Thank you, Betsy. Good morning, and thank you for joining NexGen's Q1 2026 financial results and investor conference call.

My name is Leigh Curyer, and I am the Chief Executive Officer. Today, I'm joined by Travis McPherson, Chief Commercial Officer; Ben Salter, Chief Financial Officer; and introducing to our quarterly calls, considering we are now entering into construction of this globally significant Rook I project, Chris Copley, NexGen's Project Director, Engineering and Construction.

During the call, I will highlight NexGen's milestone achievements over the first quarter of 2026, including the final federal approval for the Rook I project, provide an update on the 2025 site construction program, upcoming plans for the construction phase as we have already made the final investment decision, provide an update on some incredible drilling results released just this morning at our exciting PCE discovery, and speak to the NexGen strategy as we optimally advance towards production. At the conclusion of this presentation, we'll move to the Q&A portion of the call where you'll have the opportunity to ask Travis, Ben, Chris, and myself any questions you may have.

Throughout the course of today's call, we will be making forward-looking statements. Please visit our website for all the relevant disclaimers.

Just the first few months of 2026 has already proved to be a defining period for NexGen, marked by significant milestones, none bigger than the optimal final approval of the Rook I project for construction. Following NexGen's successful completion of the two-part Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission hearings, on March 5, 2026, the CNSC then issued NexGen its license to prepare site and construct the Rook I project, 14 business days after the conclusion of the Part 2 hearing.

The approval approval process and response speed was a testament to the strength of the technical submission, NexGen's early and transparent communication with regulators, and the deep, genuine relationships established with local Indigenous nations and stakeholders over the past 13 years. This approval represents one of the most comprehensive regulatory processes undertaken for a resource project globally.

It is a result of an unrelenting focus since 2013. I'd also like to take the opportunity to congratulate Denison Mines and CEO David Cates in the approval of their Phoenix project.

We, NexGen, have moved with purpose and clarity to deliver a new standard for resources development, one where we encourage all stakeholders to expect better. NexGen's culture of innovation, open-mindedness, and continuous improvement have cultivated significantly better outcomes across the board for all stakeholders, and this will continue as we optimally progress through construction and into operation, where we will be the most significant new entrant into the mining sector in a generation.

Nearly two months into the Middle East disruption, the global energy system is not just absorbing a supply shock, it's being structurally reshaped by it. The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz has exposed how vulnerable and interconnected the global energy system truly is, highlighting the risks of overreliance on hydrocarbons, particularly in geopolitically vulnerable regions.

Energy security is no longer being defined by access alone, but by resilience, the ability to withstand disruption. That means nuclear, domestic generation growth in capacity, and critically reducing exposure to geopolitical choke points.

Nations have been forced to reassess their energy strategies in real time, which has ultimately accelerated a focus on nuclear power as a reliable, sovereign energy source. This is particularly true given the massive demand growth for power anticipated from electrification of transportation and industrial systems, as well as data centers.

These new parts of the industrial landscape that are building new power generation for material electrical needs, that are choosing systems that provide highly efficient, high-output, reliable nuclear energy. Historically, oil shocks have acted as a catalyst for structural change in energy policy, and this recent conflict is already being described as the most significant energy shock in modern history.

With oil and gas still accounting for approximately 60% of global primary energy supply, a policy response prioritizing security, stability, and diversification is inevitable, and has been transitioning following the impacts to energy supply chains due to the Ukraine war. The direction is clearer than ever.

Nuclear energy is not optional in the energy mix. It is essential to delivering long-term energy security, and with the betterment of industry and civilization.

There are currently 79 reactors under construction, with operating capacity established within the next five years will total an additional 18% to the global nuclear electrical grid. This global shift is occurring at a time when highly quality, scalable uranium supply is scarce and depleting rapidly, placing a premium on projects with the jurisdiction, geology, and technical capability to deliver, positioning Rook I's project as the most valuable and strategic resource globally.

The reality is, current mine supply is under stress in maintaining current production levels, let alone growing current production. Further, the economic consequence is that the current production's becoming increasingly higher in cost as mines head into the latter years of their useful lives.

To underpin this reality, one just needs to review the last 10 years. Uranium prices have risen from $17 a pound to $100 a pound, and there's effectively been no new material supply response.

That's because it isn't purely a uranium price challenge. It's far broader, incorporating discovery challenge, permitting challenge, CapEx challenge.

It requires significantly elevated uranium prices over a significant amount of time to begin to solve this challenge. For NexGen, the supply-demand backdrop and limited market buffer continues to reinforce our marketing strategy, one that can be summarized as maximizing the value of every pound produced by maximizing the leverage to future uranium prices.

Our strategy is being received by the market well, as it undeniably benefits all partner participants by ensuring a more transparent and liquid market is developed, and that both suppliers and consumers are able to respond to market changes with certainty to underpin the billions of dollars currently being deployed on a scale never witnessed before into nuclear energy infrastructure. As the company most exposed to the future prices of uranium globally, NexGen will be able to maximize value in this highly constructive backdrop of structural supply deficits.

Our strategy and structuring of offtake agreements to optimize the return on every pound produced has not been commonplace amongst producers over the past years and decades, but it's pleasing to see this NexGen approach is now being reflected more broadly amongst industry participants and can only act in the best interests of all participants for a sustainable and successful industry. With respect to our contracting activities, we continue to advance a multiple offtake discussions with utilities across the U.S.

