Good day and thank you for standing by. Welcome to IREN Q2 FY26 results. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question and answer session. To ask a question during the session, you'll need to press star 11 on your telephone. You will then hear an automated message advising your hand is raised. To withdraw your question, please press star 11 again. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to your first speaker today, Mike Power, Vice President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Operator. Good afternoon and welcome to IRON's Q2 FY2026 results presentation. I'm Mike Power, VP of Investor Relations, and with me on the call today are Daniel Roberts, Co-Founder and Co-CEO, Anthony Lewis, CFO, and Kent Draper, Chief Commercial Officer. Before we begin, please note this call is being webcast live with the presentation. For those that have dialed in via phone, you can elect to ask a question via the moderator after our presentation. I'd like to remind you that certain statements that we make during the conference call may constitute forward-looking statements, and Iron cautions listeners that forward-looking information and statements are based on certain assumptions and risk factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the expectations of the company. Listeners shouldn't place undue reliance on forward-looking information or statements, and I encourage you to refer to the disclaimer in slide two of the accompanying presentation for more information. And finally, during the course of today's call, we will refer to certain non-GAAP financial There's a reconciliation schedule showing the GAAP versus non-GAAP results in the presentation. With that, I'll now turn over the call to Dan Roberts.

Thanks, Mike. And thank you, everyone, for joining us today. Fiscal quarter two was an important quarter for Iron as we made meaningful progress as a vertically integrated AI cloud platform. Let me start with the highlights. Firstly, we secured underwriting commitments for $3.6 billion dollars of gpu financing and an interest rate of less than six percent together with customer prepayments this provides funding coverage for approximately 95 of the gpu related capex supporting our 9.7 billion ai contract with microsoft importantly this financing package provides greater clarity to also advance a broader set of customer discussions. In that regard, customer demand remains very strong, and we are continuing to sign and negotiate contracts for both new and prior generation GPUs. We have multiple advanced negotiations underway for larger scale deployments, and we're also seen hyperscalers and AI enterprises increasingly focus on air-cooled GPUs, given the faster deployment timelines. Operationally, execution is tracking well across the portfolio, and we expect to deliver 140,000 GPUs by the end of 2026, positioning us to deliver $3.4 billion in annualised run rate revenue. Construction across Horizon 1 through to 4 is progressing to schedule. And in British Columbia, we continue to expand our AI cloud footprint with just under half a billion dollars of ARR now under contract for Prince George. Finally, we extended our growth runway again by securing a new 1.6 gigawatt site in Oklahoma, taking our total secured power to over four and a half gigawatts. This reflects the strength of our internal development team in securing gigawatt-scale sites in a power-constrained market and supports continued conversion of capacity into customer contracts over time. So that's the quarter in summary. Those outcomes reflect the assets, capability, and execution discipline we've built over time, which I'll cover next. Over the past seven years, we've built a strong platform grounded in real assets, power, land, data centres, and, just as importantly, human capital. That foundation is what gives IR in a durable, competitive moat. We have secured more than 4.5 gigawatts of power, stood up 810 megawatts of operating data centres, signed billions of dollars of AI customer contracts and assembled a team of over 2,000 people to execute on them. These assets and capabilities are not easy replicable. They are the results of years of hard work. As a founder-led business, we have been fully committed to building a platform with lasting value, and Will and I are deeply invested in this platform along with the rest of the management team. That mindset matters as it shapes how we allocate capital, how we partner with customers, and how we think about long-term value creation. In an industry moving at extraordinary speed, this combination of real assets, operational capability, and founder-led commitment is what sets Iron apart and positions us for AI cloud leadership. So the way we think about scaling the business is through what we call the three Cs. Capacity, customers, and capital. The reason we focus on these three is simple. They reinforce each other. Capacity creates opportunity. Customer commitments shape the pace and scale of our investment and capital gives us the ability to execute what's encouraging today is that we have all three working in parallel first on capacity we have 810 megawatts of existing data centers that can be immediately leveraged for ai cloud deployments in addition to the 3.6 gigawatts of greenfield data center sites and a 2000 plus team to design build and operate them end-to-end Second, on customers, as I mentioned, we are in multiple advanced negotiations, and at this point, demand is not the constraint for us. The focus is on choosing the right long-term partnerships that support durable platform-level growth. And thirdly, on capital, we continue to diversify our sources of capital to support capacity growth and customer deployment. We have multiple financing pathways underway that allow us to scale our data centre and GPU footprint in a disciplined manner, while, importantly, maintaining balance sheet stream. This includes additional GPU financing, data centre financing, and selective corporate initiatives, which Anthony will delve into. So, when you step back, the picture for us is pretty clear. We have delivered capacity. We have strong customer demand and we have expanding capital options all moving together, which puts us in a position to continue scaling IRON into one of the world's largest AI cloud platforms. With that, I'll now hand over to Kent to walk through updates to our capacity and our customer work streams in a bit more detail.

