Day, and welcome to the Uranium Energy Corp's fiscal 2026 results conference call. All participants will be in listen-only mode. Should you need assistance, please signal a conference specialist by pressing the star key followed by zero. After today's presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. To ask a question, you may press star then one on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question, please press star then two. Please note this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Amir Adnani, Uranium Energy Corp's Founder and CEO. Please go ahead.
Thank you, operator, and good morning, everyone. A presentation accompanying today's call is available on our website. Some of the commentary today will include forward-looking statements, and I would encourage everyone to review the cautionary language on slide two of the presentation. In addition, during today's call, we will be discussing certain non-GAAP financial measures. Please refer to our presentation for additional information. With that, let's begin with the highlights of a transformational year for UEC. 12 months ago, we produced uranium from only one mine in one state. Today, we produce from two mines in two states and are well underway in building a third at Ludeman. Fiscal 2026 established UEC as a multi-mine American uranium producer.
Just as important, in a single year, we demonstrated that we can grow our operating team, which now stands at more than 250 people, double our drill rig count to 40, and continue to build and commission new mines, all while executing a differentiated strategy of vertical integration from mining through refining and conversion. I want to take a moment to recognize our people. Behind every number you will hear today are teams in Wyoming and Texas who hired and trained new operators, built and brought new header houses online, recommissioned the Hobson plant, and started up Burke Hollow, the largest new in situ recovery uranium mine to come online in the United States in over a decade, and one that began as our own discovery. This is what rebuilding America's uranium industry looks like. Skilled, well-paying jobs in the rural communities where we operate.
To our team and to those communities, thank you. On our last call, we said new header houses would lift production and that the rise in cost per pound seen in the third quarter was temporary. This proved true as we delivered. Fourth quarter production rose 157%, total cost per pound fell by 33%, and our unhedged strategy resulted in what we believe is the highest realized price among publicly traded uranium producers. The foundation of our competitive advantage includes the largest uranium resource base in the United States, arguably the largest ever assembled in this country, combined with $753 million in liquid assets and no debt. Fiscal 2026 was the year we built the platform. Fiscal 2027 is the year we start to scale it with an unparalleled combination of workforce, drill rigs, in-ground resources, and balance sheet strength. Turning to operations.
Combined, Christensen Ranch and Burke Hollow produced nearly 83,000 pounds of precipitated uranium and dried and drummed U3O8 in the fourth quarter, up 157% from the third quarter at a cash cost of about $30 per pound and a total cost of about $36.50 per pound. At Christensen Ranch, production doubled to more than 65,000 lbs as the three new header houses in Wellfield 11 ran for a full quarter. Cash costs fell to about $28 per pound and total costs to about $36 per pound, a 35% reduction in total cost per pound in a single quarter as higher volumes moved through the same plant. At Burke Hollow, our first full quarter delivered more than 17,000 lbs at a cash cost of about $36 per pound and a total cost of just under $40 per pound.
This first phase was limited to a small section of the first production area to establish a playbook of key operating parameters ahead of expansion across the full well field. For the full fiscal year, our first full-year of production, we produced more than 229,000 lbs at a cash cost of about $34 and a total cost of $39.94 per pound. Since commissioning, we have produced about 359,000 lbs. These production numbers are precipitated uranium and dried and drummed U3O8. Beyond Christensen Ranch and Burke Hollow, our development pipeline advanced on every front, which I will cover shortly. On the financial side, our unhedged strategy has not changed. In a market facing a structural supply deficit, we seek to maintain exposure to pricing upside for our shareholders rather than lock it into contracts signed at legacy prices.
This year, we sold 400,000 lbs at a weighted average realized price of $93.13 per pound, which we believe is the highest among publicly traded uranium producers, generating revenue of $37.3 million and gross profit of $16.9 million. That revenue reflects a deliberate choice. We ended the year holding 1.26 million pounds of uranium in inventory, worth about $109 million at current market prices, nearly three times this year's revenue, plus the roughly 359,000 lbs produced and held at our Irigaray and Hobson plants. We could have sold far more, and we chose not to. Our strategy is to hold inventory into a tightening market and sell into strength for the benefit of our shareholders. Our balance sheet is what gives us the relatively unique luxury of having that choice. We have $753 million in liquid assets, including $495 million in cash and no debt.