U.S., Europe, and Asia-Pacific. We expect to formalize additional agreements through 2026 with an unrelenting commitment to maintaining our leverage to future uranium prices, whilst providing customers access to an incredibly strategic supply source.

As the structural supply deficit widens, the window to make meaningful new discoveries is now, and our unparalleled ability to deliver new, high-quality supply will play a critical role in meeting the world's future energy needs. Our winter drill program at Patterson Corridor East, PCE, continues to deliver highly encouraging results, further highlighting both the scale and growth potential of PCE.

We've increased the vertical extent of the high-grade sub-domain by 33% to 550 meters vertical, with a growing strike length of over 200 meters, reinforcing the size of the system. Recent drilling continues to demonstrate strong continuity of high-grade mineralization across multiple holes, with wide intercepts and clear extension at depth.

Importantly, the system remains open for further expansion. In parallel, we are also seeing early indications of a separate parallel trend, highlighting the potential for multiple zones of mineralization within the broader PCE system.

With only 30% of the 42,000-meter drilling program completed for 2026, a significant drill summer drilling program is about to commence in late May, and we see substantial opportunity for further growth of the system. Advancing this drill program methodically and responsibly today is how we ensure we are ready to be a reliable Western supplier for many decades to come.

As construction activity for the Rook I project commences, our exploration team remains laser-focused on further defining and expanding this exciting discovery, as well as the peripheral work on the 190,000 hectares of prime land position, with an additional 3,500-meter program at SW3 and geophysics on SW1 to identify new opportunities for growth. On construction, with approvals now secured, the company is set to commence full-scale construction of the Rook I project this coming Northern Hemisphere summer, advancing long-term economic benefits, skilled employment, sustainable regional growth, and reinforcing Canada's leadership in nuclear energy.

It's great to see our Rook I project being recognized as a key pillar in the federal government's nuclear objectives for Canada. The team, procurement, engineering, vendors, contractors, and capital are all in place.

This readiness is underpinned by the deliberate assembly of a highly experienced team with deep expertise in hard rock mining, aligned with the unique basement rock setting of the deposit, and complemented by strong uranium processing capability and experience in the Athabasca Basin. Since founding the company in 2021, NexGen has built around elite standards, elite standards in planning, discipline, accountability, and it is these ingrained standards, combined with a highly experienced project team representing more than 2,900 years of combined global experience across underground mining, uranium milling, and major project execution that positions NexGen to deliver construction with the same consistency and rigor that has defined NexGen to date.

We have advanced Rook I with a clear focus on disciplined execution, drilling over 400,000 meters safely at an industry-leading cost efficiency while investing approximately $748 million to date at Rook I. Throughout this period, we've consistently delivered meeting our commitments, maintaining strict cost control, and meeting key milestones.

That track record is the standard we carry into construction. Importantly, construction readiness is well advanced.

Key elements are in place, including critical parts procurement activities for the initial two years, including the shaft sinking contractor secured and engaged, and the freeze plant ready for delivery to site. Our $100 million exploration site infrastructure program initiated in 2025, inclusive of accommodation expansion to over 600 beds, road upgrades to enable more safe and efficient traffic flow, and the airstrip is on budget, schedule, and fully meeting the scope.

This is a direct reflection of how we execute over the next four years. $2.2 billion in CapEx spend to build our project is made up of a number of $5 million to $100 million scopes, and we're executing the next phase successfully and early.

Our approach is highly structured, with clear accountability and daily oversight across every aspect of the build, with a view on operational efficiency. We will be hosting an investor update call in the near future to transparently present each phase of construction pathway, with registration details to follow in May.

We have strong financial flexibility, supported by a cash position of over $1 billion at the end of Q1. We continue to access a range of highly accretive financing options and are assessing these with discipline, ensuring we select the optimal path while preserving our current strength and flexibility.

The world is changing fast, and the role of energy is being redefined in real time. What was once a transition led by climate ambition is now driven by security, reliability, and execution.

The Middle East disruption has reinforced this shift, exposing the fragility of global energy systems and accelerating the move toward stable, domestically controlled nuclear power. At the same time, electrification, AI, and industrial growth are driving unprecedented demand for reliable baseload energy, positioning nuclear at the center of the next phase of global development.

As a result, uranium is no longer a cyclical commodity. It is a strategically critical resource, and the market is approaching a tipping point where sustained demand and constrained supply will define the years ahead.

NexGen's industry-leading leverage to future uranium prices, optimized by our contracting strategy, combined with our uncontracted uranium resource, which totals currently 340 million pounds, makes NexGen the best positioned company in the uranium sector to maximize returns and value for our investors. Thank you, and I look forward to updating you on our progress throughout this transformative year.

Now, I'll open the call to questions. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question-and-answer session.

To join the question queue, you may press * then 1 on your telephone keypad. You will hear a tone acknowledging your request.

If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing any keys. Should you wish to decline from the polling process, please press * followed by the number 2.

We will pause momentarily as callers join the queue.

Good morning. Thanks, guys, for taking my questions.

Maybe just on long-term contracting. You guys have mentioned wanting to remain flexible.

What does the right level of contracting look like then for NexGen? Are the pricing terms you're seeing out there currently in terms of floors and ceilings attractive enough to incentivize you guys to layer in materially more contracts, or do you think you'll see better pricing terms moving forward?

