in Westinghouse. And the mechanics of that are very simple. Westinghouse is worth a lot more today than when Brookfield and Cameco acquired it. And that's recognized in that first claim of $17.5 billion of distributions. They go to the current owners. That is the value that we have been building, and we have been investing in. The U.S. government support then would participate beyond that. And so if you use the example of a $30 billion underwritten value at the time of an IPO decision, you have the potential for the U.S. government to be an 8% holder in Westinghouse. The difference between $17.5 billion and $30 billion, which, by the way, seems like a very reasonable participation. That means they have performed. That means they have invested $80 billion. That means reactors are under construction in the United States, which are then creating a platform for a global deployment of this leading AP1000 technology. And I always think of it as that means the pie is growing, and everybody's slice has just gotten a heck of a lot bigger. So this is set up to be a performance-based, fully aligned partnership designed to create energy security in the United States and be the platform for energy security elsewhere. A lot still to be decided, source of funding, site selection. Obviously, we have definitive agreements to complete. But I just want everybody to understand the main takeaway is the United States has decided it is time to start building AP1000s, and we are very excited about that.

Super comprehensive. Maybe just a second one, and I'll pass it on a bit more mundane on the pricing side. we've seen term pricing up $4 a pound or so over the past couple of months for U308 after being flat for most of the year. Be curious what you're seeing in terms of contracting activity, maybe expectations here into year-end, given what's been a relatively soft volume environment year-to-date? And then your general thoughts around the appetite amongst customers for higher floor ceilings given these recent moves in term pricing?

We maintain a positive outlook on the direction of uranium prices, emphasizing the importance of supply discipline. We are not inclined to increase production at this time because we believe prices should ultimately reflect fundamental production economics more accurately than they currently do. I reference the World Nuclear Association's recent fuel report, which suggests a widening gap between projected demand—bolstered by the recent U.S. government partnership—and actual supply. Additionally, we believe that this report significantly underrepresents demand, as it does not account for additional needs related to AI in nuclear applications. Crucially, the fundamental investment potential in uranium is not contingent on AI advancements; it hinges on the operational reactor fleet and those already under construction. Moreover, we consider current supply estimations to be overly optimistic, as the fuel market report includes projections that are unlikely to materialize at an $84 long-term price. Given these fundamentals, we believe it is essential to stay disciplined and allow the market to reveal more demand. This demand should, in turn, drive prices higher, which will encourage the next phase of material needed to satisfy that demand. For an established uranium producer with top-tier assets, the current market conditions appear very promising. However, the term market is not fully developed yet, partly due to a greater focus on downstream services, particularly in enrichment, compared to uranium itself. On the supply side, one significant challenge for uranium demand is the overblown promises from projects that have not delivered previously, creating uncertainty for fuel buyers. This leads to hesitation among them regarding major uranium purchases. Ultimately, the inability of these projects to deliver is beneficial as it may incite panic buying, potentially resulting in even higher prices down the line. We believe now is the time to maintain our disciplined approach, which is precisely what we are doing.

The next question comes from Alexander Pearce with BMO.

So you touched on the Westinghouse partnership. Obviously, it does look now like the pipeline is accelerating in terms of new builds. Maybe you can just touch on how Westinghouse is set up right now in terms of capacity for new build projects and what kind of investments do you think need to be made in the business, obviously, to deliver what could be quite a sizable change in new builds?

Well, Alex, obviously, even before this announcement, we had a healthy pipeline of projects. We were just at Vogtle yesterday to do the last two that were finished in the U.S. But if you look around the world, there are AP1000s being built today in countries in Eastern Europe that we've been working with that plan to build, and I can't think of a whole lot of countries around the world that aren't looking at new nuclear build and AP1000 as part of the build-out. And so this has just added an accelerant, as Grant said, lighter fluid to the desire to build new AP1000s. And so on the Westinghouse side, Grant, you can talk about the Energy Systems Group.