We are never a forced seller. Turning to the tightening U.S. market, several forces are converging as we head into next year. At the end of 2027, the waivers under the U.S. ban on Russian uranium imports expire, and the ban takes full effect. The United States is now in a race to stand up domestic mining, conversion, and enrichment capacity. New enrichment capacity only works with a reliable supply of U3O8 and UF6 behind it. At the same time, the U.S. government's own requirements are growing. The U.S. Department of Energy, through the National Nuclear Security Administration, issued a request for information on domestic capability to supply unobligated U.S. origin uranium and conversion services through the 2040s, 4 million pounds of U3O8 and 1,500 metric tons of uranium as UF6 each year, with delivery starting as soon as 2030.
In August, the U.S. Army selected five developers to build nuclear microreactors at military installations with more than 20 expected under its Janus Program, all requiring unobligated U.S. origin uranium and conversion services. Those needs cannot be met from allied nations. Unobligated supply can only come from U.S. sources, U.S. mines, U.S. technology, and U.S. conversion. Conversion is arguably the biggest bottleneck in the entire nuclear fuel supply chain. In our response to the National Nuclear Security Administration, we made it clear that UEC is positioned to fully support its uranium requirements as our production in Texas and Wyoming ramps up, and through our refining and conversion subsidiary to provide the conversion services it needs. No other company in the United States is building a solution from the mine through conversion.
These demand signals confirm why we are building United States Uranium Refining and Conversion Corp., extending UEC beyond mining into the next stage of the fuel cycle. This year, working with our engineering partner, Fluor, URNC finalized its regulatory engagement strategy and began preparing its license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We are advancing toward a Class 4 cost estimate, which we expect to be ready in mid-2027. Site selection continues to move forward. Behind this progress is a team that has grown to 63 individuals in less than a year, comprised of process engineers, chemists, nuclear fuel specialists, construction professionals, and other subject matter experts. There is currently only one operating conversion facility in the United States. It was built in the 1950s. Building the next one is a once-in-a-generation project, and you can feel the passion our team brings to it.
URNC will be U.S. technology so that its output can qualify as unobligated U.S. origin supply for the U.S. government. To protect that, URNC has put a technology control plan in place for export-controlled information, and our team has completed comprehensive training in this regard. Turning to our uranium assets, our current operating platform is built on two production hubs in Wyoming and South Texas, each with a central processing plant fed by satellite mines. This is supported by two major development projects we are advancing: the Sweetwater hub in Wyoming and Roughrider in Saskatchewan. At Christensen Ranch, the Wellfield 11 header houses performed as expected. As previously reported, three new header houses in Wellfield 11 began production late in the third fiscal quarter.
Four additional header houses were constructed and tested as of the end of the fourth fiscal quarter, bringing the total to five that were awaiting regulatory approval for startup at such time. Just yesterday afternoon, we received final approval for four of these. Our team expects to start production at these header houses in the coming weeks. At Ludeman, our next mine feeding Irigaray, wells for the first well field are being installed and tested for mechanical integrity. Engineering for the satellite ion exchange plant is advancing. We have ordered long lead time equipment, completed the plant pad engineering, and selected our construction contractor. The power line route is set, with surveys expected to be completed in the first quarter of fiscal 2027. In South Texas, the first shipment of uranium-loaded resin from Burke Hollow arrived at our Hobson plant in mid-May.
Every step at Hobson from elution through precipitation, drying, and packaging is now commissioned, and Hobson is once again an operating central processing plant. At the well field, 126 injection and recovery wells were brought online. We are utilizing this small section to establish our best operating parameters from lixiviant chemistry and pump sizing to well field patterns. Those parameters will guide the next phase as we expand mining in the first production area.
Sweetwater will be our third production hub, with a mill that gives us the flexibility to process both conventional ore and in-situ recovery production. Federal permitting continues to advance. The FAST-41 permitting dashboard targets completion of the environmental assessment in March 2027, and approval of the plan of operations in May 2027, and our environmental baseline studies are largely complete. Drilling at Sweetwater North has been very encouraging, with results confirming mineralization trends that support continued delineation.
