Why the FS Took Longer Than Expected. Just my opinion and im certain this is the case.
I think a lot of the frustration around the feasibility study comes from the early timelines sounding simpler than the reality of the project. And to be fair, Mark wasn’t trying to mislead anyone — he was giving the best estimates he had at the time. The problem is that Elk Creek isn’t a normal project, and the deeper the team got into the technical work, the more complicated it became.
A multi‑mineral carbonatite is one of the hardest deposit types in the mining world. You’re not just proving up one commodity — you’re proving up niobium, scandium, titanium, & multiple rearearths and the interactions between all of these circuits. Every time the metallurgy gets refined, it affects the engineering. Every time the engineering shifts, it affects the economics. It’s a domino chain.
Then layer on the fact that this isn’t just any feasibility study — it has to meet EXIM‑level, lender‑grade standards. That means more test work, more pilot work, more third‑party verification, and a much higher bar for what counts as “done.” Add in the underground design and the Traxys agreement taking longer than expected, and the schedule naturally stretched.
So when people ask why the dates slipped, the answer in my opinion is: the project turned out to be harder than anyone expected, and the team adjusted as the technical reality became clearer.
If anything, the delays show they chose accuracy over shortcuts. And for a project that’s supposed to run for decades, that’s the right call, Imo.