I'll start the question there, Anthony, and then hand over to Travis. This is developing very, very quickly, the market and recent market commentary by another industry participant was very clear with respect to the way pricing is heading, well above $100 a pound, and they're seeing that now in their negotiations.

That's very similar to our experience as well, one which we kicked off over 18 months ago. With respect to NexGen, yeah, our overriding principle is to maintain absolute exposure to future prices at the time of delivery.

Now, future prices at the time of delivery are often a combination of spot, floors, and ceilings. I also like to make the point that it's not a uniform approach.

It's horses for courses. Various utilities have different preferences for structures of contracts.

Some are happy for all spot, some are happy for floors and ceilings, and you can typically think of them as at or near spot with the ceiling approximately double that of what the floor is and escalated. Some are happy with no floor and a very high ceiling.

Now, we have a combination of all of those with the four contracts that we currently have. It's to the tune of 10 million pounds in total over the first five years.

We currently have 28 million pounds uncontracted per year going forward over those five years and then 30 million pounds thereafter. Now, we take a very staged approach.

We're not going to have an approach where we want a certain percentage under contract and a certain percentage available for realization at that particular point in time. I guess to answer your question the best is, yeah, we do have contracts in place.

We are negotiating further contracts, which will be a combination of those structures. The overall principle, though, will maintain our industry-leading position of realizing the optimal pricing achievable at the time of delivery, which is very heavily tied to prices at the time of delivery.

It's just common sense. When you've got a project in a premium jurisdiction and let's face it, Athabasca Basin is the best jurisdiction globally for a uranium project, with very high certainty of production and a very low economic cost per pound, it's our job to maximize return to shareholders.

You do that by having a perspective of optimizing the return on every single pound produced. I can't predict where the price is going to be precisely by a certain date.

I am extremely confident that the price is going well above $100 a pound in the short term, and I don't see any material production coming online globally. I want to make the point, 30 million pounds will only be replacing what's coming or what is forecasted to come offline between now and 2030.

Our view is, which is based on technical and financial fact, is that the uranium price is going significantly higher. We had that perspective five years ago.

We've proven to be right. We didn't lock in contracts that may have seemed attractive at the time, but are now underwater relative to the spot price today.

It's proven to be right. That's our view going forward.

I can't give you a precise percentage of under contract and then still available to sell, but the important takeaway is we will maintain our position as being the world's most levered uranium company to the future price of uranium. Travis, have I missed anything there?

No. Just really emphasize exactly that, patience has paid NexGen in this market, and we don't see that slowing down.

Being patient, when contracts make sense for us to sign, we'll sign them with aligned counterparties. We're not in a rush and there's no necessity to do any more contracts by a certain date or a certain percent by a certain date.

Patience continues to pay us and we'll continue to recognize what we have, how scarce it is, and particularly going forward, so that we can absolutely maximize the returns for everyone involved.

Great. Thanks, guys.

That's very clear. Maybe just a follow-up on project financing.

I'm sure there's a lot of things happening in the background. Obviously, with a strong treasury, you aren't necessarily hard-pressed to come to a conclusion there.

Maybe some color would be great, how have things progressed, structures that maybe you guys have looked at, and maybe when we could see something finalized there.

Travis?

Sure. Yeah.

Thanks, Leigh. Yeah.

Again going back to the quality of what we're talking about here and all the points Leigh made, there's a lot of options for us and very very attractive accretive options. As you point out, with over $1 billion, that's kind of half the CapEx on the balance sheet as we speak.

There is no rush or urgency, and the market is developing quickly, and we have a lot of key milestones upcoming, including obviously commencing construction, but also a lot of exciting events along the path. We're not in a rush.

In terms of options, I'd say nothing's materially changed from what we've previously discussed. Prepayments on product, that's obviously a big focus, and then all the project finance and convertibles and all the other things that we've talked about are obviously options for us.

We have, what do you want to call it, champagne problems I guess in the sense we have so many options, all of which are very very attractive. We're still evaluating and going through doing our due diligence on counterparties involved and structures involved, making sure that we capture where the market is going and NexGen's place in it.

Because if we lock in a financing that's reflective of what's going on today, it's not going to look great in a few years' time. We have to also maintain our exposure to the future.

We won't be cute about it. We'll do it well ahead of time and at a time that makes sense.

It's worked so far that we could have secured financing two years ago for the CapEx, but it would have been at a lower spot price at the time and on not as sound terms. As I said, our position is that the spot price is rising.

Higher spot price means the cost of capital comes down, and that's our responsibility to shareholders. We're not going to run the treasury to zero.

We've always proven a very strong track record in raising funds optimally in the market at the time and in the least dilutive fashion. That's continue, and you'll see news of that in due course.

Great. Thanks for that.

I will pass it on.

thanks, operator. Good morning, and thanks for taking my questions.

Leigh, of the 29,000 meters this summer, what does the pipeline look like? Because it's going to be significantly bigger than the winter program.

Where are you prioritizing between the high-grade sub-domains, some of these parallel structures? Is there any discussion to changing the strategy as the picture evolves, and where are the earliest results going to come from?

Yeah.

Good morning, Ralph, and yeah, great question, which is always evolving. You can think of those meters as 3/4 of them are focused purely on PCE looking for extensions, not just in the footprint at PCE, but those high-grade sub-domains.

They are still materializing. As I speak with PCE, there's no deposit other than Arrow that demonstrates such strong continuity, high-grade, broadness in competent basement rock, in the basement, other than Arrow.

