Source: https://fintel.io/so/us/nb
https://www.quiverquant.com/stock/NB/institutions/

NioCorp (NB) Q2 2026: Top 10 Institutional Holders

1. BlackRock: 9.22M
2. Brevan Howard: 7.08M
3. State Street: 2.50M
4. Private Management Group: 2.15M
5. Geode Capital: 2.09M
6. Citigroup: 2.03M
7. Citadel Advisors: 1.81M
8. Northern Trust: 1.30M
9. Vanguard: 1.16M
10. Goldman Sachs: 1.07M

Biggest Adds:

• BlackRock: ~+2.20M
• Citigroup: ~+896K
• Brevan Howard: +590K
• Geode: ~+536K
• State Street: ~+430K

Biggest Cuts:

• Alyeska: 4.31M → 0
• Citadel: 6.20M → 1.81M
• Goldman Sachs: 3.29M → 1.07M

Brevan Howard continued building its position, reaching over 7 million shares, while Citadel and Goldman made major reductions.

Q2 13Fs reflect holdings as of June 30, 2026, before the Q3 FS and other later developments.

https://preview.redd.it/dftmg1jz40ih1.png?width=1298&format=png&auto=webp&s=e43bdff2e9d5826b7d6b44264e2f82e7f3842f28

https://preview.redd.it/hq5xkbmi8zhh1.png?width=629&format=png&auto=webp&s=d22ef4709e982378826fe7e1e8e33efaa826328f

Source: https://x.com/ErnestScheyder/status/2085705481423667269

Source: https://www.mining.com/web/rio-tinto-bhp-summoned-to-critical-minerals-meeting-with-trump/

Source: https://niocorp.com/lockheed-martin-and-niocorp-sign-mou/

CENTENNIAL, Colo. (August 4, 2026) – NioCorp Developments Ltd. (“NioCorp” or the “Company“) (NASDAQ:NB), a leading U.S. critical minerals developer, announced the signing of a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) regarding the potential purchase of up to 15 tonnes/year of scandium oxide from NioCorp, in either oxide form or in the form of aluminum-scandium alloys, over the next 10 years.

NioCorp plans to produce approximately 100 tonnes/year of scandium oxide from its Nebraska-based Elk Creek Critical Minerals Project, once project financing and construction are complete.  NioCorp currently produces 4% aluminum-scandium master alloy in the U.S., utilizing market-sourced scandium oxide.  NioCorp has said it also intends to produce finished aluminum-scandium alloy ingots that vary in scandium content from 0.2% to 0.8% for customers in both the commercial and defense markets.

“Lockheed Martin has earned its reputation as one of the strongest names in American defense and aerospace, and as a U.S. critical minerals company, we’re proud to be working toward supplying them with the scandium products they need,” said Mark A. Smith, NioCorp CEO and Chairman. “Both companies recognize how important scandium has become to the future of American defense technology as well as the imperative of establishing a domestic scandium mine-to-warfighter supply chain.  NioCorp is already investing to build out this supply chain as rapidly as possible, including the ability to make aluminum-scandium master alloy today.  Clearly, the case for reducing our reliance on China for scandium and other critical minerals has never been stronger.”

“Lockheed Martin has long valued partnerships that strengthen the U.S. industrial base and support our warfighters,” said Tyler Robinson, vice president, Technology Roadmaps, Lockheed Martin Skunk Works.  “We appreciate the work NioCorp is doing to establish a domestic source of scandium oxide as well as the company’s aluminum-scandium alloying capabilities, and we look forward to continuing to evaluate that supply as part of our broader alloy development efforts.”

The MOU builds on an existing joint development program with Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works to develop scandium-based aluminum alloy components for modern fighter aircraft. That program, announced in October 2025, is funded by the U.S. Department of War (“DoW”) as part of a $10 million award to NioCorp’s subsidiary, Elk Creek Resources Corp. (“ECRC”), under Title III of the Defense Production Act, and is intended to help establish the United States’ first domestic scandium mine-to-master-alloy supply chain.

The MOU is non-binding, and both companies have agreed to negotiate in good faith a definitive agreement as rapidly as possible. There is no assurance that a definitive agreement will be reached, or as to its eventual terms.

