Today, I'm very pleased to welcome John Gibson, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Nauticus Robotics, ticker symbol KITT. As you may know, Nauticus develops autonomous underwater drone or AUD robots and software that service ocean industries like offshore oil and gas, wind power, and defense. Its electric-powered robots enhance safety, efficiency, and precision, with the added benefit of cutting carbon emissions for its customers. Before we get started, I would like to point out that the company's safe harbor statements can be found on its investor relations website. Also, this conversation is being recorded so you can access it again in the future and share it with others. Finally, we will get to questions that have been submitted by investors, and if not, we'll make sure those are delivered to John and his team after our chat today. With that, let's get started.
John, welcome, and thanks so much for joining us today.
It's good to be here, Peter.
Okay, great. Let's jump right in. You know, we hosted Nauticus Robotics in a symposium recently, but this is our first fireside chat with you, I believe, John. Before we dig our heels into the company's operations and industry outlook, could you please just tell us a bit about yourself and how you came into Nauticus Robotics?
I'll try to. I've been around Nauticus Robotics from its very inception when it was Houston Mechatronics and have been following the leadership that was here, and I was excited to see NASA scientists bring a technology out and try to adapt it to the maritime industry for oil and gas. You know, I communicated a lot with the previous executive team. In fact, I was their banker at one point. I helped them raise quite a bit of money. I encouraged them not to go public, and they chose to hire another banker and proceed with that. I was on the other side of the fence, but I felt like they were a little too small, and that's the challenge that we face since I've been here.
As a part of joining them, my first official role was as the Audit Chair for the company during the de-spike and helping them get through the de-spike. I took that on. I'm very fortunate to have had Bill Forrest join us and take my position as Audit Chair, who is a five-time congressman and a fantastic financial mind. We're very fortunate there. I've been hanging around for quite a long time, so probably since 2015, 2016, watching the technology. Myself personally, I've always been in technology. I got out of the military and went to college and then took off to be a geophysicist for Gulf Oil, ended up with Chevron in the transition, managed Chevron Research out in La Habra, California, which was called Chevron Oilfield Research Company. I handled subsurface research for the company.
I left there to go be in charge of a software company in Austin, Texas, which was called Zycore. It became part of Landmark. We sold Landmark in 1996 to Halliburton for $535 million, which was a sizable reward for a software company back in the '90s. We were a very successful software company. Stayed on Halliburton, ended up CEO of Halliburton Energy Services, which is what you see as Halliburton today, but at the time, it was much larger. It had Kellogg, Brown, and Root. It was a part of the Halliburton family. When we split, I left and ran another software company valued at about $50 million, Peter. It was sold four and a half years later for just under $1 billion. A pretty successful outcome there, simple strategy, which we could talk about later.
I left there and went to a Canadian environmental company, which we grew the revenues from $2 billion- $6 billion plus in less than five years. I had really highly levered, got the leverage down, but oil prices collapsed. I didn't want to be a Canadian. I'm glad now because then I couldn't get back and forth the way our relationship is today with Canada. I came down to be a banker. I was a banker. I took the exams at age 60. I was the only person over the age of 30 in the room. Completed those and worked with Tudor Pickering Holt, which is an outstanding boutique banking group in the oil and gas sector, but they're now part of Perella Weinberg. I went to run a chemicals company.
After I left the chemicals company, which we also took from $0.50 a share, I think it's trading at about $12 now, we signed a $2.2 billion take-or-pay contract while I was there at a company that only did $40 million a year in revenue. A very successful outcome. I like challenges. It was here. We were having some challenges in getting the company to move from R&D to commercial, and the board asked me to step in and sort of apply some commercial pressure to the company so that we could begin to generate reliable revenues and profits and sort of get the company to cash flow neutral from an investment platform.
Yeah, thanks for that. What can you tell us about your team at Nauticus?
Outstanding team. Had to transition most of it. Also, taking the company from being an R&D company to being a commercial company, you really have to put customers at the forefront of your mind, not at the back of your mind. At some point, when you have a breakthrough technology, it takes multiple years to get that implemented and adopted. It is different than just developing technology. We have technology that's probably, you know, five to ten years ahead of the laggards in the market and just at the early adopter stage where people that really benefit from technology and understand the value of bringing it in. We are at the very beginning of the value creation curve for Nauticus and our team is really about bringing that to the market.
