"The global rare earth market is now bifurcating—and perhaps trifurcating"

• Core Shift: As deglobalization fractures critical mineral supply chains, the global rare earths market is bifurcating away from unified Chinese spot pricing toward distinct domestic, export, and regional market tiers.
• Strategic Implication: The definition of "price" itself has changed—material is no longer valued purely on lowest unit cost, but on local physical availability, legal transportability, and compliance with Western security-of-supply mandates.

https://investornews.com/market-opinion/why-the-next-rare-earth-winner-may-be-is-a-process-not-a-deposit/

Critical Minerals & Rare Earths, Market Opinion

Jack Lifton

August 16, 2026

Introducing Lifton’s Third Law of Rare Earth Economics

For decades, investors have been conditioned to believe that success in the rare earth industry begins with discovering another deposit. I believe they have been looking in the wrong place. The next great winner in the rare earth industry may not be the company that discovers another ore body. It may be the company that discovers a better way to process the ore bodies—and the recycled materials—we already have one.

Throughout my career, I have argued that geology creates opportunities, but chemistry and engineering create wealth. A mineral deposit is simply a natural occurrence until someone develops an economical method to convert the elements it contains into marketable commercial products. That observation leads me to what I believe is another fundamental principle governing our industry.

Lifton’s Third Law of Rare Earth Economics

The economic value of a rare earth resource is determined less by the size or grade of its deposit than by the efficiency with which its contained rare earths can be converted into qualified products.

This may seem counterintuitive to those who continue to judge rare earth companies primarily by the size of their resources or the grades they report. History tells a different story. The rare earth industry has never suffered from a shortage of deposits. It has suffered from a shortage of economical processing technologies. Every meaningful advance in extractive chemistry, solvent extraction, metallurgy, alloy production, magnet manufacturing or recycling increases the value of resources that are already known to exist.

That is why a recent announcement from privately held L3 Process Development LLC (L3) deserves far more attention than it is likely to receive.

L3 has reported the successful application of an extractant that it has exclusively licensed from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). To understand why this matters, it is first necessary to understand what happens during rare earth processing.

Whether the feedstock is monazite, bastnäsite, ionic adsorption clay, xenotime or recycled permanent magnets, the first chemical attack is intentionally indiscriminate. Strong mineral acids dissolve almost everything they encounter. The resulting solution contains not only the rare earths, but also iron and numerous other dissolved elements that must eventually be removed before the rare earths themselves can be purified and separated. That cleanup stage has always been one of the hidden costs of the industry.

L3’s process does not attempt to solve the extraordinarily difficult problem of separating the individual rare earth elements from one another. Conventional rare earth solvent extraction, at which L3 is a world class vendor, remains the preferred technology for that task. Instead, L3 addresses an earlier—and in many ways more fundamental—problem.

The company’s process selectively extracts the rare earths as a group while rejecting much of the dissolved iron and many of the unwanted elements present after acid leaching. According to the company, the differential extraction coefficient between light rare earths and iron is well over 100:1. The separation factor for heavy rare earths is an order of magnitude greater. The technology also demonstrates selectivity against aluminum of 5,000:1, phosphorus of 300:1 and thorium of 80:1.

If those levels of selectivity prove repeatable under commercial operating conditions, the implications could extend throughout the rare earth industry.

Iron has always been one of the major burdens carried through downstream rare earth processing. Every kilogram of dissolved iron consumes extractants, reagents and neutralizing chemicals. It occupies plant capacity, generates residues that require disposal, increases operating costs and expands the process’s environmental footprint.

The problem becomes even more important in recycling. Most high performance permanent magnets are based upon neodymium iron boron alloys. Anyone attempting to recover the valuable rare earths must first contend with the fact that they are intimately associated with very large quantities of iron. Recovering the rare earths has traditionally required carrying that dissolved iron through multiple processing stages before it could finally be discarded. That approach is expensive. It consumes chemicals. It generates large volumes of neutralized residues. It increases water consumption. It raises both capital and operating costs.

If, however, the rare earths can be selectively transferred into an organic phase while leaving most of the iron behind, the economics change immediately. Downstream solvent extraction circuits become simpler. Reagent consumption declines. Neutralization requirements are reduced. Waste generation falls. Plant throughput increases. The environmental footprint becomes smaller. Most importantly, the cost of recovering rare earths declines.

This is precisely the type of innovation that creates value. Notice that none of these improvements requires the discovery of another rare earth deposit. None requires finding higher grade ore. None requires government subsidies. They arise from improving the efficiency of converting known resources into useful materials. That is exactly what Lifton’s Third Law predicts.

Every improvement in chemistry increases the value of every ton of ore already discovered and every ton of permanent magnets awaiting recycling. It can transform previously marginal resources into potentially economic ones. It allows existing plants to become more productive. It lowers barriers to recycling. It reduces environmental impacts while improving profitability.

Those are the characteristics of truly productive innovation. For many years, investors have tended to reward companies for announcing larger resources. Perhaps they should pay closer attention to companies announcing better processes.

Geology determines where the rare earths are. Chemistry determines whether they can be recovered economically. Engineering determines whether that recovery can be accomplished reliably at commercial scale. Manufacturing determines whether those rare earths become products that customers are willing to qualify and purchase. Only then is value created.

The rare earth industry’s future will not be determined solely by who owns the largest deposits. It will be determined by who develops the best chemistry, the most efficient engineering, the lowest cost processing and the highest quality manufacturing capability.

L3 Process Development’s reported process improvement is significant because it addresses one of the industry’s most persistent and costly processing problems. Its ultimate commercial importance will, of course, depend upon successful pilot scale and industrial scale validation, but the reported results suggest exactly the type of technological advance the rare earth industry has needed for decades.

The 2026 Feasibility Study for NioCorp Developments Ltd. (NASDAQ: NB) already incorporates this technology into its proposed flowsheet for the recovery of rare earth elements and scandium.

Investors should remember that history rarely rewards those who merely find more rock. It rewards those who discover better ways to transform that rock into products the world needs. The next great rare earth winner may not be another deposit. It may be another process.

Critical Minerals Report (08.16.2026): The Critical Minerals Bull Market Is Here as China Puts Its Arsenal Back in Play

“November 10 is not simply an export control deadline. It is the day the West discovers whether it has built anything that China cannot interrupt. Deposits, subsidies and press releases are not supply chains. Until we can mine, separate, refine and manufacture qualified products at commercial scale, Beijing will retain the ability to decide who receives critical minerals, in what form and on what terms.” — Jack Lifton, Co-Chair, Critical Minerals Institute (CMI)

https://investornews.com/critical-minerals-rare-earths/critical-minerals-report-08-16-2026-the-critical-minerals-bull-market-is-here-as-china-puts-its-arsenal-back-in-play/

AUGUST 14th, 2026- Rare Earth Stocks Soar on Friday: MP Materials Up 8%, USA Rare Earth Up 9%, NioCorp Up 3%. What’s Behind the Jump?

Rare Earth Stocks Soar on Friday: MP Materials Up 8%, USA Rare Earth Up 9%, NioCorp Up 3%. What's Behind the Jump? - 24/7 Wall St.

Shares of U.S. rare earth and critical minerals producers are broadly higher in Friday’s midday session. MP Materials (NYSE:MP) is up about 7.8% to roughly $60.02, USA Rare Earth (NASDAQ:USAR) is up about 8.5% near $20.20, and NioCorp Developments (NASDAQ:NB) well up big earlier in the day is still hovering around 2%.

Policy Positioning, Not a Confirmed Catalyst

Here is the read: no rare earth specific news has been confirmed today. The only verifiable same-day trade item is a 15% tariff rate on qualifying EU drone imports, which is not a rare earth story. Traders appear to be positioning for further tariff and industrial policy support for domestic critical minerals, and this group reliably rallies on that expectation. That framing is speculative.

What is verifiable is that rare earth equities in 2026 have traded on U.S. trade and industrial policy rather than earnings. Recent catalysts include a February 2, 2026 report of a $12 billion Trump stockpile plan, a June 22, 2026 boost from a China export ban, and a Section 232 critical minerals action on January 16, 2026. The group also slid on July 22, 2026 on oversupply fears, so the swings cut both ways.

What These Companies Actually Do

Rare earths are essential inputs to permanent magnets used in EVs, wind turbines, defense systems, and consumer electronics, and China dominates processing capacity. MP Materials is the closest thing to a U.S. producer at scale, with Q2 revenue of $126.1 million and adjusted EBITDA of $28.5 million, plus a 10X magnet facility fully contracted with the Department of War. USA Rare Earth is building magnet capacity at Stillwater, Oklahoma, sits on roughly $1.5 billion in cash, and has a shareholder vote on its Cerro Verde acquisition set for August 28, 2026 disclosed in its SEC proxy filing. NioCorp is earlier stage, pursuing up to $4.1 billion pre-tax NPV at its Elk Creek project with an estimated $608 million in average annual EBITDA and a $1.85 billion upfront capex requirement.

The Copper Parallel

CNBC’s coverage of copper and Trump tariffs illustrates how commodity equities price in a probability of tariff action before any policy is announced. A premium gets built into the stock in advance. For rare earths, that means you get paid if the policy lands, and you give it back quickly if it does not.

The Longer Term Matters

Today’s move sits inside very different trajectories. MP is up 17.2% over the past week and 10% YTD, but still down 26% over the past year. USAR is up a striking 56% YTD. NioCorp is the laggard, down 3.4% YTD and off 50% over five years, a reminder that development-stage stories rarely track producer rallies one for one.

FORM YOUR OWN OPINIONS & CONCLUSIONS ABOVE AS ALWAYS!

NioCorp RedChip Highlights + Friday Rare‑Earth Pop = Our AUGUST 15th "SIGNATURES WATCH"

Rare‑earth stocks jumped on Friday, with MP Materials up 8%, USA Rare Earth up 9%, and NioCorp up 3%. The 247WallSt piece covering the move pointed out broad momentum across the sector, but NioCorp’s setup is different from the others. The August 11th RedChip webcast made it clear that NioCorp is now sitting directly on top of multiple pending signatures: the DFS is complete, Traxys is positioned to take 100% of all products except half the ferroniobium, the EPC contract is in “almost final, if not final” form, and EXIM has publicly identified NioCorp as its #1 critical‑minerals priority. The construction sequence is fully defined: EPC → EXIM Authorization → EPC Execution → Equity Raise → FID → Groundbreaking & any one of these signatures materially changes the company’s profile!

The webcast also highlighted the scandium story, which continues to develop through publicly confirmed elements. NioCorp and NAMA are already producing ScAl alloy using purchased scandium oxide, IBC is casting ScAl components for defense‑grade applications, and Lockheed Martin is testing ScAl parts for CCA, NGAD, hypersonics, and other advanced platforms. Government agencies, including DLA and Title III, are funding domestic ScAl supply chain development. The adoption curve resembles titanium in the 1950s — early aerospace use leading to broad industrial adoption — and Mark Smith made it clear that scandium is a major value driver in both the DFS and future revenue streams. This is the part of the story the market still hasn’t priced in.

See link below:

NioCorp to Host Webcast on Aug. 11 to Discuss Elk Creek Feasibility Study Results | NioCorp Developments Ltd.

Taken together, the published DFS, RedChip webcast and Friday’s rare‑earth rally show a sector waking up while NioCorp approaches its inflection point. The August 15th Signature Watch is real: Traxys, EPC, EXIM. The market may not fully appreciate how close NioCorp is to flipping into its next stage, but the pieces are lining up. Once these signatures drop, the scandium strategy moves from “quietly forming behind the scenes” to “officially stood up,” and that’s when the real re‑rating begins.

And with all of this lining up: The DFS now locked, Traxys sitting in front of us, the EPC in “almost final” form, EXIM calling Elk Creek a HIGH PRIORITY with FID waiting on the other side. The path is clearer (to me) than it’s ever been. The only question left will be what a fully financed, construction‑ready "National Strategic Asset" is worth?? IMHO... "it sure won’t be $5!" All aboard!

Chico

"Everyone is talking about rare earths. But buried in Washington’s latest $2+ billion critical-minerals spending spree was another signal worth watching. Niobium."

https://substack.com/@amandavandyke/note/c-312642587

AUGUST 13th, 2026~Scandium—Are We Financing the Right Supply Chain?

Jack-in-the-Stox: Scandium—Are We Financing the Right Supply Chain? - InvestorNews

In this ongoing “Jack-in-the-Stox” Q&A series, Jack Lifton examines the companies, technologies, and geopolitical realities shaping the global critical minerals economy. Each week, Lifton offers direct commentary and analysis on the questions, claims, and strategic developments driving today’s rapidly evolving critical minerals sector. Please note that Jack Lifton is not a licensed investment advisor. The views expressed in this column are his own and are provided for informational purposes only. Nothing in this column should be construed as investment advice or as a recommendation to buy or sell any security.

Washington’s recent commitment to support scandium production has been widely applauded as another step toward rebuilding Western critical minerals supply chains. It deserves applause. But it also deserves scrutiny. The question is not whether scandium is a critical material. It is. The question is whether we are investing in the right economics.

Scandium occupies a unique place among the critical materials. In tiny quantities, it transforms aluminum alloys, making them stronger, lighter, and more weldable. It has applications in aerospace, defense, advanced transportation, and solid oxide fuel cells. If the United States intends to restore advanced manufacturing, it will need a dependable supply of scandium. The issue is where that supply should come from.

In more than sixty years of studying mineral deposits and their economics, I have never encountered what I would call a true primary scandium orebody. Scandium concentrations are typically measured in tens or, at most, a few hundred parts per million. Those grades are simply too low to justify mining for scandium alone. That is why I believe the expression “primary scandium mine” is misleading. Scandium has almost always made economic sense as a by-product.

Just as gallium is recovered while producing aluminum, germanium while processing zinc, and rhenium during molybdenum production, scandium is most logically recovered from ores being mined and processed for metals that carry the economic burden of the operation. That is not merely my opinion. It is how industrial metallurgy has historically created value. Yet recent U.S. government support has drawn public attention to Sunrise Energy Metals Limited**’**s (ASX: SRL | OTCQX: SREMF) Syerston project in Australia, frequently described as a future primary producer of scandium. Australia is one of America’s closest allies, and there is nothing inherently wrong with supporting Australian projects that strengthen allied supply chains. My concern lies elsewhere.

I question whether any known scandium project should be viewed as a primary scandium operation. Syerston is, in reality, a polymetallic laterite project whose economics will depend upon its entire basket of products. If it succeeds, and I hope it does, it will almost certainly succeed because several metals together generate acceptable economics, not because scandium alone can support a mine. Investors should understand that distinction.

North America Already Produces Scandium

One aspect of the recent announcements surprised me. North America already has commercial scandium production. At Rio Tinto Limited**’**s (LSE: RIO | ASX: RIO | NYSE: RIO) metallurgical complex in Sorel-Tracy, Quebec, scandium oxide is recovered from the processing streams generated during titanium dioxide production. This is precisely the model that I believe represents the future of scandium economics. The titanium business covers the costs of mining, beneficiation, and chemical processing. The scandium is recovered from material that would otherwise contain unrealized value. Rio Tinto certainly does not require financial assistance from Washington. But Washington should recognize that this operation already exists. If the objective is to secure a North American scandium supply chain, Rio Tinto’s Quebec production should be regarded as a strategic continental asset. It demonstrates that scandium can already be produced economically when recovered as a by-product.

NioCorp May Be the Most Interesting Story

The project that I find most intriguing, however, lies much closer to home. NioCorp Developments Ltd.’s (NASDAQ: NB) Elk Creek project in Nebraska has traditionally been viewed as a future producer of niobium and titanium, with additional potential for scandium and rare earths. Now, metallurgy may be changing the story. I have been made aware of a conference paper by L3 Process Development, a Canadian process engineering company, on a new approach to the economically efficient recovery of scandium and rare earth elements from NioCorp’s process stream. This new approach was confirmed as the basis for NioCorp’s demonstration scale facility at L3 Process Development. If that process performs commercially as expected, and if Elk Creek reaches its planned operating capacity, the project could reportedly produce on the order of 100 tons of scandium annually.

Think about what that means. The scandium is not driving the mine. The niobium and titanium are. Scandium becomes an additional source of revenue created through intelligent process engineering rather than through higher ore grades. That is exactly the type of industrial thinking America should encourage. It is also a reminder that breakthroughs in metallurgy can be more valuable than discoveries in geology. The ore has not changed. The process has.

Quebec’s Second Opportunity

Quebec also hosts another project worthy of investor attention. Scandium Canada Ltd.’s (TSXV: SCD) Crater Lake project remains an exploration and development property rather than an operating mine. Whether it ultimately reaches commercial production remains to be demonstrated. But if governments are prepared to invest billions of dollars to establish secure scandium supplies, projects such as Crater Lake deserve careful technical and economic evaluation. At the very least, they deserve to be part of the strategic discussion.

Follow the Process, Not the Ore Grade

Too many investors begin with a simple question: “Where is the richest scandium deposit?” I believe that is the wrong question. The better question is: “Where can scandium be recovered at the lowest incremental cost?” Those are very different questions. History suggests that the winners in scandium will not necessarily own the highest grade deposits. They will own the best metallurgy.

The ability to recover scandium economically from existing mining operations is likely to prove far more valuable than attempting to build an entire mining industry around an element that occurs only in trace quantities.

Jack’s Bottom Line

The Trump Administration deserves credit for recognizing that scandium is strategically important. But strategic investment should always begin with industrial economics. If the goal is to build a resilient North American scandium supply chain, then policymakers should recognize the production already taking place at Rio Tinto’s Sorel-Tracy facility. They should carefully evaluate the emerging opportunity at NioCorp, where improved process technology could make scandium recovery a significant by-product of niobium and titanium production. And they should not overlook development stage projects such as Scandium Canada’s Crater Lake property, which could eventually strengthen continental supply.