Based on this success, we are planning additional drilling in the first quarter of fiscal 2027 to further extend the mineralization identified in the initial program and to advance well field design for our first two production areas. With our partner Wood Group, work continues on installing the ion exchange and elution systems for in-situ recovery operations. In Saskatchewan's Athabasca Basin, home to the highest grade conventional uranium mines in the world, Roughrider continues to advance. We completed a 36,000 meter drill program to upgrade our resources in support of our planned pre-feasibility study. In August, we signed a definition study agreement with Saskatchewan Power Corporation for a high voltage transmission line to the mine, a key step in de-risking our project. UEC is committed to become America's national champion for the front end of the fuel cycle. Our competitive advantage is one that cannot be copied.
The largest uranium resource base in the country with multiple mines and production platforms. The fuel cycle starts with uranium, and that is where we also begin in our development and growth strategy aimed at establishing America's only vertically integrated uranium company. With that foundation, our team of professionals, and a clear path from mining through conversion, UEC has never been better positioned. Before we turn to questions, I would like to note that I am joined today by Josephine Mann, our Chief Financial Officer, Scott Melbye, our Executive Vice President, and Brent Berg, our Senior Vice President of U.S. Operations. Operator, please open the line for questions.
We will now begin the question and answer session. To ask a question, you may press star then one on your touch tone phone. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing the keys. If at any time your question has been addressed and you would like to withdraw your question, please press star then two. At this time, we will pause momentarily to assemble our roster. Our first question comes from Brian Lee with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Hey, Amir, good morning. Thanks for taking the questions. I guess first one, just be curious, fiscal 2026 was pretty eventful for you guys, but we are heading into kind of a new pricing environment, I suppose, if you look at the strength in U3O8. I think that is indicative of you having two quarters of sales this fiscal year. So maybe just on that front, fair to assume more sales in fiscal Q1 with U3O8 prices hovering around $90 a pound. Then maybe just zooming out a little bit, just the extent to which you are seeing customer engagement at these levels of uranium pricing. Then the potential for UEC specifically to be engaged in more sustained and consistent sales in fiscal 2027.
Hey, Brian. Good morning, and thank you for the question and being here. I will take this in two ways. Let me just provide some comments on it myself. Then I would like to get Scott Melbye to come in, too, with his thoughts on it. Brian, again, as you have seen with our announcements, and particularly kind of focusing on this growing U.S. government demand for unobligated U.S. origin uranium, you have known kind of all along as to why we have stayed unhedged. It was partly because of the tightness we see in the market, the supply-demand fundamentals that to us clearly shows a supply deficit, a structural one. But we always felt that we had a differentiated product. Uranium mined in the U.S. is simply different than what could be mined in Canada or elsewhere because of the unobligated needs of the U.S. government.
Until recently, those needs were not explicitly expressed in numbers with delivery dates and the specifics that we now have from the National Nuclear Security Administration with the recent awards that the Army provided. Now you are starting to see more clear demand signals from the U.S. government for that U.S. origin unobligated uranium. So this shapes our strategy for sales going into fiscal 2027, where we want to certainly be there as a reliable supplier to the U.S. government. We have made sales to the Department of Energy in the past as a U.S. supplier, and so those lines are in place.
But we have also noticed anecdotally increased utility interest and RFP activity, especially from U.S. utilities going into the World Nuclear Symposium week. Generally speaking, you can see not only the price firm up and grind higher north of $90 or just around $90 per pound, but the utility demand is there as well. We look to capitalize on that where appropriate as well, Brian. But let me hand it off to Scott to elaborate and add to those points. Go ahead, Scott.
Yeah. Thanks, Amir. Brian, we indeed, as everyone following the utility contracting levels, in the first half of this year we've seen less than replacement rate of contracting by utilities. As Amir said, we've seen a real increase in off-market discussions with utilities and public RFQs, RFPs soliciting long-term proposals. I think what's encouraging is the supply deficit that I think all analysts agree is present and, in fact, even increasing to as much as maybe 2 billion pounds over the next 20 years. It's beginning to manifest itself in what sort of offers the utilities are seeing in the long-term market. They're not seeing the breadth and depth of offers that I think they'd like to see.
Producers with production available are able to increase terms and conditions, whether that means higher base prices maybe now approaching $100 per pound or above, or even the terms in market-related contracts, whether those are floors and ceilings increasing. Or what's relevant to us, we're beginning to see traction on proposals that have no price caps in terms of ceilings, certainly no discounts off market or flexibility. So I wouldn't rule out that we'll be successful in the coming months signing some long-term contracts with utilities that give us the certainty of the long-term contract without giving up our upside.