PCE is replicating all of those amazing features of Arrow, but it's still forming, and we're still trying to get an understanding of its entire extent, both the footprint, but also those high-grade sub-domains within it. Given that, the majority of those meters are going to be directed at those two objectives.

The third is looking for those parallel zones of mineralization to PCE. Now, for those who are very familiar with the story and our exploration history know that we're incredibly structured around our exploration.

We don't spray holes anywhere. Every hole has to have an enormous amount of merit.

It goes through a very rigorous process of evaluation before it's drilled right up towards myself and the board. As you get results, it can change the weighting to, all right, we're going to put some emphasis in understanding the high-grade sub-domain within the area of mineralization because you hit one of those high-grade holes, it's incredibly material to the overall resource calculation.

Similar to what Travis said around the financing, it is a fantastic challenge to have as to where do you put those holes. Every hole, though, I can tell you, is going to be very, very productive in advancing our understanding of PCE.

I think, at a minimum, whilst we don't have a resource estimate on it officially, but given the economics at Arrow, and once you've sunk all the capital at Arrow, these PCE pounds would be classed, I believe it's reasonable to say, are most likely economic and improving by the day. Playing devil's advocate, if we didn't even have Arrow and we've made this discovery, it'd be the hottest news on the planet in the uranium space as we speak.

I think Arrow is a bit unfair to PCE because it exists only 3.5 kilometers away and has probably taken a bit of its limelight, but I'd just encourage everyone to really, and we released results today, and we've got more assays coming and another 29,000 meters. This is an incredibly exciting story in resources, full stop, and right alongside the construction of what is currently the world's most globally significant uranium resource going into production in four years from now.

Thanks. I appreciate that.

As a follow-up, Leigh, without front-running the larger scheduling update that's coming, I do appreciate having Chris on the call. What's the latest thinking around the schedule and the timing around the surface freezing strategy, right?

How does that look in the early stages of construction, starting in those first few months?

I can give a high-level and then hand over to Chris. Look, I'd remind everyone we're going to have details eminently around a very detailed webinar around the construction.

We're going to be introducing the team right up to Ivan Mullany, who's our Director with an enormous amount of world-class mining project construction experience and go through the stages of construction and be very transparent around what that looks like so people can make their own assessment of progress. I'm very much looking forward to myself and the team presenting that, most likely sometime in June.

Holistically, from the moment we start construction officially, and you start the freezing process, there's around six months of freezing whilst you're adding to the surface infrastructure in order to commence sinking. Sinking through the overburden will be six to nine months until you're into the basement rock.

Once you're in the basement rock, and I don't want to take too much of the profile away from this webinar we're about to do, but I'll give you a preview. Once we're into that basement rock, which will have occurred six to nine months after the commencement of shaft preparation, the risk around cost and schedule variability goes down to near on zero due to the competency of the rock.

It's not going to be a four-year risk assessment. The most riskiest part is the overburden, and it's going to be determined before the end of year two.

Once we're in the basement rock, and everyone should very much dial in on that aspect of it. Now, having said that, whilst I say it's the most risky part of the construction, the overall risk profile of our project is very, very low risk for a mining project.

We've been planning this for over seven years. We had the team in place.

We've been reviewing those plans for seven years. We know exactly what each member of the team and of our contractor team is doing on every single day over the next four years.

We have a management system in place, which gives us real-time assessment of any variable and allows us to take action accordingly. As I said, I very much look forward to this presentation, which you'll hear a lot more from Chris in June.

Everyone will have a very transparent analysis of what that construction program looks like, what's entailed, and the way we're approaching it. It's an incredibly exciting time for everyone involved.

Chris, would you like anything you'd like to add that I might have overlooked? No,

I think you covered it, Leigh. The freezing is obviously a key element of achieving the sync and a focus of the team right now in so far as starting the site development this summer and preparing for a ground freezing by early next year.

Participants are reminded that the freeze plants themselves have already been ordered and are stored off-site, ready to be deployed, as well as the sinker being engaged and active in the project. We are well on our way to achieving the schedule that will be laid out further in the June call.

Great. Thank you for that preview.

Good day, Leigh and team. Thanks for the call today.

Just back to PCE, do we still think about this as likely accessed underground via Arrow and going up the Rook shaft infrastructure, and I guess, secondly, what is the permitting status of PCE? Can you just remind me and talk through the steps given it's different, but potentially using the other infrastructure?

Yeah. Good day, George.

As we speak, I would say that is a very real possibility based on what we know of all the technical facts. PCE is contained in the same basement rock as Arrow, only 3.5 kilometers away.

Conceptually, you would run a tunnel from the underground engineering workings of Arrow over to PCE and access it. The ore would come up through the same production shaft as designed for Arrow.

Having said that, PCE is outside the boundary for the approved license and construction of the Rook I project. Now, having said that, everything we've seen today is that it's the same mineralization.

It's the same ore body. There's been an incredible mineralizing event on Rook I, and I don't think we've remotely discovered or defined the true extent of uranium mineralization.

For those who have been on the story since 2013, we'll know that we found Arrow with only the 21st drill hole on the property, but the very first drill hole within a 4.5-kilometer radius. We are discovering mineralization way better than the odds are in mineral exploration.

Look, we've clearly got a incredibly good approach to exploration, but are we that good that we find the world's best with the first drill hole within a 4.5-kilometer radius in the middle of nowhere? I don't think we are that good.