Sources: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-expected-attend-state-department-roundtable-with-mining-ceos-amid-critical-2026-08-03/

NioCorp Lobbying Update: Javelin and John Pughe Continued Federal Work Through Q2 2026

Disclaimer: This is not financial advice. Do your own research and verify all information independently

I reviewed the latest federal lobbying filings involving NioCorp, Javelin Advisors, and Pughe Consulting.

The central takeaway is straightforward:

NioCorp’s federal lobbying effort continued through Q2 2026, remained focused on government funding and contracts, expanded its language to include “U.S. readiness,” and involved the Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense, and U.S. Geological Survey.

A series of late-filed Pughe Consulting records also shows that John Pughe’s disclosed involvement with NioCorp dates back to November 2025, earlier than Javelin’s December 2025 NioCorp registration.

1. Original Context: Javelin’s $400,000 Q4 2025 Engagement

Javelin Advisors reported $400,000 in lobbying income from NioCorp during Q4 2025.

The filing described the work as:

“Lobbying activities concerning funding and/or contracts with respect to NioCorp.”

The federal agency listed was the Department of Defense.

The registered lobbyists were:

• Keith Schiller
• George Sorial
• Robert Seiden

Keith Schiller was identified in the filing as a former Deputy Assistant to President Donald Trump and former Director of Oval Office Operations.

Javelin’s NioCorp registration became effective on December 1, 2025.

The $400,000 figure established that this was not a minor or incidental engagement. NioCorp committed substantial money during the initial quarter to pursuing federal funding or contracts.

The filing does not disclose whether the $400,000 represented a retainer, a front-loaded payment, reimbursement for broader work, or another compensation structure.

2. Q1 2026: Lower Reported Income, but White House and DoD Activity Continued

Javelin’s Q1 2026 report disclosed less than $5,000 in lobbying income.

The issue remained:

“Lobbying activities concerning funding and/or contracts with respect to NioCorp.”

The agencies listed were:

• Department of Defense
• White House Office

Keith Schiller, George Sorial, and Robert Seiden remained the listed lobbyists.

The reported income was dramatically lower than the $400,000 disclosed for Q4 2025.

However, the filing still showed active federal engagement and added the White House Office to the disclosed contacts.

This does not prove that White House officials supported NioCorp, that President Trump personally reviewed the project, or that any funding decision had been made.

It confirms that the White House Office was among the entities contacted during Q1 2026 regarding funding or contracts involving NioCorp.

3. Q2 2026: “U.S. Readiness” Added and Agency Scope Changed

Javelin again reported less than $5,000 in lobbying income for Q2 2026.

The description expanded to:

“Lobbying activities concerning funding and/or contracts with respect to NioCorp and US readiness.”

The agencies listed were:

• Department of Defense
• U.S. Geological Survey
• Office of the Secretary of Defense

The same three lobbyists remained listed:

• Keith Schiller
• George Sorial
• Robert Seiden

The White House Office was not listed in Q2.

That does not necessarily mean White House engagement ended. It means the White House Office was not reported among the entities contacted during that specific quarter.

The addition of “U.S. readiness” is noteworthy.

The filing moved beyond the earlier generic funding-and-contract language and explicitly connected the engagement to U.S. readiness.

The filing does not define what “U.S. readiness” means in this engagement. However, the phrase is consistent with NioCorp being presented through a defense-industrial-base, supply-chain-security, or national-readiness framework.

That interpretation remains an inference. The filing itself only establishes the wording used, the agencies contacted, and the lobbyists involved.

4. Who Is John Ross Pughe?

John Ross Pughe is the founder of Pughe Consulting LLC and is identified in federal filings as the individual lobbying for NioCorp through Pughe Consulting.

The Pughe registrations also identify Javelin Advisors as an affiliated organization.

Javelin’s published biography identifies Pughe as a Strategic Advisor whose work focuses on areas including:

• National security
• Government affairs
• Critical minerals
• Defense and emerging technology
• Strategic partnerships
• Supply-chain security
• Defense-industrial-base resilience
• Energy and resource security
• Cooperation between the United States and allied countries

According to Javelin’s biography, Pughe previously served as an Action Officer and operational Chief of Staff within Cerberus Capital Management’s Supply Chain and Strategic Opportunities Fund.