That's super helpful, caller. Maybe just a follow-up on that. At the onset, you mentioned the NNSA U.S. origin unobligated RFP. Sounds like you guys have filed for that. What are next steps, milestones on that process? How should we think about when you get clarity around potential volume and pricing terms if you're awarded something through that RFP?
Yeah. The RFI that was issued by the NNSA is very significant. I'll say, in my experience through the Uranium Producers of America, we've advocated on behalf of replenishing the stockpile for our defense purposes, and we've done so with the last five presidential administrations, Republican and Democrat. They all agreed that that's important and it should be a priority, but it wasn't until this administration that they've committed to do something about it. The RFI in government procurement terms is that first step prior to issuing formal request for proposals. So, the fact that they're moving forward with purchases as early as 2030 at the 4 million pound a year rate in the form of concentrates and UF6 conversion services, frankly, will be an incredible stimulus for the U.S. uranium industry, and certainly UEC will respond to that demand signal.
Brian, just to add to that. I think it would be fair to say that there really wasn't a number previously, and Scott, you can confirm this as well. But up until this RFI, there wasn't a number that someone can point to and say the NNSA demand is X million pounds per year. Now you've got a number, 4 million pounds per year starting in 2030, is quite specific, is quite large, in some ways larger than maybe people would've been anticipating. Last month's award by the U.S. Army for the microreactors to power military bases is on top of that, and to be further determined. You look at that in the context of the growing production that UEC has and volumes going into 2030. This could be just an excellent fit for us, not to mention the conversion on top of that.
Look, the reality is this now, I think hopefully drives home the point as to why we've remained unhedged as well, to have this added flexibility to be able to be a supplier, be aligned with those U.S. government needs that we've said for many quarters now were coming. There would've been zero point to be sitting here talking about these new demand points had we already contracted all of our production to utility demand. The fact that, again, this is emerging, the numbers are bigger than had been anticipated or expected, and the delivery dates are around the corner. This is in addition to the Russian ban kicking in December 2027. This creates one of the tightest environments we have ever seen in the U.S. for U.S. origin and very specific unobligated needs that exist and that there's a market around.
That's great. Last one, and I'll pass it on. Just on conversion, Amir would love to hear your thoughts. You mentioned this is a once-in-a-generation sort of build-out that the country needs on conversion UF6 capacity. Couple of questions here, I guess. Give us an update on sort of where you are in terms of offtake, financing discussions, and then also siting. Then just your big picture thoughts on competition. It's a once in a generation opportunity. There's an incumbent, as you mentioned, there seems to be a few startups. Our understanding is there's probably only room for one more factory, not four of them. How does UEC position to be the one, and is there any way to kind of pull forward your plans given the competitive landscape might be heating up here? Thank you.
Brian, I think our competitive advantage and differentiation on this couldn't be more clear, and it can't be copied, as I mentioned. It really starts with the resource base that we've assembled, the largest resource base in the U.S. for uranium. What we are offering is the ability to be vertically integrated and to be able to offer uranium, U3O8, and UF6. That does not exist today. That has never existed in the U.S. before. This can't be an alternative that French, Canadian, Chinese, Russian technology provides. As I mentioned, it has to be mined in the U.S., U.S. technology, U.S. infrastructure, and all of it has to be here. The existing conversion facility that we mentioned that's been in operation since the 1950s is conversion only.
It's not vertically integrated into mining operations, nor are any of the other, let's say, potential early-stage startups that you may have heard about there. We've got, again, the ability to talk about the vertical integration as being essential because we have this problem in enrichment. The biggest risk to enrichment, Brian, isn't the shortage of capital, it's the availability of UF6. Similarly, that's the biggest risk to conversion, is the availability of U3O8. The feedstock that allows the fuel cycle to exist is uranium. Without that, we don't have a healthy and robust fuel cycle in the country. I think we're going about it the right way. I think for years, the focus, frankly, has been backwards to start at enrichment and then hope everything else shows up at the doorsteps. You can't enrich air.
To start with uranium, add conversion, and to be the only company that offers that supply chain solution, we think really stands out. I hope that answers your question, Brian.
Our next question comes from Heiko Ihle with H.C. Wainwright. Please go ahead.