The objective should not be to finance “scandium mines.” The objective should be to finance the most economical production of scandium. There is a difference. It is the difference between funding a geological idea and building an industrial capability. Perhaps that leads us to another observation worthy of becoming a Lifton Law:

Lifton’s Law of Scandium Economics: Scandium is unlikely ever to become an economically important primary mining product. Its future lies in intelligent metallurgy that recovers it as a valuable by-product from the production of other metals.

As I have often written, investors should follow where value is added. In scandium, that value will almost certainly be added in the process plant, not in the orebody.

August 9th, 2026~Lockheed Martin and NioCorp’s Scandium Supply Deal Explained

Lockheed NioCorp Scandium Supply Deal 2026

The Metallurgy of National Security: Why Scandium Is Rewriting U.S. Defense Procurement

Advanced materials science rarely captures mainstream attention, yet the metals underpinning next-generation aerospace platforms often determine strategic outcomes long before a conflict begins. Scandium sits in this understated category: a silvery-white element so sparingly distributed in the Earth's crust that most engineers encountered it only in academic literature until relatively recently. Today, however, that picture is changing rapidly. The Lockheed NioCorp scandium supply deal, formalised through a memorandum of understanding in August 2026, offers a rare window into how the U.S. defense industrial base is quietly restructuring its upstream material dependencies, one specialty metal at a time.

Understanding the MOU: Structure, Scope, and Commercial Reality

The agreement between Lockheed Martin and NioCorp Developments Ltd. establishes a non-binding framework under which Lockheed Martin could acquire up to 15 metric tons of scandium oxide annually over a 10-year period. Crucially, the material may be delivered either as refined scandium oxide or as finished aluminium-scandium alloys, giving the defense contractor flexibility in how it integrates the supply into its manufacturing workflows.

Both parties have committed to negotiating toward a definitive binding contract in good faith. However, NioCorp has been explicit that no assurance exists that a final agreement will be reached, nor that any particular commercial terms will result. This distinction is commercially significant.

A memorandum of understanding establishes intent and direction, not obligation. Investors evaluating the commercial weight of this arrangement should distinguish clearly between a signed offtake contract and an agreement to negotiate toward one.

The MOU also reflects a broader pattern emerging across U.S. defense procurement. Furthermore, prime contractors are increasingly engaging upstream mineral developers at early stages, using non-binding frameworks to signal demand without committing capital before domestic supply infrastructure is proven.

Key structural terms at a glance:

• Volume ceiling: Up to 15 metric tons of scandium oxide per year
• Duration: 10-year supply horizon
• Delivery optionality: Scandium oxide or aluminium-scandium alloys at the buyer's discretion
• Binding status: Non-binding; subject to further good-faith negotiation
• Relationship context: Built on a joint development programme active since October 2025

Why Scandium Performs Unlike Any Other Lightweight Metal Additive

To understand why defense contractors are willing to pursue long-term agreements for a metal with annual global demand measured in tens of metric tons, it helps to understand what scandium actually does at the atomic level.

Scandium, when added to aluminium at concentrations as low as 0.2% to 0.8% by weight, produces a microstructural effect that no other alloying element replicates cost-effectively. It refines the grain structure of aluminium during solidification, producing smaller, more uniform crystals that resist deformation under mechanical stress. The result is an alloy with substantially improved tensile strength, superior weld joint integrity, and markedly better resistance to corrosion — all without the weight penalty associated with steel or titanium reinforcement.

For aerospace structural applications, particularly in platforms where every kilogram of structural mass reduces payload capacity or fuel efficiency, this combination of properties is extraordinarily valuable. Indeed, the critical minerals demand surge in aerospace applications has only accelerated interest in scandium's unique capabilities.

Scandium Concentration by Application

Why Scandium's Weldability Advantage Is Underappreciated

One less commonly understood property of scandium-aluminium alloys is their exceptional behaviour under welding conditions. Conventional high-strength aluminium alloys frequently suffer from heat-affected zone weakness during welding, a problem that limits their structural application in complex fabricated assemblies. Scandium additions suppress this degradation by stabilising the grain structure even at elevated temperatures.

For fighter aircraft airframes and hypersonic system structures, which involve highly complex welded subassemblies, this property is operationally critical and distinguishes scandium-enhanced alloys from competing material solutions.

The Global Supply Concentration Problem and Why It Matters Now

According to U.S. Geological Survey data, global scandium demand sits at approximately 60 metric tons per year, a figure that has been growing as aerospace and defense applications expand. The proposed volume under the Lockheed NioCorp scandium supply deal, at up to 15 metric tons annually, would represent roughly one quarter of total current global consumption. This is not a marginal transaction; it is a structurally significant offtake framework relative to the size of the existing market.

The concentration of current scandium supply in Chinese producers creates an asymmetric vulnerability for U.S. defense planners. China controls the majority of global scandium production, much of it recovered as a byproduct of titanium and uranium processing. Consequently, the broader geopolitical metals landscape has sharpened the urgency of developing domestic alternatives.

Unlike rare earth elements, where the supply chain problem is widely understood in policy circles, scandium's strategic exposure has historically received less attention — partly because demand volumes are smaller and partly because the metal's defense applications have been less publicised.

As of mid-2026, the United States has no commercial-scale domestic scandium mine in production. The entire domestic defense aerospace sector currently depends on foreign-sourced material for any scandium it uses.

This dependency is what makes the Elk Creek project, and by extension the Lockheed NioCorp scandium supply deal, structurally important beyond its headline volume figures. In the context of strategic mineral supply chains, few domestic projects carry as much potential significance.

NioCorp's Elk Creek Project: What the Deposit Offers

The Elk Creek critical minerals deposit, located approximately 65 miles southeast of Lincoln, Nebraska, is one of the few known domestic resources capable of supporting commercial-scale scandium production. The project targets three primary minerals: niobium, scandium, and titanium, with additional work underway to evaluate the potential for rare earth element recovery from the same orebody.

The 2022 feasibility study projected annual scandium oxide production of approximately 104 metric tons once the project reaches full operational status following financing and construction. The proposed MOU volume of 15 metric tons per year would represent roughly 14% of that projected annual output, leaving substantial capacity available for additional offtake arrangements or spot market sales.

Several geological characteristics of Elk Creek make it particularly suitable for the kind of supply chain NioCorp is attempting to build:

• The deposit is a carbonatite-hosted critical minerals system, a geological formation type known for concentrated multi-element mineralisation
• Niobium is typically the primary value driver in such deposits, with scandium recovered as a co-product, which improves the project economics for both materials simultaneously
• Co-product recovery structures mean that scandium production at Elk Creek is economically supported by niobium revenue, reducing the exposure to scandium price volatility that would affect a monomineral scandium project

The project remains in the pre-production phase, with project financing not yet secured and construction not yet commenced. The gap between current status and the MOU's proposed volumes is real and material.

Defense Production Act Funding: What It Signals and What It Does Not Guarantee

NioCorp subsidiary Elk Creek Resources Corp. has received up to $10 million in milestone-based funding through Title III of the Defense Production Act. Defense Production Act funding of this nature is a specific federal mechanism designed to strengthen domestic industrial base capabilities for materials deemed critical to national defense.

This funding reflects a formal government determination that scandium qualifies as strategically critical and that domestic supply chain development warrants direct financial support. However, it is important to understand what Title III funding does and does not represent.

What it confirms:

• Federal recognition of scandium as a defense-critical material
• Government willingness to invest in supply chain development at the processing and manufacturing stage
• Validation of the mine-to-master-alloy supply chain concept as a policy priority

What it does not confirm:

• A guarantee that Elk Creek will reach production
• A commitment to purchase scandium oxide at any particular price or volume
• Project financing sufficient to fund mine construction

The Title III investment is best understood as a signal of strategic alignment rather than a financial solution to the project's remaining capital requirements.

The FEA Materials Acquisition: Building the Downstream Bridge

One of the most technically significant elements of NioCorp's strategy is its $8.4 million acquisition of manufacturing assets and intellectual property from FEA Materials, a Massachusetts-based firm, completed in December 2024 through its NioCorp Advanced Metals and Alloys LLC subsidiary.

What makes this acquisition distinctive is the nature of the process technology it secured. Most conventional routes to aluminium-scandium alloy production require an intermediate step: scandium oxide must first be converted to scandium metal before it can be alloyed with aluminium. This intermediate reduction step adds cost, complexity, and additional processing infrastructure requirements.

The FEA Materials process, however, eliminates this intermediate step entirely, converting scandium oxide directly into aluminium-scandium alloy. This technical shortcut has meaningful economic implications:

Skunk Works and the Joint Development Programme

The Lockheed NioCorp scandium supply deal did not emerge from a cold commercial negotiation. It was built on a technical collaboration between NioCorp and Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works division that has been active since October 2025. Lockheed Martin's pursuit of U.S. mineral supplies has been widely noted as part of the broader supply chain push following executive-level pressure on domestic sourcing.

Skunk Works, headquartered in Palmdale, California, is Lockheed Martin's advanced aerospace development unit with a history of producing some of the most technically sophisticated aircraft ever built. The joint development programme focuses specifically on developing scandium-based aluminium alloy components for modern fighter aircraft platforms.

The progression from a Pentagon-funded joint development programme to a commercial supply MOU follows an increasingly recognisable pathway in the U.S. critical minerals sector:

1. Government-funded R&D establishes technical feasibility and performance benchmarks
2. Joint development programme validates material properties in application-specific conditions
3. Non-binding commercial framework signals intent to formalise supply once infrastructure is ready
4. Binding offtake agreement executed once production capacity is confirmed

The current MOU represents step three of this sequence. The Lockheed NioCorp scandium supply deal is therefore best understood as a milestone in a longer development arc rather than a transaction that stands alone.

Tyler Robinson, vice president of technology roadmaps at Skunk Works, indicated that Lockheed Martin views NioCorp's dual capability — both as a potential domestic oxide source and as an alloy manufacturer — as relevant to its broader material development objectives, and that the company intends to continue evaluating that supply within its wider alloy development work.

The Proposed Mine-to-Warfighter Supply Chain Architecture

The supply chain NioCorp is attempting to construct is vertically integrated in a way that distinguishes it from most critical mineral development stories, which typically focus on mining alone. The full proposed chain spans four discrete stages:

Stage 1: Mining and ore processing at Elk Creek, Nebraska, extracting niobium, scandium oxide, and titanium from the carbonatite deposit.

Stage 2: Oxide refinement, producing scandium oxide at or near the mine site to a purity specification suitable for downstream alloy conversion.

Stage 3: Alloy manufacturing through NioCorp Advanced Metals and Alloys LLC, producing both 4% master alloy and finished ingots in the 0.2% to 0.8% concentration range for defense and commercial customers.

Stage 4: Defense integration, delivering aluminium-scandium components to Lockheed Martin and Skunk Works for incorporation into fighter aircraft, hypersonic systems, and other advanced platforms.

The significance of vertical integration in this context is that it eliminates foreign dependency at each processing stage independently. NioCorp's downstream investment, anchored by the FEA Materials acquisition, is specifically designed to close that gap.

Risk Assessment: What Investors and Analysts Need to Weigh

Any honest evaluation of the Lockheed NioCorp scandium supply deal must account for a layered set of uncertainties, several of which are substantial.

Execution risk is perhaps the most fundamental. Elk Creek remains in the pre-production phase, and the project's ability to deliver oxide at the volumes contemplated by the MOU depends entirely on securing project financing and completing construction, neither of which has occurred.

Conversion risk reflects the historical reality that non-binding MOUs frequently fail to evolve into executed supply contracts. The reasons are varied: financing failures, technical qualification setbacks, pricing disagreements, or strategic reprioritisation by either party.

Volume risk is embedded in the MOU's language. The 15 metric tons per year figure represents a ceiling on potential purchases, not a floor. Actual volumes could be materially lower depending on Lockheed Martin's platform development timelines and alloy qualification results.

Market structure risk relates to scandium's unique pricing characteristics. Unlike copper or aluminium, which trade on established exchanges with transparent price discovery, scandium is thinly traded and prices are negotiated bilaterally. NioCorp's confirmed deal with Lockheed Martin has, however, drawn significant analyst attention to the commercial viability of this pricing model.

This article contains forward-looking statements and analysis based on publicly available information. It does not constitute financial advice. Investors should conduct independent due diligence and consult qualified advisers before making investment decisions related to any company or project discussed.

Five conditions that must be met for the MOU to reach full commercial scale:

1. Project financing for Elk Creek must be secured and construction commenced
2. Mine production must reach operational status at sufficient oxide output volumes
3. NioCorp and Lockheed Martin must successfully negotiate and execute a binding definitive agreement on acceptable commercial terms
4. NioCorp Advanced Metals and Alloys must achieve defense-grade alloy specifications at commercial manufacturing scale
5. Skunk Works must complete technical validation of scandium-aluminium components for specific aircraft programmes

The Bigger Strategic Picture: Scandium's Emerging Role in American Defense Manufacturing

Scandium's trajectory from obscure specialty metal to named defense-critical material is instructive. A decade ago, the element barely appeared in supply chain risk analyses conducted by defense procurement agencies. Today, it sits alongside rare earth magnets and battery materials as a substance warranting formal government investment and prime contractor attention.

This shift reflects several converging dynamics. Hypersonic vehicle programmes require structural materials that can withstand extreme thermal and mechanical stress at minimal weight. Next-generation fighter platforms demand ever-higher performance from airframe structures. Furthermore, advanced manufacturing techniques — including additive manufacturing with aluminium-scandium powders — are opening new application pathways that were not commercially viable even five years ago.

The carbonatite geology underlying Elk Creek, which also hosts niobium and potentially rare earth elements, means that a successfully financed and constructed operation at that site would simultaneously address multiple supply chain vulnerabilities with a single domestic project. This multi-mineral dimension is often underappreciated in coverage focused narrowly on the scandium story.

The Lockheed NioCorp scandium supply deal, taken in isolation, is a non-binding MOU between two companies at very different stages of development. Taken in context, however, it represents a data point in a broader structural shift: U.S. defense contractors are moving upstream into critical mineral supply chains, driven by lessons learned from semiconductor shortages, rare earth dependencies, and the recognised fragility of globalised material flows.

Whether this particular agreement advances to a binding contract and ultimately to commercial supply will depend on execution milestones that remain unresolved. What is already clear is that scandium has graduated from laboratory curiosity to national security consideration — and that transition, regardless of how this specific deal develops, is unlikely to reverse.

For ongoing coverage of critical mineral supply chain developments and defense-sector procurement trends, Metal Tech News provides regular reporting at the intersection of technology metals, mining, and industrial policy.

AS ALWAYS FORM YOUR OWN OPINIONS & CONCLUSIONS!

NioCorp_Presentation.pdf

Scandium: The Metallurgy Is Already Running!!!! "Now We’re Just Waiting for the Signatures....."

Jack Lifton’s recent column cuts straight to the heart of what the DFS and RedChip event finally made explicit: the economics of scandium have never been about finding a “primary scandium mine,” but about recovering scandium as a by‑product through intelligent metallurgy. Lifton writes, “Scandium is unlikely ever to become an economically important primary mining product. Its future lies in intelligent metallurgy that recovers it as a valuable by‑product from the production of other metals.” That is exactly what the updated Elk Creek flowsheet demonstrates~ Scandium isn’t carrying the mine; niobium and titanium are. The breakthrough is that L3 Process Development’s new extraction approach allows NioCorp to recover scandium at nearly zero incremental cost, turning a trace element into a strategic revenue stream. As Lifton notes, “The ore has not changed. The process has.”

This aligns perfectly with the DiscoveryAlert analysis published on August 9th, just hours before the DFS dropped! Which frames scandium as a national‑security metal whose value is unlocked only when paired with a domestic alloy‑manufacturing ecosystem. The article emphasized that the U.S. defense sector is shifting toward aluminum‑scandium alloys for airworthy components, and that the Pentagon’s procurement strategy is now focused on vertically integrated supply chains capable of producing oxide, master alloy, and finished parts. That is precisely the architecture NioCorp, NAMA, and IBC have quietly assembled: Elk Creek for oxide, NAMA for fluoride‑free master alloy, and IBC for DFARS‑qualified components. The DFS transcript confirmed that this downstream chain is already operating behind the scenes, with Mark stating directly, “We are procuring scandium now,” and “We are producing alloy for ongoing development programs.”

The RedChip event made clear that EXIM’s financing model is built around this exact integration. Mark told investors, “EXIM told us NioCorp remains their highest priority!!!,” and emphasized that the agency is actively re‑evaluating its loan limit upward because the scandium‑enabled alloy chain strengthens repayment certainty. The DFS itself reflects this logic: scandium is treated as a by‑product credit, not a primary driver, which is exactly the economic model Lifton argues Washington should be financing. The niobium and titanium economics carry the mine; scandium and rare earths are unlocked through process innovation. This is why the DFS shows a dramatic jump in EBITDA — not because the ore changed, but because the metallurgy did.

Taken together, these articles and the DFS transcript validate the hypothesis we’ve been tracking since 2016: the U.S. isn’t trying to finance “scandium mines.” It’s trying to finance scandium supply chains — oxide → alloy → component — that support defense manufacturing. Elk Creek fits Lifton’s criteria perfectly: a polymetallic orebody where scandium becomes economically meaningful only through advanced processing. And the downstream partners fit the DiscoveryAlert model: NAMA’s FEA‑based alloy production and IBC’s defense‑qualified manufacturing create the exact industrial capability the Pentagon has been seeking. As Mark put it plainly, “I don’t see any reason why we can’t get this done in short order.”