Our Head of Engineering has been in the medical industry and has taken concepts all the way from inception to commercial and sold. We have an Operations Manager that's run a large operations group offshore, very good with customers, knows how to execute, understands non-productive time and the minimization of it. Really a very commercial team now. It's a big transition in just 18 months from primarily research to now being a company delivering high-end technology to the market.
Yeah, I mean, it certainly is a great team, and I really appreciated your most recent results briefing, how you invited the key members in to participate with the analyst Q&A. I just think that was so impactful. I know analysts and investors really appreciate that type of opportunity. Let's move into Nauticus Robotics itself, especially looking at your nice backdrop there with the Aquanaut. Could you please share a high-level overview, just including the core products and target markets for starters?
I can do that. Our flagship products, the one that's in the background, that's actually Nauticus Robotics, our product called Aquanaut. The Aquanaut really is the basis of the company in that it provides the platform that we test the manipulators and the software on. We really have three primary product lines. We have the Aquanaut itself, which carries 22 sensors and allows us to gather a lot of different streams of data. Our customers can tell us what their mission is, and then we'll design the sensor array to accomplish the mission, whatever that might be, whether it be identify a pipeline, a subsea node, and the ocean or ocean bottom node for the seismic companies. It can be to observe leaks on well heads. We configure the Aquanaut for the task at hand so that we can optimize results. The software itself is one of our product lines.
It's called ToolKITT. I'm pretty excited about news that we'll be bringing to the market as well on the ROV implementation that we've talked about in the past. We actually have a Comanche in the pool, and we'll be operating the software on it in the next few weeks now that we've gotten out of the Gulf of America. We're excited about the progression of the ToolKITT for a really large legacy install base of ROVs. Our manipulators, we've got quite a bit of interest on funding the manufacture of them. We have the development plan, and we did prototypes. We're trying to move from being a prototype company to a commercial company. We’ll partner with a manufacturing company or manufacturing expertise so that we can bring those to market quickly and robustly. Finally, Aquanaut, the vehicle, the software that drives autonomy, drives the robot.
We also have the opportunity to use consulting services to bring these technologies to defense. Think of it as manipulators that can actually interact with the environment, the vehicle, the software, and then consulting opportunities for those three types of technology.
Okay, that's great. I understand we've talked in the past about how your technology is really an autonomous underwater drone or an AUD. Could you sort of share with the investors why distinguishing your technology as AUD is important and what makes that different?
We've been reviewing that even in the last couple of days, Peter. In this marketplace, the USV market, which is an unmanned surface vehicle, they're literally, the number of those in the market are doubling pretty much every quarter. You'll see more people enter that market. I chose to exit that market early on and to focus on Aquanaut, which is an AUD more than an AUV, an autonomous underwater vehicle. It doesn't carry people, but it's typically the shape of a torpedo, and it has a propulsor on the back, and you just, it goes through the water, and you don't really give it instructions after you put it in the water. It just gathers data, and you get the data when you come back. It's autonomous for certain.
It's unmanned, but it's also, and it's untethered, but it also is not adaptable in the event that you want to change the mission for the vehicle while it's on the bottom. Our vehicle, on the other hand, is more of an aquacopter or an autonomous underwater drone. It has the collision avoidance, so we get closer to the bottom. We're not just going along at a high level taking pictures. We can get up very close to things. We call it jogging, but we jog up to an object, which means come up to it a little bit at a time until you're however far away you need to be, inches. In many cases, we want to touch the object. If you want to deploy a cathodic probe to measure the integrity of pipe, you need to get close enough to actually touch the pipe in a specific place.
Ours is more about hovering, station keeping, orbiting, and working in close quarters with subsea infrastructure, not by just doing a flyover like you do with an AUV. Think of the AUV market as a flyby and ours as a true close-up inspection, interaction, manipulation platform for gathering data, of which there are only just a couple of those in the marketplace. We have a material market share in the autonomous underwater drones that operate down to 3,000 meters. We're a serious player there. I would look at big companies like Saab, Saipem, Oceaneering as being the three people capable of working like we do. I think we have more time in the water than people realize and competitive with those larger companies. We're your only pure play that brings this to you where you can see what the results are and follow us.
It's a little bit too much transparency, but it tells you that it's a great segment to be in because the three real leaders are in it, and we're right there neck and neck with them.
Yeah, right here. KITT is the only pure play AUD company out there right now. It's very important for investors. Let's pull back a little bit from a higher view, kind of look at the overall industry trends, if I may ask about that. If we dig a bit deeper into those industry trends that are increasing the demand for AUDs, we're seeing that in areas like offshore oil and gas, wind energy, and defense. What does this addressable market look like for the company?