Thanks, Dan. Vertical integration is one of IRON's most important competitive advantages. We design, build, and operate our own data centers, supported by in-house engineering, procurement, construction, technology, and operations teams. This structure gives us direct end-to-end control of our cloud offering and the ability to manage cost, timelines, and service quality with FARG. Many of the constraints that we see across the industry today, whether it's long lead time procurement or skilled labour, are areas that we've addressed in the past. So they're manageable for us and not disrupting our execution. That's why we remain on track against our plans today. And on that note, we continue to see strong, steady progress across our site portfolio, with construction milestones being delivered on schedule. At Prince George, the data center fit outs for air-cooled NVIDIA B200 and B300 GPUs are now complete and awaiting the delivery of the remaining GPUs on order. At McKinsey and Canal Flats, our teams are actively preparing the sites for AI cloud expansion. There, we're leveraging the exact same playbook we successfully executed at Prince George. ASICs are coming out of those data centers, and GPUs are going in. At Childress, construction across Horizons 1 to 4 is also progressing to schedule to meet Microsoft's GPU deployment timelines. And at Sweetwater, procurement activities and civil works are now underway for the first phase of data centers to be constructed. Overall, what this demonstrates is an ability to consistently take large, complex projects from planning through to execution. That delivery capability underpins everything we do and is one of the key reasons we have a license to engage with the largest technology companies in the world. The other factor that strengthens our position with customers is a scale of our secured power. As Dan mentioned, we have secured a new 1.6 gigawatt data center campus in Oklahoma, further strengthening what is already one of the most differentiated power portfolios in the sector. The 2,000-acre Oklahoma site is a strong addition, with low latency connectivity to major network exchanges and ramp schedule commencing in 2028. As with Sweetwater, the megawatts for this new site in Oklahoma have been secured, which enables commercial discussions to progress meaningfully, anchored on firm, deliverable capacity. It's also worth noting that this site is a result of work that has been underway for years. It reflects the depth of our internal development capability and our team's ability to consistently source and secure gigawatt-scale grid connections in a power-constrained market. Importantly, this new site does more than just add capacity. It broadens our U.S. data center pipeline beyond ERCOT into a market that's attractive to hyperscalers at a time when AI demand continues to outpace supply. As Dan mentioned, we're advancing multiple active negotiations with a range of hyperscale and non-hyperscale counterparties. And what we consistently see is that customers are focused on partners who have secured power, can deliver full data center infrastructure on a defined timeline, and who can grow with them and scale over the long term. In other words, time to data center has become the key decision point in many of these commercial discussions. That dynamic plays directly to our strengths. Our vertically integrated model combining in-house delivery capability with secured power gives customers a high degree of certainty on execution. We're also seeing hyperscalers and leading enterprises actively pursue both liquid and air-cooled GPU deployments as they work to accelerate rollouts. The increased focus on air-cooled deployments aligns extremely well with our existing footprint of 810 megawatts of already operational air-cooled data centers. Importantly, all the demand and engagement that we're seeing is translating directly into contracted revenue. Today, we have approximately $2.3 billion of annualised revenue run rate under contract, including around $0.4 billion at Prince George, which we expect to increase over the coming weeks as we finalise negotiations for the remaining capacity there. Based on capacity already contracted and the strong customer engagement for new deployments in Mackenzie and Canal Flats, we're on track to reach our targeted 3.4 billion ARR by the end of 2026. What's worth emphasizing is that demand is not the limiting factor for reaching this milestone. The market is extremely deep and engagement remains strong across hyperscalers and enterprises. Our focus is on selecting the right partners and structuring long-term relationships to create lasting value for Iron. And as I alluded to earlier, we have the track record and capacity to drive customer acquisition. The takeaway from this next slide is the amount of runway that we have ahead of us. Our $3.4 billion ARR target for the end of calendar 2026 reflects utilization of only around 10% of our 4.5 gigawatts of secured grid-connected power capacity. That means the vast majority of our portfolio remains available to support additional deployments. With demand continuing to build, that secured capacity gives us the ability to keep engaging customers on new large-scale opportunities and to extend growth well beyond the 2026 target. I'll now hand over to Anthony to give an overview of our Q2 results and discuss our strategy for financing our continued growth.