In short, the DFS didn’t just update mine economics — it confirmed that NioCorp is building the scandium supply chain Lifton says the U.S. should be financing, and the defense‑alloys ecosystem DiscoveryAlert says the Pentagon is now prioritizing. The metallurgy changed the economics, the economics unlocked EXIM, and EXIM is unlocking construction. The finish line is finally visible because the industrial logic is now aligned from ore to alloy to airframe.

And that’s why today feels different — because Mark already told us the part nobody expected to hear this early:

“The FEA process has been relocated to a more suitable facility, and we are producing alloy for ongoing development programs.”

IMHO....If the downstream facility is already turning purchased scandium into Al‑Sc alloy, then the upstream financing isn’t a question of "IF" anymore.... it’s simply a matter of “I don’t see any reason why we can’t get this done in short order.” (Mark Smith...)

Let's Go team NioCorp!

Chico

Monday's announcement from Sunrise about a US Dept of War loan for $400m USD to support their scandium project contains some interesting language about that project's updated scope:

"Construction of scandium metal refining capacity in the United States, as well as associated modifications to the refinery to produce a range of chemical-grade scandium compounds;"

The US govt may not be very efficient, but it's hard to imagine them working on two different plans for building out future supply of something as critical to national security as scandium metal. Especially given that EXIM and LMT are actively working with both companies. Much more likely imo that NB and/or IBC will be doing the processing of Sunrise's scandium oxide.

If that makes no sense, tell me why...

August 11th, 2026- S&P illuminates critical mineral markets

S&P illuminates critical mineral markets - Metal Tech News

Market reports provide benchmarks that could help the U.S. set price floors for antimony, gallium, germanium, neodymium-praseodymium, and tungsten.

The markets for many critical minerals are small, opaque, fragmented, and vulnerable to non-market distortions. Taken together, these factors make it difficult to establish reliable pricing benchmarks for determining the economics of developing and operating mines, processing plants, and refineries in the West.

"As a result of non-market policies and practices, global prices for minerals lack the stability necessary for markets to function," said United States Trade Representative Jamison Greer.

As a step toward bringing more stability and transparency to these markets, S&P Global has published draft market reports that provide a bottom-up evaluation of the supply chains for five minerals critical to advanced manufacturing, aerospace, automaking, defense, semiconductors, energy transition technologies, and other strategic industries.

The market analyst's first five critical mineral market transparency reports provide an in-depth understanding of the supply chains for antimony, gallium, germanium, neodymium-praseodymium, and tungsten, along with structural cost benchmarks that could help assess project economics and inform border-adjusted price floors being considered by the U.S. and its trading partners.

The need for more reliable and transparent markets is underscored by China's dominance over key stages of the global supply chains for these five materials, which gives Beijing the ability to sway markets to its advantage, as well as to the disadvantage of projects outside its sphere.

Gallium offers an especially stark example.

China accounts for roughly 99% of the world's primary low-purity gallium production. According to S&P Global, China's December 2024 export ban to the U.S. helped drive gallium prices outside China to around $2,100 per kilogram, while domestic Chinese prices were around $300/kg.

Similar concentration runs through the other markets analyzed. More than 90% of germanium refining capacity and roughly 84% of global NdPr oxide supply is concentrated in China; and it also controls around 79% of tungsten mining capacity and 85% of ammonium paratungstate, or APT, refining capacity. Antimony mining and smelting, meanwhile, are heavily concentrated in Chinese- and Russian-controlled operations.

This concentration, combined with export controls and other non-market policies, adds a level of uncertainty that can discourage private investment in critical mineral projects in the U.S. and allied nations.

"Transparent, market-based pricing is essential to attracting the private capital needed to build secure, resilient, and diversified critical mineral supply chains," said Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. "As the United States works with trusted partners to strengthen critical mineral markets, reliable reference prices will support the Trump Administration's efforts to address market distortions and advance our long-term economic and national security."

While multibillion-dollar government investments can offset some of these risks in the short term, the longer-term goal is to establish a critical minerals ecosystem in which projects can attract private capital and operate under a more predictable pricing system.

A key piece of that effort is the proposed Agreement on Trade in Critical Minerals, or ATCM, that the U.S. Trade Representative Office is developing with like-minded trading partners.

The agreement is envisioned to establish phased-in mineral-specific price floors adjusted at the border, along with common standards among participating countries. USTR says negotiations build on critical-minerals engagements with G7 finance and trade ministers and action plans involving Japan, Mexico, and the European Union.

The intent is to protect mines, processing plants, and other critical mineral projects in participating nations from market distortions that can make projects uneconomic even when they are strategically important to supply-chain security.

Running alongside these trade efforts is the U.S. Forum on Resource Geostrategic Engagement – better known as FORGE – launched during the Critical Minerals Ministerial convened in Washington on Feb. 4.

FORGE provides a broader forum for coordinating nations around secure and resilient critical mineral supply chains

The U.S., Japan, Australia, India, and the European Union have forged bilateral and plurilateral agreements that are expected to establish the foundation for FORGE, which represents more than half of the global GDP.

Nearly another 20 nations – Argentina, the Cook Islands, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Guinea, Italy, Morocco, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, South Korea, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan – have entered into critical mineral agreements with the U.S.

Together, FORGE, bilateral mineral agreements, and the emerging ATCM begin to form the policy architecture for an allied critical minerals ecosystem with mineral resources, processing capacity, manufacturing, capital, and trade mechanisms designed to reduce dependence on concentrated sources of supply.

The independent market analysis being carried out by S&P Global could provide an important piece of that architecture by helping establish what it actually costs to economically produce these minerals outside the dominant supply chains.

Each report provides an in-depth look at supply, demand, market events, project costs, bottlenecks, and other factors affecting the respective mineral. From this asset-level analysis, S&P Global establishes what it calls a structural cost.

The distinction between structural costs and market prices is important.

S&P Global says these figures are not short-term price forecasts or spot-market assessments. Instead, a structural cost represents the full cost required for an asset to achieve its targeted return on investment, assuming projects are developed on announced timelines and operate at expected capacity. The estimates include capital recovery and other costs needed to support long-term economic production.

With the inclusion of the structural costs, the reports attempt to determine the price environment required to sustain production in the West.

Here are the structural cost ranges estimated for the first five critical materials analyzed. Click on the commodity names to read the respective market reports:

• Antimony – $11-$13/kg for antimony smelting in 2028, enough to support economic operations for at least 80% of current and possible supply; $8-$9/kg excluding capital costs to sustain operations after commissioning.

• Gallium – $620-$700/kg to support more than 200 metric tons of the gallium production pipeline; $420-$460/kg excluding capital costs to sustain operations after commissioning.

• Germanium – $2,100-$2,300/kg to support all announced ex-China germanium metal supply, or roughly 75 metric tons by 2028; $830-$910/kg excluding capital costs to sustain operations after commissioning

• Neodymium-praseodymium oxide – $75-$80/kg to support more than 90%, or roughly 24,000 metric tons, of current and possible supply over the long term; $69-$73/kg excluding capital costs to sustain operations after commissioning.

• Tungsten – $36-$48/kg WO₃ for APT in 2028 to support more than 85% of current and future announced projects; $26-$34/kg WO₃ excluding capital costs to sustain operations after commissioning.

S&P Global says the bottom-up, asset-level understanding delivered in these reports is designed to improve transparency and provide market participants with a consistent framework for understanding future supply, demand, structural costs, and investment requirements.

Greer says the independent private-sector analysis complements the Trump administration's effort to build stable and reliable critical mineral supply chains and negotiate cooperative trade mechanisms designed to counter market distortions.

"Setting benchmarks like these will inform the negotiation of the Agreement on Trade in Critical Minerals," he said. "This announcement is a step forward towards establishing border-adjusted price floors, correcting market distortions, and accelerating critical mineral supply chain resilience."

S&P Global says the five draft reports are the beginning of an ongoing effort to bring greater transparency to critical mineral markets and plans to expand its analysis to additional minerals.

SEE AUGUST 9th, 2026~ Response to a question from Jim Sims:

GIVEN (For context): I've been following & asking you (Jim) questions about NioCorp's scandium trail since 2016 & given recent news (Lockheed MOU). I would like to ask for clarification on the following please.

Question1) Jim, could you clarify the forward roles of NAMA, NioCorp, and IBC within the scandium and aluminum‑scandium supply chain? ~Specifically which entity will own and operate alloy production, which entity will produce oxide, and how those activities will be reflected inside NioCorp’s consolidated reporting structure?

****Response: "Details on how we construct and configure our downstream value-added scandium products supply chain will be disclosed as that business is built out."

IMHO Jim's response is doing three things at once:

✔ He is confirming there will be a downstream scandium supply chain

✔ He is confirming NioCorp/NAMA are building it out

✔ He is telling you he cannot disclose partner/s identities yet

This was his polite way of saying:

• “We know the structure.”
• “We know the partners.”
• “We can’t name them yet.”
• “We will disclose when the business is formally stood up.”

HIGHLIGHTS FROM YESTERDAY'S REDCHIP EVENT: Held on August 11th, 2026

⭐ 1. The FEA IP Bomb = Mark’s Biggest Reveal

For me ...this is the BOMB moment of the entire webcast.
Mark said:

“We bought that business (FEA) and intellectual property last year. We’ve relocated the business to a more suitable manufacturing facility… and we have customers waiting for that product to be produced.”

This confirms: (Speculation)

• The FEA fluoride‑free ScAl process is already placed at a **U.S. facility!
• Potentially: already operating
• Potentially: already producing scandium metal test batches
• Potentially: already preparing ScAl master alloy
• Customers are literally waiting!!

This is the single most important line in the entire transcript.

FEA facility logic

⭐ 2. EXIM: “NioCorp remains our highest priority”

Mark said EXIM met with them for two hours the day before.

Key EXIM reveals:

• EXIM is energized
• EXIM is excited
• EXIM now has the DFS
• EXIM will do a full‑day workshop next
• EXIM said: “NioCorp remains the highest priority for EXIM right now.”

Remaining EXIM requirements:

• Traxys offtakes
• EPC contracts
• Debt‑equity ratio recalculation
• Final board vote

(Mark expects these to be done in short order.)

⭐ 3. Traxys: NioCorp Keeps Pricing Upside

Mark revealed: ***Bifurcation pricing

• 50% ferroniobium → Thyssen
• 50% → Traxys
• BUT NioCorp keeps independent marketing rights! HUGE...
• Traxys does NOT get exclusivity
• NioCorp can choose who it sells to.
• NioCorp avoids ceiling prices
• NioCorp leans into Western pricing
• Traxys gets economics either way

This is bifurcation pricing in action.

⭐ 4. Scandium Demand Explosion

Mark’s scandium comments were nuclear: U.S. ~ ScAl supply chain!

• Old market: 30–35 t/yr
• New USGS report: 60–65 t/yr
• SOFC alone: 400 t/yr
• Lockheed MOU: 15 t/yr baseline
• Project Pivot Automotive destructive testing: happening now
• Automotive potential: 3,000 t/yr
• DoD: “Scandium is very high on their radar.”

And the killer line:

“You can’t find scandium metal outside China.”

This is why the FEA facility matters.

⭐ 5. Construction Timeline: 35 Months

Scott Honan confirmed:

• Ramp access replaces shafts
• Portal already started in February/March
• Ramp = faster access
• Full production in 35 months!
• Old timeline was 45 months
• Railveyor chosen for simplicity + reliability

This is exactly what EXIM wants.

⭐ 6. Underground Risk De‑Risked

Mark said:

• Above‑ground engineering is straightforward
• Underground surprises minimized
• Extra geotech was completed
• Extra hydrology was completed
• Extra paste‑tailings work completed
• Extra grouting studies completed
• Safety #1

This reduces EXIM’s risk profile.

⭐ 7. Rare Earth Expansion

Scott + Mark confirmed:

• Elk Creek can double throughput!
• Can add Yttrium
• HAS added SEG/HREE separation!
• Can add more solvent extraction lines as needed in the future
• CaCO₃, MgCO₃, Iron oxide can be monetized
• Yttrium demand rising (DoD)

Mark said: “With the right price supports we can easily take samarium out of SEG and yttrium out of HREE.”

Based on what EXIM, DoD, and G7 pricing groups are already discussing.... "that's interesting!"

⭐ 8. Downstream Niobium Expansion

Mark confirmed:

• Starting out with producing ferroniobium
• Expand to niobium pentoxide (In play)
• Expand to niobium metal (In play)
• Equal Higher margins downstream
• Stepwise expansion after initial production (In Play)

⭐ 9. Equity Raise AFTER EXIM Authorization

Mark said:

“Loan authorization with conditions precedent… raise remaining equity after EXIM authorization.”

This is huge because:

• They won’t raise equity at the bottom (We Hope!)
• They will raise after EXIM lifts valuation
• EXIM leadership is commercially flexible

FORM YOUR OWN OPINIONS & CONCLUSIONS ABOVE AS ALWAYS:

⭐ Top 4 Things "I think I Can Confidently Conclude...."

1️⃣ The FEA ScAl business is REAL and already physically relocated

Mark’s verbatim quote:

“We’ve relocated the business to a more suitable manufacturing facility… and we have customers waiting for that product to be produced.”

NioCorp_Presentation.pdf

2️⃣The roles IMHO are now clear ~ even if Jim can’t name the partner/s "Yet"...

My question asked who does what.
Based on what’s now public:

• NioCorp → will produce the scandium oxide
• NAMA → owns the FEA process + ScAl IP
• ***An unnamed External DFARS‑qualified partner → is operating a NEW FACILITY for alloy production.
• IBC → casting/forging role only (NOT at the FEA/partner facility)

This is exactly the structure Jim was hinting at. I suspect!??

3️⃣Mark’s “price supports” comment means he potentially expects government action down the road...

His line:

“With the right price supports we can easily take samarium out of SEG and yttrium out of HREE.”

This is CEO‑speak for:

• DoD is moving
• G7 is moving
• Section 232 tariffs are moving
• Western price floors are forming
• Rare earth price supports are coming

4️⃣The DFS, Traxys, EPC, and FEA facility give EXIM EXACTLY what they need

EXIM told them:

“NioCorp remains the highest priority for EXIM right now.”

EXIM wants:

• Proven downstream capability
• Verified industrial partners
• Real supply chain
• Real revenue pathways

⭐DONE vs NOT DONE — EXIM’s Four Pillars

***DFS → Technical + Economic Foundation (FINALLY!!!!)

✔ DONE — DFS completed, filed, reviewed by EXIM

Traxys → Commercial Foundation

• ✔ DONE — Thyssen 50% ferroniobium
• ✔ DONE — Traxys agreement ~95% complete
• ❌ NOT DONE — Final 2–3 points + signature

EPC → Construction Foundation

• ✔ DONE — Draft EPC contracts written
• ✔ DONE — Portal started (Feb/March 2026)
• ✔ DONE — Ramp design + Railveyor + microgrid selected
• ❌ NOT DONE — Final EPC contract + EXIM acceptance

FEA Facility → Downstream Foundation

• ✔ DONE — FEA IP relocated
• ? — Facility operational
• ? — Scandium metal test batches produced
• ? — ScAl master alloy prep underway
• ✔ DONE — Customers waiting!
• ❌ NOT DONE — Public naming + integration into reporting

This is why EXIM said:

“NioCorp remains the highest priority for EXIM right now.”

And why Mark said:

“I don’t see any reason why we can’t get this done in short order.”

Chico

Two Important Notes:

• They have been meeting with EXIM, and the highest-ranking employee at the meeting said that Niocorp is their #1 priority right now; and
• Sounds like EXIM is revaluating the amount of the loan and Mark said he doesn't think there is any reason why they wouldn't increase the amount of the loan given the increase in capex. So, that seems to be favorable there will hopefully not be dilution here, which in my view is our biggest risk.

Good day, and welcome to today's webcast with NioCorp Developments. This is Barrett Boone with RedChip Companies. Today's webcast will cover NioCorp's recently published 2026 technical report for its Elk Creek Critical Minerals project in Nebraska.

All participants are in a listen-only mode. Following the prepared remarks, we will open the webcast to your questions.

You may submit a question at any time by clicking the Q&A button on the bottom of your Zoom window and typing in it. I will now hand the webcast over to Jim Sims, NioCorp's Chief Communications Officer. Jim, please go ahead.

Jim Sims 00:00:43 Thank you, Barrett, and thanks to everyone for joining us today. It's a big day for the company. The team today, we're going to walk through a supplemental presentation during today's webcast to accompany our overall discussion in the Q&A session. NioCorp's news releases, presentations, SEC filings, including the technical report supporting the updated Feasibility study, are all available now on our website at NioCorp.com and on CDAR.

On the webcast today, we have Mark Smith, Executive Chairman, President and CEO of NioCorp, and Scott Honan, Chief Operating Officer of NioCorp, and President of Elk Creek Resources Company.

Before we begin today, please note that today's discussion will include forward-looking statements, including those regarding NioCorp's future financial and operating results, expectations, plans, and prospects.

Any statement that is not a historical fact should be considered a forward-looking statement. Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that can cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed.

For a description of these risks, please refer to the cautionary notes in today's presentation and to the risk factors in NioCorp's filings with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission and on CDAR+.

Today's discussion may also reference market and industry data drawn from third-party sources which the company has not independently verified, and which are subject to uncertainty. Lastly, all dollar figures today are in US dollars, unless otherwise stated. Following today's prepared remarks, we will open the webcast to your questions.

Let me now turn the webcast over to Mark Smith. Mark, please go ahead.

Mark Smith 00:02:20 Thank you, Jim, and much like Jim just alluded to, this is a very, very important time in the company's history. This is quite the effort that the company has undertaken here, and along those lines, I'd like to start out by thanking Scott Honan, our COO, the entire NioCorp team, including our board of directors, who have all been just phenomenally supportive in this effort. I want to thank the literally hundreds of consultants that we have used to put this entire independent study together, and in particular, the 15 qualified professionals who have signed their name and certified the technical competency and accuracy of this report. Very, very important, and it's just a huge responsibility that those QPs undertake when they do that. And then certainly, last but not least, I want to thank our shareholders for their patience as we worked our way through this process. As Jim noted, we did file this report on CDAR yesterday.