That work reportedly involved national-security-focused investments and portfolio companies across:

• Critical minerals
• Aerospace and defense
• Space systems
• Energy
• Advanced manufacturing
• Supply-chain resilience

Javelin says Pughe’s responsibilities included helping align private investment with U.S. government priorities and navigating federal interagency processes.

Pughe also reportedly served in the federal government from 2017 through 2021, including positions connected to the Executive Office of the President and the Department of Commerce.

At the Department of Commerce, he served within the Office of the Secretary and reportedly worked on issues involving:

• Supply-chain security
• Economic resilience
• Interagency coordination
• International trade
• Disaster-recovery policy
• Coordination involving the U.S. intelligence community

He also previously worked in Congress, the Florida Legislature, and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign in Florida.

Javelin’s biography says Pughe holds a University of Florida degree involving business administration, entrepreneurship, and mass communication.

Why Pughe’s involvement matters

Pughe’s background is directly aligned with several of NioCorp’s current strategic needs:

• Connecting critical-mineral projects with national-security policy
• Pursuing Department of Defense funding or contracts
• Positioning Elk Creek within supply-chain and industrial-base readiness
• Connecting private capital with federal priorities
• Navigating federal agencies and interagency processes
• Developing strategic partnerships involving government and private industry

His involvement therefore appears more specialized than ordinary legislative lobbying.

The disclosed work sits at the intersection of:

• Critical minerals
• Federal funding
• Defense readiness
• Supply-chain security
• Private investment
• Government contracting

This does not prove that Pughe has secured funding for NioCorp or that a federal award is imminent.

It explains why someone with his background would be involved in NioCorp’s federal strategy.

5. Pughe Consulting Reported Separate Q2 Activity

Pughe Consulting separately reported $10,000 in Q2 2026 lobbying income involving NioCorp.

Its description matched Javelin’s Q2 language:

“Lobbying activities concerning funding and/or contracts with respect to NioCorp and US readiness.”

The agencies listed were also identical:

• U.S. Geological Survey
• Department of Defense
• Office of the Secretary of Defense

John Pughe was the sole listed lobbyist.

The $10,000 figure is a rounded good-faith estimate under Lobbying Disclosure Act reporting rules, not necessarily an exact payment.

The identical issue description and agency list, combined with Pughe’s role at Javelin and the affiliated-organization disclosure, strongly suggest coordinated work within the broader Javelin engagement rather than an unrelated lobbying campaign.

That is an inference from the filings. The documents do not explicitly describe the internal relationship between Javelin and Pughe Consulting.

6. The Pughe Filings Were Submitted Late

The timing of the Pughe filings is unusual.

November 2025 registration

Pughe’s initial NioCorp registration lists an effective date of November 4, 2025.

However, the filing was digitally signed on July 20, 2026.

That effective date predates Javelin’s December 1, 2025 NioCorp registration.

The form already identified Javelin Advisors as an affiliated organization and described the work as lobbying concerning NioCorp funding or contracts.

This indicates that Pughe’s disclosed involvement with NioCorp began earlier than the publicly visible filing date.

April 2026 amendment

Pughe then filed an amended registration with an effective date of April 22, 2026.

It was digitally signed on July 22, 2026.

The amendment again identified Javelin Advisors as an affiliated organization and retained the same core description involving NioCorp funding or contracts.

Q2 activity report

Pughe’s Q2 activity report was digitally signed on July 24, 2026.

The usual Q2 federal lobbying-report deadline is July 20.

That means the report appears to have been filed four days after the normal quarterly deadline.

7. What the Late Filings May Mean

The filings establish that the records were submitted well after their stated effective dates.

They do not establish why.

Possible explanations include:

• A compliance review identified missing registrations.
• Pughe’s role was initially handled under Javelin and later formalized separately.
• The parties determined afterward that Pughe Consulting required its own registration.
• The characterization of Pughe’s work changed.
• Lobbying thresholds or reporting obligations were reassessed.
• The filings were corrected or backfilled for administrative reasons.