Yes. The key thing to delivering on this kind of vision, Alex. And like Tim said, we were already in flight starting to move forward the pull in new build, the Bulgaria new build, participating in the Czech new build. There's important Westinghouse equipment that goes into that. At the heart of this, our three simple concepts. Number one is standardized. Number two is sequence. Number three is simplify. If we get that right, it's not clear what the boundary condition is or how much you can put in the pipeline. If you go back to the build-out in the '60s and '70s, you had a situation where Canada was bringing on a reactor a year. The United States was bringing on seven reactors a year. France was bringing on eight reactors a year. And of course, now we're seeing the Chinese starting 10 reactors a year. So if you standardize your sequence and you simplify it, it's not really clear that there's a boundary condition on doing that. If you just look at Westinghouse today, there is capacity to start a number of reactors as long as those long lead items are flowing and you're not doing a shotgun start on every program and you're sequencing it properly, you can then start to build up that supply chain, that stimulated supply chain, that allows you to lever to obviously a new outcome or a higher level of orders. We're not there yet. But I'm going to go back to the comments I made about the U.S. government partnership. The key to the $80 billion investment was the understanding that it's not sufficient just to start with the next two. You have to start with a bigger order. That bigger order is what creates the critical mass to get the supply chain going. And then once that's going, we will understand better what are the investments that need to be made in order to bring that along. But we feel very comfortable that Westinghouse is in a position to start two packs a year and put that into the system as long as we standardize, sequence and simplify.

Okay. Maybe I can just ask a question about conversion now. Obviously, you've mentioned that the interest is increasing in the rest of the fuel cycle too. Is this the right time to restart conversion capacity at Springfields? Or is there also additional upside potential in your Canadian operations?

Yes. Conversion is an intriguing market, and it reflects what is entering the uranium sector. The decision to bring new capacity back, like at Springfield, is not influenced by price, which is currently at historic levels. There are likely a few utilities worldwide that might support the restart of Springfield at a premium to today's historic price, but they prefer short-term contracts. Utilities are quite strategic; they aim to boost capacity in the market before adjusting prices when more supply is available. If we were in their position, we would do the same as fuel buyers. Therefore, it's essential for us to have a balance of suitable pricing with appropriate contract durations. We would like to see a longer-term commitment for restarting locations like Springfield. A good example is when Constellation chose to revive the Crane Clean Energy Center at Three Mile Island; they opted for a 20-year contract with Microsoft that was above market rates to facilitate the infrastructure restart, rather than a short-term agreement. The nuclear fuel cycle should be viewed similarly. To restart infrastructure that is currently inactive, we need both pricing and contract terms that support this capacity. From the uranium sector, one important takeaway is that you only have one opportunity to introduce new capacity to the market. We're hearing some questionable claims, like people stating they will contract for three years and then renew at higher prices, but that approach is flawed because it leads to competition with your own existing capacity. In this market, where long-term value is crucial, both pricing and contract duration are necessary. Currently, pricing for conversion is favorable, but the contract terms are not yet ideal. However, I am optimistic that we will reach that point soon.

The next question comes from Andrew Wong with REC Capital Markets.

The U.S. government partnership involves at least $80 billion in investments, which could support 8 to 10 AP1000 reactors. The phrase 'at least' suggests there may be potential for more. Grant, your earlier comments connect to the long-term growth opportunities here. The overarching goal for the U.S. and other nations is to triple nuclear capacity. Is it possible for the U.S. government to support 20 or 30 or even more reactors? Has the U.S. government partnership led to discussions with other potential partners regarding a larger expansion?

Well, Andrew, that’s a great question. We've been engaging with all the utilities in the U.S. about nuclear energy for years, and this topic gained momentum earlier this year. In fact, on May 23, the President issued executive orders to kick off the construction of 10 new nuclear plants by 2030, which we are actively working on. There's a strategic plan for this initiative, aiming for about 400 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2050, indicating the administration's serious commitment. The recent partnership we established with Brookfield and the U.S. government is a clear sign of progress. Yesterday, Grant and I spoke to various U.S. utilities, and they expressed great enthusiasm, asking how they can get involved. There's a lot to accomplish in the coming days and weeks, as we need to solidify details on this initiative, collaborate with the utilities, and start moving forward. In response to your question, yes, we are just beginning. The 94 units that Grant mentioned were successfully developed in the past, and this administration, along with these utilities, is determined to replicate that success, as it is essential for the economy.