Hey there, Amir and team. Thanks very much for taking my questions here. There's been some stories in the news recently about the supply crisis as the Department of Defense has requested another 4 million pounds of domestically sourced uranium. Obviously, this is much in excess of what we domestically produce. Something needs to give, and I want to see maybe a little bit, what are you seeing with the demand from the Navy? Building on all of that, I assume the U.S. Army is going to have some requirements as well. What are you seeing in the market, and what are your conversations like with counterparties?
Hey, thanks, Heiko, for that question. Scott, why don't you go ahead and take that? Hey, Heiko, I'll go ahead and take that. I think maybe there's a glitch
Maybe he's on mute.
Oh, yeah, maybe he's on mute.
Maybe.
Maybe he's disconnected. Hey, Heiko. Yeah, he may have been disconnected for a connection issue. He's overseas right now. Just to get into that question with you, I think you're absolutely right that this is something that we've been waiting for, and the industry's been waiting for a long time. Frankly, some of this demand, again, was difficult to pinpoint and put exact figures around. When you consider just to maintain the existing fleet of reactors in the nuclear Navy to kind of pinpoint that number around 4 million pounds per year starting in 2030, before any further development or expansion of the fleet takes place. Again, the additional microreactors being deployed with the expansion and the Janus Program that the U.S. Army has. This is, again, never seen before numbers.
I think it creates a real race in the U.S. to stand up the domestic industry, because even though these demand signals are effective for 2030 and beyond, the Russian uranium ban takes full effect December 2027. We are about a year away from the market here really starting to feel tight and the squeeze on the availability of these domestic supply sources become quite real. You have seen announcements and more focus on enrichment. But like we said, you need the entire supply chain. We just think this is a really important positive development, and it is something that, again, we have been waiting for years. You heard Scott talk about how so many different presidents and administrations there was advocacy towards this issue to pay greater attention to it.
I think now that is happening finally, and there is this very strong bipartisan support for these initiatives to stand up and build a domestic industry. Frankly, with that type of durable policy support, you can really then do the scaling and the development initiatives that we have underway, multiple mines, multiple projects across the various projects that you have heard us provide updates on.
That is a fair answer. Okay. Just maybe a little more 30,000 foot view wise. The world is a very changed place from a year ago, five years ago, but frankly, even since the last time we had a conference call here. What are you seeing in relation to the willingness to face geopolitical risk factors from your utilities? Is there buying at any price? Is there more concern about longer term viability of supply? What are you seeing in your conversations? Do you maybe want to give a bit of color there?
Scott
Amir, I can take that if you want.
Okay, you are back. Yeah, go for it.
Yeah. Heiko, it is interesting because the utilities are coming back to the long-term market, and not seeing that breadth of offers coming back to them, is causing them to do a bit of soul searching and maybe go down into the second and third tier type suppliers and that might even mean taking on some geopolitical risk. I think it is always, as it always has been, will come back to suppliers that have geopolitical stability, stable operations are going to really see a premium in this market. I think already the utilities, I think we are going into a market where the utilities are going to be less concerned about fighting over $0.50 or $1 in terms and actually getting a claim on a bona fide producer's production capacity, and that can come through long-term contracting.
I do not think we are far off from utilities and other fuel cycle companies taking equity stakes in uranium companies to get that certainty of supply, because we are going into that kind of market again. We have seen it in the past. It feels like early stages of that happening again.
Fair enough. Yeah, I agree with you that at the end of the day, it is an irrelevant sum of money to your counterparties. Okay. I will get back into you. Thank you guys very much.
Thank you.
Our next question comes from Katie Lachapelle with Canaccord. Please go ahead.
Hi, Amir and team. Thanks for taking my question. Just wondering about production expectations into fiscal year 2027. I know that you mentioned that Burke Hollow produced from only a small section of the first production area. When are you expecting to open up additional areas for production? As it pertains to Christensen Ranch, I know there are additional header houses coming online, so how are you expecting that to impact the ramp into next year?
Hey, Katie. Thanks for that, and good to have you on. As you heard already, we were quite delighted and excited that yesterday afternoon, just as we were putting on the final preparations to get everything queued up and filed for today, we got approvals for four header houses at Christensen Ranch just yesterday afternoon, which allows our team to now start to move those projects in the coming weeks into operation. Despite the fact that we are continuing to deal with these industry growing pains with the regulatory delays that have occurred over the course of this year, there's definitely progress being made, and I think you see that. At this point, as you know, we don't have formal guidance, and I'll be direct about that as we've been before. We still have a variable in our ramp up, which is the timing of these regulatory approvals.