Thanks, Kent. Q2 financials reflected continued progress in the transition from Bitcoin mining to AI cloud, with capacity increasingly allocated to higher value AI workloads and AI cloud revenues accelerating as deployments ran. Total revenue was $184.7 million, down 23% on the prior quarter, primarily on account of lower Bitcoin mining revenue driven by a reduction in Bitcoin mined. This was a result of the AI transition, which lowered operating hash rate against the backdrop of an increasing global hash rate, together with lower average Bitcoin prices over the period. This was partially offset by growth in AI cloud revenue in line with commissioning of new GPUs at our Prince George site. On SG&A, that decreased $37.6 million, primarily resulting from higher accelerated stock-based amortization recognized in the prior period and associated payroll tax accruals. As expected, adjusted EBITDA declined primarily on account of the lower Bitcoin mining revenue mentioned just now, partially offset by the lower payroll tax accruals and lower power costs. EBITDA and net income were also impacted by several significant non-cash and non-recurring items this quarter. These included unrealised losses on prepaid forwards and cap calls associated with our convertible notes following significant gains in the prior period as well as a one-time debt conversion inducement expense in connection with the equitisation of a portion of our 2029 and 2030 convertible notes, together these amounts totaling $219.4 million. In addition, we recorded $31.8 million of mining hardware impairment associated with the transition to AI cloud, versus $16 million in the prior period. These impacts were partially offset by an income tax benefit of $182.5 million, primarily reflecting the release of previously recognised deferred tax liabilities relating to the unrealized gains on financial instruments. Overall, these results reflect the ongoing transition of the business to AI cloud, and we expect subsequent quarters to reflect a growing AI cloud contribution consistent with our ARR targets. Now, turning to capital and funding. At our last update, we indicated an intention to raise secured finance of at least $2.5 billion to fund GPU-related CapEx for the Microsoft contract. As Dad has highlighted earlier, we have now secured a $3.6 billion delayed draw term loan financing package from Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan. The financing has a number of attractive features. It is delayed draw to align with our CapEx profile. It matches the profile of the underlying contract, amortising in full over the five-year term. And it will be secured against the underlying GPUs and the contracted cash flows from Microsoft, which supports a strong credit profile and an attractive interest rate expected to be less than 6%. When combined with Microsoft's $1.9 billion in prepayments, this package covers 95% of the GPU-related CapEx for Horizons 1 through 4, allowing us to now focus our efforts on funding further growth across the platform. Now, turning to our capital strategy more broadly. Our capital strategy is designed to support continued rapid growth while maintaining a resilient balance sheet. We under-generate with a strong cash position of $2.8 billion, and we continue to deepen our access to diverse sources of funding. Financial year to date, we have now secured $9.2 billion from customer prepayments, convertible notes, including the $2.3 billion issued in December, GPU leasing arrangements, and the dedicated GPU financing for the Microsoft contract. This diversity of capital sources allows us to scale with confidence. Looking ahead, a key priority will be to continue that work and expand our access further. This will include looking at efficient financing for our data centres, such as Horizons 1 through 4 when they come online. These will be extremely valuable long-term assets, which are currently being funded by the balance sheet, and construction financing to support a broader development pipeline. As well, we'll also look at select corporate-level facilities when aligned with our cost of capital and balance sheet management priorities. Of course, as we scale financing activities, we'll remain focused on an appropriate balance between debt and equity to ensure we maintain that balance sheet resilience. With that, I'll turn it back to Dan for concluding remarks.

Thanks, Anthony. So to recap, our strategy is straightforward and it comes back to the three Cs, capacity, customers, and capital. We secure large-scale, low-cost power and build quality data centres to create capacity. We pair that with long-term customer demand, and we support it all with disciplined, well-structured capital arrangements. That framework has guided our decisions for years, and it continues to shape how we scale today. Over the past several quarters, we've made meaningful progress across all three of those We've removed a significant amount of execution risk by locking in capital for our largest deployment to date. We've expanded our power footprint. Sorry, technical issues. My screens are just cut out. I can't see anyone. And we've continued to deepen relationships with some of the largest technology companies in the world. What's important to emphasise is that we're still at an early stage of monetisation relative to the size of our platform. With more than 4.5 gigawatts of power and only 10% required to support the 3.4 billion in ARR, we have a clear pathway for continued growth. With capital access now demonstrated at scale, we're able to engage customers with greater flexibility on how and when we bring new capacity to market. while maintaining discipline around pricing and partner selection. That scale allows us to pace growth responsibly, be selective in the customers we partner with, and structure contracts and financing in ways that support durable, long-term value creation. In summary, after more than seven years of founder-led execution, Iron is now a scaled AI cloud platform with significant opportunity ahead. With that, we'll open the call for Q&A.

As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star 1-1 on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star 1-1 again. Please stand by as we compile the Q&A roster. First question comes from Darren Atathi from Roth. Please go ahead.

Hi, guys. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my questions and congrats on the continued progress with Oklahoma. Two, if I may, there's a lot of noise around ERCOT. I'm sure people on the phone kind of want to know. But any change in those kind of amended rules with batch processing in terms of how that would potentially impact sweet water for you guys? And then I'm going to follow up.

Yeah, happy to jump in there, Darren. And so short answer is with respect to Sweetwater, it is likely to be included in the batching process. And we believe that both Sweetwater 1 and 2 would be included in batch zero, which would mean that the full two gigawatts of power is secured. So that's obviously a key important point there is that security of power. In addition to that, there are other projects in our portfolio that are potentially also included in batch zero. So one of the advantages of obviously having a large internally developed portfolio is that we do have a number of projects that are going through this process.