Andrew, we did use the term minimum, and you see that throughout the agreement. I like to think about this as the stimulant for launch conditions in the United States. It is absolutely reasonable to assume that once financing is arranged and permitting and licensing is approved and long lead items are ordered under this structure, the order book among the traditional utility base, both within the United States and beyond, is going to grow because this is at the heart of eliminating what the main barrier was, which is that next of a kind, being that next two pack or the next two pack after that. We never had a problem engaging people for five, six and beyond. It was just starting the process, and the U.S. government has stepped in to overcome that really big hurdle to being the next of a kind, the next up. It's promising a bigger investment than I think anybody was anticipating, and we do expect that it will create some followership. There may be other countries interested in foreign direct investment in the United States that might want to partner in a very similar fashion. We've seen early indications of a willingness to engage in this kind of project financing for critical infrastructure at a time when the U.S. government is prepared to support the leading gigawatt scale technology. So we didn't do this as a deal that now we're done with energy systems. We did this as the deal to kick start the very exciting opportunity for Energy Systems, which, as everybody remembers, we essentially valued at zero when we acquired Westinghouse. So the upside to the acquisition case is enormous.

That's great. Now, switching over to enrichment, GLE recently achieved TRL-6 and had it independently verified. What are the next steps from here? What does the TRL-6 demonstration indicate about the economics of GLE? And does this mark the beginning of Cameco's option to increase its ownership stake in GLE?

Yes. Good question. I would characterize TRL-6 a little bit differently. And this is a structure that goes all the way to technology readiness level 9, and we're at 6. And 6 means that we can verifiably ensure that we can enrich uranium to the nuclear reliability level, that 99.9% six sigma level of reliability. So effectively, it means the technology risk is removed from GLE. Levels 7, 8, and 9 are where you prove up that project risk can be minimized. So there's still more work to do. Ultimately, we wouldn't have pushed it to TRL-6 if we didn't think there was an economic opportunity. You continue to evaluate that as you go. But now the real attention is taking a verifiable technology and figuring out the project delivery of it. It's an important stage in the nuclear industry because, as we talked about with conversion and just talked about with uranium, you sell this capacity forward under long-term contract. You don't build an enrichment plant and then start knocking on people's doors and trying to sell enrichment supply because, just like uranium, just like conversion, there's no in-year demand for this stuff. So building it for spot market exposure is about the stupidest thing you could do. So what you want to do is start building your capacity into long-term contracts. TRL-6 is a really important milestone because now we can engage more meaningfully with utilities about the support case for GLE, and we've removed the technology risk. Yes, there's still some project risk in it, but we've removed the technology risk. So it really is an important milestone. It absolutely we're proud of the team. We're proud of their achievement. And we continue to believe that this is a world that wants not only supplier diversification and enrichment but technology diversification and wants it from a proven reliable supplier like Cameco.

Next question comes from Bob Brackett with Bernstein Research.

Before October 28, you all in Westinghouse had laid out a fairly clear contracting framework around capturing 25% to 40% of the plant cost with EBITDA margins of 10% to 20%. I note you've repeated that in your investor deck. Is that a stale framework? Or should we continue to think about using that as the framework?

We are continuing to use that as the framework, subject to the finalization of definitive agreements with the United States, subject to finalization of securing what that financing package is going to look like, where it's going to come from and subject to the magnitude of initial long lead item orders. Why I think that framework remains useful. I may go back to something I said earlier, which is the key to delivering new nuclear at the gigawatt scale is to standardize the sequence and to simplify. So even if we pull forward the long lead items on a number of critical nuclear components, you still want to sequence the reactor builds accordingly, much like the United Arab Emirates did partnering with the Koreans on the Barakah site, for example, much like Bruce Power and OPG sequenced the refurbishments, the major component replacements in Ontario. So it is still a very good framework to use, subject to figuring out exactly how we're going to bind this agreement with the U.S. government and the flow and the rate at which the financing is coming.

The next question comes from Craig Hutchison with TD Cowen.

I just wanted to circle back on the partnership with the U.S. government. Obviously, congratulations, a huge deal to see. Is the expectation that the U.S. government will own these reactors longer term? Are they just financing them if they are owning them longer term? Is there a possibility at some point they could sell these to utilities? Just want to try to understand that. And then maybe as a follow-up question. I know it may be a difficult question to ask, but if the government is spearheading the financing and the permitting, can you give us any kind of rough goalpost in terms of how long you think it would take to permit the new AP1000 in the U.S.?