The addressable market, we're very excited about what we're doing. One of the main things is making vessel size smaller. We actually can take things down from a DP3, a really large vessel, down to a DP1. That cuts carbon emissions by as much as 80%- 90% for our customers without any difficulty. We actually mark it 75% or greater, and we've demonstrated that with a super major. The most exciting part is eliminating the vessel entirely. As a consequence, we're working with companies like Open Ocean Robotics, CSA, and others to get a modem on the surface. Just say an unmanned modem that can float on the surface just above the vehicle. Those come in sizes that are only a couple of hundred pounds and 10 feet long. We can then launch from the dock.
At a distance of say 40 or 50km , we need no vessel, we need no people. We're able to launch it, give it the mission, the coordinates, what its task is. That eliminates all of the carbon emissions associated with diesel engines and tethers that are associated with it. You have a tremendous amount of infrastructure. All of the wind energy infrastructure is within 40km by and large. You're able to do all the inspections for the wind industry, and you can really take out big carbon. When you're running a green industry, you ought to be greener. You should also take a look at it with regard to ocean traffic and others. We can operate even in higher seas because the vehicle's below the water and the small vehicle's not affected by it and no people involved. We open up days where there's weather losses.
We eliminate the carbon. We launch from shore and eliminate these large vessels. A very exciting market. Offshore Louisiana, you have some very large fields, meaning thousands of wells that need to be inspected for leaks that are within seven kilometers of shore. We can go out the seven kilometers. We can do 150km of traverse going from well head to well head and then come back to the shore, never need a vessel. It's transformational for the industry. It takes out cost in a tremendous way when you get rid of the vessel. The vessels are costing anywhere from say $20,000- $150,000 per day for you to put the vehicle on and take offshore. That's something that we think we can dramatically reduce the size when we're far offshore or eliminate entirely when you're within 40km .
You've got, as I understand, amongst Nauticus Robotics and your competitors, just a handful of these AUDs which are out there operating today. What does that tell you about the overall growth potential, and how much of the market, the potential market, are those two AUDs actually capturing today?
That's a great question. There's not very many, right? I mean, you're looking at, you can count all the vehicles that Oceaneering has that are competitive to ours on two hands and the same with Saab and Saipem and ourselves. It's a very early market. In early markets, diffusion rate's the hardest thing for you to do an estimate of because you're overcoming the cultural change for customers, the adoption of autonomy. It's why we did an acquisition of SeaTrepid. SeaTrepid, the ROV, is really to follow the Aquanaut and prove that all of the autonomy, the collision avoidance, the waypoints, the orbiting, that all of that is functional. That's getting people past that. The cliché is, you know, we'll be comfortable with autonomy when there's no steering wheel in a Tesla.
There's no steering wheel in an Aquanaut at all, and we're operating at, you know, three km below the surface of the water. You have to have proof of concept and demonstration. We're still in that transition phase where people are moving from the traditional way of using an ROV that has a tether and you have real-time data up to fiber to having very spotty data. We can send a picture up about every five or six minutes from the Aquanaut via comms up to the modem on the surface and back to the boat or back to shore. It's just, it's a big cultural shift. I think it will replace. Even the big guys manufacturing ROVs understand that all the light duty inspection vehicles, of which there's thousands, will be replaced by robotics.
You have thousands of vehicles to be manufactured to move into this marketplace over the next five to ten years. There are class vehicles we won't replace. Those are the heavy-duty work vehicles. You need a lot of power if you want to pick up four or five hundred kgs . None of that's available via current battery technology. The energy density is too low. There's going to be a place for heavy-duty ROVs for the foreseeable future. I see no way around where we can meet the need for something that does heavy-duty work. Thousands of vehicles will be replaced. I think you'll have two or three successful companies in that. We intend to be one of those.
Okay, sounds good, John. I just want to move on. Let's actually zero back in on your products and technology here. You mentioned Toolkit software, Aquanaut, and the Olympic Arm. How does the Toolkit software help you stand out from the competition?
Toolkit is built on an open-source platform, ROS 2, and we built it to be platform-agnostic. We can run on any robot, and we have run on competitors' robots. That allows us to really look at the integration of multi-agents, or you know, some people use the word swarm. Swarm to me implies a large number. Right now, if we can just get a few to work together, we'll be quite happy. Imagine that we're using two agents if we're using the modem on the surface and the Aquanaut at depth working as a tandem. They're working together. Toolkit allows us to put that software both on the ROV, on the Aquanaut, and on the modem and operate that as a single unit. They can behave together, know one another's positions, communicate, so it provides real opportunities for the customer.