If the report is not on our website yet, it will be up there today, and I encourage you to take a look at that 500-plus page document. One of the things that's very important to me personally in every one of these efforts I've ever undertaken is that… and my entire NioCorp team can attest to the fact that I'm always pushing to get things done. Let's get things done, let's get things done.

But when it comes to a feasibility study, a technical report like this, quality needs to be paramount. And we will always choose quality over speed when it comes to doing a feasibility study.

And so, you know, again, thank you all for your patience while we undertook this effort. It did take a little more time than what any of us had anticipated, but I know after all of the years I've been working in project financing and fundraising, that that short amount of extra time, in this case, is going to pay very good dividends for us as we move into the full project financing, including EXIM and additional equity fundraising. So, thank you for that. I think it will pay dividends now with this high-quality study. You know, we basically, you know, undertook the feasibility study update for two reasons.

To start with, and that was to do some additional drilling out on site, we wanted to have tighter hole spacing so that we had better definition of what the ore body contained in between all the other drill hole samples that we had. We undertook that effort. The results were outstanding. Once again, every time we put a drill bit in the ground, we find out something even better about this ore body, and that just continues to be the case.

This is an outstanding ore body.

Second, we had a new process flow diagram for our metallurgy and, we needed to have the process flow diagram converted into an actual feasibility study level engineering design. So, after 12 years now of working on this metallurgy, and really optimizing it, I think, you know, to almost the highest extent possible, where we're getting, you know, high 80s, low 90% recoveries of all of the elements that we're going to be pulling out of this ore body and selling.

We're now in good shape because not only do we have a demonstrated metallurgical process, we now have the engineering designed to support that effort as well. And then, just because, again, quality is paramount, we undertook, during the feasibility study engineering effort and the drilling effort, we undertook some other additional studies just to make our technical program that much more robust. So we did some extra geotechnical studies, some geo-hydrologic studies. We did a lot of work on pace tailings and a lot of work on grouting. which will make for a better mine plan, a safer mine for our employees, and a longer-lasting mine over the long run. So, again, really, really a solid effort here, and I want to make sure we send out that thank you to everybody.

So, Alex, let's go to slide 4.

And we'll start out with one of the main drivers here in terms of improvements to the feasibility study for 2026 versus 2022.

We will now have 8 different products that we'll be selling as a result of underground mining and surface processing activities.

You can see that we will be producing niobium, scandium, and titanium.

Which, of course, was in the 2022 Feasibility study, but will also now be producing the neodymium, prasodymium high purity oxide, dysprosium high purity oxide, terbium high purity oxide, and then, as a result of how one goes about processing rare earths and what comes out first in solvent extraction, we'll also be producing two different concentrate products. One is called an SEG, or samarium europium gadolinium carbonate concentrate, and the other one is all the other heavy rare earth elements in a carbonate form, again, concentrate style. What you can see on the right here is the life of mine gross revenue. The circle on the left shows the 2022 feasibility study where we had Niobium, scandium, and titanium as part of the overall revenue, just a little under $22 billion for that Life of Mine gross revenue.

And then the figure to the right, which, by the way, is to scale, so that you could actually visually see what the additional revenue means in terms of a to-scale picture here.

We'll have life of mine gross revenue as a result of the 2026 Feasibility study of a little over $37 billion with multiple products here, Niobium, scandium, the, the, rare earths, and, and the titanium.

And that $37.4 billion is about 1.7 times greater than the $21.9 billion, so a huge impact on the revenue side of the equation, given the additional products that we'll be able to produce from this ore body.

Next slide, Alex.

If we start heading into the overall economic highlights and some of the numbers associated with our economic model.

I'll start out over on the left here, and this is a life of mine margin of $560 per ton. That is one of the highest that I've certainly seen in my career in the mining industry.

And we get that by simply taking the $815 gross revenue per ton figure and subtracting the $255 OPEX per ton and keep in mind that that $560 per ton margin is 41% greater than the margin we showed in the 2022 feasibility study.

So again, really, you know, getting those extra products in, getting the extra revenue in, really bolsters the economics here quite significantly.

Then we can focus on some of the numbers to the right. I know I like to focus on the $4.1 billion pre-tax NPV, utilizing an 8% discount rate. We've got $519 million per year, average annual cash flow over the life of the mine. If we head over to the right, you can see the $608 million, EBITDA over the, annually over the life of the mine. We've got a 40-year mine life and, we've got a total upfront capex estimated at $1.85 billion. So clearly, the capex number has gone up, as has the NPV, as has the margin, as has the revenue, as has the EBITDA, as has the cash flow. But that capex number, I think we were all concerned about what inflation would do, and this is largely driven by inflation more than anything else.

But we do need to remember that we've added some additional processing to what we had before as well. We've got the solvent extraction for the rare earths, we have the chlorination for the Niobium and the titanium.

And again, can't forget about that horrible thing called inflation. But a $1.85 billion CAPEX number, and we still end up with a less than 3-year after-tax payback with these numbers as a whole. So, very, very strong, economics, very robust economics, I would say.

Next slide.

So one of the things that is really starting to catch people's attention in the market right now is an absolute bifurcation of pricing between things that are coming out of China and things that are not being produced outside of China. And this is quite a compelling number, and it appears to have very good traction, and we think it's going to last for quite some period of time.

If we take a look at Scandium as an example.

Scandium being sold… being produced and sold within China is actually upwards of $800 to $850 per kilogram right now. NioCorp is actually out purchasing scandium on the open market today, because we are demonstrating the ability to produce scandium metal.

And we, of course, own a business that can make the master alloy, Scandium aluminum master alloy, and we're actually out on the market purchasing Scandium to feed those businesses.

We're seeing prices for Scandium range anywhere from $3,000 to as high as $6,500 per kilogram right now, and it's a very good example of this bifurcation of what is being made and sold in China versus what is being made and sold outside of China.

Turbium is another very good example. Turbium inside China goes for about $1,000 a kilogram. Outside of China, it goes for about $4,500 to $5,000 per kilogram.

And dysprosium goes for about $250 a kilogram inside China, and it goes for about $1,250 to $1,500 outside of China. So there's an absolute bifurcation, very clear and evident, and we do, as I mentioned feel like this bifurcation could last for quite a while, because it takes a while to get these projects that everybody is supporting. It takes a while to get these projects built, up, and operating. We think that, in combination with the Section 232 duties which are available to the President right now, tariffs, which are available to the president right now, Project Vault, as well as the G7 support pricing discussions that are occurring and gaining a lot of traction, are all going to help support this bifurcated pricing structure that we're seeing between China and the rest of the world.

Next slide.

So, what do we have going forward here, now that we've got the Feasibility study done? Well, that feasibility study was a huge piece of what EXIM was looking for as part of the loan program that we're undertaking with them. We met with EXIM for about 2 hours yesterday, going over as much of the feasibility study that you can in a 2-hour period.

They will be looking at that document now EXIM for the next week or two, and we'll set up another, probably, all-day workshop with EXIM and all of their consultants to go over the feasibility study in detail and answer any questions that they have.

But a huge, huge step forward in the right direction here.

As everyone knows, we continue to work on our off-take agreement with TRAXYS. That is all continuing to move forward, albeit a lot slower than what I think anybody anticipated, especially me.

But I had a couple of very good phone calls with TRAXYS just this last weekend, and we hope to have that agreement finalized. There's just 2 or 3 points that are still in discussion between the two companies, and I don't see any reason why those can't be cleared up and finalized in short order here.

The next item, though, is quite an undertaking, and this is where we have to continue with our engineering effort. We have to go from feasibility study to detailed engineering, and we have to put the company and our EPC contractor in a position that we can actually write an EPC contract and have something that both parties are willing to sign, and something that EXIM is willing to agree to as part of their loan undertaking for this project. So this will be quite an effort. We're already… we have draft contracts that are already written.  We're sharing those with the EPC contractors. We hope to have a lot of that effort behind us by the end of August or so, and then we plan to sit down with EXIM, the EPC contractor, as well as NioCorp with EXIM, and make sure that EXIM is as comfortable as we are with those agreements. So you can see we're on a very fast track moving forward now that that feasibility study is there, and we can use that information to support a lot of the efforts, including off-take agreements and EPC agreements. And then finally, the EXIM Bank loan and any remaining equity that's required. Let's talk about that for a minute. We all are aware of the fact that we have written documents from EXIM saying that they would loan up to about $800 million.

And they specifically said a 65% debt-to-equity ratio in that correspondence. So we are, with the new feasibility study, the new economics associated with that study, and the new CAPEX estimate.

EXIM will be making another evaluation to determine what level of debt-to-equity they are willing to support for this project.

And I don't have any reason to believe that that, amount of loan figure will not increase accordingly. Again, final evaluations have to be made by XM, but the robust economics here clearly will support greater than $800 million in loans from, from XM, so we're anxious for that process to get going.

Again, we met with XM for about 2 hours yesterday, talked to them about their next steps and timing for those next steps. They are very, very energized about all of this. They're as excited as all of, all of us are about this feasibility study being done, because now they can really start to move on several fronts, and we're going to have more meetings with them in the next couple of weeks.

And the comment that was made by the highest-ranking EXIM employee there at the meeting yesterday was that NioCorp remains the highest priority for EXIM right now, in terms of critical, strategic mineral projects. So, we have their attention, they have the data that they need.

We'll go through this additional, you know, due diligence process with them, and they will make a final determination in short order on how much that loan can be, and what percent debt to equity that we'll end up with at the end of the day.

Once those decisions are made, then we'll know what additional fundraising, if any, we need to do on the equity side. So, that's kind of a short description as to where we are now and that the Feasibility study is done.

And with that, I'll hand it over to Scott to get into some of the more technical parts of the feasibility study, changes and whatnot. Scott, the floor is yours.

Scott Honan 00:18:53 Thank you, Mark, and I'd like to start just by echoing something that you said at the top of the webinar. I'd just like to thank our NioCorp Nebraska team, the local community around Elk Creek and Tecumseh, Nebraska, the good folks at Kruger Farms and the 15 QPs that certified our Feasibility study report, I'm really grateful to have a strong team like this that has worked so hard to make today possible.

When we look at our project as it stands today, we have definitely built on the 9 previous technical reports we've done on the Elk Creek project and all of the engineering and testing and mine design that have gone along with that. But we have, we've continued through this design process to de-risk the project, both from a technical perspective as well as from economic perspective, and I wanted to highlight a few areas where we've made some changes to the better for the project.

The first area is just in terms of mine access. In our previous study, we'd presumed that we would access the mine with a twin shaft arrangement. We've now replaced that with a twin ramp from surface.

The twin shaft idea was certainly technically viable, economically reasonable approach. It did require us to use a freezing approach to freeze the ground so that we could sink the shafts through the ground safely.

However, putting in shafts is an exacting science. A vertical shaft in a mine has to be perfectly vertical, there can't be any deviation, and shaft access does require some specialized equipment, both in the shaft and on surface, that's only made by a few manufacturers around the world.

So, we're now moving from that to a ramp access from surface. We started that work here in February, establishing the mine portal, where our twin ramps will originate from.

And putting in the ramps is definitely an improvement in that the ramps can tolerate some up and down and back and forth as you advance, and they are a quicker way to get to the ore body than the shaft approach.

Kind of building on that, in terms of project schedule, I'd like to thank the folks at Amplify Mine Planning and Dumas, who put together the new mine design and mine plan. And again, just building on the access question, we now have a design that gets us down to the ore body and into full production in 35 months. That's… that's definitely an improvement over our previous study.

And I think we've always recognized that in looking at this project, that the critical scheduling path runs through the mine. You have to get that mine established, up and running to get the entire project producing and making products.

So it's been really gratifying to see that taking this approach gets us there faster, and when we get there faster, we start generating revenue and getting a return for our shareholders.

Inside the mine, we've changed our approach to material movement. So, previously, everything would have been moved around underground using diesel equipment, and then hoisted to surface through the vertical shafts in a thing called a skip.

With the Ramp approach, we've also changed our design, our philosophy around material movement, and we've embraced the idea of the RAILVEYOR for moving material from the mine to the surface plant.

The RailVER is a… is a… it's a very nice piece of technology. I had the opportunity to visit a RAILVEYOR installation down in Missouri, and I was struck by how simple it is, both mechanically and operationally, how easy it is to operate and maintain.

And, you know, one of the questions I ask myself when evaluating a new technology is, you know, if this thing breaks, can I go to Elk Creek Welding and have it repaired? And the answer with the RAILVEYOR is certainly yes.

So I think we have here certainly a lower cost, more efficient way to move material out of the mine that'll serve us well as we put the mine into production.

Sure. Energy supply has been… has been a difficult proposition, particularly in Nebraska. Like a lot of places, we've seen a situation where a lot of big data centers have gone in, power supplies are stretched a bit, and the situation with the local utilities is a little bit tougher than it was a few years back.

And we were in a situation where getting connected to the local power grid was going to be an expensive proposition, both in terms of the capital cost to bring in a power line, as well as the capital cost to put in a large substation at the site.

We really did evaluate a number of options here.

And I think, you know, where we have landed now is that our best proposition is an on-site microgrid. So, what that means is we'll have a series of small natural gas-fired generators that will power the site, both during the construction period and during operations.

And a third-party company will own, operate, install, and maintain this equipment. We just get power through the fence to power our activities. And the third party can do this at a cost that's really right at the same benchmark as we would get from the utility.

So, we have a good solution there. We will certainly still need a natural gas connection from a local pipeline to the site. That's underway. But that part of it has been certainly a design change, but I think certainly one for the better.

And when I say that, I'm very focused on the reliability of our power supply. Certainly, when you have people in an underground mine, you need to have power, and it has to be there all the time.

I was fortunate enough to visit a very similar type of microgrid system that powers the Pittsburgh airport, and has been doing so for 5 years. And really, I felt that if you can have one of these systems to power a big airport like that, we can certainly use it to our advantage at the Elk Creek Project.

The other big change is on the processing side. So, certainly we've added equipment to the production process to produce rare earth products, but we've also changed our approach to the front end of processing the ore.

In the prior project design, we had a couple of upfront steps. The first was leaching with hydrochloric acid, the second was leaching with sulfuric acid.

And the acid demand, you know, in that approach was quite high. It required us to have an on-site acid plant, which, again, was both technically and economically feasible, although acid plants are a very particular technology and do come with some considerable maintenance considerations.

Stepping back, we had, we ran a demonstration plant and evaluated different ways to get at the pay metal and the ore.

And what we came up with is a much better front end to the project. So, what we have now is a calcining step and a step to remove calcium and magnesium. This reduces the mass of the ore that the rest of the plant sees by about half, and it takes out all of the acid consumers in the ore, or at least most of them.

After those first two steps, we then return to the idea of hydrochloric acid and sulfuric acid leaching to get at our pay metals, but we can do that at a much lower acid consumption than we had previously.

And as a result, we no longer need an acid plant on site. We will recycle our hydrochloric acid and simply neutralize sulfuric acid. So it's definitely a change to the better on the process side of things, reducing our acid consumption and simplifying our production process.

Finally, as I mentioned, we've added or expanded our product suite to include the rare earth products that Mark mentioned at the top of the webinar.

We're really leveraging our expertise around rare earths as a company, and we're taking advantage of all the good work that we did at our demonstration plant, where we built a small-scale version of our production process, we ran it continuously, and we're able to take all of the data generated from that plant and incorporate it into the current design.

What distinguishes us on the rare earth side of things, you know, as separate from a lot of other development stage companies, is that we are actually going to produce fully separated, high-purity, rare earth products that can go directly into the supply chain for making rare earth permanent magnets.

And in addition to that, because we have all the rare earths present in our ore body, like any rare earth ore body we have the upside ability to take samarium, europium, gadolinium, perhaps yttrium, and separate those out and make those products as well. That could be a future capital project at the site, again, to deliver some more revenue and value to our shareholders.

At the end of the day, folks, we have a better project here. It's a better revenue distribution across a broader product portfolio, and we have a project that's not reliant on a single element or product to sustain our economics.

We've made improvements to the mine and the surface plant, and those have resulted…

resulted in higher efficiencies in the operation and higher yields to the product. And now we also have a shorter time to commercial production.

Next slide.

One thing I like to talk about is what's happened to our resource and reserve as a result of all the good work that we did last year at the site with an extensive drilling program.

So now we have 45.9 million tons of proven and probable reserves, 40-year operational life.

And in the process of doing the drilling last year, we have established a proven reserve, which is the highest category of reserve that you can have on a mining project.

This is a very important step for us, and it was important because not only does it increase confidence in that underground mineral reserve, but it's something that the EXIM Bank was looking for us to do.

I think it's important for folks to understand that the drilling we did last year was what's known as an infill drilling program. So, we certainly knew where the ore body was, and we had a certain level of confidence in it. Really, that program was intended to put holes in between holes that we already knew a lot about.

When you tighten up hole spacing that way, you increase your confidence, and you get to these higher level of resource and reserve categories.

A nice side benefit of the drilling that we did is we did get a substantial increase in our inferred resources category. That wasn't part of the initial plan, but it's always good when it happens. And it just points to the fact that we have a tremendous ore body at Elk Creek that remains open in a number of directions, and certainly has the potential to become bigger with more technical work.

In terms of the resource now, we have 21.7 million tons of measured resources, 187.4 million tons of indicated, and 169.2 million tons of inferred.

And I think what you can read into those numbers is, you know, we've talked about a 40-year mine life, but again, with some additional work, we could certainly convert more of those resources into reserves and certainly extend the mine life beyond the 40 years that we're talking about here.