Yes, two really big questions there. I characterize this in answer to an earlier question as really being a catalyst. The U.S. government stepping in and saying, it is time. It's time to get going. So I think we have to have a range of options in mind, one that goes from the U.S. government simply financing somebody else's build, own and operate to the U.S. government doing its own build, own, operate, or something in between where it's build, own, and then transfer to a utility. I think all options are on the table because the driver here is to get 24-hour baseload carbon-free electrons onto the market as soon as possible in order to meet the onshoring demand and meet the AI demand. So I think there's going to be a number of structures, which is going to make for a very exciting part of this project figuring out how to structure it. It's a little bit tied to your second question, which is, how should we think about permitting? Remember, one of the executive orders back on May 23 actually spoke to using federal lands to deploy new nuclear and doing that under a federal exemption or federal domain exemption. So there could be possibilities of accelerated licensing and permitting or we could take a page out of the DOE lift-off report from last year and simply look to sites that already have pads that are approved for large nuclear power plants but weren't built on as a consequence of the slowdown after Three Mile Island. So I guess what I'm trying to say, Craig, is there's a lot of optionality here. But what was holding everything up was who was going to finance that next of a kind. And that's what's been unlocked with this deal. But I think if there are eight plants representing four large nuclear power plants as the first initial launch, there could be four different commercial structures to go along with it. And that's just the reality that we're all getting prepared for and designing for and figuring out how to bring the right partnerships and the right coordination together to achieve that.

Okay, perfect. And I guess the AP300 could also be part of the mix, correct?

It absolutely could. One of the most appealing aspects of the AP300 is that it is part of an AP ecosystem. For utilities considering new nuclear options, the idea of having a similar or the same instrumentation and control environment, along with the same fuel and fuel handling setup, essentially means that up to 85% or 90% of the supply chain is identical. This creates a strong business case, especially since we are supporting that ecosystem with the construction of AP1000. Our main focus is on AP1000 due to the high demand, but we have always maintained that the optimal way to market an AP300 is to first begin building AP1000s.

The next question comes from Gordon Johnson with GLJ Research.

I just want to revisit, I know there's been a lot of questions about the deal with the U.S. government, but I just want to ask maybe the question from a different angle. So looking at what AREVA did roughly eight years ago when it spun out its fuel cycle business. And then looking at your and Brookfield, 49% ownership of Westinghouse. In the deal you announced in the U.S., clearly, you're not getting the $80 billion check upfront. But clearly, it looks like every AP1000 built in the U.S. directly benefits your downstream earnings, fuel fabrication, service parts, etc. So is it possible that you guys could potentially look to spin out Westinghouse, given the interest and hype around AI and the potential risk further down the line of the U.S. bill? And then I have a follow-up.

I agree with the points you've made. When we acquired Westinghouse, we emphasized its alignment with our strategy because we prefer strategic, Tier 1 assets that are proven, scarce, and mission-critical. Westinghouse possessed these assets, particularly in fuel, which complemented our existing operations at McArthur River, Cigar Lake, and Key Lake. This acquisition effectively combined some of the best nuclear fuel assets in a joint venture that we greatly value. We were particularly interested in Energy Systems due to the AP1000 reactor, which has a solid design, locked-in fuel, and reduced licensing and regulatory risks thanks to Southern Company's experience in building two of these reactors. This left us primarily with project risk. Westinghouse had all the characteristics we were looking for, and as we expanded Energy Systems, it also bolstered our core business. This means that, similar to our partnership with the U.S. government, we can enhance our demand for our central business, which is advantageous and gives us greater control. We're focused on ensuring that there isn't any trapped value for our shareholders with Westinghouse. There is notable interest in investing in Westinghouse itself, but Cameco might not be the best vehicle for that; Brookfield could potentially be better suited. We want to avoid any trapped value in the collection of assets we’ve assembled for shareholder benefit. Hence, we're keeping all options open. The partnership agreement doesn't compel us to divest from Westinghouse in 2029. We're not obligated to sell any shares, but if Westinghouse's valuation is high when that time arrives, we may consider it. We will evaluate all possibilities to optimize benefits for Cameco shareholders.

That's very helpful. I have one last question. I would like to know when the market will start to see serious contracting from utilities. What indicators should we be looking for, as those will signal an increase in U308 prices? What signs should we anticipate regarding long-term contracting from utilities from your perspective?