To say there's additional mineralization there, anyone who's looked at the geological setting, everyone would concur there's a lot more to yet be discovered and defined. If you're thinking about a scenario of increasing the production at PCE, that would be subject to an amendment in the permitting with respect to the exploitation of PCE.

Having said that, given it's the same mineralization, it's only 3.5 kilometers away, the mineralization at Patterson Lake South, we suspect, based on all the facts that have been reported on, it's the same mineralizing event as well, and that's 7.5 kilometers away. It wouldn't be the same process as what NexGen went through right from the beginning.

All of that environmental data analysis over a 10-year period is still incredibly valid and will be valid during operations. I would say that the process of getting access or approval, and this is a forward-looking statement, would be relatively certain, but again, subject to the rigorous oversight of the CNSC and the Ministry of Environment in Saskatchewan, which we fully embrace.

Yeah. Okay.

No, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for that, Leigh.

Just last one, sorry. Just thinking timelines for the rest of the year.

We've got the webinar probably in June, as you said. I think in the past you said more contracts will be released by year-end, or by 2026, yeah?

Is that right? Or is the financing package more of a 2027 story given commentary before?

No, I think, yeah, it's either going to be in 2026 or early '27, the financing package. Additional contracts, yeah, they will be released as we secure them on the terms that we're happy with and that of the utility as well.

We have the official commencement of construction this summer. We're just coordinating a number of VIP attendances who have expressed very strong interest in attending the opening ribbon-cutting ceremony that involves government, community chiefs, community leaders, shareholders, industry representatives, as well.

You're going to see a lot of activity at site. It's going to be an absolute hive of activity, and with the airstrip, we'll be also facilitating a number of site visits as well.

With the airstrip, the logistics of entry and exit to the site safely has been significantly elevated. An incredibly busy year, one that we've been preparing for for over seven years now.

Keep watching this space, and all along with PCE results, which they haven't disappointed yet. They've been incredible, and every indication is that that is going to continue.

Great. Thanks for the color.

Thanks, team.

Hi, good morning. Leigh and Travis, I was hoping to get us some color on how you're thinking in terms of potentially flexing material with respect to volume at the mine.

Your asset could be the single largest producer in the world. That's a lot of material to come on in the early years.

Can you remind us of sort of how you're thinking about your philosophy with respect to volume versus price here? Whether we could see the Arrow run at lower rates if there's a negative price reaction in the market.

I'll start, Orest, and then hand over to Travis. Very simply, the project is capable of 30 million pounds per annum produced at 1,300 tonnes per day.

That's one of the world's tiniest underground mines, hard rock underground mines. Hence, if we were to produce 30 million pounds, basically, an expense of $350 million a year.

Now, we would produce and store if we were not satisfied that we were getting a fair price for our production, and we can do that because we have a very low cost base of producing 30 million pounds per annum, as opposed to dialing back production and having to terminate a number of staff. We're not going to do that.

Every market indicator we have seen, and as I said, we're very technically and financially fact-based and we've been proven to be correct as to where this uranium price is going. On top of that, the amount of inbound calls that we have with respect to the volumes that we have under negotiation for offtake, I am certain we'll be producing at 30 million pounds per annum from the very first year of production.

We will continue that. As I said, it's not really a question as to whether the market's there.

If it is not at a price that we deem appropriate, we will produce and store. I want to be very clear on that because I think there's been some other market participants that have insinuated that 30 million pounds would just be hitting the spot market.

We've never said that. It's completely incorrect, and I've been very, very clear with our approach.

I'd just encourage everyone to focus on what we are saying because everything we've said since 2011, we have done. Going into construction and production, we will continue to do everything we've said we will do and be very transparent about it.

There's no tricks, nothing. This industry is very simple.

You need to be able to produce uranium at X and sell it for a price well beyond X, and that gap needs to be able to pay back the CapEx. Our gap between X and the current price of $85 is paying back the entire CapEx within 11 months.

Very simple economic equation at NexGen. We'll becoming a top 10 world mining company based on after-tax cash flow at 30 million pounds per year at the current spot price, and that is our strategy, and we actually feel that the spot price is going to be significantly higher when we are actually in production.

We're seeing the level of demand certainly supporting that. That is our approach on it.

It will always be our approach, and we look forward to executing it.

Thanks for the color.

Hi. Good morning, guys.

I just wanted to circle back on the shaft question there. I think you mentioned, Leigh, in your opening remarks that you guys have awarded the shaft contract.

Can you just confirm that's correct? Then if you have, is that contract based on a fixed price, or are you guys managing yourself?

Yes, we have awarded that contract, and I'll hand over to Travis as the Chief Commercial Officer, who has been the quarterback on that contract structure.

Thanks, Leigh, and thanks for the question, Craig. See short answer is no, the shaft sinking contract will not be a fixed price contract.

Realistically, that's not really a model that actually makes sense for a contract like a shaft sink. Without getting into obviously commercial details, we've aligned the risk of shaft sinking, which again to Leigh's earlier point, in our case is actually quite low.

There are obviously some uncertainties there, and so what we've done is kind of a pain-gain model. There's bonuses and incentives for safety performance, schedule, and budget, as well as pain in the event that those things don't go accordingly.