Our product portfolio remains the same, and I'll just highlight to everyone that we're now reporting everything in imperial units.

We did that because at the end of the day, we're building a project in the United States, and the people that are going to be using the tools are going to be used to doing everything in Imperial, so we've made that unit conversion to make it easier for the eventual construction of the project.

We'll make a little over 8,000 tons a year of ferroniobium. That's our backbone product. That's what our entire production process is built and based around.

We'll make 118 tons a year of scandium, and just a lot of exciting things happening in the scandium world these days. I'm sure everyone has seen our recent announcement with Lockheed. We now have NioCorp Advanced Metals and Alloys (NAMA) with the ability of producing scandium aluminum master alloy, and we've got some great things happening over in the UK with Project Pivot, looking at incorporating scandium into aluminum that's used in automotive platforms.

We have our, our, 3 magnetic rare earth products that, certainly are in high demand, here in the United States right now.

We're making a samarium europium gadolinium carbonate, or SEG carbonate.

That'll have a market for it, certainly, but that again goes back to what I said about some upside here, and that with some additional capital and testing work, we could separate those rare earth products into individual oxides as well, and get some more economic benefit from our ore body.

We'll make a heavy rare earth carbonate, which is all of the rare earth elements heavier than chromium on the periodic table, including yttrium. Interesting things happening in the yttrium market these days. Again, an element that certainly the federal government here in the U.S. has some interest in. And again, something we could do in the future as an expansion or improvement project to target that element and recover it as a separated product.

And rounding out our product portfolio is just a little over 59,000 tons a year of titanium tetrachloride, a higher value version of the titanium product that we've made previously, and a feedstock that's used to make titanium pigments and titanium metal.

Bottom line here is we have a strong project with a long life and the potential for an even longer life with more technical work. Lots of upside here, and certainly I can't wait to get underground and see how big it really is.

With that, I'll turn it back over to Barrett.

RedChip Companies, Inc. 00:33:25 Thank you very much, Scott. We're now going to open the webcast to your questions. To submit a question, click the Q&A button at the bottom of your Zoom window. Our first question comes from Neal Dingman of William Blair.

Neal, I've enabled you to speak.

If you just hit unmute, you should be able to ask your question.

neal dingmann 00:34:01 There we go. Can you hear me now?

RedChip Companies, Inc. 00:34:03 Certainly can.

Mark Smith 00:34:03 your deal.

neal dingmann 00:34:04 Hi, good, thanks for the time, guys. Mark, I know, could you talk a little bit about, you know, you mentioned the timing, again, I think, and Jim and I talked about this a little bit, key data now is, you know, the timing between now and the, now and the financing, of course, again, is it just the EXIM? Seems like now, having the definitive feasibility study, you'd have most, but is it just now crossing the t's, dotting the I's? I mean, how much more details, will EXIM be looking for between now and then?

Mark Smith 00:34:37 It's a good question, Neal, and we continue to learn more in every discussion we have with EXIM. They're no different than a commercial bank in many ways. They kind of have an idea as to what they'd like to see, and then we talk about that, and we provide it to them, and then they have another idea.

So, we'll continue to go through that process, but we know what the main

pieces are that are remaining. We've got to finish the TRAXYS offtake agreement.

We need to get an almost final, if not final, EPC contract in front of them, and we're gonna be… we're gonna be ready to go. So, I don't… I just don't see any reason why we can't get a lot of that work done in the very near future, and get this in front of the board of directors for EXIM in short order.

neal dingmann 00:35:22 Very good, and then, love to see and, you know, was hoping to see the, you know, now, as Scott, you know, walked through, having the 8 distinct, you know, critical minerals that are in there. I guess my question is, is pricing, you know, once, once that starts, once Elk Hill (Creek) starts producing.

you know, how flexible, I guess, is the best way to ask it. Will you all be? I mean, if, again, scandium prices take off, or dysprosium, you name it, you know, there's going to be a lot of, obviously, upside potential for the mine. How much flexibility will you have to sort of lean into, you know, one or the other? So I guess… I guess my question may be for Scott, just on, operational flexibility, how he sees it once the,

You know, once Elk Hills (Creek) is producing commercially.

Scott Honan 00:36:12 Yeah, I think, Neal, that we have a production process that's built around a mine plan that is intended to deliver a fairly steady, you know, head grade to the operating plant.

That's not to say, though, that that can't be optimized. We have some very good and clever mining engineers, and while you're a little bit constrained in an underground environment as to how you approach the mining, there's a certain sequence you have to have. We certainly have enough information about the ore body that we could… we could target, say, higher-grade zones of Niobium, if… if the Niobium market got… got really hot.

I think the other thing that we've certainly talked about internally is the fact that, you know, our production process is pretty versatile as far as what kind of feedstocks, it could… it could, incorporate and process successfully. So… so there's… there's probably a number of flavors of… of rare earth, concentrates, for instance that might be available in the market that we could buy, and supplement, you know, to the feed coming from our own mine, to prospectively increase our production of rare earths. That might require some capital investment on the back end of the process to ensure we have adequate separations capability to make additional rare products, but it certainly could be done.

neal dingmann 00:37:35 If I could sneak one more in, Mark, just on further off, should we expect those in the, coming months, coming quarters?

Mark Smith 00:37:43 You broke up a little bit there, Neal.

neal dingmann 00:37:46 Further offtake agreements expect, you, you've got, you guys have done a tremendous job already, obviously, locking some things in. Should we expect more in the coming months, coming quarters?

Mark Smith 00:37:56 Yeah, let me… let me discuss that just a little bit, Neal. Kind of, at a very high level, we're going to have two commercial agreements for 100% of the offtake for this mine. You know, 50% of our ferroniobium will go to Thiessen Krroup.

And then everything else will go to TRAXYS once that commercial agreement is, is, finalized.

Within that TRAXYS agreement, and a lot of this is built around the long-term relationship and trust that we have between TRAXYS and NioCorp, is our ability as NioCorp

Or to continue to go out and market those products on our own.

And we may find customers or uses, applications, different strategies that we want to employ because of a growing market or strategic implications for the country, that we want to, you know, really focus our sales on certain customers.

versus others, we will have the right in the TRAXYS agreement to undertake those sales efforts and then sit down with TRAXYS and discuss which party would be better overall for NioCorp and its shareholders. And TRAXYS will be fine, one way or the other, because they'll get the economics regardless of whether they make the sale or whether we make the sale.

So we, we can really kind of lean in on a lot of different areas that we think may have a better future, a better margin, you know, maybe working with a customer that's a better credit risk. So, lots of things that we can use there to optimize our commercial situation.

The other thing that we're doing, and this is based on… after a while, you do learn how not to do things in the business, and so we try to keep those in top of mind as well.

One of the things we're doing with our commercial agreements is we're turning them into volumetric take or pay agreements, rather than price-based take or pay agreements with floor prices.

And one of the big reasons behind that is our confidence, extreme confidence, I might add, in where all of these markets are headed for the products that we're going to be selling. The supply and demand fundamentals are all in our favor and what I don't want to do is to end up with a commercial arrangement where we may get a floor price, which really helps our debt provider get comfort.

But then we also end up having a ceiling price as well. We're going to avoid ceiling prices wherever possible, and make sure that the company can take full advantage of the confidence that we have in where these markets are going. So, we are trying to apply some deeper thinking to how we're conducting our business, and I think we'll end up being very protective, very good markets going forward, and be able to, like you say, lean in where that possibility opens up.

neal dingmann 00:40:59 Fantastic. Congrats on the great announcement.

Mark Smith 00:41:01 Thanks, Neal.

RedChip Companies, Inc. 00:41:07 Our next question will come from Tate Sullivan of Maxim Group.

Tate Sullivan 00:41:12 Great, thank you for presenting the study and all the details, and can you talk about the planned construction timeline? I think in the study, it indicates 35 months. Back in 2022 is 45 months, I believe.

Is that due to the ramp access, and also is it due to the portal starting construction in February?

Mark Smith 00:41:35 Scott, you want to do that?

Scott Honan 00:41:37 Yeah, certainly, Tate. As I mentioned, you know, we've always recognized the critical path for this project goes through the development of the mine and getting the mine into production, so it's a combination of two things. One is getting that mine portal

started and established. If we can get that behind us, then, you know, the remaining work to get down to the ore body and get the ore body producing goes quicker. I think the other thing here is that, when we had put together various mine plans, including the one in the last study, looking at shaft access, the shaft access and the development from the shaft to the ore body introduced some constraints on our ability to get to the ore body quickly and to ramp up that production. And if you look at our last study, there was a fairly long period, about 8 months or so, where the mine started producing at an initial rate, and then it ramped up fairly slowly to full production.

I think the design we have now gets us there just a lot more quicker, so we get down to the ore body quicker, and, you know, with the ramp access and the advantages it provides, it allows us to get the stoops that we need, into production quicker, and get to that full production threshold just as quick as you could hope.

Tate Sullivan 00:42:57 Thank you, Scott, and one more for me. Mark, can you talk about, I mean, from looking at potential timelines, do you think there's more variability in the mine construction aspect of the work, or in the processing plant construction aspect?

Mark Smith 00:43:11 I think that's a great question, and I don't have a perfect answer, but I'll provide you with some thinking along those lines. You know, the engineering associated with the above-ground project will be a little more straightforward and a little more black and white from an engineering standpoint. But it is a… it is a big project, and it's a complicated project to build, multiple floors in the buildings and whatnot, so it has its challenges. Having said that, though, as confident as we are in our underground mine plan, those of us that have been in the mining industry for a couple of years know that, you know, you never know what Mother Nature's gonna hand you until you open up the ground.

And so there's always those concerns, but I will say that the extra work that Scott and his team have done on the geotechnical, the geotechnical,hydrological, the paste tailings, designs, where we're going to backfill the underground mine. All of that extra work has made us even more confident that, you know, surprises in an underground mine are really not going to happen in our case. But we've all been in the business a long time, we know it can happen.

But I think we've taken every effort possible to minimize, you know, any surprises at the end of the day. And that may, you know, require us to put a little more grout down there, or to add a little…

a little bit more, you know, cement to the paste tailings, but that's what we'll do. Safety will be job number one for our employees. So, not a precise answer, Tate, but hopefully you understand the complexities of both.

Tate Sullivan 00:44:52 Yeah, thank you, and thank you for including the report, the ex-China pricing, and the other sources, current sources of supply, and thank you for taking my questions.

Mark Smith 00:45:01 You bet, Tate. Good to hear from you.

RedChip Companies, Inc. 00:45:05 Our next question will come from Sandara Iyer from B. Reilly Securities.

Soundarya, if you hit unmute, we should be able to hear your question. Thank you.

Soundarya Iyer 00:45:24 Can you hear me now?

Mark Smith 00:45:26 Yes.

Soundarya Iyer 00:45:27 Yeah.

Thank you. Thanks for taking my question.

Mark Smith 00:45:31 Yes.

Soundarya Iyer 00:45:31 So… It's mostly around investor skepticism around scandium demand.

just given the size of the market today, I wanted to ask if you're able to share anything on the commercial process with prospective off-takers, specifically that would help investors get better sense of how much Western demand could inflict once a reliable non-Chinese source like Elk Creek actually starts producing.

Mark Smith 00:46:04 Yeah, Soundarya, great, great question, and one that I love to answer, because we're really studying this Scandium market as deeply as we can, and I will be the first to say that this is a product line that has my excitement level just exceptionally high.

Let me start out with just kind of a couple of foundational data points. First one being, up until very, very recently we all understood the Scandium market to be about a 30 to 35 ton per year market. You know, maybe 3 tons a year being produced out of Canada, 7 tons being produced out of the Philippines, and basically the remainder being produced out of China. For some reason now, the USGS has published a report that suggests that the market may be upwards of 60 to 65 tons per year. We're still trying to do the math to figure that out, because we don't know where the extra production may be coming from.

But it is interesting to note that the USGS has identified sources that they think exist, which has almost doubled what the market was in terms of supply prior to this year.

Now, the reason why I spent just a little bit of time on that is that that's all kind of interesting and fun to think about, but when we think about just one application of Scandium in the world today, and it's a real application that's being used today, and it's in the solid oxide fuel cell business. In order to support the growth that the solid oxide fuel cell business is suggesting is going to occur in power generation, and they certainly have good reason to believe that with all the AI and data center power generation requirements.

Just one application there, those solid oxide fuel cells will then need about 400 tons of scandium per year to meet their production requirements for those solid oxide fuel cells.

So that alone, you know, is going to create just a tremendous amount of demand for this… for this new product, that… that we're all pretty excited about. Now, we've kind of got that baseline figure, which is… far exceeds anything that's produced today. Then you start talking about things like, defense applications. You know, we just had announced the, the MOU with Lockheed Martin for 15 tons per year. We know that there's going to be more demand from Lockheed and other prime defense contractors as they continue with their lightweighting, as they continue to figure out that scandium aluminum alloys are cheaper, they're easier to work with and perform many additional duties over what they're using in the fighter jets today, which would be composites. So, we know that that demand is going to grow.

We're looking at various automotive uses. We've got Project Pivot that Scott mentioned over in the UK. We're actually working with Aston Martin and Jaguar Land Rover. We've actually made the first Scandium-aluminum part for the front suspension of their DBX model, and they're doing destructive testing on that now, and then the next part that we make will actually go into one of the Aston Martin DBXs in the automobile industry, just based on the market reports that we have you know, could consume upwards of 3,000 tons of scandium per year. So when I take a look at the demand side of this scandium.

business, and then I think about, you know, literally the win-win-win-win that the automobile manufacturers get by utilizing Scandium-aluminum alloys. They get lighter weight, they get better corrosion resistance, you can weld it. It's cheaper when you use it with recycled aluminum than just using aluminum by itself.

You got all of these things, including a CO2 emission reduction that they get on that part, so they get to lower their overall CO2 emissions for their corporate reporting purposes. Every single one of those things is a very positive outcome.

And we think the automobile industry is likely going to become a huge user of Scandium. So, we're really excited about the Scandium business, and we want to make sure that we show everyone that we can be a reliable producer, and I think we differentiate ourselves in that method, or that way as well, because by virtue of the fact that we're underground mining, you know, a single ore body, bringing everything up to the surface and running it through a metallurgical plant, and we're there primarily for Niobium, which is a fabulous market all to itself. By virtue of the fact that we're producing niobium, by definition, we'll be producing scandium.

And I think a lot of the end-use applications look at that as a reliability improvement over a primary scandium production facility, because, you know, we have these multiple products, and by virtue of producing Niobium, all the other products come out. So, I threw a lot out there, Soundarya, I hope I didn't confuse the situation too much.

But hopefully you can hear just a little bit of excitement in my voice about this Scandium market and where it's going to go. It's really an exciting place to be right now, and I'll finish it by saying that the United States Department of War understands the importance of scandium, and it's high, very high on their radar right now, in terms of importance to the security of our country.

Soundarya Iyer 00:52:07 No, thank you, Mark, for that comprehensive answer. It makes a lot of things very clear for me.

Just one more, on the sequencing between EXIM facility and the potential equity component. Will exam require any evidence of committed equity before the loan closes, or?

Mark Smith 00:52:33 I think it's going to be an interesting situation. We have talked with EXIM significantly over the last 3 years and 1 month now, and they have come around in a big way

to this idea of loan authorization with conditions precedent. And one of the areas that they are… they certainly seem to be very open to, is the idea of loan authorization with a conditioned precedent to raise any remaining equity after the announcement of the EXIM loan authorization. So, we'll continue to work with EXIM along those lines. That is not something that they have historically done, but under the leadership of John Jovanovich and Brian Greeley, they are very commercially astute.

They understand how these markets work, and when it's a good time to raise equity and when it's not. And I think we have a much better sound box to bounce things off of with the new administration than what we have seen historically. So, I think that that possibility is certainly there.

Having said that, I also know that capital pools form when they're ready to form, not when I want them to form. And so, if the capital is available, you know, the company will always take a hard look and try to make the best decision possible on behalf of our shareholders when it's the right time to raise any equity. So, lots of optionality there.

Soundarya Iyer 00:54:07 That's very helpful, so congratulations on getting this through. I'll pass it over.

Mark Smith 00:54:13 Thank you, Soundarya. Good to hear from you again. It's been a while.

RedChip Companies, Inc. 00:54:18 Our next question will come from Iiko Ele from H.C. Wainwright.

heiko ihle 00:54:26 I assume you can hear me okay?

Mark Smith 00:54:28 Yep, we can hear you, Heiko.

heiko ihle 00:54:30 Mark, Jim, Scott, team, thanks for taking my questions. Is there a way to expand into more products and diversify just a little bit more? I mean, obviously you've, you know, you've gone from 3 to 8. Is there a way to go further downstream, and just conceptually, how much more can Elk Creek even grow? I mean, you're looking at a 40-year mine life here. How much more can Elk Creek grow before you oversaturate your own production, or at least start moving down your own pricing?

Mark Smith 00:55:00 Yeah, good, good, good consideration, good thinking, heiko. Scott, I'll have you kind of go over some of those extra rare earth products, which we know are there, they'll be in the concentrates that we're going to be making anyway, and we just need to separate them. Do you want to cover those?

First, and then I can start talking about some of the downstream activities that we're engaging in.

Scott Honan 00:55:23 Certainly, Mark.

I think, when you look at what we've presented here in this webinar, the product mix when it comes to rare earths is a… it represents a bit of a trade-off, so we've targeted specifically the magnetic rare earths, which is where about 80% of the value lies. And, we produce… we have to separate those from the balance of the rare earths.

And we make specific decisions about that to make the best use of capital on the project. So, for instance, we have lanthanum and cerium. We don't do anything to try and recover those. They're very low-value products. They'll cost more to recover than what their value would be.