Excellent. I appreciate that. And then secondarily, so economics on colo have continued to creep up. I know you guys initially signed this cloud deal with Microsoft.

Any kind of real-time thoughts on, you know, as you move forward with plans for Childress, Sweetwater, any other sites, your views on verticalized AI cloud versus colocation? yeah i mean as as we've said before we continue to be open-minded uh about how we allocate our our megawatts and continue to observe what's happening in the market um you know we are observing as you mentioned what's happening in the co-location market but also seeing continued strength in demand uh on the cloud side as well and i think when we look at the overall portfolio. Power is the scarce resource today. And so it's absolutely vital that you are maximizing the value of each of the megawatts within the portfolio. And today we still see AI cloud as doing that in a more meaningful way than co-location. It's higher up obviously in the value chain than co-location and you can capture materially better dollars per megawatt through cloud versus pure co-location and obviously at this point you know we've demonstrated the the capability and execution to be able to stand up these large cloud customers and you know as as we spoke about at length during the call also seeing the capital side come together. So all the elements are there within the portfolio to allow us to continue to take advantage of what we have on a cloud services basis.

Maybe just to add to what Kent said, it is something we continue to evaluate, but one of the knocks on GPU cloud was the capital intensity of GPUs. So with the announcement today of the GPU financing, we've now secured 95% of the cost of the GPUs at an average interest rate of around 3% when you factor into the prepayments. So we essentially got the GPUs for next to nothing. So I think in terms of capital intensity, it ticks that box. To further to Kent's point, time to power is critical, but time to data centres is actually the more limiting factor. And when you've got scarcity around how many data centres you can physically bring online, every incremental 200 megawatts can deliver either $300 million-ish through a co-location or multiples of that in the billions under a cloud contract. So when we look at the monetization opportunity for our platform and growth for shareholders and creating value, the cloud opportunity creates a lot more upside, as we see it. And in terms of co-location versus cloud, we believe that ai is going to continue we believe that data center demand is going to continue to compound so recovering capital back in short order and being able to compound those returns as distinct from holding effectively a bond exposure against a hyperscaler is the area we want to play and if investors want bond-like exposures they can buy co-location companies they can buy bonds in the hyperscalers but we believe we're offering a high conviction but very well-managed risk exposure to the sector through this AI cloud business. Now, again, we're not dogmatic. Things can change quickly. We get a compelling co-location deal. We will absolutely pursue it. But right now, AI cloud, it's very compelling for all those reasons.

Appreciate it, guys.

Thank you. Next question comes from Paul Goling from Macquarie. Please go ahead.

Thanks so much. And congrats on the additional site and all the progress. I just wanted to ask, as we think about the Oklahoma site and power market, I guess anything specific to call out about how that factors into the demand picture for HPC compute from a location perspective? Aside from, I know, the low latency already mentioned, are there, you know, favorable power reliability dynamics or power pricing dynamics or just geographically relative to, you know, tier one availability zones? And then I have a follow up. Thank you so much.

Yeah, so we think the site there has favorable characteristics on a number of levels. I did mention that low latency, as you referred to earlier. It's a very large site, which gives us flexibility as we build out the capacity. It's located in Southwest Power Pool, which is a different market to ERCOT, so it provides us with some jurisdictional diversity. We think Southwest Power Pool is a very attractive market on the power side, a large penetration of renewables, low cost of power. We know that it's an area that is attractive to hyperscalers because there have been a number of hyperscalers that have been active in Southwest Power Pool more broadly, but also Oklahoma specifically. So overall, it exhibits all the characteristics that we would look for in terms of an attractive data center campus.

Thanks, Ken. And then maybe a follow-up on the questions that have been asked around cloud versus colo, or maybe more specifically about cloud. As you roll out these two different approaches to cloud even, right, with your British Columbia clusters versus the Microsoft clusters, how should we think about your software approach? Should we, you know, looking at the neocloud space software as a topic that comes up quite a bit? I guess, how should we think about your software offering for certain clusters where there's on-demand or smaller contracted deals versus, of course, the bare metal deals and how that development and the uptake from customers has progressed? Thank you so much.

Yeah, today we're still seeing the bulk of our demand coming from hyperscalers, the largest enterprises, extremely advanced technology firms within the AI space, all of which are still looking for bare metal access. They want full ability to be able to take control of the GPUs, layer on their own software stack, set up the compute in exactly the way that they want to operate it. And that is where the vast majority of our demand is coming. And as we refer to in the call, our ability to scale with them over time is one of the key elements. And I think the largest customers are those bare metal customers, whereas the software really is typically more useful for smaller enterprise customers that are looking for an easy user interface, an easy single spin up, spin down service. but that is a small proportion of the overall compute demand that we're seeing out there today. It may well grow over time and that's something that we continue to monitor as we look to our software strategy but we continue to think that it is likely to be one of the areas in this space that gets commoditised the fastest. You know, it is relatively simple in comparison to finding power, building data centers, setting up GPU clusters at scale and likely to be an area where you're going to see third party offerings and commoditization that we may well be able to take advantage of. So, in short, continue to monitor that part of the market and what makes sense for us. But today, it is not a major driver for us because our demand is coming from bare metal customers.