In that sense, ourselves and our shaft sinking partner, as well as the important I think nuance here is that we have essentially a self-performed shaft sinking team in-house at NexGen that's not only been across obviously the technical requirements and our own assessment of what it will take to successfully complete the shaft sink, both in terms of scope, schedule, and budget, but also in terms of what are the best models for aligning incentives. Because really, that's all we need to do.

Again, the short answer is it's a pain-gain contract with a lot of great synergies between the shaft sinker, ourselves, and the broader team. We're extremely excited about who we've got partnering with us, our own team's assessment, and the model in terms of the contractual model that we've employed here.

Okay. Perfect.

Maybe just

I know you guys had a

Sorry. Craig, with respect to the cost in the feasibility study, the contract that we have in place there's very strong alignment, which shows it to the actual cost as what was presented in the August feasibility study, which shows that our feasibility studies have always been very conservative in nature.

They're always done on the basis that NexGen was building this ourselves and operating the project as well. These were always, even from the very first scoping study through to the definitive feasibility study, that the whole principle of these studies have been to inform us on the design and cost as NexGen being the builder and the operator of the mine.

There's really good evidence there that Travis has outlined with respect to the shaft sinking and the underground engineering of very close synergy between what's been presented and now what's being executed.

Okay. Perfect.

That was essentially my next question. I know with the construction update in June, just wondering if you guys were planning to have a CapEx update with that number, or sounds like you guys are pretty comfortable with the number you already have given the market.

We've seen nothing to date. Obviously labor changes, the impact on the price of diesel would have an impact, but as I said, the conservative nature of the $2.2 billion was clearly evident in August of 2024.

Everything we've done today, we are still in that $2.2 billion range. Now, if that changes materially and changes our ability to finance the project, we will be the first to be transparently inform the market of that.

As I said, what we've seen to date, everything is intact from a materiality perspective. Perfect.

Then

my last question is just back on PCE. You guys mentioned it's probably getting lost in the limelight of Arrow.

Just any thoughts around the timing for a maiden resource, just to put more focus on that project?

I don't see one as we speak in 2026. We're doing the internal assessment around that at the moment, Craig.

If that is to change, again, we'll be first to inform the market, but I think that's reasonably expected sometime in 2027, obviously, heavily subject to the next 29,000 meters over the summer period.

Understood. Okay.

I appreciate the answers, guys. Thanks.

Thanks, Craig.

Good morning, all. Just building on the PCE questions you had so far.

Obviously, you've had great success with the exploration for that deposit, and based on the comments you just made, it's probably reasonable to assume you're going to be drilling out and working on this thing for the next couple of years. Is it possible to give us an idea of how much you expect to spend, let's say, over the next sort of 12 to 24 months, given what you know about the project so far?

For

PCE, another 30,000 meters or 29,000, approximately $10 million. Price of diesel would impact that, maybe a little higher, from a drilling cost.

It's a sizable program in the Athabasca Basin for 2026, and I'd just like to make the point, Alex, our geological team operates independently from the construction team. There's no distraction whatsoever on the construction as a result of the exciting results coming from PCE.

From this moment on for the balance of 2026, about $10 million is budgeted for the remaining PCE drilling.

Great. Thanks, Leigh.

Thanks, Alex.

Good morning, and thank you for taking my question. It relates to PCE as well, and a lot of my questions have been answered.

Maybe, philosophically, an even bigger question for PCE and how strategic this may be going forward. When you talk to utilities about signing contracts, do you think they're willing to give you value for it yet?

It really goes to this: you've got, as Orest said, a bunch of 5-year very high production, you've talked about extending it. Say we got into an environment like 15 years ago when people wanted to sign 10 or 20-year contracts, someone might say to you, you don't have that long of a reserve life.

Is there anyone out there that is willing to sort of pay for that yet, and can you use that in your negotiating tactics going forward? Thank you.

I I might start, then I'll hand over to to Travis. I don't think there's another project out there with a longer resource life than NexGen as we speak.

I can't see that changing anytime soon, particularly with with PCE. I don't really see us being limited, Brian, if I've understood your question, with respect to the demand for longevity of reliable supply.

There's a lot of the current producers whose mines are going to be expended in the 2030 decade, early in the 2030 decade. We've seen from Kazatomprom, they've been very, very clear with their production profile come 2029, 2030, it significantly reduces quickly.

I don't actually see, the the any inhibitor on demand from a utility looking for a secure, long-life offtake contract. We are really front and center if if that is their requirement.

I would also say not so much PCE, but I think with I'd put it down to receiving the permit, which took everyone by by a by a very pleasant surprise being 14 days after the conclusion of the Part 2 hearing. The amount of inbounds have come up since the the granting of the permit.

I think that's been also a factor as well with the utility demand. Travis?

Yeah. I would just reiterate similar points.

We're not having any issue with demand. We're just not executing ones over the quarter.

That's by NexGen's choosing. There's tons of demand, there's no outstanding questions from utilities around, should we try to get contracts from NexGen?

Everyone wants contracts with NexGen. It's really our determination as to whether they make sense for us at this point in time.

To Leigh's point, not once has it come up in any contract negotiation or discussion or otherwise about the reserve life or resource life of Arrow. Everyone understands what we're talking about, which is a generational project coming online at a time where everything else is basically coming offline.

Yeah.

I would also suspect Denison would be in a similar position with the approval of their project as well, that the number of inbound calls to Denison would have increased as well. Because NexGen can't solve all the utilities' supply requirements on its own.