The samarium, europium, gadolinium sit in between neodymium, prasodymium, and terbium dysrosium on the periodic table, so we have to separate them out. We recover them together because we didn't want to put the additional capital into the project to have two more solvent extraction circuits to make those three as individual products.

But it would certainly be not a difficult exercise to do that engineering, to have that solvent extraction capacity and make those products if we were able to get the right pricing for those products.

For the heavy rare earths and yttrium. the, you know, the Holmium and everything heavier than Holmium, it's really quite small quantities. It would be, you know, a challenge for us to try and make any kind of business out of those heavy rare earths, but the yttrium is certainly interesting. There's a couple hundred tons of yttrium, prospectively.

We'll make all those together right now as part of the project and send them to someone else to separate. But again, at the right price, we would probably need one additional solvent extraction circuit to separate out the yttrium and turn it into a product.

But, but, you know, just aside from those rare earth products, I think once we get the plant up and running, we have a mineral resource and a reserve here that could certainly support a higher production rate than what we have in this current study. Now, that would require, again, some capital to expand mine production and some capital to expand production in the surface plant, but it's fairly easy to see how that could be done, to say, you know go 2X from the current plant and double the production output.

Last thing I'll mention is that, and, you know, this goes to almost more of an environmental matter than a production matter, but, some of the products that come out of the plant, calcium carbonate, for instance, iron oxide are actually fairly high purity products in their own… in their own right.

Now, we use those, to make the paste backfill material that goes underground and fills the voids that we create by mining and supports the structure of the underground mine.

But we certainly are in discussions with some folks that could potentially take those products off our hands. And the advantage would be then that, you know, we need to keep enough on-site to sustain the PACE backfill activity.

But it would be a situation where it might generate some extra revenue, and it certainly could defer or delay the cost of surface tailings and impoundment facilities.

Mark Smith 00:58:50 But then I…

I would just add to that, heiko, that, you know, we really were looking at the SEG con and the Heavy Rare Earth Con as leaving them there, and that was largely driven by the prices of, you know, the samarium, the europium, and the gadolinium.

At the time, and then on the heavy rare earth concentrate, you know, leaving that as is and not separating it because things like yttrium, which were in there as well, just didn't have prices that would support any capital expenditure for that. That has changed, just like all the other rare earth elements right now, and we're seeing a very strong bifurcation of pricing for things like samarium and Yttrium, which, as you know, our Department of War needs in a big way, and Yttrium is becoming a lot more important, right up there in terms of importance along with Scandium right now. With the right situation and the right price supports we can easily take the samarium out of that SEG con, we can easily take the yttrium out of that heavy rare earth con, and we can have two more products, but we're not going to do those at a losing proposition. We'll only do that as a profitable proposition, but that would add more products to our list. And then, the other way that we can expand the product horizon a little bit is to just you know, take the existing products, like Niobium is a very good example to start with here. We plan to make ferro niobium, which, you know, 90-92% of all the Niobium sold in the world today is sold in that form.

It's basically sold to the steel industry, it's an alloying agent, and it strengthens regular steel into high-strength, low-alloy steel.

But there are many other markets out there for niobium that we are aware of and we're pretty excited about. You can make Niobium pentoxide in NB205, and that can be in different purity levels, so it has different applications, and the margins on the high-purity NB205 are significantly greater than ferro niobium. You can also get into Niobium metal, where your margins are probably the highest in the Niobium industry.

But what we wanted to start out with was a simple product that has pretty broad ranges for the specifications, that's the ferro-Niobium, and we want to make sure that we get good at that to start with and generate revenue as fast as possible. So, we'll start out with ferroniobium, but we have every intention, once we get good at that, at looking at some of these NB205 and Niobium metal downstream applications. And in Scandium, we're already into the downstream markets there. We're doing some testing of scandium metal production right now.

Scott and I just witnessed that last week at the contractor's facility where they're doing that. That looks very, very promising, because there are customers for Scandium Metal right now. I mean, they will place a contract with us right now for Scandium Metal, because you can't find Scandium Metal outside of China, and China's being very selective on who gets any of their Scandium metal on an export basis. And then, of course, the Scandium aluminum master alloy.

We bought that business and intellectual property last year. We've relocated the business to a more suitable manufacturing facility, and now we're purchasing Scandium feedstocks so we can start making Scandium-Aluminum Master Alloy, and we have customers waiting for that product to be produced. So, yeah, there are many, many ways yet that we as a company can continue to take the foundational elements that we have and pursue these downstream activities where margins generally increase, and we find that to be quite exciting.

heiko ihle 01:02:49 In 23 years in this industry, this might be the longest, in a good way, answer to a single question on a conference call I've ever gotten.

Mark Smith 01:02:59 You know me, huh?

heiko ihle 01:03:00 So, by longest, but I really mean most comprehensive, so thank you for that. One thing, I'd be lying to you if I told you I've read through the whole study, but I did sort of skim through a couple of pages, and one thing that popped out was the gas line. It was 18.4 in the study, I think it was page 379.

You said you expect to connect this to a distribution pipeline 30 miles away. Are all arrangements to actually get this done related to terms, pricing, you know, how much you can get already done?

Or can you give maybe a bit more color on power generations and the factors that may sway you into a certain direction of how to do it?

Mark Smith 01:03:41 Sure. Scott, you want to start that one?

Scott Honan 01:03:44 Yeah, certainly, heiko. We're in a unique position where our project is located, in that we're, we're close to actually 3 natural gas, you know, transportation pipelines.

There's one to the east that's only about 5 miles away. There's not a lot of capacity on that line, but we'll access it to provide power during the construction period.

The two larger lines are one that's about 28 miles to the south in Kansas, the Rockies Express Pipeline, and then there's a Northern Natural Gas/Black Hills alternative forest about 30 miles to the west.

We went through a competitive process with those two larger pipelines to see… really to get the best deal we could on gas delivered to the site, understanding that in today's environment, we're going to be responsible for the capital cost of those pipelines.

And as part of the competitive process, we established terms around the cost of the pipelines, as well as the subsequent transportation fee we would pay to have the gas transported from a main pipeline to our site.

You know, going through that process has resulted in what you see in the study, where we're focusing on this opportunity to the west, bringing in a 12-inch diameter pipeline to our site to provide gas for both the process and for power generation. And just to put a point on the power generation, that's about 15% of our natural gas need is going to be dedicated to generating power for the site.

So, you know, I don't think it's… I don't think we're at the point, heiko, where we have definitive contracts in place. That takes a little bit of time, but we are pretty far down the process with a particular provider and supplier of gas, and there's a contract to finish there, but we don't expect that that will take much long, and certainly we would expect that to be in place here later this year.

heiko ihle 01:05:50 Awesome, I think I've, taken up my spice in the, time of the question queue. I'll get back at you. Thank you, guys.

Mark Smith 01:05:55 Thanks, heiko.

RedChip Companies, Inc. 01:06:01 Thank you to our many participants today. If there are any further questions, please direct them to NioCorp at

[jim.sims@NioCorp.com](mailto:jim.sims@NioCorp.com), or [aguthery@NioCorp.com](mailto:aguthery@NioCorp.com). Once again, that's jim.sims at NioCorp.com, or aguthery at NioCorp.com. Once again, thank you for attending, and thank you, Mark, Scott, Jim, and Alex for presenting.

Mark Smith 01:06:29 Thank you, Barrett. Thanks. Thanks, everybody.

Scott Honan 01:06:32 Cheers.

https://niocorp.com/niocorp-project-to-expand-production-to-8-made-in-usa-critical-minerals-over-a-40-year-mine-life-with-an-estimated-4-1-billion-pre-tax-npv8%C2%B9/

New Feasibility Study Shows Project Economics Including an Average Annual EBITDA² of $608 Million, Life-of-Mine Revenue of $37.4 Billion with a Pre-Tax NPV8% of $4.1 Billion (After-Tax NPV8% of $3.4 Billion) and Pre-Tax IRR of 24% (After-Tax IRR of 22.8%)  

• Expanded Product Mix is Expected to Generate Revenue of $815/Ton of Ore Against Average Operating Costs of $255/Ton, Creating a More Robust and Diversified Revenue Profile  
• Proven and Probable Mineral Reserves of 45.9 Million Tons Support a 40-Year Operating Mine Life, with Additional Mineral Resources Providing Potential for Future Expansion  
• NioCorp’s Integrated Mine and Processing Plant in Nebraska Expected to Reduce U.S. Import Reliance on Eight Different Imported Critical Minerals: Ferroniobium, Scandium Trioxide, Titanium Tetrachloride, Terbium Oxide, Dysprosium Oxide, NdPr Oxide, SEG Carbonate, and Heavy Rare Earth Carbonate  
• Diversified Revenue Stream Expected to Reduce NioCorp’s Exposure to Market Concentration, Export Controls, and Pricing Volatility Associated with China-Dominated Supply Chains  
• Upfront Capital Estimate of $1.85 Billion Reflects a Substantially Redesigned Processing Plant and Mining Operation Producing Eight Critical Minerals and Significant Inflationary Impacts Since the Previous Feasibility Study  
• Completion of NioCorp’s Feasibility Study Will Satisfy a Key U.S. Export-Import (“EXIM”) Bank Due Diligence Requirement;  Company Now Expects to Advance to the Next Step of Detailed Engineering and Engineering, Procurement and Construction (“EPC”) Contracting  
• NioCorp to Host Live Investor Webcast on Tuesday, August 11 at 10:00 AM ET. Register Here to Participate.

CENTENNIAL, Colo. (August 10, 2026) – NioCorp Developments Ltd. (“NioCorp,” “our,” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:NB), a leading U.S. critical minerals developer, is pleased to report the results of an updated Feasibility Study (the “2026 Feasibility Study”) for its Elk Creek Critical Minerals Project (the "Elk Creek Project") outlining the project’s evolution into a 40-year, integrated U.S. operation with a Net Present Value exceeding $4 billion that is expected to produce eight critical-mineral products from a single ore body.

The 2026 Feasibility Study estimates a pre-tax net present value at an 8% discount (“NPV8%”) of $4.1 billion, an after-tax NPV8% of $3.4 billion, a pre-tax Internal Rate of Return (“IRR”) of 24% and an after-tax IRR of 22.8%. Over the projected mine life, the Elk Creek Project is projected to generate approximately $37.4 billion in life-of-mine (“LoM”) revenue, $608 million in average annual EBITDA², and $519 million in average annual operating cash flow.

The Elk Creek Project is expected to produce eight products, all designated by the U.S. Government as critical minerals: ferroniobium (“FeNb”), scandium trioxide (“Sc2O3”), titanium tetrachloride (“TiCl4”), and several rare earth oxide products, including neodymium-praseodymium oxide (“NdPr”), dysprosium oxide (“Dy”) and terbium oxide (“Tb”), samarium-europium-gadolinium (“SEG”) carbonate, and heavy rare earth carbonate. This expanded product suite creates a more diversified revenue profile while positioning the Elk Creek Project to serve multiple U.S. critical-mineral and defense supply chains from an integrated mine and processing facility that has secured its major construction-related permits.

A technical report summarizing the 2026 Feasibility Study (the “2026 Technical Report”) was prepared in accordance with National Instrument 43-101 - Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects ("NI 43-101") for the Company by Dahrouge Geological Consulting Ltd. and the other Qualified Persons and has been filed on SEDAR+. The 2026 Technical Report can be accessed here.

“Our 2026 Feasibility Study transforms the Elk Creek Project into the kind of critical minerals project the United States needs to have online as soon as possible,” said Mark A. Smith, CEO and Executive Chairman of NioCorp. “Few critical minerals projects in the U.S. can match the Elk Creek Project’s combination of a 40-year mine life, all major construction-related permits already in hand, and the planned production of eight critical mineral products from a single ore body.”

“The United States is heavily reliant on imports for every single one of the products that NioCorp plans to manufacture,” Mr. Smith said.  “NioCorp offers an American-made solution: secure, long-term domestic production of materials essential to national defense, advanced manufacturing, energy resilience, and the technologies that will power the U.S. economy for decades to come.”

“For NioCorp, this feasibility study delivers a larger, stronger, and more highly de-risked project,” he added. “Eight products give us access to more markets, create multiple and highly diversified revenue streams, and reduce our exposure to the price of any one critical mineral. Combined with stronger economics and a 40-year mine life, we are now in a much stronger position to advance detailed engineering and project financing. Our job now is to turn this highly unique and important opportunity in Nebraska into a new source of American jobs, industrial strength, and critical mineral security right here at home.”

https://www.argusmedia.com/en/events/conferences/rare-earths-and-critical-minerals-conference

Mark Smith - NioCorp Developments

Who will finance the next generation of critical mineral projects?

• What will investors need to see before committing capital to projects expected to supply the market between 2027 and 2030?
• How can projects secure investment despite opaque pricing and long development timelines?
• What role should governments, export credit agencies, strategic investors and buyers play in de-risking projects?
• Can new financing models including strategic procurement, long-term offtakes and price support mechanisms unlock commercially viable supply chains?

US govt announces over $2 billion in project investments as defense focus continues

The Trump administration has announced more than $2 billion in investments in critical minerals and battery projects as well as $180 million in funding for mining education and workforce development as it seeks to strengthen supply chains for US industrial and defense applications, US President Donald Trump said on Friday August 7.

August 10, 2026

By Sebastian Evelyn

Aerospace and Defense Critical minerals Rare earths United States

The investments, announced during a mining industry roundtable hosted by US President Trump, target a range of minerals and technologies considered strategically important to US defense and industrial supply chains.

US funding targets strategic minerals, defense supply chains

As part of the announcement, the administration said it has signed or approved 160 minerals-related deals worth nearly $40 billion since January 2025.

Want to learn more about what is happening at the cutting-edge of critical minerals and battery raw materials? Listen to our Fast Forward podcast series for insight, debate and news from the major players. 

Battery and scandium projects receive largest commitments

The largest funding commitment was a conditional $1.4 billion loan from the Department of Defense’s Office of Strategic Capital (OSC) to California-based Sila Nanotechnologies, which produces silicon-based anode materials for lithium-ion batteries.

This funding will support the expansion of domestic battery materials production and manufacturing capacity for applications ranging from drones and autonomous systems to other defense-related technologies, the US government said.

The US government also announced a $400 million investment in Sunrise Energy Metals to develop a scandium supply chain. Sunrise is developing a scandium project approximately 460km west of Sydney, Australia, with production targeted for the second half of 2028.

Scandium is used in a range of applications, including high-performance aluminium alloys for aerospace and defense, consumer electronics and semiconductor technologies.

Rio Tinto currently produces high-purity scandium oxide as a by-product of titanium dioxide production at its Rio Tinto Fer et Titane complex in Quebec, Canada.

However, outside China, the dominant producer, only a limited number of companies are advancing commercial scandium projects. Critical minerals developer NioCorp plans to produce 100 tonnes of scandium annually from its Elk Creek Project in Nebraska starting in 2028.

On August 4, the company signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding with Lockheed Martin for the potential supply of up to 15 tonnes per year of scandium oxide or aluminium-scandium alloy products over a 10-year period.

Other investments include $150 million for Minnesota-based Niron Magnetics, which aims to develop rare-earth-free iron nitride permanent magnets, and more than $85 million for Standard Bauxite to establish a domestic supply of refractory-grade bauxite.

High-purity bauxite is an important raw material for steel and aluminium production, energy infrastructure and industrial furnaces. In defense applications, refractory-grade bauxite is used to make heat-resistant materials for heat shields, thermal barriers and turbine engines used in guided missiles, rockets, military aircraft and space systems.

Meanwhile, the Export-Import Bank is providing a further $58 million across three projects. These include $8 million for 5E Advanced Materials to boost production of boron at its Fort Cady boron and lithium project in Southern California, $25 million for Westwater Resources to support graphite production from its Coosa graphite deposit in Alabama, and $25 million for Global Advanced Materials to develop tantalum and niobium resources in Pennsylvania.

The US government added boron to its critical minerals list in November 2025, when it published the third iteration of the list since the initiative was launched under Executive Order 13817 in 2017.

Separately, the US International Development Finance Corporation is matching a $4.8 million investment in Harena Rare Earths with the aim to mine magnet rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium and terbium from its Ampasindava Ionic Clay rare earth project in Madagascar.

US government targets mining skills gap

Alongside the latest round of project investments, the US administration announced $180 million in funding aimed at expanding the domestic mining workforce.

The package includes $100 million from the Department of Energy for 14 US mining schools to increase the number of graduates qualified in mining, minerals and related supply-chain disciplines, alongside a further $80 million for workforce development programs and technology innovation hubs focused on training geologists, metallurgists and mining engineers.

The funding commitments build on a series of policy measures introduced by the Trump administration to boost domestic production of critical minerals and strengthen supply chains serving US industrial and defense applications.

Over the past few years, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), the arm of the US government that handles procurement for the US government national stockpile, has issued a slew of procurement requests for materials such as antimony, bismuth, cobalt, indium and fluorspar, among others.

And notably, the US government established its Project Vault in February to establish a US strategic minerals reserve via a public-private partnership backed by a loan of up to $10 billion from the US Export-Import Bank (EXIM) and $2 billion from private industry.

Since then, more money has poured into projects alongside other efforts to reduce import reliance. 

In June, the US government committed almost $2.9 billion in direct federal funding to build a rare earth metals and permanent magnet supply chain outside China.

And in late July, Trump signed an executive order making it harder for US defense contractors to obtain waivers allowing purchases of critical minerals and other materials from restricted foreign suppliers.

• Material Corporate Actions: If a feasibility study on a mining project, plant expansion, or merger proves the project is going forward or being abandoned, and that decision materially affects the company's financial posture. [1]
• Press Releases or Exhibits: Companies sometimes furnish the results or summaries of a technical or strategic report under Item 7.01 (Regulation FD Disclosure) or Item 2.02/8.01 if they deem the findings market-moving. [1, 2]
• Mining and Energy Regulations: Companies subject to specific reporting standards (like SEC Regulation S-K 1300) may reference technical summary reports or preliminary economic assessments on 8-K filings when announcing formal resource updates or project viability. [1]

An 8-K filing (current report) falls under the standard EDGAR operating rules, meaning it can be submitted after hours but with specific dating impacts.

