Important disclaimer: This is not a report of a new delay. It concerns a possible explanation for why completion and release of the updated feasibility study may have taken longer than previously expected during 2026. The updated feasibility study has not yet been released. This post does not assert that any death occurred. It recounts an unverified, secondhand statement made during a telephone call and the representative’s subsequent written correction. NioCorp has not confirmed the statement, and I have not independently verified it. The representative later wrote that he had “misspoken” regarding the details and could not provide additional clarity concerning the alleged disruption. I do not know whether the original statement was inaccurate, misunderstood, insufficiently verified, improperly characterized, or related to a differently described underlying event. Readers should not treat the allegation as fact, attempt to identify anyone, or speculate about private personal matters. This is not financial advice. Do your own research and rely on official company disclosures.

Unverified Statement and Subsequent Written Correction Concerning a Possible Reason for the Existing Feasibility-Study Delay:

During a telephone call on July 21, 2026, the same call I referenced in my post about management’s end-of-July target with a RedChip representative, I was told secondhand that an individual who played an important role in the updated feasibility-study process had passed away and that the situation had complicated completion of the study.

This was presented as a possible explanation for delays that had already occurred during 2026, not as notice of a new delay. During the same call, I was separately told that the feasibility study was still targeting the end of July, subject to change.

During the call, I expressly told the representative that I had a presence on the NioCorp subreddit and intended to share the information there. To the best of my recollection, I raised my intention to post it more than once. He did not object, tell me that the conversation was confidential, or instruct me not to share what he had said.

As I recall, he also indicated that he would consult a coworker who had first-hand knowledge of the information and follow up with me by email with something that could help address or reduce investor anger. I do not remember his exact wording, so I am not presenting that recollection as a direct quotation. Based on the exchange, however, I understood that he knew I intended to discuss the matter publicly.

I later followed up by email seeking clarification about the individual’s general professional role and how the alleged disruption had affected the feasibility-study timeline. I specifically stated that I was not asking for the person’s identity or any private personal details.

The representative responded the following day:

“Unfortunately, I misspoke on the call regarding those details, and I'm not able to provide any additional clarity on the nature of that disruption at this time.”

NioCorp has not confirmed the original explanation, and I have not been able to verify it independently. It must therefore be treated as an unverified statement that the representative subsequently withdrew or corrected, not as established fact.

The written response states that the representative “misspoke on the call regarding those details,” but it does not identify which details were inaccurate, explain the precise scope of the correction, or expressly state that no underlying disruption of any kind occurred.

Based on the sequence of events, including the representative’s awareness that I intended to share the explanation publicly and his subsequent written statement that he had “misspoken,” my personal impression is that the response reads as a walk-back of the earlier explanation rather than a clear and complete denial that any underlying disruption occurred.

That is only my subjective interpretation of the disclosed communications. It is not a factual assertion about the representative’s intent, whether any disruption occurred, or whether any portion of the original explanation was true. My interpretation may be wrong. The response could simply mean that the earlier explanation was entirely inaccurate, misunderstood, improperly characterized, or based on information that the representative could not sufficiently verify.

I waited several days before posting because I wanted to seek additional verification and consider the information carefully before sharing it.

I am publishing the sequence of communications so readers can evaluate it for themselves. Please do not speculate about the identity of any person or repeat the original explanation as though it were confirmed.

I will update, revise, correct, or delete this post if I receive reliable additional information showing that any part of this account is inaccurate or materially incomplete.

Walrus

(I deleted the original post and redid it to reduce misunderstandings.)

Cost Competitiveness:

“U.S. automaker and cellmaker buyers are increasingly concluding that executing offtake supply agreements with U.S. producers like Westwater is the surest way to avoid import tariffs and is therefore their most economical long-term solution.” according to Westwater Resources

Well lookie here folks.

It moved 🐢