Despite yesterday's good news, we still have much of that work in front of us, and that's outside of our control, Katie. It's not unique to you. You see the regulators are handling far more uranium permitting than in prior years. This is after a long period the industry was largely idle. The growing pains of an industry coming back, frankly, is a good problem. We're making progress. We're working side by side with the regulators in Wyoming and Texas. Approval timelines are improving. Every approval makes the next one more predictable. The capacity is ready. As you heard me talk about, the workforce has doubled. The drill rigs have doubled in size. Our capacity for header houses increased just as recent as yesterday afternoon. We've got the progress and the development that's taking place at Ludeman and Sweetwater.
The approval cadence, as it becomes more predictable and as we get a larger critical mass of operations rolling, I think we'll be able to provide the guidance and be more specific about it. Until then, I think the best measure of what we deliver each quarter is really the way to go by. This quarter, you saw production was up 157%. With the growing operations, with that capacity, and with additional header houses coming, we're quite confident about a strong fiscal 2027 ahead.
Understood. Maybe just a follow-up question to Brian's question on conversion earlier. How close are you to selecting a technology or are you still assessing multiple flow sheets? To that end, are you planning to disclose the Class 4 estimate that's currently underway?
The current plan, Katie, is to disclose or to provide that information in mid 2027, when it's available. That's something that we disclosed and are working towards at this point. As you also see us mentioned, the team and the progress we're making has really advanced quite significantly, growing to roughly 63 individuals on the team. Maybe I can let Brent speak a bit to the progress on the conversion project with UR&C. Brent, over to you.
Yeah. Thanks, Amir. Katie, I would just add that we're moving very quickly with U.S. Uranium Refining & Conversion Corp as we advance to the next phase of engineering, siting, and licensing. Of course, secure domestic fuel cycle infrastructure is a top priority for the Department of Energy, and we have a collaborative relationship with them to keep our conversion initiative aligned with government objectives. Our next milestone, as Amir alluded to, is really that Class 4 cost estimate with Fluor, and we expect to complete that by mid-2027. That estimate will really set out the cost, the timeline for the project, and we would not expect a final investment decision until that's complete. But things are progressing very well and that estimate is the milestone for the current stage, and it'll lead to more detailed estimates that support a final investment decision. Amir, back to you.
Thanks, Brent.
That's good on my end, guys. Thank you.
Thank you, Katie.
Our next question comes from Justin Chan with SCP Resource Finance. Please go ahead.
Amir, Brent, and team. As a follow-up to Katie's question, on the header houses, I think you had four or five the past quarter. I know you can't control approvals, but from a build-out perspective, is that the rate you see yourselves progressing with next year, assuming approvals keep pace?
Go ahead, Brent.
Yeah. Thanks, Justin. I would just say, the progress is clear. At Christensen Ranch, we doubled production in the fourth quarter with three new header houses and well field running for the full period. As Amir mentioned, we had four header houses that were just approved yesterday. Currently, there are three additional header houses under construction, with another awaiting approval. Of course, each adds capacity as we advance. Maybe a little further color on future header house construction. We're installing the monitor wells in what's called Well Field 8 Extension, and that's approximately 50% complete. At Ludeman, all wells for header house 1-1, which is the first one, have been drilled and cased, and underreaming's underway. Well installation for header house 1-2 has been initiated with monitor wells for the first well field at Ludeman nearing completion.
So, as you can see, we're focused on not just Christensen Ranch, but Ludeman to keep that construction tempo consistent with what you would've seen in the past. Back to you, Amir.
Justin, did you have a follow-up there?
Yeah, I did. Thanks, Brent. That was a great answer. As a follow-up, I noted the construction timeline. Some info was given for Ludeman's IX plant. Just curious what your timelines are for Ludeman and getting that IX plant up and running, and when might we see loaded resins from that starting the production profile in FY 2027?
Hey, Justin. That's a great question. If you look at, let's say, our development timeline at, for example, Burke Hollow, we were able to build and execute within a 12- 15 month timeline. As you know, there hasn't really been any other greenfield ISR projects built in the U.S. in a very long time. UEC is very quickly developing the protocol, the team, the workforce, the formula to be able to deliver these projects with great predictability, precision as we move forward. We're, as of today, not putting a very specific timeline on when Ludeman will come online. I think by the time we report fiscal Q1, we might be in a better position to do that, Justin.