That's even if the current producers were able to maintain current production levels, which, yeah, I would say is less likely than more likely. We don't wish anyone any ill will, but there's evidence right across the globe around production issues, sulfuric acid supply issues in Kazakhstan.

The list goes on. To Travis' point, there's no shortage of demand, and anyone who's taking a project into production that has a healthy resource life fully exposed to the future price of uranium are in the leading positions with respect to economic returns of the future.

Maybe I could just ask you back to the other question then, because that's sort of where I'm going with this. If the big shortfall out in the future, do people start to think you're going to expand above 30 million pounds in your negotiations post-2030?

I would say that at the moment, you we we couldn't commit to that because we will only commit to what we can are certain we can deliver, and as we speak, we are permitted for for 30 million pounds per We're permitted to construct a project that will be capable of 30 million pounds per annum once in operation. That is all we are managing.

As we speak, if PCE materializes and we commence the amendment to the permit, or the addition to the existing permit to facilitate that, that's a whole new exercise, which which is going to take a lot of time to to conclude, and I we are not going to do it at any expense to getting Rook I into production at 30 million pounds per annum for the time being.

Great. Very clear.

Thanks, Leigh and Travis, for that. Just, sorry, you keep drilling.

I just want to check. Talk about 29,000 meters of drilling at PCE.

In January, I believe you announced 42,000, and then another 3,500 to SW3. Has anything changed or what's the difference?

No, that's correct. No, you're exactly right, Brian.

We did about 10,200 meters in the winter before we had to stop given the thaw and the ground conditions. The program for 2026 was 42,000 meters.

We've done 10,200 of it or thereabouts, and the balance of the 42,000 meters, including the 3,500 meters, will occur prior to the end of 2026.

Sorry, my last question. Given how strategic and interesting this could be, is there any reason why you wouldn't advance this faster?

The focus has got to be on Arrow, but is there any reason why you can't go a little faster? Is it constrained by drills and stuff at the moment?

Yep. I'd say that's a combination of those things, Brian.

We've got a history of doing what we do well. We're very foundational, bottom-up.

Conservative, I guess, to a certain degree. Conservative around execution.

We are very driven to deliver what we said we would before elevating further. Look, I love the question.

I love the perspective about where PCE's heading. I only like to comment on things I can be conclusive about.

Everything looks great at PCE. I think the optionality that it gives NexGen is incredible, but we're just not advanced enough yet to be more conclusive about it.

If all of a sudden we hit some zingers at PCE, additional zingers, similar to what happened at Arrow, it changes the whole equation, and we will adjust accordingly. As I speak, we are very very focused on constructing safely to scope, to cost, and schedule Rook I at 30 million pounds per annum, and watching PCE develop in parallel to it.

I think four rigs and everything, given our resources and our focus, is a really good balance. It is one of the biggest programs in the Athabasca Basin on its own at PCE.

In context, everyone's incredibly busy at NexGen. That's our position on it as it currently stands, Brian.

Thank you very much for answering all my questions.

Pleasure.

Yes, this is D. Osborne.

Major oil companies, the reserve is not forever. Why wouldn't those companies be interested in stepping in here and having this as the next step in their business, because their business is not forever.

I'm amazed that you haven't had some discussions with major oil companies to do exactly that.

Excellent question. [laughter] I think all I could really say there is watch this space.

I think you're completely on it, and I think there is realization by the oil companies as to where this is heading. I think you'll see that materialize in due course.

It's about as transparent as I could be around that question. What you are doing is recognizing the importance of nuclear energy and the aspects of the hydrocarbons.

There is problematic hydrocarbons given the centralization of production, yet the global usage of oil. You've got a similar situation in uranium as we speak.

The current majority of production worldwide is very centralized in Kazakhstan, and or countries that have what is considered very substantial sovereign risk. Any uranium producer or company going into production near term with an asset in Canada, the U.S., or Australia has a tremendous advantage because it's the Western world, which are the largest consumers of nuclear energy currently.

There has been that mismatch. NexGen, Denison have the opportunity to help return Canada to be the world's leader in the production of nuclear fuel.

That's going to materialize, though. It's energy, which oil is as well.

Those big energy companies, they don't want to close down. I think you're going to see that.

You actually saw that in the 1980s. Go through the historical ownership records of uranium deposits in the USA in the '80s, and a lot of them were by the oil companies.

We may see the day where that returns.

If I were a chief executive of a major oil company, I would be looking down the road for the future. This is the way to do it is to put this in reserve for when the time comes that the energy is declined, the source is declined.

It would be if a major company took a look at this and got serious about it, I think it'd be the most productive and forward-thinking that any company could do.

I agree. I think it's very astute observation.

I actually agree with you totally. I think the hyperscalers might be a little more nimble and a little more proactive with respect to that actual aspect that you mentioned.

Makes perfect sense for an oil company to do it, but my prediction is that you'll see the hyperscalers get ahead of the oil companies in the first instance, because they are building billions of dollars worth of data centers. They are contracting power rates at multiples of what it currently costs to ensure that the power is coming from nuclear energy.

I think they're actually leading the charge in that respect. No, very astute question.

Thank you. Congratulations on your progress so far.

I'm very curious. You mentioned that PCE could be accessed from Arrow.

Is that correct? With a horizontal shaft?

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. With that kind of scenario, which is new to me, could this speed up the development of PCE, should it be deemed to be commercially attractive?