Thanks, Gordon. Grant?

Ours is a market that has, time and time again, proven that it does not respond to forward forecasts. It responds to the reality of the contracting environment that it's in. Conversion is at historic pricing because a couple of years ago, so much conversion capacity has been shut in that when utilities went into the market following the Russian invasion of Ukraine looking for conversion, it was not there. Uranium has not discovered that yet for two main reasons. One, you have a group of uranium producers who have come back to the market, small volumes, but did not do the hard work of building homes for that supply and stuck it into the front end of the market, into the spot market, which then allowed traders, intermediaries to compete for some of the long-term demand that was coming into the business. In other words, nobody has shown up yet to contract in uranium and discovered that there isn't a willing counterparty and in some cases, a counterparty willing to discount. On the other hand, there are utilities that are looking at the supply stack. They're looking at the promises of big supply out into the future, and they're saying they're willing to take the chance. So this was my point earlier, Gordon, that there are some utilities who are actually believing some of the definitive feasibility studies that are out there, and they're looking out into a window, and they're saying there's going to be a lot of producers who haven't done any contracting today, they're going to build big assets, and then they're going to be flopping around the market trying to place it. So I might as well take advantage of that. That has not been proven to be a failed strategy yet. So if we want the uranium price to reset like we have in other parts of the supply chain, everybody who's invested in a producer who is undisciplined, who is over-promotional and sensational needs to tell that management team to understand how the market works and that they're not helping the formation of price in this market.

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

Can I just fit in a question on McArthur River? And just how would you handicap the potential from McArthur development delays to then fall into 2026 and impact '26 production? And then similar vein, but just looking at Cigar Lake as a potential offset, you've highlighted the potential to produce up to an additional 1 million pounds from Cigar Lake versus the original 2025 guidance of 18 million pounds, 100% basis. What are the factors driving that? And could that also show up in 2026?

Thanks. Great question. Grant was just up there. Grant, of course, is our Chief Operating Officer, in addition to everything else he does. So you just visited McArthur and had a look underground.

Yes, I did. I was up there, McArthur, Key, Cigar, Rabbit. And Lawson, it just was a good reminder for me, just how extraordinary our assets are and how strong our incumbent position is and how grateful we are that we don't have a greenfield project that we have to try to build right now because it's difficult. It's difficult to build new. It's difficult to execute on that. And all of that will eventually be reflected in uranium pricing. It's too early for us to put out our guidance for next year. We normally do that in our Q4. So that will come out in February. When you think about McArthur River or you think about Cigar Lake or any of our assets, you can never divorce our operating decisions from our strategy. And as I've said a number of times already today, our strategy is that we remain in supply discipline because, as the last question reflected, this market has not even brought replacement rate demand into the uranium segment yet. So we're not going to front run that. That means we're not going to make heroic decisions with our operating assets when the market is not yet valuing it. So we produce for our committed sales. We look at McArthur River, we see that there have been some challenges setting up the mining areas, not mining, but setting up the mining areas. It's complicated mining. It requires a certain amount of freeze infrastructure before we go in and develop underneath that region infrastructure. So there have been delays setting it up, and we're just in a position of supply discipline. We're not going to take any heroic actions. We are just going to pace this out at the pace that the market is signaling. Whether that affects 2026 or not, it's too early to tell, but it would require a change of our strategy, which would require more demand in the market for us to do anything different than we're currently doing now. A responsible uranium producer has a strategy to mine, mill, and market uranium as a united strategy, not you just produce as much as you can, and you hope to God the market is there for it. That is a failed strategy.

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

Well, thank you, operator, and thanks to everybody who joined us today. We appreciate it. As Cory noted in the intro, if you have any detailed follow-up questions related to our third quarter results or any questions that we didn't get to answer today, please send those in. We'll be absolutely happy to address those directly. Just to wrap it up, we're seeing continued momentum through pro-nuclear government policies, energy-intensive industries taking action to decarbonize and public sentiment around nuclear that is increasingly positive and better informed. These trends point to a global convergence. Nuclear is essential for safe, constant secure and reliable power, and Cameco is exceptionally well-placed to deliver on the promises of nuclear. So thanks again, everybody, for joining us today. Stay safe and healthy, and have a great day. Thanks.

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