And maybe just to give you some additional comfort around the way the world might go here, Paul, is we do have an internal software capability. I think we probably downplay it a bit, partly in response to the market seeming to overplay it. but we've got that capability and to give you additional comfort one of the contracts we are negotiating at the moment is a multi-billion dollar contract where we need to bring a software solution so it is not holding us back it will not hold us back but the reality is exactly as what Kent said you are dealing with the largest technology companies in the world to pretend that you can be better at software and jam something down their throat when that is their competitive moat and that is their expertise, it's just not congruent with reality.

Great caller. Thank you both so much.

Thank you. Just a moment for our next question, please. Next, we have Michael Nung from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you so much for the question. I just have to first, as a follow-up to the question earlier around the ERCOT batch study processing. It was encouraging to hear that the IRN sites likely will be in batch zero. I was just wondering if you could provide an update around the Sweetwater 1 and Sweetwater 2 energization dates and whether the batch process has affected your ability to negotiate and sign contracts with customers for those sites and what that progress looks like. and then I have a quick follow-up.

Yeah, thanks for the question. In terms of the energisation date for Sweetwater 1, we're still on track to energise in Q2, and that's a full bulk substation. So that's capable of the full 1.4 gigawatts of power capacity at that site. So energisation very much on track. Construction is well advanced, both with the on-site substation as well as the utility substation there. As it relates to customer engagement moving forward on those sites, obviously very early since this batching process has been announced, but if anything, we would actually expect it to be helpful to us. We've said numerous times in the past there are a lot of megawatts that are put out there into this market that are, you know, made up. And I think what this process is going to do is really uncover which megawatts are real and which are not real. And for us, you know, we expect that to actually lead to better discussions with our customers over time.

Great. Wonderful. Thank you. And I wanted to ask about the $2.3 billion of ARR which I guess is the Microsoft contract plus the $400 million at British Columbia. When should we expect those revenues to start being recognized and commencing in the P&L? Is it kind of more relatively through the year? Is it more in 27? Just would love to get any thoughts about that. Thank you very much.

Yeah, so at Prince George, we've obviously had capacity operating there for a while and continue to install new capacity and will do over the upcoming weeks. So, you know, a decent proportion of the $0.4 billion of contracted revenue that we talked about is already operational there. As it relates to the Microsoft contract, that will come online progressively over the course of the year, commencing, you know, we expect Q2 in terms of initial revenues flowing through.

Thank you so much for the thoughts. Really appreciate it.

Thank you. Just a moment for the next question, please. Next, we have Rit Kumbachlunch from Cancer Fizgerald. Please go ahead.

Thanks, guys. Congrats on all the projects throughout the quarter. I'm curious in your conversations with customers relative to maybe the first big deal that you guys signed with Microsoft, what you are seeing from a pricing environment. I think we have a lot of data points on the Kulo pricing, maybe improving out there. But I'm curious if you guys are seeing something similar when it comes to cloud deals.

Yeah, we're seeing very strong ongoing demand, as we referred to earlier. And I think that is flowing through in a number of potential areas where we're seeing demand for longer tenors. I think the customers that are out there in the market realise that this may be a long dated supply demand imbalance moving forward. And there's certainly an openness that we're seeing to longer tenors than we have in the past. Another factor that we mentioned earlier, we are seeing an increased interest in air-cooled capacity, and that is primarily because that can fill immediate needs, especially within our portfolio, because we have existing operational data centres on an air-cooled basis that are capable of hosting GPUs in relatively short order with relatively minimal capital upgrades. We continue to see the ability to get prepayments from customers over time. So I think all of that leads us, as we said, to see a very strong demand picture. And it is flowing through in some elements of the terms that we're getting under these cloud services contracts.

And I think also to add to that, price is one dimension of a commercial negotiation. There are other factors, as Ken alluded to, whether it's tenor and prepayments, but also the quality of the underlying contracts. We do manage risk very carefully. It's a founder-led business. This is our money. This is our platform. And we're not here to optimise revenue in the next four weeks compared to building something that's durable and long-term value. And to highlight what that means in tangible terms, look at the GPU financing that we did on the Microsoft contract. So to step back, $5.8 billion of GPU costs to deliver $9.7 billion in revenue over five years. Of the $5.8 billion, the nature of the contract, as in the quality of the underlying contract, the quality of the credit, the tenor, and the prepayments allowed us to get $5.5 out of the $5.8 financed at an average cost of 3%. That is not specifically linked in a GPU hour price, but that is specifically tied to value creation on the platform.

Awesome. Now, very helpful. And then maybe just one more ERCOT-related question. I think you guys said, using your words here, that it's likely included in batch zero, whether that's zero A or zero B. I guess, is there a time of when we would expect to know if it's included in batch zero? I know there's a meeting on the 12th and maybe on the 20th, but is that the timeline that you guys are looking towards as well?