But suffice to say, this experience from Burke Hollow and that type of, let's say, timeline there, puts us in a position to maybe think about where Ludeman could be and the kind of expectation we have from where it can be coming online from today. We're moving very aggressively on it. It's a more accessible project. Justin, I can't remember when you visited. You didn't visit Ludeman, you just visited the Christensen Ranch, right?
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's right.
So relative to what it took to get to Christensen Ranch, which if you recall is about an hour and maybe 15 minute drive from Casper or so. Ludeman is more accessible, is closer by, and it's a project that kind of enjoys a more straightforward topography. We don't see challenging aspects to developing Ludeman. We see a good quality, strong project that will benefit from the experience that UEC has with the greater workforce and construction team and crews that we have in place. As I mentioned, by the time of the next quarter, hopefully, we'll have more specific update on that timeline at Ludeman. But it's very much part of our production plans for 2027, 2028, and beyond.
Okay, thanks. And maybe just one last one is a similar question on Texas, just I guess relative to the ramp-up we saw at Wyoming. How prescriptive is that for how you see kind of well field and header house deployment in Texas, or should we expect something quite different?
The only thing I will say at a high level and then hand it to Brent to go deeper is the one difference here between Christensen Ranch and Burke Hollow is the brownfield, greenfield nature of those two projects, Justin. At Christensen Ranch, we restarted a mine that had a prior 10 year operating history with in situ recovery and a team and operating parameters that were well known and were being leveraged to move quickly. In the case of Burke Hollow, it is a greenfield project, as you have heard us say and as you know. What that means is that, as we have disclosed, we have looked to set those ideal operating parameters and train the workforce in the early innings here as part of our ramp-up. At a high level, those are the distinctions between the two projects. I will let Brent go a bit deeper there.
Go ahead, Brent.
Yeah, thanks, Amir. Justin, I would just add that at Burke Hollow, we are really using that initial section of the first production area to establish those key operating parameters that Amir mentioned. Things such as lixiviant chemistry and pump sizing and assessing different well pattern configurations and spacing that we installed. That work is ongoing, and we will report more in subsequent quarters. It is important because as those parameters are confirmed, we will use that information to expand across the full well field at Burke Hollow. Amir, back to you.
All right. Thank you.
Okay, thanks, guys. I'll stay off the line.
Thank you, Justin.
Our next question comes from Joseph Reagor with ROTH Capital Partners. Please go ahead.
Hey, Amir and team. Thanks for taking the questions. Most of the stuff I want to touch on was already asked, but kind of maybe as you think about Christensen Ranch and Burke Hollow that are already now producing, when would you like to see these things be at a point where they're steady state production? How many quarters forward from here each? And then kind of do you guys have a number now that you would like to see each of these producing on an annual basis now that you've had some time to work on them?
Hey, Joe. Excellent questions. You heard me mention this earlier with respect to just still being in that. Again, for context, right? We step back and what are we reporting today? We are reporting the first full-year of production results, right? That is how early we are in the innings for this multi-year production ramp and growth we have in front of us. First full-year of production under our belt. We have gone from one mine to two mines. We are building a third one. We still have regulatory approvals in front of us that we do not control. As I mentioned earlier, for that reason, it is just too early today to talk about the prediction of reaching those levels that you are asking about. I think the direction that we are going could not be more clear and frankly positive. I am sure you would agree.
If you look at the production cost numbers and the cash cost numbers that we have delivered today, these are very strong. These are arguably from available public information, the strongest in the U.S. and globally competitive. If this is what it looks like to build it, you can see UEC is delivering on solid results, and now we need to scale it. You can see we are scaling it as well with very aggressive construction and development plans that are in fact underway. Again, we do have dynamics around our growth that is outside of our control with the Wyoming and Texas regulators. It will get better. As I mentioned, with every approval, the next one becomes more predictable. We just got the four approvals yesterday afternoon. We are really excited about that.
You can see that progress. I am looking forward to, hopefully very soon, Joe, being in a position where some of that uncertainty has become more clear, and we can speak more concretely to those timeline expectations, what I think ultimately kind of the guidance question that you are asking about. Just to reiterate, the resource base that UEC sits on, the largest in the U.S., is really what allows us to have this multi-phase growth and the development pipeline that we have and our license capacity. Between the three processing plants, we have 12 million pounds of licensed capacity in the U.S. between Sweetwater, Irigaray, and Hobson. Again, there is a sheer size to what the portfolio is that we are advancing that does not exist anywhere else.