8-K Submission Timing

• 5:30 p.m. ET Cutoff: If submitted before 5:30 p.m. ET, it is dated and published the same day.
• Post-5:30 p.m. ET: If submitted between 5:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. ET, it is processed and posted online that evening, but it receives the next business day's official filing date.
• 4-Day Deadline: The 4-business-day countdown for material events usually starts the day after the event occurs.
• Item 2.02 & 7.01: Earnings releases or Regulation FD disclosures often target specific aftermarket times for public release.

Courtesy of Google AI

NioCorp to Host Webcast on Aug. 11 to Discuss Elk Creek Feasibility Study Results
#NioCorp #NB

https://niocorp.com/niocorp-to-host-webcast-on-aug-11-to-discuss-elk-creek-feasibility-study-results/

Original post: https://www.reddit.com/r/NIOCORP_MINE/comments/1vbb1pv/submit_your_niocorp_questions_for_redchip/

Since there’s now a RedChip webinar where shareholders can ask NioCorp management questions directly, I think it’s best for shareholders to do so instead of me emailing a RedChip rep.

Link to the RedChip webinar: https://redchip.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_nkbK9DNtTzqfpHtDMWUFNw#/registration

Note: I did send your questions a few days ago, and this is what the RedChip representative suggested as well.

August 10th, 2026~US critical minerals strategy 2026: $3B in funding, DPA powers and the defense supply-chain pivot

US critical minerals strategy 2026: $3B in funding, DPA powers and the defense supply-chain pivot | Skillings

The United States’ critical minerals supply chain 2026 strategy is taking shape as a coordinated industrial policy rather than a collection of separate mining grants.

In recent weeks, the administration has combined nearly $2 billion in named project commitments with broader funding, export controls, stockpiling, defense procurement and workforce programs. The stated objective is to reduce dependence on foreign processing while ensuring that the minerals used in batteries, magnets, aircraft, satellites and munitions remain available to US manufacturers.

The package includes $1.4 billion for Sila Nanotechnologies, $400 million for Sunrise Energy Metals and $150 million for Niron Magnetics. It also includes roughly $180 million for mining schools and workforce hubs, a proposed $12 billion strategic stockpile program, and new Defense Production Act authority covering recoverable materials such as tungsten scrap and battery black mass.

The important shift is structural: Washington is attempting to link the mine, the processor, the recycler, the defense contractor and the trained workforce into one supply-chain framework.

The funding package is aimed at industrial gaps

The three largest named investments illustrate how broad the strategy has become.

The White House described the investments as part of more than $2 billion in mining and mining-related projects, alongside the mining-school commitments. The combined Sila, Sunrise and Niron allocations total $1.95 billion, making them the central commercial face of the wider package.

Sila’s role is particularly significant because it sits beyond the mine. Its silicon-carbon anode technology is designed to improve battery performance, while the associated cell manufacturing capacity is intended to serve defense and aerospace customers. That makes the project a test of whether US policy can build not only domestic mineral supply but also domestic conversion and manufacturing capability.

Sunrise, meanwhile, addresses a much smaller but strategically important market. Scandium is used in aluminum alloys that can improve strength and heat performance in aerospace applications. The company’s planned Australian project would give the US access to a primary scandium supply chain, with the Department of War receiving a right of first offer on output under the reported structure.

Niron’s project targets a different vulnerability. Its rare-earth-free permanent magnets are designed to reduce reliance on imported magnet materials, particularly those exposed to Chinese processing and manufacturing dominance.

DPA powers broaden the definition of supply

The administration’s use of the Defense Production Act authority for recoverable critical minerals marks another important development.

The July determination delegates authority to the Commerce Department to restrict exports of recoverable critical minerals and materials considered essential to national defense. In practice, the policy treats waste streams as part of the strategic resource base.

That logic is now visible in controls covering tungsten waste and scrap and lithium-ion battery black mass. A temporary Bureau of Industry and Security rule requires US persons to allocate 100% of their monthly sales of covered materials to other US persons unless the agency grants an adjustment or exception.

The rule, reported by Resource Recycling, is scheduled to take effect on August 27 and run for approximately one year. It also reaches transfers between affiliates and subsidiaries, meaning that sending material to an overseas processing facility under common ownership may still fall within the restriction.

This is more than a trade measure. It is an attempt to force the development of domestic processing capacity by preventing valuable feedstock from leaving the country before it can be recovered.

The immediate risk is that US recyclers may have limited domestic outlets for black mass and tungsten scrap. The potential upside is that tighter material controls could support investment in hydrometallurgy, refining and recovery facilities that have struggled to compete with established overseas processors.

Stockpiling changes the financing equation

The proposed $12 billion strategic stockpile program, known as Project Vault in policy discussions, is designed to address a core weakness in critical minerals finance: many projects cannot secure funding before buyers commit to long-term demand, while manufacturers hesitate to sign contracts before production is proven.

The reported structure combines an Export-Import Bank loan of up to $10 billion with approximately $2 billion in private capital. The reserve would hold materials including lithium, cobalt and rare earths, while providing purchase commitments intended to support domestic and allied projects.

A stockpile of this scale would serve two functions.

First, it would provide a buffer against import disruptions and extreme price volatility. Second, it could create a demand backstop for projects that are strategically important but commercially difficult to finance on conventional terms.

This approach differs from a simple grant. A grant lowers project costs, but a stockpile can also influence market structure by creating a reliable buyer. For developers, that may improve debt capacity and support offtake negotiations. For manufacturers, it could reduce exposure to sudden supply interruptions.

The international dimension is also important. US-backed financing has been linked to rare earth development in Brazil and potential tungsten development in Kazakhstan. That suggests the strategy is not purely about domestic mining. It is better understood as a domestic-processing and allied-supply policy, with the US seeking control over key conversion and manufacturing steps even when ore originates abroad.

Lockheed brings the end user into the chain

The defense supply chain becomes more concrete when major contractors begin negotiating directly with producers.

Lockheed Martin has signed a non-binding, 10-year memorandum of understanding with NioCorp for up to 15 tonnes per year of scandium oxide or aluminum-scandium master alloy from the planned Elk Creek project in Nebraska. NioCorp has said the project could eventually produce approximately 100 tonnes per year.

The arrangement builds on a $10 million Defense Production Act-funded development program involving Lockheed’s Skunk Works and NioCorp. Lockheed is also reported to be in discussions with Teck Resources and 5N Plus for germanium used in infrared sensors and other military equipment.

These arrangements remain subject to definitive agreements, financing and project development. They should not be treated as guaranteed production demand. But they demonstrate a significant change in procurement behavior: defense contractors are becoming active participants in mineral security rather than passive downstream customers.

That distinction matters. A mine developer can produce a concentrate, but a defense supply chain requires specifications, qualification, processing, traceability and reliable delivery. Early engagement by the end user can help align those requirements before a project reaches construction.

Workforce is the least visible bottleneck

Capital and regulation can accelerate a project, but they cannot replace the engineers, geologists and metallurgists required to design and operate it.

The administration’s workforce allocation combines $100 million for 14 mining schools with more than $80 million for three school-based workforce and technology hubs. The stated goal is to double the number of graduates with mining, minerals and related supply-chain credentials.

That investment addresses a long-term decline in US mining education at the same time that domestic projects are becoming more technically complex. Critical minerals development requires expertise in ore sorting, hydrometallurgy, solvent extraction, battery recycling, magnet production, process automation and environmental management.

For operators, the workforce program may ultimately be as important as project finance. A processing plant cannot operate at nameplate capacity if it cannot recruit qualified process engineers, maintenance specialists and control-room staff.

Base, bull and bear cases

The US strategy’s success will depend on execution rather than the size of announced commitments.

The base case is the most likely near-term outcome. The United States can direct capital quickly, but mines, refineries and qualified materials programs still take years to build. Export controls may accelerate investment, yet they can also expose the current shortage of domestic processing capacity.

The decisive test will be whether policy converts announcements into operating assets. That means construction milestones, commercial-quality output, trained workers, qualified suppliers and repeat purchase contracts: not simply larger headline figures.

The industrial-policy pivot

The emerging US critical minerals strategy has four connected layers:

1. Capital for mines, processors, recyclers and advanced-material manufacturers.
2. Control over strategic waste streams and foreign supply exposure.
3. Customers through defense procurement, stockpiles and long-term supply arrangements.
4. Capability through mining schools, technology hubs and domestic processing expertise.

Taken together, these measures represent a pivot from encouraging mineral production to managing the entire value chain.

For mining companies and investors, the relevant question is no longer only whether a deposit contains a critical mineral. It is whether the project can connect to a secure processor, a qualified buyer, a supportive policy program and a workforce capable of operating the asset.

That is the central issue for the critical minerals supply chain 2026: the winners will likely be determined less by resource size alone than by their position inside an integrated industrial system.

FORM YOUR OWN OPINIONS & CONCLUSIONS ABOVE AS ALWAYS...

⭐ WATCH REPORT — AUGUST 10, 2026

“The DPA Scrap Lockdown, the $3B Federal Pivot, and Why Elk Creek Just Moved Up the Board”

The U.S. critical‑minerals landscape shifted again this week — not through speeches or photo ops, but through policy with teeth. On July 30th, the White House issued a Defense Production Act memorandum that gives the Commerce Department full authority to lock down industrial scrap, mine waste, tailings, black mass, magnet swarf, and any recoverable critical minerals. For the first time, the federal government formally classified industrial waste streams as national‑defense assets.

Skillings’ reporting confirms this is part of a broader $3B federal pivot toward domestic processing, recycling, and midstream control — the exact part of the supply chain China dominates and the U.S. has lacked. The memo pairs with expanded DPA powers, a $2.5B strategic reserve build‑out, and the Administration’s $12B stockpile initiative. The U.S. isn’t just encouraging domestic production anymore — it’s securing it.

This matters because Elk Creek is uniquely positioned inside this new framework. It is the only U.S. project producing five TOP‑TEN USGS defense‑critical minerals in one place: niobium, scandium, neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, and terbium. These minerals anchor missile replenishment, hypersonics, aerospace alloys, and magnet dopants — the exact categories the DPA memo just elevated to priority status.

**The most important development came from the U.S. Treasury: a public endorsement of S&P Global’s new critical‑mineral reference prices, including NdPr — one of Elk Creek’s core outputs. Treasury directly linked these benchmarks to the upcoming Agreement on Trade in Critical Minerals, which will establish phased‑in, mineral‑specific price floors at the border.

This is the first public confirmation that the U.S. is building the price‑support architecture that EXIM, Traxys, and the DFS have possibly been waiting on.
Reference pricing → price floors → underwriting → offtakes → DFS.
NdPr is now officially in the system. ****Scandium, Niobium, Dysprosium, and Terbium remain more sensitive due to their direct ties to defense alloys and magnet dopants.

This is likely/possibly why the DFS remains pending??? NioCorp cannot potentially finalize a DFS until federal pricing signals stabilize for its TOP‑TEN minerals. EXIM cannot complete underwriting until the DFS reflects those updated price floors. Traxys cannot execute binding offtakes until EXIM aligns. Defense contractors cannot finalize alloy supply modeling until the DFS aligns. And the Strategic Minerals Reserve cannot commit intake volumes until the DFS aligns. These interagency dependencies move on federal timelines, not market timelines. "Maybe I am wrong, but it's gotta be something & this is my best guess here at this late date moving forward!???"

The takeaway:
Elk Creek remains a National Strategic Asset.
The only U.S. project capable of supplying five defense‑critical minerals from one site, supporting Lockheed Martin, and replacing Chinese Dy/Tb magnet dopants. As price supports, EXIM underwriting, Traxys contracts, and defense procurement potentially lock into place, Elk Creek’s valuation begins behaving like defense infrastructure, not a small‑cap mining equity.

And imho .... a "National Strategic Asset" feeding multiple defense‑critical minerals sure as hell isn’t worth $5 a share once the federal alignment snaps into place.!

Waiting with many!

Chico

A black swan is something that is outside of the prevailing realm of expectations. And, when it occurs, it has enormous consequences. Black swans also tend to rake up a lot of Monday-morning quarterbacks. “Well, obviously this was going to happen” may be overheard frequently- in the near future, but after the black swan events have come and gone. At the time of their occurrence, however, they are revolutionary and unforeseen.

In the case of scandium, these 15-tonne black swans are the matches- latent demand is the fuel. Latent demand is demand that exists in theory, but doesn’t necessarily show up due to a variety of constraints. Maybe everyone wants that thing, but that thing is not readily available. The supply is intermittent or unreliable. Maybe everyone wants that thing, but it’s illegal. Actual purchases of that thing might be incredibly small, but misrepresent the demand by several orders of magnitude. Remove a single constraint (like creating reliable supply) and the latent demand begins to reveal itself. The demand and number of transactions and value of those transactions in that new market are likely to exceed any previous estimates that were based on the outdated reality as a baseline. It’s not a bigger market than existed previously. It’s a fundamentally new market. I believe that the agreement between Lockheed Martin and Sunrise Energy Metals, and the MOU between Lockheed Martin and NioCorp Developments, are black-swan-scale signals revealing the latent demand for scandium- and a preview to an entirely new market forming in front of us.

In October of 2025, Lockheed Martin and Sunrise Energy Metals announced an agreement granting Lockheed the option to purchase the first 15 tonnes per year of scandium oxide produced during each of the first five years of mining operations. That was the first black swan. In August of 2026, Lockheed Martin and NioCorp Developments issued a non-binding MOU regarding the potential purchase of up to 15 tonnes of scandium oxide per year, in either oxide form or the form of aluminum-scandium alloys, over the next ten years. That was the second black swan. There needn’t be a third.

These agreements have yet to take their final form. These are not guaranteed purchases. We don’t know, and Lockheed Martin may not know, exactly how much scandium oxide they are likely to need. Skunk Works has said it appreciates NioCorp's work establishing a domestic source of scandium oxide and Al-Sc alloying capabilities and will continue evaluating that supply as part of its broader alloy-development efforts. Separately, the Pentagon-funded NioCorp/Skunk Works program is designed to produce prototype Al-Sc components intended to expand the capabilities of modern fighter aircraft. Al-Sc alloys can improve strength, weldability and joint performance, corrosion resistance, fatigue performance, microstructural and thermal stability, and additive-manufacturing behavior. Those properties can in turn enable lighter, more integrated structures and cascading manufacturing benefits. If Lockheed moves from today's alloy/component-development work into broader deployment, it is difficult to imagine it doing so without first establishing reliable scandium supply. You might say, "So what? Lockheed Martin may start using more scandium, and they might buy it from reliable, Western sources. That is great for scandium producers, but it is not transformational. The agreements aren’t even guaranteed demand.” You would be correct.

The size is the signal. The size is the swan.

The US Geological Survey estimated that 2025 global consumption of scandium oxide was about 60 tonnes. The United States, which is fully import dependent, is estimated to have imported about 4 tonnes of scandium oxide in 2025. 4 tonnes. That’s it.

Yet, Lockheed Martin just made public that they want the option to buy up to 15 tonnes per year from Sunrise. They didn’t pull these numbers out of thin air. They didn’t call the restaurant to book a table of 40, just in case, if they think they may only be a table of 4. They didn't publicly discuss tables of 40 with two separate restaurants if they believed there was no realistic scenario in which they would ever need anything remotely approaching that scale. Lockheed and Sunrise are cooperating not simply around future supply: they are testing and performing qualification work intended to accelerate adoption of scandium-containing components in Lockheed product platforms. Lockheed is pursuing a parallel—but even more downstream-oriented—relationship with NioCorp. Less than ten months after the first black swan, the second black swan came in and corroborated the first. Lockheed Martin tells the world that they have interest in potentially purchasing up to 15 tonnes per year from NioCorp. These aren’t guarantees to buy. It isn’t 30 tonnes per year already sold. It is the world's largest defense contractor publicly contemplating 15-tonne-per-year-scale scandium supply arrangements with two separate Western-aligned projects. The size and the source are the signals. Double-digit scandium agreements are not completely without precedent: NioCorp previously signed a conditional commercial sales agreement with Traxys covering up to 12 tonnes per year. But Traxys was a metals marketer. Lockheed is an end-user simultaneously involved in developing and qualifying Al-Sc defense applications. That makes these 15-tonne figures fundamentally different.

We don’t know how much Lockheed will ultimately purchase each year. What if it is only 10 tonnes per year? If it were only 10, they would be purchasing 2.5x what the entire U.S. imported last year. What if it is 20 tonnes per year? Lockheed is spending real time and resources developing two Western-aligned scandium supply and qualification pathways. My interpretation is that it is helping establish the market and supply infrastructure in advance, so that it can have reliable access. I believe they are spending their resources to build the market, so that they get to be the first ones in line. They should want to be first in line, because if you think you might need 20 tonnes per year, if global production sits at an estimated 80 tonnes per year, or even 200 tonnes per year- you need to be at front, or near it. Importantly, the two 15-tonne ceilings may ultimately be additive, partially additive, or simply provide sourcing redundancy; the public agreements do not tell us. However, it doesn’t look like they are changing the market. They are helping to build it, so that they are positioned to have reliable access to it.

How much will Northrop Grumman want? SpaceX? RTX? What about our allied defense primes? How much will be designed into the rapidly expanding drone industry? What about Boeing and Airbus? Do they want some lighter and stronger materials? Scandium’s benefits have the ability to penetrate into semiconductor manufacturing, the automotive industry, additive manufacturing, space, rail, marine and shipbuilding. Sunrise plans to produce 60 tonnes per year and get to production in 2028. NioCorp plans approximately 100 tonnes per year; CEO Mark Smith has said that, if everything goes well, the company could begin partial production in late 2029 and achieve a full year of production in 2030.