Yeah, I think ERCOT will make announcements over time. Exact timing may change, and whenever ERCOT makes announcements with respect to this, they do acknowledge it is in the works at their end and they're actively working through it. So it's hard for us to put an exact date on it, but we do expect ERCOT to make public disclosures at some point in the relatively near future.

But to be clear on this, guys, like crystal clear, the 2,000 megawatts is secure. Like none of this batch stuff, none of the market chatter is influencing whether or not this 2,000 megawatts is available. We've got the signed interconnection agreement. It was signed in 2023. It's been there for years. It's been built and commissioned in Q2 this year. there is no indication the 2,000 megawatts is absolutely secure. The only thing that this is likely to amount to is maybe working with utilities around load ramp. But the reality is we don't have 1,400 megawatts at Sweetwater, one of data centres in April this year to energise. So in practical terms, it has very little, if no, effect on our business. The 2,000 megawatts is secure. We cannot reiterate that enough.

Perfect. That's all for you, Matt. Thank you, guys.

Thank you. Next, we have Nick Giles, B. Riley Securities. Please go ahead.

Yeah, thanks, Operator. Guys, good to see all the progress here. I like the concept of the three Cs and capital is one. I think this is mainly around financial capital, but there's a growing narrative around the human capital requirements to ultimately bring data center capacity online. So are you seeing any constraints in terms of skilled workers, or can you just speak to any advantages you may have from having EPC partners in place? Thanks a lot.

Yeah, I mean, the fact that we've been building continuously for the last three years means that we've built up not only a large existing labour pool at Childress, but also those relationships. And the relationships extend not just across construction contractors and labour, but also across equipment, procurement and supply chains. So that is one of the major advantages that we have of having done this for so long and having been continuously constructing is that, you know, we are in a position where we're able to call on those relationships. We're well positioned with those partners in the sense that, you know, they are looking for continued steady work and when they look at us and see a secured power portfolio with construction that is going to extend over a multi-year period, they're extremely willing and active in terms of helping us and making sure that they're serving our needs. And similarly on the supply side, because we're continuously in the market and continuously procuring long-lead equipment, We get a very good read on where the constraints are in supply chains, where the areas are that are tight, and that enables us to respond to those and be able to act well in advance so that long lead items don't become a constraint for us in terms of our data centre build out. So I think all of that history, the internal expertise we have is extremely important. And it's not just talk. I mean, this is consistently delivered capacity against the targets that we've announced historically.

Yeah, and again, just to add to exactly what Kent's saying, like this has been seven years in the making of building a data centre and technology platform. The very first data centres we built are now being used for NVIDIA GPUs for an AI cloud. We signed an MOU with Dell, when was it five, almost six years ago, to bring out diverse workloads to our British Columbia facilities in these data centres. So we've had a very long runway in terms of accumulating that human capital. And yes, there is more scarcity and more demand for human capital today, but we've been able to build that platform over a very long period of time and get the right people in the right roles.

That's good to hear. I'll turn it over, but keep up the good work.

Thank you. Next, we have Joseph Wafi from Kenna Core Genuity. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Good morning. Terrific progress once again. Awesome to see it. Just revisiting the ARR number for the year, you know, you clearly, you know, Lynn's always wants to over promise and under deliver and throwing that number out, you know, on top of, uh, revenues that would be coming from Microsoft. Kind of feels like you've got a pretty good line of sight on things. I'm just wanting to drill down on that a little bit on those, you know, those customer ramps and, um, maybe is there a potential on, on some of these other customer ramps to also see maybe some prepayments, uh, to help fund their own um gpu buys and then i'll have a quick follow-up thanks yeah thanks joe i i hope you were referring to under promising and over delivering rather than the other way around yeah sorry if i said yeah yeah yeah um so as i mentioned uh earlier prince george um we we already have a lot of operating capacity there and expect uh over the upcoming

weeks to continue to install equipment, allowing us to get to the $0.5 billion annualised revenue run rate at that site. McKenzie and Canal Flats, the works at our end in order to be able to accommodate GPUs, very well advanced. We would expect capacity to ramp progressively over the year there in terms of the additional 40,000 GPUs, which equates to around a billion dollars of annualized revenue run rate. And then the Microsoft contracts, as I referred to earlier, we expect to ramp progressively over the year. In terms of the 40,000 additional GPUs that we're expecting at McKinsey. That, as I referred to the customer conversations before, we are still seeing customers very willing to make significant prepayments with respect to that. And there are a number of other areas of financing that we're looking at with relation to that, which Anthony, you may well want to touch on some of the options there as to how we can finance that.

Sure. Thanks, Ken.

Yeah, we've obviously, I guess, over the financial year to date, proven access to both leasing based sources of capitals for GPU financing and obviously the dedicated GPU financing that we recently procured for Microsoft. So there's a number of different pools of capital, which will obviously depend on the nature of the customer and the opportunity. But we feel well-placed to continue to fund that growth efficiently.