The other place Toolkit's going to work for us is we actually had built a treaded vehicle that would crawl on seafloor. We have customer interest in bringing that vehicle back because when you want to do inspections of fiber or pipelines or telecom cables from the deep water all the way to the shore, after you get into the wave base where you're tossing the vehicle around, it's hard to collect data. We really believe we'll be able to have a Toolkit-operated robot tandem that goes all the way up to where wave base impacts the data collection, and we'll switch over to an autonomous tracked vehicle that'll crawl on the seafloor and complete the inspection all the way to the bank. It's having that single operating system that means we can move operators from vehicle to vehicle to vehicle.
Without retraining, this is huge for us and for our marketplace. They'd love to have the same operating system on various ROVs so that the operators themselves wouldn't require additional training or specialized knowledge. Can we really change this industry to where the resources themselves are more fungible and more flexible, and their career opportunities are greater because they can work for anybody because the operating system gives them the certification they need to sort of move to different robots.
Let's talk about Aquanaut Mark II. The Aquanaut has set a new depth record recently. Could you talk more about those recent tests and what makes the achievement so significant, and what does it mean for expanding KITT's opportunity set, for example, in offshore energy?
It's both a great thing, and I wish I hadn't done it, Peter. How about that? That test cost quite a lot of money. The commitments that were made prior to me joining were to work at depths of 3,000m . It turns out 95% of the market that's available today is in water shallower than 2,000m . Having a vehicle that goes to 3,000 meters is really nice for your brochure, but it doesn't make you money. We were trying to meet commitments that we've had signed prior to my joining that had it going down and doing deep water work, and we will complete those. We will have a vehicle that's tested down to 2,500, 3,000m, no trouble. Okay? I don't care about that depth. I just want to go and capture market in that 2,000m and less area. The eight comms is much simpler.
The recovery times are quicker. There's a lot more market there. While deep water work's exciting, until they're willing to pay a real premium for it, the best margin and the best quality and the fastest diffusion rate's going to turn shallower waters where we get to the bottom faster, get the work done, get back to the surface without the complexities and the buoyancy of the vehicle and the navigation of the vehicle on the bottom. I'm really excited that we can get there, but I'm more excited it says we can exceed the depth needed to address the market. Now what we need to do in 2026 is just get after the market.
How about the Olympic Arm manipulator? What are the key advantages there over the traditional hydraulic arms?
The hydraulic arms are standard. If you want to go buy an arm today, you'd call me up, wanted one that worked perfectly today, I'd go get a T4 from Schilling. It's a great arm. It is hydraulic, but you're seeing a lot of the markets want to move away from anything that has hydraulic fluid for environmental reasons because they do leak. They want to move to electric arms. This is a little bit like the ROV discussion. An electric arm's never going to be as powerful as a hydraulic arm. You're going to replace 70% of them, but you're going to have 30% of the market that's going to remain hydraulic because of the lift weights that are required and the strength required on the arm. With the electric arm, make them smaller, put them on AUVs. Here's the big difference.
We think we can do it with hydraulic arms also, but with the electric arm, we can operate it 100% with Toolkit using perception. No one has to actually have a haptic device and operate the manipulator. If it knows it needs to pick something up, it uses the perception and it picks it up. You're not required to have someone hold onto a device and actually open and close the arm. We're looking at fully autonomous arms also. It's not just an arm. It's an autonomous arm, right? Now we can train it to do work. We're using new training methodologies for these arms so that they can operate without human intervention. It's pretty exciting to have a fully autonomous vehicle, but it wouldn't be fully autonomous unless the manipulator was autonomous as well. We're coupling those two things together under the Toolkit platform.
If we focus on the benefits, like the tangible benefits for your customers, I think you had some of this in your new IR slides that came out. Could we, for example, talk about by how much the technologies are improving efficiency or lowering costs or reducing carbon emissions for your customers?
On the carbon emission side, there's no question we'll take out, you know, 70% plus up to 90% depending upon what kind of function you're doing. We consider that, first off, that sounds like I'm an environmentalist. I'm actually a capitalist. I'm not so much an environmentalist. It turns out that not burning diesel is a good capitalistic approach. If you can save them 90% of their carbon, what you're really doing is saving them 90% of their consumables. They see it in two ways. The first one their operations people see is 90% less diesel consumed, and that drops the bill immediately, dramatically. The next thing that you see is we actually make the ROVs or the Aquanauts more efficient in its travel path.