There is no evidence in these documents that NioCorp, Javelin, or Pughe deliberately concealed the engagement.

The responsible conclusion is narrower:

Pughe’s disclosed NioCorp involvement dates back to November 4, 2025, but the related registration was not publicly filed until July 2026.

The filings look like a retroactive compliance cleanup or formalization, but the documents do not disclose the reason.

8. Why Did Javelin’s Reported Income Fall From $400,000 to Less Than $5,000?

The filings do not explain the payment structure.

Several interpretations are possible:

1. The $400,000 represented a large initial retainer or front-loaded engagement.
2. Initial strategy, access, research, and government outreach required considerably more work during Q4 2025.
3. Later work became narrower or less expensive.
4. Some activity shifted to Pughe Consulting.
5. Some work may not have qualified as reportable federal lobbying income.
6. The engagement may have transitioned from an intensive initial phase into maintenance, follow-up, diligence, or execution-related work.

These remain interpretations.

What is confirmed is that lobbying activity did not disappear when Javelin’s reported income declined.

Javelin continued reporting NioCorp activity in Q1 and Q2 2026.

Pughe Consulting separately reported $10,000 in Q2 activity involving the same issue description and the same federal agencies listed by Javelin.

9. Confirmed Timeline

Q4 2025

Firm: Javelin Advisors

Reported income: $400,000

Disclosed focus: Funding and/or contracts involving NioCorp

Agency listed: Department of Defense

Lobbyists: Keith Schiller, George Sorial, Robert Seiden

Q1 2026

Firm: Javelin Advisors

Reported income: Less than $5,000

Disclosed focus: Funding and/or contracts involving NioCorp

Entities listed:

• Department of Defense
• White House Office

Lobbyists: Keith Schiller, George Sorial, Robert Seiden

Q2 2026

Firm: Javelin Advisors

Reported income: Less than $5,000

Disclosed focus: Funding and/or contracts involving NioCorp and U.S. readiness

Entities listed:

• Department of Defense
• U.S. Geological Survey
• Office of the Secretary of Defense

Lobbyists: Keith Schiller, George Sorial, Robert Seiden

Q2 2026

Firm: Pughe Consulting

Reported income: $10,000

Disclosed focus: Funding and/or contracts involving NioCorp and U.S. readiness

Entities listed:

• Department of Defense
• U.S. Geological Survey
• Office of the Secretary of Defense

Lobbyist: John Pughe

10. What the Filings Confirm

The filings confirm that:

• NioCorp’s federal lobbying effort continued through Q2 2026.
• The work remained focused on government funding or contracts.
• Javelin contacted the Department of Defense and White House Office during Q1.
• Javelin contacted the Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense, and U.S. Geological Survey during Q2.
• The Q2 description added “U.S. readiness.”
• Pughe Consulting separately reported $10,000 in Q2 income involving the same issue description and agencies.
• Pughe’s disclosed involvement dates back to November 4, 2025.
• Javelin was identified as an affiliated organization in Pughe’s registration filings.
• Pughe’s registration and amendment were publicly submitted months after their stated effective dates.

11. What the Filings Do Not Confirm

The filings do not prove that:

• NioCorp has received a new federal award.
• A Department of Defense contract has been approved.
• Project financing is complete.
• The White House has endorsed NioCorp.
• President Trump personally reviewed or approved the engagement.
• The U.S. Geological Survey has completed any formal project evaluation.
• A government funding announcement is imminent.
• The reduced Javelin income means the engagement is winding down.
• The late Pughe filings were intended to conceal information.

Final Assessment

The latest filings show continuity, not termination.

NioCorp’s federal strategy remained active through Q2 2026 and continued to focus specifically on obtaining government funding or contracts.

The agency scope moved from the Department of Defense and White House Office in Q1 toward the Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense, and U.S. Geological Survey in Q2.

The addition of “U.S. readiness” makes the defense-readiness and supply-chain-security framing more explicit.

The Pughe filings also clarify that his disclosed involvement began earlier than previously visible, dating back to November 2025.

However, the unusually late filing dates require caution. They look like a retroactive compliance cleanup or formalization, but the documents do not disclose the reason.