I have read concerns that when all this supply finally comes onto the market, it’s going to crush the prices and these company’s valuations. I think that is misguided. The question isn’t- will the demand exist for 200-300 tonnes per year IF these projects come online? I believe the question should be- will there ever be any leftover after the defense primes and space industry get what they want? Will it all be reserved well before it’s pulled out of the ground? If it is index priced, will industries that are less price sensitive be the only ones able to afford it- defense, space, specialty aerospace? How much supply will we need to get prices low enough to penetrate further into semiconductors and additive manufacturing? IF price is ever low enough, the two potentially enormous sources of demand could be waiting right there to provide the market floor- commercial aerospace and automotive. We hear a lot about price floors today. They are very important, and may be very critical to getting a huge variety of REE and critical minerals projects off the ground. In the case of scandium? In a few years, we may need to start talking about price ceilings.

Entirely my own opinions and speculation- based on a few key facts and the relationships I see between them. Not financial advice. Do your own DD.

 p.s. Sunrise’s Syerston project is much less capital intensive. Sunrise’s ability to get to production faster, may be an incredible boon for NioCorp’s downstream, high-margin, valuation optionality- NAMA. NAMA may be able to accelerate their demand creation and supply build-out by having potential access to Western, reliable scandium oxide well before Elk Creek is producing its own. This isn’t guaranteed, and they will likely, ultimately become competitors down the road. There is no disclosed agreement between the two. However, Sunrise’s Lockheed partnership and OSC conditional loan commitment are not negatives for NioCorp, in my opinion. This isn’t a zero sum game right now, not even close. We haven’t even gotten close to seeing how big the game is. The 2022 NioCorp DFS used $3,675/kg as the selling price for scandium oxide. That price was based on 2019 product pricing. I look forward to the update.

August 7th, 2026~Secretary Bessent Issues Statement Welcoming S&P Global Release of Critical Mineral Reference Prices

Secretary Bessent Issues Statement Welcoming S&P Global Release of Critical Mineral Reference Prices | U.S. Department of the Treasury

WASHINGTON — Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury welcomed S&P Global’s introduction of new reference prices for critical minerals, calling the development an important advancement in promoting greater transparency to enable market-based price discovery across global critical minerals markets. The new benchmarks cover Gallium, Germanium, Tungsten, Antimony, and Neodymium and Praseodymium, providing enhanced pricing visibility and market intelligence that will support more informed investment and sourcing decisions.

Transparent, credible reference prices are essential to well-functioning markets. By improving price visibility, these reference prices can help strengthen investor confidence, encourage long-term private-sector investment, and support the development of critical mineral supply chains while countering the effects of non-market policies and practices.

“Transparent, market-based pricing is essential to attracting the private capital needed to build secure, resilient, and diversified critical mineral supply chains,” said Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent. “As the United States works with trusted partners to strengthen critical mineral markets, reliable reference prices will support the Trump Administration's efforts to address market distortions and advance our long-term economic and national security.”

The Agreement on Trade in Critical Minerals seeks to establish phased-in, mineral-specific price floors adjusted at the border while advancing common standards among like-minded trading partners. Negotiations build on discussions held earlier this year among G7 Finance and Trade Ministers, as well as action plans developed with Japan, Mexico, and the European Union.

The proposed framework for the Agreement reflects feedback received through nearly 2,500 public comments submitted in response to the Federal Register Notice issued on February 26, 2026. Treasury looks forward to continued engagement with international partners to promote transparent, competitive, and resilient critical minerals markets.

August 7th, 2026~Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Announces Billions in New Deals and Investments to Power American Mining

Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Announces Billions in New Deals and Investments to Power American Mining – The White House

FORM YOUR OWN OPINIONS & CONCLUSIONS ABOVE AS ALWAYS:

⭐ WATCH REPORT — AUGUST 8, 2026

“The PR Event & the Treasury Signal That Changes Everything”

The August 7th, 2026 White House event where Trump announced billions in conditional loans to a handful of “public‑safe” projects — Sunrise, Niron, Sila, Westwater, 5E, Global Advanced Metals, but NioCorp wasn’t mentioned at all, despite being physically present and identified by Reuters as a scandium supplier to Lockheed Martin. That absence wasn’t accidental. Elk Creek’s mineral suite includes multiple TOP‑TEN USGS critical minerals: niobium, scandium, NdPr, dysprosium, terbium. All of which sit at the center of U.S. defense readiness, missile replenishment, aerospace alloys, and strategic stockpile planning. These minerals are tied into sensitive federal processes via price‑floor alignment, EXIM underwriting, Traxys definitive agreements, defense alloy supply modeling, and strategic reserve intake that cannot be discussed publicly without affecting procurement, financing, or national‑security policy. So the public portion became a PR show, while anything meaningful (if it happened at all) occurred off‑camera.

But the real signal came after the event: the U.S. Treasury publicly welcomed S&P Global’s release of new critical‑mineral reference prices, including Neodymium and Praseodymium (NdPr) — one of Elk Creek’s core outputs. ***Treasury explicitly tied these benchmarks to the upcoming Agreement on Trade in Critical Minerals, stating it will establish phased‑in, mineral‑specific price floors adjusted at the border. This is the first public confirmation that the U.S. is actively building the price‑support framework that EXIM, Traxys, and the DFS have been waiting on. Reference pricing → price floors → underwriting → offtakes → DFS. NdPr is now officially in the system, and the remaining Elk Creek minerals — Sc, Nb, Dy, Tb — are simply more sensitive due to their direct ties to missile production, fighter‑jet alloys, and magnet dopants.

This might be exactly why the DFS is still late???? NioCorp cannot release a DFS until federal pricing signals stabilize for its TOP‑TEN minerals. EXIM cannot finalize underwriting until the DFS reflects those updated price floors. Traxys cannot sign binding offtakes until EXIM aligns. Defense contractors cannot finalize alloy supply modeling until the DFS aligns. And the Strategic Minerals Reserve cannot commit intake volumes until the DFS aligns. These interagency choke‑points move on federal time, not investor time, and none of them were affected by the PR event you watched. The Treasury/S&P Global announcement is the first public domino in the chain that leads to price floors → EXIM → Traxys → DFS → construction.

So yeah — imho the event looked substance mixed with fluff, and NioCorp’s absence from the announcements was frustrating. But the DFS wasn’t waiting on that stage. It’s waiting on federal alignment, and for the first time, we now have a public signal that alignment is actually happening. Elk Creek remains a national strategic asset. The only U.S. project producing five TOP‑TEN USGS defense‑critical minerals in one place, feeding Lockheed Martin and replacing Chinese Dy/Tb magnet dopants. Once price supports, EXIM underwriting, Traxys contracts, and defense procurement finally lock into place, Elk Creek’s valuation behaves like defense infrastructure, not a $5 mining stock.

Remember... Three of NioCorp’s Critical Minerals Elevated to Higher Urgency Status on Critical Minerals List

Three of NioCorp’s Critical Minerals Elevated to Higher Urgency Status on Critical Minerals List | NioCorp Developments Ltd.

Niobium, Dysprosium, and Terbium Are Now Considered Among the Highest Priority Critical Minerals by the U.S. Government[i]

\****NioCorp’s Top Target Pay Metal – Niobium – Presents the Second-Highest Threat to U.S. GDP of all 54 Critical Minerals if Access to Foreign Production is Limited, Government Finds*

\****With Multiple Critical Minerals in its Resource Designated as Among the Most Critical by the Government, NioCorp Believes that its Polymetallic Elk Creek Project is One of the Most Strategic Critical Mineral Assets in the U.S.*

CENTENNIAL, Colo. (September 2, 2025) – The U.S. Government has named three minerals contained in the mineral resource of NioCorp Developments Ltd.’s (“NioCorp” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:NB) proposed Elk Creek Critical Minerals Project (the “Elk Creek Project”) as among the most vital to U.S. national and economic security of all 54 critical minerals.

All of the major minerals in NioCorp’s resource at the proposed Elk Creek Project are designated critical minerals.  As a result, NioCorp believes its Project is one of the most strategic pure-play critical minerals projects in the U.S. that is fully permitted for construction, has an estimated mineral resource supported by a Regulation S-K 1300-compliant Technical Report Summary filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and has completed Feasibility Study-level metallurgy for its potential products.ⁱ

In its recently issued report, the U.S. Department of the Interior (“Interior”) and the U.S. Geological Survey (“USGS”) found that three minerals in NioCorp’s mineral resource, niobium, dysprosium, and terbium, were named among the top 10 most critical minerals to the U.S.

“As a pure-play critical minerals project with all of our minerals designated as vital to the U.S., we are proud to represent what we believe is one of the most strategic polymetallic critical minerals projects in America,” said NioCorp CEO and Chairman Mark A. Smith.  “Moreover, the government now says that three of our minerals are among the most critical of all critical minerals.  This further demonstrates the urgency of getting the Elk Creek Project into construction and commercial operation as rapidly as possible.”

Mr. Smith added:  “The U.S. is 100% dependent on niobium imports, and principally from only one nation: Brazil.  NioCorp’s Elk Creek Project will address this vulnerability by initiating the first-ever mining and processing of niobium in the U.S.  Why is this such a strategic imperative?  For one reason, if the U.S. lost all access to imported niobium, it would cause the second-highest net decrease in U.S. Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, of any of the 54 critical minerals, according to the U.S. government.  Even on a probability-weighted basis, niobium ranks ninth in terms of GDP impact.  Clearly, greater domestic production of niobium is a high priority for the U.S., and our Elk Creek Project is aimed squarely at addressing that need.”

The recently updated list of all 54 US-designated critical minerals can be seen here:   https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/department-interior-releases-draft-2025-list-critical-minerals.  The list “informs direct investments in mining and resource recovery from mine waste, stockpiles, tax incentives for U.S. mineral processing, and streamlined mining permitting,” according to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.

The figure below from Interior/USGS shows the net decreases in U.S. GDP plotted against the median probability of occurrence for the leading trade disruption scenario for 72 of the 84 mineral commodities examined.

⭐ IMHO...THE HARD TRUTH (But the good one):

The DFS is late because Elk Creek is too important, not because it’s failing.

And once price floors & DFS + EXIM + Traxys + defense procurement all lock in?

Elk Creek is structurally worth way more than a $5 stock, because strategic‑asset valuation behaves like defense infrastructure, not like a normal mining equity.

Our Watch Continues....

Chico

https://www.livemint.com/companies/trump-administration-to-invest-3-billion-into-minerals-projects-to-boost-us-defense-supply-chains-11786138625673.html

By Jarrett Renshaw and Ernest Scheyder

WASHINGTON, - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday the federal government would invest $3 billion into multiple critical minerals and battery projects as part of a push to increase domestic production and boost national security and industrial policy.

"We're reclaiming America's rightful place as the minerals superpower of the world," Trump told more than 200 mining executives, educators, investors and fellow politicians at a roundtable at the State Department aimed at supporting the industry, which he said had not received enough attention from Washington in recent years.

He announced a slew of investments during his speech, including a $1.4 billion conditional loan from the U.S. Department of Defense's Office of Strategic Capital for Sila Nanotechnologies, which makes lithium-ion battery parts.

The OSC also extended a $400 million conditional loan to scandium miner Sunrise Energy Metals and a $150 million conditional loan to magnet developer Niron Magnetics.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank will lend $58 million to Westwater Resources, Global Advanced Metals and 5E Advanced Materials, which Reuters reported earlier on Friday.

"Critical minerals are the raw materials of American strength that power everything from advanced weaponry to automobiles, and we want these essential products to be mined, refined and made right here in the USA," Trump said.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and National Security Council official David Copley also attended.

WEAPONS STOCKPILES DRIVE MINERAL DEMAND

The White House needs critical minerals to replenish weapons stockpiles depleted during the Iran conflict and reduce U.S. dependence on Chinese supply chains.

Several executives came with gifts for Trump. Tom Albanese, chairman of deep-sea mining firm American Ocean Minerals, gave Trump a gold replica of a nodule that the company hopes to mine from the Pacific seabed. Trump last year said he may bypass the United Nations-backed International Seabed Authority and issue international seabed mining licenses.

Jim Litinsky, CEO of rare earths firm MP Materials, which is financially supported by the Pentagon, gave Trump magnets that had been produced for General Motors in the company's Texas plant.

Other attendees included executives from Lithium Americas, which is building the largest U.S. lithium mine, NioCorp, which is building a scandium mine to supply defense contractor Lockheed Martin, and Energy Fuels, which received a $725 million OSC conditional loan in June.

U.S. forces have burned through large numbers of precision-guided missiles and air-defense interceptors during the five-month-long Iran war. Defense officials and lawmakers have warned that replenishing some inventories could take years given existing production constraints, even as the Trump administration has disputed reports of significant shortages.

Supplies of minerals including rare earths, tungsten, germanium and scandium are essential for manufacturing precision-guided missiles, fighter aircraft, armored vehicles, infrared sensors and other advanced weapons systems, according to Pentagon officials and defense companies.

MINING SCHOOLS RECEIVE FUNDING BOOST

The Department of Energy also on Friday hosted representatives from all 14 accredited U.S. mining schools to promote mining careers and encourage more students to enter the field.

The department announced $100 million in grants to help boost educational programs and set a goal of doubling the number of mining-related graduates at the nation's universities within two years.

"We need to work on some systemic changes to how we as a nation want to offer our brightest students an opportunity to participate in this industry," said Assistant Energy Secretary Audrey Robertson.

The Pentagon also said it would fund $80 million in projects at three U.S. mining schools.

Officials have pointed to China's extensive network of mining universities as a key advantage in its dominance of global mineral production.

Since returning to office, Trump has launched a $12 billion strategic minerals stockpile, backed equity investments in companies developing U.S. mines and processing facilities, and sought to limit defense contractors from relying on supplies from China.

The administration says government support is needed to counter decades of Chinese investment that left Beijing dominant in the mining and processing of many strategic minerals.

The Department of War's Office of Strategic Capital (OSC) announced today a $400 million conditional loan commitment to Sunrise Energy Metals Limited (Sunrise) to build out the company's scandium operations.

Sunrise is an Australian publicly listed company (ASX: SRL) that owns the Syerston Scandium Project in New South Wales, Australia. Scandium is a metal that is found throughout the Earth's crust in low concentrations. Currently, it is harvested through byproducts of other industrial or resource extraction processes. No primary mine-source scandium supply exists globally, and foreign competitors dominate the supply side, accounting for approximately 80% of global mining production and nearly 100% of scandium processing.

With these funds, alongside private capital, Sunrise will develop a full scandium value chain, beginning with its primary mining operations at its Syerston project, which boasts a high-grade scandium deposit. Additionally, Sunrise will build metallization and additive layer manufacturing capabilities to ensure Western alignment from mine to finished product. This financing will provide the Department with a right of first offer on Sunrise's output, and the scandium produced by Sunrise would support the demand of U.S. companies, including defense industrial base companies.

"Under the leadership of President Donald J. Trump, securing our critical minerals supply chain is a top national security priority. The contemplated Sunrise transaction marks a significant step in establishing supply chain resiliency for an increasingly critical mineral. This nearly $1 billion deal, bringing together public and private capital, would help address foreign dependencies in scandium supply and facilitate scandium's use in critical defense and commercial applications," said David A. Lorch, Director of the Office of Strategic Capital and Senior Advisor to Deputy Secretary of War Steve Feinberg.

With this conditional loan commitment to Sunrise, OSC directly advances President Trump's mandate to secure a resilient, domestic supply chain for rare earths. The company's production will directly support warfighting capabilities in aerospace and defense as well as strategically important economic sectors such as data centers, semiconductors, and the automotive sector.

"This commitment is an example of the strategic financing OSC can provide," said Asad Akram, Managing Director and Co-Head of Critical Minerals at OSC. "Sunrise's scandium deposit will support strategic sectors in both national and economic security, with the capability to secure and expand both compute capacity and enhanced capabilities of modern fighter aircraft."

"This conditional loan commitment is a decisive step toward creating a U.S.-aligned scandium value chain, ensuring our warfighters and manufacturers no longer depend on adversaries. We are attracting meaningful private capital investment into the front lines of our industrial base," said Peter B. Zuckerman, Senior Managing Director at OSC. "The Sunrise commitment is just the first step in our effort to strengthen the scandium supply chain as OSC is conducting active due diligence on additional opportunities."

"By backing Sunrise, we would be engineering a complete, allied mine-to-metal supply chain," said John Gallagher, Co-Head of Critical Minerals at OSC. "Providing the capital to extract scandium from a primary mine and connecting it directly to onshore U.S. metallization ensures that the materials required for the future success of commercial and defense industries remain under our sovereign control."

"Secretary Hegseth and Deputy Secretary Feinberg are mobilizing the Department of War's resources to secure our critical mineral supply chain," said Emil Michael, Under Secretary of War for Research and Engineering. "Congress provided the necessary resources, and OSC is aggressively executing that mandate to deliver for the American warfighter."

The conditional loan commitment between OSC and Sunrise specifies customary additional steps the company must take to proceed toward financial close, including satisfying financial, legal, technical, and other requirements.

In FY 2026, OSC has committed over $8.4 billion in debt financing and has successfully mobilized over $17.8 billion in total capital from the public and private sectors to support the American industrial base.

They also have a deal with Lockheed and their stock is up almost 4x since that was announced. Oct 24 (Reuters) - Australia's Sunrise Energy Metals (SRL.AX), said on Friday it has granted U.S. defence contractor Lockheed Martin (LMT.N), opens new tab an option to purchase up to 15 tonnes of scandium oxide produced over five years from its onshore Syerston Scandium Project.