Because you're not moving back and forth in the current with a human operator, the Aquanaut goes straight from point A to point B because it's constantly making adjustments based upon the waypoints. It's not being impacted by currents or tether or anything pulling it along. Mistakes are made by humans. Current contracts on the ROVs, all of the customers are building in about 20% non-productive time due to operator mistakes, error, or time lost as a result of hitting the bottom and stirring up the silt, et cetera. When you put something in autonomy mode, it's not going to hit the bottom. That's not one of the behaviors that you're going to give the vehicle. It's going to have a lock and it'll stay at a specified depth. That's another 20% improvement.
When you're spending $100,000 a day, $50,000- $100,000 a day, just a 20% improvement in the operational time, that's $20,000 a day or half a million dollars a month. Many of these operators have multiple of these boats operating at any one time. It's a material change in their cost structure, both from consumables, from boat size, vessel size, and coming down to much smaller vessels, as well as a reduction in non-productive time. It's all about lowering their cost, actually. The added benefit is efficiency equal reduction in carbon.
Let's shift gears a bit here to talk about your growth strategy from here. You know, Nauticus Robotics has been moving, as you mentioned earlier, from R&D into commercial growth. I understand that includes exploring and licensing technology. How do you see this shift to a capital-light, royalty-based model affecting your company's margins and scalability and the overall financial health?
You know, we could build manufacturing without any difficulty, but we'd still need a partner. We don't have manufacturing expertise or competency, and I've built manufacturing operations. To bring those skill sets in and get it set up and make it effective takes time. I'd prefer to shorten the wall clock time by partnering with someone whose expertise is manufacturing and license it to them. We'll take a license or royalty fee on the manufacturer of those vehicles, the testing of those vehicles. The exciting part, too, is Toolkit will be the operating system. What we'll be doing is building our annuity from software as a service onto these vehicles as they're deployed. We'll retain the operating system or the application that makes it functional.
Our goal is to accelerate the manufacturing deployment of these and get the diffusion rate up on autonomous underwater drones and manipulators so that we have the greatest basis for our software deployment.
You mentioned the SeaTrepid acquisition earlier, which in many ways has been really transformational for your business. Could you share how Nauticus Robotics' acquisition of SeaTrepid in March has really helped to boost Nauticus Robotics' capabilities and customer reach? What kind of immediate benefits has this integration brought to Nauticus Robotics' commercial pipeline?
It brought us a sales force. That's the first one. As an R&D company, we lack sales acumen here. We immediately got a good sales team in, and we've got a tremendous leader in Steve Walsh there. What comes with tremendous sales acumen is master service agreements. Those with super majors or others can take anywhere from six to 18 months to negotiate. We went from an 18-month timeframe from getting contracts with some of the super majors to having them immediately. We just had to transform our company over into the SeaTrepid master service agreements. It allowed us to go out and just do purchase orders and not start from scratch on terms and conditions and insurance and all the things that are required in constructing a contract with a super major. That shortened the time to market for us dramatically.
It also brought decades of offshore experience and operators. The operators are excited to be here because they were primarily our ROV operators, but they see the future as robotics. All of their ROV operators are excited to be trained on Aquanaut because that transforms you from just being a worker on an ROV to looking at a career where you can be working in the maritime robotics space. It's exciting for the employees there. They are able to bring tremendous value to Aquanaut. They had a testing facility and a pool that they used to test their vehicles. It was costing us anywhere from $5,000- $7,000 a day to use a pool here at a competitor to do our testing. We're saving a quarter million dollars a month because anytime we're not out doing commercial work, we're testing and verifying the vehicle and the software.
It's just a tremendous number of different benefits. Having Bob Christ as well, who's one of the original employees at Ocean Infinity, his knowledge of the development of the space and involvement in it is just, he brings a wealth of knowledge and skill sets and connections and Rolodex to the company. We're really happy to have him on board.
What about, you know, risks? What sort of hurdles does Nauticus face in terms of speeding up the adoption of autonomous marine technology?
You know, being public is one of our risks. You know, we're really small and we're competing against multi-billion dollar companies. Our share price is up and down and up and down. We don't have the portfolio of products or equipment in the field to sort of stabilize us. We've got this early phase that I think when we get through it, will really change dramatically for us. I think you'll see us get a premium multiple when we get to critical mass and are cash flow neutral or better, and we're working quite diligently on it. Adoption rates are really important. I would tell you, I've talked to my competitors, and I think all of us are rooting for one another.