How much faster could you bring PCE on, or when could you bring PCE on, if demand does, in fact, become one of almost perhaps a hyper-shortage of uranium in the industry? How fast could you bring PCE on, and would it be at a lower cost per pound than Arrow was de novo?

Yeah. Graham, I'll start, then I'll hand over to Travis.

Thanks for the question. Again, conceptually, based on what we know, I think that perspective that the ore at PCE could be accessed from the underground workings at Arrow, but I'm very respectful of the regulatory process.

I want to caveate everything that it is subject to substantial amount of future drilling, engineering study, environmental study, that is an absolute given. Conceptually, the answer to your question is correct, it could be.

I have no economic cost data as we speak. I think it's reasonable to conclude at a similar cost to what Arrow is without operating cost to Arrow, but without the CapEx apart from the tunnel going from the underground workings at Arrow 3.5 kilometers to PCE.

The cost of that would be immaterial relative to the overall economics. Whilst I don't have the precise cost per pound incorporating the parameters of a technical study, I think conceptually, yes, I believe that is possible.

I think it's reasonable that you would consider at or near similar economic operating costs to that Arrow deposit. That's as much as we're in a position to convey without further study and regulatory approval.

Travis?

Right. And I'd just add, Graham, you raise a good point, actually, which is back to the earlier question on the oil companies and hyperscalers and all that.

Mining is a very long-term business, and to your question around speeding things up, the reality is there's only so much you can do once you make a discovery to speed things up. There's obviously some regulatory efficiencies that the government of Canada and other policymakers have tried to address.

Look at NexGen as example, 2014 discovery, 4 years from now, 2030 in production, that's 16 years. We didn't waste a minute of a day, and the vast majority of that timeline is actually not regulatorily.

It's actually just advancing the project through all the drilling, engineering studies, all the other things you need to do. PCE, while there to Leigh's point, likely be significant efficiencies and synergies between the fact that we have the world's best asset built and operating, 3.5 kilometers away, there is still just a length of time that it takes.

That speaks to why our contracting strategy and our certainty around where this market is going is based off the fact that we don't have enough supply today. Even when you look out at, okay, well, when could things get into production?

Look at PCE, you're talking many years from now. You can't really speed things up is the point.

You can speed them up a little bit, but you can't materially speed them up. I just wanted to make that point.

Yeah. Okay.

Relative to that, and an investor is trying to determine the sort of the net present value of that asset, how large do you think PCE could be based on this preliminary drilling that you've done to date? How large could that prospect be relative to Arrow?

What is the possibility that Arrow itself could have significantly more additions to not only resources, but annual production, as one of the other analysts was asking about? It seems to me that if there is a shortage scenario that could be really serious one for the industry, NexGen might really almost have a responsibility to be able to have some upside flexibility in adding to pounds per year.

I'm just wondering how the dynamics of those two assets, the sizes, and at what point you could expand production in total by NexGen? Thanks.

Yeah. Thanks, Graham.

I can't give any guidance on respective sizes of what PCE relative to Arrow is. We've been very transparent with all of the technical fact and measurements in our news releases.

Relative to Arrow, that's as conclusive as we can be at this stage. Maybe just take a moment to also highlight that Arrow itself isn't closed off.

We've drilled three holes under the grade shell of Arrow, and that grade shell goes down to 920 meters, and we intersected mineralization in three holes over a distance of 500 meters. There's very clear expansion at Arrow before we even went to PCE.

Obviously subject to additional drilling, delineation, and regulatory approval. In that scenario you outlined, Graham, yeah, we would have a responsibility with the Canadian government.

We would work in lockstep with the Canadian government to then execute a development and production profile that got as much uranium processed as possible from the mineralization within the Rook I project, whilst respecting and meeting all of the regulatory and social aspects that we would do. Graham, yes, we would.

Would we meet the challenge? Absolutely, we would, subject to doing things which involves all the relevant stakeholders and their agreement to it.

Terrific. Great.

Looking forward to hearing more. Thanks.

Thanks, Graham.

Hi, Leigh and team. Thanks for taking my questions.

Most of my questions in PCE and the CapEx have been answered. Maybe a question for Ben.

On the balance sheet, could you maybe help us think about the convertible debts that you currently have on the book? Should we expect that to run their course?

Has there been any indication or willingness for early convert? I believe they are in the money currently.

Thank you.

I'll hand over to Travis as the Chief Commercial Officer,

but

those converts are well in the forced conversion zone at the end of the third-year anniversary. Yep.

Over to you, Travis.

Yeah. Exactly.

That summarizes it. Yes, they're in the money, and on or after the third anniversary of those converts, we can convert them at our discretion.

That is the likely scenario. The first year coming up in September of this year, and then the next tranche is May of '27.

We've done that every case that we've had since we've started these converts back in 2016. We've always done that.

It's reasonable to assume that we would continue to do that, all things being equal.

Great. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you, Betsy, and thank you, everyone who attended today's call, and thank you very much for all the questions we received.

Thank you to my team of Travis, Ben, and Chris. As I said, we look forward to providing the date and time of our webinar around the construction phase and introducing the broader team.

It's a very exciting time at NexGen, and keep watching this space. There's a plethora of exciting developments, and we appreciate your interest and support to what is a fantastic good news story in resources in Canada and for the globe.

With ourselves, Denison, we're going to be bringing back Canada as the world leaders in the production of this key fuel for the globe. We're very proud of our position in it, and we look forward to updating you again in the near future.

Thank you, and have a good day.