Disclaimer: I am not an insider. This post uses only publicly available information, press releases, lobbying disclosures, interviews, reporting, corporate presentations, and timeline analysis. All sources used will be attached below this article. This is purely my speculation as a cautious bull, so beware of bias. Do your own research. Not financial advice.

Subject: On April 20, 2026, it was reported that the first funding from Project Vault was due to close soon. I normally avoid connecting the dots due to how common false signals are in this sector. However, the sequencing around NioCorp, Traxys, EX-IM, Project Vault, and White House (EEOB) engagement has made it hard for me not to do so as I’m writing this on 5/18/26.

Here’s the compressed as of Monday, May 18, 2026, relating to the subject:

Dec 5, 2025. NioCorp’s Town Hall meeting in Elk Creek:

EXIM Chair Jovanovic: “The Elk Creek Minerals Project is exactly the type of opportunity EXIM was always designed to support.

Q4 2025:

400k+ Javelin lobbying focused on:

• DoD funding/contracts.

Feb 2, 2026:

Project Vault announced.

Q1 2026:

White House Office added lobbying disclosures. (Javelin)

Feb 4, 2026:

NioCorp becomes one of the first/possibly first miner to explicitly applaud Project Vault publicly.

April 2, 2026:

Jim Sims posted that they visited and briefed the White House (EEOB) on April 1.

April 9, 2026:

Traxys-NioCorp non-binding off-take is announced.

• Traxys is explicitly tied to Project Vault.
• EXIM diligence referenced.

April 20, 2026:

Reuters/other outlets:

First Project Vault funding tranche nearing completion.

• Project Vault is designed for:
  • Financing
  • Offtakes
  • Logistics
  • Processing
  • Credit support

After the Traxys non-binding announcement, NioCorp changes its investor presentation slides subtly from “EXIM Loan Application Advancing” to “EXIM Financing Process Advancing; $10B Anchor Investor in Project Vault,” as shown in the images below.

What the loan application of the investor slideshow looked like before the Traxys offtake announcement. (April 3, 2026)

What it looks like now. (April 9, 2026, and after)

Why NioCorp May Fit Project Vault Structurally:

This section is speculative, but the overlap between Project Vault’s stated objectives and Elk Creek’s characteristics is difficult to ignore.

According to Reuters and EXIM Chairman John Jovanovic, Project Vault is not designed to function as a simple emergency stockpile. Instead, the initiative appears intended to solve broader structural problems across the U.S. critical minerals supply chain, including:

• lack of capital,
• insufficient processing infrastructure,
• long-term offtake uncertainty,
• lack of creditworthy counterparties,
• logistics/storage limitations,
• and downstream manufacturing bottlenecks.

Those are almost exactly the categories that projects like Elk Creek face.

NioCorp also appears structurally aligned with several broader U.S. strategic priorities:

• fully permitted U.S.-based project,
• advanced-stage development asset,
• multi-mineral exposure,
• defense-relevant materials,
• domestic processing ambitions,
• and long-term supply-chain integration goals.

Unlike some single-metal juniors, Elk Creek markets itself as a broader strategic-materials platform involving niobium, scandium, titanium, and potentially separated rare earth products and downstream alloy production.

That does not mean NioCorp has been selected for anything. However, it does help explain why the company has repeatedly and publicly aligned itself with Project Vault messaging since February 2026.

 

Why Traxys May Matter More Than Retail Investors Realize:

The April 9, 2026 Traxys announcement may be one of the most important developments in the broader timeline.

Importantly, Traxys is not a retail-driven speculative name. It is a major physical commodities trading and logistics firm with deep experience in global metals markets, supply-chain management, marketing arrangements, and structured commodity transactions.

In the context of Project Vault, Traxys repeatedly appeared in media coverage and company disclosures as a participant connected to the initiative’s broader logistics and commercial architecture.

This matters because Project Vault increasingly appears designed around:

• long-term offtake arrangements,
• commodity distribution,
• inventory management,
• processing coordination,
• and creditworthy counterparties.

Those are precisely the types of functions sophisticated commodity intermediaries typically facilitate.

The Traxys term sheet also directly intersected with EXIM-related due diligence. Mark Smith specifically stated that expanded offtake arrangements could help address one of the remaining diligence items in the EXIM review process.

That does not guarantee definitive agreements will be completed. The agreement remains non-binding and subject to due diligence, financing, negotiation, and execution risk.

However, the overlap between:

• Traxys,
• Project Vault,
• EXIM,
• and Elk Creek’s financing needs

creates a strategic pattern that is at a minimum worth analyzing.

Why This Could Still Fail:

Despite the increasingly coherent timeline, there are still major risks and unresolved questions.

Most importantly:

• there is no proof NioCorp has been selected for Project Vault funding,
• no finalized EXIM financing package has been announced,
• and no definitive Traxys agreement currently exists. (the current one is non-binding)

The project also still faces significant execution risks:

• updated feasibility economics remain unknown publicly,
• capex inflation could materially impact viability,
• financing requirements remain enormous,
• and management has a history of missed timelines and delayed studies.