Very good. Thanks for that, caller. And then, you know, just circling back on Sweetwater, obviously, energization coming up here very quickly. And, you know, a lot of your peer companies would have likely announced, you know, at least if it was Colo, a tenant at that site by now, you know, obviously it's really big. There's a lot going on and, you know, not, you know, asking for a date on anything, but just getting in your mind maybe a little bit, Daniel, you know, is it just getting your feet more wet in the GPU business? and are holding back there, waiting for better terms on colo, maybe a multitude of things, just your thought process there on pulling a trigger on some of the sweet water capacity things.

Sure. So, I mean, we've had an ongoing dialogue on that site for 12, 18, 24 months with various parties. And as we've tried to reiterate, it needs to be the right deal. And I think to date, our patience and conviction has been rewarded with the deals that we have been signing. You know, if we look back to some of the structures being floated early in this kind of AI market narrative, you know, where we are today seems to be pretty objectively a better position. um you know it is all about the three c's and bringing those together um and doing it in a way where you are maximizing the opportunity for shareholders and you know there's only so much capacity that you can bring online that time to data center narrative so there's a real opportunity cost of signing a bad deal and bad is relative right bad's relative to good it's still probably a good deal, co-location, but can you get better given that you're constrained by how quickly you can build out data centres? And that's why those three Cs are a really good framework because for any business trying to operate in this space, you have to bring those three Cs together to self-reinforce each other. If you haven't got the power and the capacity and the ability to execute, you're going to struggle to be a player. If you haven't got the access to customers and their faith and belief in you as an execution machine, it's going to be tough. And if you haven't got the capital, then you're kind of going to continue to be on zero. So sequencing all that, having it reimburse each other is really important. And I think that's why we're really pleased around the GPU financing result because it's kind of ticked that box. We're now onto the next one. And it also helps catalyze a lot of these other customer negotiations with having an advance into the next phase because we need capital and you can't build without capital. So the GP financing is now done. On to the next one. We've got the capacity, we've got the customers and the demand and the negotiations underway. And as Anthony said, we've got what we see as really good access to capital at the moment.

Great, thanks, Dan.

Thank you. Just a moment for our next question, please. Next, we have Michael Donovan from Compass Point. Please go ahead.

Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my question And congrats on progress. So following up on questions around Sweetwater, assuming the batch process goes smoothly and getting the three C's together, how should we think about ramping up phases for construction? Would this follow Childress's 50 megawatt tranches or do you have different plans?

Yeah, so in relation to that, yes, look, it's going to be a phased build out. It's a very large site that is a large amount of power. And what we're continuously doing across all of our 4.5 gigawatts of secure portfolio is aligning customer discussions, availability of capital and our ability to build out data centres. And that will influence how we actually build out. But as Dan referred to earlier, you know, likely at the moment, the constraint is the actual pace of construction and ability to construct rather than power availability or capital availability at our end. So we'll be a phased approach and we'll continue to triangulate with the levels of customer demand that we continue to see.

Appreciate that. And then on Oklahoma, can you provide some more color of what assets are currently there and then what long-term lead assets are needed for the site build-out and what additional permitting or studies are needed at the Oklahoma site? Appreciate it.

Yeah, so we mentioned the 2,000 acres of land earlier. So all of that land is secured. The land is immediately adjacent to a major utility substation, which is where we will be connecting to the transmission grid. On the power side, the full 1.6 gigawatts there is secured. So all of the key elements as it relates to a data centre campus are there. Over the upcoming months, we'll continue to work on the various development items, which include master planning, more detailed local permitting, et cetera. But with power availability there from 2028, we feel extremely well-placed with where we're at today.

Great. Thank you for that clarity and keep up the good work.

Thank you. Next, we have John Torado from Needham. Please go ahead.

Hey, thanks for taking my question, and congrats on the progress. I just have one. It relates to kind of these credit backstoppings that you might see from NVIDIA. How do you think the competitive dynamic changes on the cloud side? You guys obviously have a ton of power, but if some of these neoclods are able to get more of kind of an NVIDIA backstop, they could get more contracted power as well. Just, I guess, how are you thinking about that?

Well, I'm not necessarily sure an NVIDIA backstop helps them secure more power. I mean, power and more pointedly, to Dan's point earlier, data center capacity is the constraint. Now, having a backstop can allow you to finance the build-out of a project, but you still need that access to power. And I don't think necessarily the backstop sort of help with that. You know, that is an entirely separate process relating more to development. And as we've spoken about before, you know, that is becoming increasingly challenging as you move forward now for new projects. So one of the advantages that we have of having been doing this internal development of projects for many years is that, you know, we got in early and we have secured what we think is an extremely differentiated portfolio on the power side. And that's something that can't be easily replicated and certainly not something that can just be bought if you somehow get access to a credit backstop. So, yeah, I think credit backstops can be helpful in other contexts, but I don't think it's going to give people necessarily faster access to power or data centre capacity.