We have such a small fleet today in the market that we don't want one of the people that are going into it to fail because all you do is slow that market adoption rate down. I know Oceaneering's a great company, Saab's a great company, and Saipem, and there's more than enough room out there for all four of us to have very successful businesses. It's less about competition than it is in any way timing the market out by having an error. I think we all, if they called and asked for help and there was something we knew, I would offer help. I want to see all of us succeed there. I would hope they would do the same, and I think they would.
We had an issue this past year where we needed some help, and we picked up the phone, and I found tremendous willingness to cooperate with us. We needed just a couple of days of help, and they took the call, and we ended up doing something else, which was much cheaper. The willingness to help one another is great. I think adoption rates are our biggest.
We've covered a lot here today, John. If you want to just sort of filter through for investors, what sort of key signposts should they be focused on with your company over the next, say, six to 12 months or whatever timeframe you think is important?
It's an excellent question. The things that I am really looking at are our software release dates and getting the announcements out for the market on when we'll be releasing the ROV commercial release. We slowed it down in order to use the ROVs for our own operations work in the Gulf this season. Now that we have them back, and they're back in Robert, Louisiana, and we can get the software on those and complete the certification and testing, we'll watch for announcements on when the ROV Toolkit platform is in the market. I would watch for the vessel-less operations announcements that we should be making. We've moved the Aquanaut to Stuart, Florida. We're working in tandem with CSA at a lake there.
We'll be testing a surface modem with the Aquanaut in the lake so that we can demonstrate that you can do work without having to have a vessel. You just have a modem that uploads to satellite and back to shore. We will be able to show operations without people, without vessels. That should happen this year, as we work on it. We do have some off-season type contracts that we're working on. We hope we get those out as well. We have been quiet. People sending me notes often saying, you know, you need to press release more. The board may put some pressure on me to do that, but I've tried really hard to, particularly in new companies, not to promote, Peter. It's not about promotion. It's about execution. I'd rather say less and do more.
We're still in that early phase where, as we have equipment difficulties, it impacts us immediately on revenue because we have so few vehicles. I'd rather not be out promoting so much as I would be announcing actuals as we go forward. Look for actual things happening that are material for the company. We're not going to be the press release every two-day company, which I've got a few competitors out there doing that. They're very successful at that, mind you. They've got a better multiple and more market cap. I think long-term sustainability of an organization comes from clear communications on actual things as a result in results, not promotion. We're going to stay the course on saying less and meaning more.
Okay, thank you very much, John. I'm afraid we are running out of time here, but this has been a great conversation and very comprehensive. Before we conclude, maybe I'll just give you a chance here to provide any concluding remarks.
No, I'm excited about the future. We had a great season with the Aquanaut. We got it offshore. We did set a record. We had some challenges, and those challenges have given us the difficulty of not being able to get all the work that we wanted to get done this season while we were in the Gulf. The exciting part for me is the customers themselves. We lost no work this year. They simply pushed that forward for us to give us time to get the corrections in place that we needed. That's the importance of this vehicle and the impact of this vehicle. Nobody wants this vehicle to fail, particularly our customers. They are behind us. They are patient with us, and we are working hard to actually exceed all our expectations. I think that's what the company will be doing.
You'll see us, the 2026 year, hopefully is our very best year. This is going to be a good year. We'll outperform what we did in 2024. In 2026, I think we'll make some significant financial milestones. Keep your eye on us.
Okay, excellent, John. We'll look forward to hosting you for more events in the future. We'll be following developments very closely at Nauticus Robotics here at Water Tower Research. In closing, I'd like to encourage everyone to look at our website, www.watertowerresearch.com, for disclosures and other research on Nauticus Robotics, ticker KITT, including our new initiation of coverage report. You'll also find research on other companies in the energy transition and sustainable investing sector, as well as tech and seven or eight other sectors under our coverage here at Water Tower. The views expressed in this fireside chat may not necessarily reflect the views of Water Tower Research LLC and are provided for informational purposes only. This fireside chat may not be distributed or reproduced without the written consent of Water Tower Research and should not be considered research nor a recommendation.
WTR is an investor engagement firm, not a licensed broker, broker-dealer, market maker, investment bank, underwriter, or investment advisor. Additional disclaimers can be found at watertowerresearch.com. Thank you very much.