Additionally, Project Vault itself is still evolving. The public does not know:

• which projects are highest priority internally,
• how funding decisions will actually be made,
• what political considerations may exist,
• or how aggressively EXIM and the White House intend to intervene in specific projects.

Another important point is the company’s recent communication pattern.

Since the White House briefing, Traxys announcement, and Project Vault-related developments, NioCorp has actually become relatively quiet publicly. Some investors interpret that silence as bullish, while others see it as concerning.

Personally, I think the silence cuts both ways.

On one hand, quieter communication can sometimes occur during active financing, due diligence, legal review, or strategic negotiations.

On the other hand, if NioCorp had already secured finalized Project Vault participation or major financing approval, I would expect significantly more visible signaling:

• additional interviews,
• conference appearances,
• aggressive investor promotion,
• expanded media outreach,
• or direct public celebration of the milestone.

Instead, the company’s communication cadence appears more restrained and cautious.

That does not invalidate the broader strategic-alignment thesis. However, it is one reason I remain careful about overstating conclusions from the publicly available evidence.

Mining history is filled with projects that appeared strategically important but ultimately struggled financially or operationally.

(Note: Historically, when NioCorp had nothing to announce, you would see more public presentations and conferences)

That is why this thesis should be viewed as probabilistic speculation based on public sequencing and strategic alignment, not as confirmation of future funding.

My Current Interpretation:

At this point, I am not arguing that NioCorp has already secured Project Vault funding or that government financing is guaranteed.

What I am arguing is narrower:

Based on the public timeline, lobbying disclosures, White House engagement, EXIM commentary, Traxys overlap, evolving company messaging, and Project Vault’s stated objectives, NioCorp appears increasingly positioned within the broader strategic ecosystem Project Vault is attempting to build.

The company has aligned itself with the initiative unusually early and unusually aggressively compared to many other mining companies.

Whether that ultimately results in financing, strategic support, or inclusion in future Project Vault activity remains unresolved.

However, from a public-information standpoint, the sequencing and strategic alignment have become coherent enough that the possibility deserves serious analytical discussion rather than immediate dismissal as random speculation.

Additional Observation: Options Activity:

NB 10C 01/15/2027 calls opened, approximately $150k BTO premium initially observed.

One additional speculative observation is that a large NB options position remains open:

• NB 10C 01/15/2027 calls
• approximately $150k BTO premium initially observed
• position currently appears materially underwater relative to entry.

Importantly, this should NOT be interpreted as proof of insider information or confirmed future developments.
​One additional speculative observation is that a large NB options position remains open:

• position currently appears materially underwater relative to entry.

Importantly, this should NOT be interpreted as proof of insider information or confirmed future developments.

Large options positions can represent:

• speculative directional bets,
• long-term asymmetric risk/reward positioning,
• hedges against other exposures,
• volatility strategies,
• or portfolio-level positioning unrelated to Project Vault specifically.

However, the fact that the position appears to have remained open despite significant unrealized drawdown may suggest the holder is maintaining a longer-duration thesis rather than trading short-term momentum.

I do not consider this meaningful evidence on its own. At most, it is a small supplementary observation alongside the broader timeline and strategic-alignment discussion.

Again, not financial advice, and do your own research.

Walrus

Last updated: May 18 2026, 12:47 AM EST

Sources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAIAIzpN4P8&t=64s
https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/0c51bb10-ce6f-4cf4-b458-3592b1b51c28/print/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2026-02-02/trump-launches-project-vault-to-stockpile-rare-earths-video
https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/471e24f9-5a7a-436c-a66e-9e77ab15753a/print/
https://www.niocorp.com/niocorp-applauds-white-house-and-exim-for-bold-project-vault-initiative/
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7445465931449024513/
https://www.reuters.com/business/uss-project-vault-aims-close-first-funding-tranche-soon-official-says-2026-04-20/
https://www.niocorp.com/niocorp-reaches-non-binding-agreement-with-traxys-north-america-for-potential-purchase-of-all-of-niocorps-remaining-planned-products/

Source: https://fintel.io/so/us/nb

Source:
https://fintel.io/so/us/nb
https://fintel.io/so/us/nb/citadel-advisors-llc

Source: https://fintel.io/so/us/nb

Source: https://fintel.io/so/us/nb

Source: https://fintel.io/so/us/nb

The Google-generated headline...

Compared to the actual headline, once you click on the link.

Intentional manipulation or not, make sure you click the article link at all times to see the full context. I think this applies to investing in general, not just critical minerals and rare earths.

Earlier this year, Reuters reported that the U.S. government was moving away from critical mineral price floors, but that was proven to be false by the Vice President himself a few days later.

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-05-07/mp-sees-heavy-rare-earth-demand-falling-as-technology-advances

NioCorp executive compensation in 2025.

Source: https://www.quiverquant.com/stock/NB/executive-compensation/

Source: https://x.com/financialjuice/status/2051712206643810626

Article: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/g7-talks-set-up-permanent-unit-oversee-critical-minerals-agenda-2026-05-05/

Source: https://www.mining.com/press-release?id=69f3031368dfb5ee8121e099

P.S: It's neodymium, dysprosium, and terbium.