And just to add to that, I think it would be very dangerous to assume that we haven't got the same access and conversations around all these different structures in the market, whether it's equity investments, whether it's credit backstops, whether it's off-take agreements, to assume that we're not having those conversations and haven't been having those conversations. Yeah, I'd be careful about that.

That's exactly what I was getting at, Dan. That's helpful. So I guess the takeaway from us is what would Core or even some of these others are having with NVIDIA, we should think you guys are right there in the same boat, right?

You're right there with them. Yeah, I can't obviously comment specifically on counterparties, but generally the sector is a very small sector. We are a player. We've got a $10 billion contract with Microsoft. I would encourage it to be a safe assumption that we are having the very similar, if not exact same dialogue with all these different counterparties about different structures.

Perfect. That's great. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Next, we have Mike Colonese from HC Blanwright & Co. Please go ahead.

Hi, Dan. And team, congratulations on all the great progress you guys have made in the past couple of quarters. And thank you for taking my question. First one for me, and I'm sorry if I missed the juggling a few calls here. You know, looking at the CapEx projections for the year versus the total amount of additional financing needed to complete the full 140,000 GPU deployment, can you just give us an update on that? I know you secured the $3.6 billion in GPU financing, which covers most of it. But how should we think about the progression of CapEx spend this year and the remaining amount of financing needed to get to your target?

Thanks, Vickush. i'll take that one um so i guess we've guys you know we've got the the 5.8 billion capex on the on the compute for microsoft we've got the approximately 3 billion of capex for the horizon data centers uh you know a material amount of which is uh which has been uh which has been incurred or committed to today um and we've obviously raised uh the the recent gpu financing package in addition to sources of cash on balance sheet. So I think we can, you know, effectively that's all of the Microsoft-related CapEx for the compute and DC spoken for. When we think about the CapEx required for the rest of the ARR growth target to the 3.4, we've previously talked about the CapEx required for that expansion at PG and McKinsey. So taken together, that's about but, you know, circa, using round numbers, circa $3 billion of CapEx, a material amount of that which has been incurred to date and financed through the lease-based financing that we've announced to date. But the focus for financing activities going forward will be obviously that residual amount for the expansion across BC and opportunistically as we look at further growth across the platform.

Very helpful. Thank you for the call.

Thank you. Our last question comes from Ben Sommers from BTIG. Please go ahead.

How's it going? And thank you for taking my question. So you made a comment earlier about, you know, strong demand for older generation chips. I was just kind of curious, you know, maybe is there a different kind of customer mix for older generation GPUs versus newer generation GPUs? And I guess kind of like, how long do you see the tail going on to continue generating revenue off kind of older generation chips?

Yeah, I think in general, you tend to see newer generation chips being used more for training. Typically, in training scenarios, somebody is training a model to actually get a product out to market and speed to market is important. So generally speaking, they want the highest powered chips in order to speed up their production times. What we see as the chips get older is that the use case can shift more to the inference side. Now, that's not to say they're not useful for training. you can absolutely still do training on older generations um but often um they are used more and more for for inference over time um and inference continues to to become a larger and larger portion of the over pine i think will continue to do so over time um in terms of the the second part of your question around you know economics and longevity of these chips i mean we still see very strong demand for older generations of chips. I think you've got to think about the demand picture in aggregate. And overall, it's still very clear that there is an undersupply relative to demand. And so what that means is people will take, you know, compute as it is available. And if that happens to be older generations of chips that they can get their hands on then they're absolutely you know willing and not only willing but requiring uh that that capacity uh and if if you look more broadly across the industry if you think of a100s h100s you know those are more than five years old and more than three years old respectively now now those chips are still effectively 100 utilized across the industry and still earning very good rates of return against their original capital costs. So we continue to believe that these chips will have a long, economically useful lifetime in excess of the contract lengths that we're signing, even the Microsoft one at five years.

Awesome. Thank you for the help of colour.

Thank you. I see no further questions at this time. I will now turn the conference back to Dan for closing remarks.

Thanks, everyone, for joining. More than seven years of execution has built IREN into a scaled AI platform grounded in real assets, delivery capability, and disciplined capital structures. With capital access now available at scale and strong customer demand, we're well positioned to bring on new capacity on terms that make sense economically over time. Importantly, having now absorbed the capital requirements associated with our Microsoft deployment, we're able to focus on converting a broader set of advanced customer negotiations into contracted revenue. When we discuss secured power, we mean fully secured. Power is not a constraint for us. And the ERCOT process is providing greater transparency around which projects are genuinely deliverable. That clarity reinforces the scarcity of firm megawatts and helps customers focus on capacity that can be brought to market with certainty. At IRON, we remain focused on execution and on converting our capacity into high-quality customer contracts. We look forward to updating you as we continue to deliver. Thanks again for your time and continued support. Have a good day.

Thank you for joining us today. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.