Hmm. Fair enough. The other thing is on the M&A front, are you seeing any opportunities out there to bring in other ISR conventional projects into the company, specifically in the U.S. or Canada? Or do you think that the M&A opportunities have dried up as prices have increased?
We think the best time to have been doing M&A was when uranium prices were $20- $30- $35 per pound, not when they are $90 per pound. When uranium prices were in that zip code of $20- $35 per pound, as you know very well, we were the most acquisitive company in the world, I would say, for uranium assets. The consolidation we did, in the U.S. and Canada near cycle lows is what has really set us up to be in the position we are in today with the large portfolio of assets that we have. We have been very clear that there was a time to do M&A and then there is a time to build and scale your platform.
UEC is 100% focused on that point, the point of scaling the uranium mining platform that we have put together, largest in the U.S., largest arguably ever assembled in the U.S. I do not think an extra incremental project or pound Joe is going to move the needle. What is going to move the needle here is to continue to show our leadership with scaling these operations and these very attractive cost numbers, these production cost numbers that we have reported today. You can scale with these numbers and produce more volumes. That is, in our mind, the best way to create value here for shareholders moving forward.
Okay, great. I will turn it over. Thanks for taking the questions.
Thank you.
Our next question comes from Kristian Koschany with National Bank Canada. Please go ahead.
Hey, Amir, and everyone. Thanks for taking the call. Calling on behalf of Mohamed Sidibé. Regarding the government-driven uranium demand expected by 2030, would you be able to clarify whether the demand that UEC is targeting is primarily for yellowcake concentrate or for UF6? If UF6 is a significant component, should we infer that URC is expected to be operational by then, or is the 2030 opportunity mainly centered on UEC supplying yellowcake while the URNC conversion remains a separate, longer-term opportunity? Thanks.
Yeah. Thank you for that, and good clarification. There's no doubt that the 4 million pounds of U3O8 is something we can speak to and directly address and confirm we can be a supplier of from our Wyoming and Texas operations. It goes without saying that URC currently is not in operation the way our uranium mining business is. URC, as it advances and as we de-risk it and as we stand it up eventually, we certainly think could be in a very relevant position to also supply the UF6 requirements that similarly start in that timeline. We obviously will provide more information on URC's progress as we advance, but suffice to say that we see a once in a lifetime opportunity for our company to stand up this conversion business and to create this vertical integration.
We are moving with all of our energy and resource and capability to make sure that the timing is as expeditious as possible and really help solve a real national security problem that exists today that is now starting to get spelled out with this RFI from the NNSA and with the Army needs yet to come on top of that. Again, we couldn't be more clear and explicit about this in our press release, and I think it's being felt and recognized out there by the media that this growing U.S. government demand for unobligated U.S. origin uranium is real. It's got volumes around it in U3O8 and UF6 terms that are needed around the corner. 2030 is not a long time away in mining and natural resource-related terms.
We just think that this is an important moment to really kind of make sense of why UEC has embarked on not just the assembling of the U.S. assets that we have, but the strategic pursue of conversion, which started a few years ago. We formally announced it just a year ago and are now moving as fast as anyone to make sure that that capability is there as well and solves the energy and national security challenges that it's meant to fix.
Thanks. That is all for me.
This concludes our question and answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Amir Adnani for any closing remarks.
I thank you for that. Again, thank you everyone for joining us today. This was, as I mentioned at the outset, truly a transformational fiscal year for Uranium Energy. Again, being able to double the size of our business from a standpoint of our operating team, our drilling rigs, the number of mines that we now have in operations in Wyoming and Texas and on our way to build and develop so much more.
The pieces and the strategy and what we are doing, I think is becoming even more clear and compelling at the same time with the U.S. government demand signals that we talked about that have come out over the last few weeks, and really demonstrating why a U.S.-based national champion on the front end of the fuel cycle should be built and should exist, and that it can play a very important role, and it could be a very important company. That is what UEC is looking to do, is to be and become that national champion on the front end of the fuel cycle with our vertical integration strategy from U3O8 to UF6. So appreciate all of you for following our progress. We look forward to many updates to come and to our next call with the analyst. Thank you and have a great rest of your day.
The conference is now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.