The filings do not prove that NioCorp has received a new federal award, contract, or commitment.

They do show that NioCorp’s lobbying team continued working inside relevant federal channels throughout the first half of 2026.

Not financial advice.

Walrus

Sources

Javelin Q4 2025:

https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/0c51bb10-ce6f-4cf4-b458-3592b1b51c28/print/

Javelin Q1 2026:

https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/471e24f9-5a7a-436c-a66e-9e77ab15753a/print/

Javelin Q2 2026:

https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/a89755e9-9ce5-446a-8f56-9e7f51f08152/print/

Pughe registration effective November 4, 2025:

https://lda.gov/filings/public/filing/ea58fa15-6503-49ba-8059-00c9ea00a2de/print/

Pughe amended registration effective April 22, 2026:

https://lda.gov/filings/public/filing/6571af42-253e-4538-b8d2-06a2a5db1af2/print/

Pughe Q2 2026 report:

https://lda.gov/filings/public/filing/a8e82ba5-1c0b-43ef-b3c6-1bd244e77bb3/print/

Javelin biography for John Pughe:

https://www.javelinadvisorsllc.com/?page_id=143

Federal lobbying filing deadlines:

https://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov/help/WordDocuments/filingdeadlines1.htm

Submit Your NioCorp Questions for RedChip

I am putting together a list of shareholder questions about NioCorp that I plan to send to the appropriate contact at RedChip by the end of next week in August.

I do not have close connections to NioCorp management, but I know who to contact at RedChip and will ask whether they can obtain answers or clarification from the company.

Please submit your questions below.

Rules:

1. Questions must be directly related to NioCorp, the Elk Creek Project, its financing, construction, operations, products, partnerships, offtakes, feasibility work, or corporate strategy.
2. Keep all questions polite and professional. Criticism is acceptable, but insults, personal attacks, hostile language, and accusations stated as fact will not be included.
3. Keep questions reasonably concise. Longer questions may be shortened while preserving the main point.
4. Check the thread before posting so the same question is not submitted repeatedly. Similar questions may be consolidated.
5. Do not submit questions asking whether the updated feasibility study has been delayed. If NioCorp has not provided an update by the end of July, I already plan to ask RedChip directly about the status of the study and whether the timeline has changed.
6. There is no guarantee that RedChip or NioCorp will answer every question. I will prioritize the strongest, clearest, and most relevant submissions.

I plan to finalize the list and send it by the end of next week.

Walrus

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.)

Disclaimer: Not financial advice. Do your own research and due diligence.

I spoke with a RedChip representative yesterday regarding the timing of NioCorp’s updated feasibility study and later received a follow-up email.

Both the call and the email indicated that NioCorp management was still targeting the end of July for the feasibility study’s release. RedChip had reportedly received that timing from management approximately one week ago. The target remains subject to change, and no specific release date was provided.

Based on my memory of the call, I was also told that RedChip expects to host a conference after the feasibility study is released. That detail was not included in the follow-up email.

The conference detail is based on my recollection of yesterday’s call, so the wording may not be exact. Nothing in this post should be treated as a direct quotation, an official company announcement, or a guarantee regarding timing. NioCorp’s SEC filings and investor-relations releases remain the official sources.

Not financial advice. Do your own research and due diligence.

Walrus

July 13 Was a Real Critical Minerals Deadline, But Not a Guaranteed Public Announcement

Sources: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/01/adjusting-imports-of-processed-critical-minerals-and-their-derivative-products-into-the-united-states/

https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/open-price-exploration

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/trumps-critical-minerals-pricing-plan-faces-skeptical-g7-divided-industry-2026-06-15/

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/g7-sets-up-critical-minerals-alliance-crisis-platform-2026-06-17/

https://preview.redd.it/oqb6avsqkfdh1.png?width=1173&format=png&auto=webp&s=922768993cd761a7df7de0ecc14d9436cf5ad09a

There has been some confusion about the July 13 critical-minerals deadline, so here is the simplified version.

July 13 was a real 180-day deadline under President Trump’s January 14, 2026, Section 232 proclamation.

However, Commerce and USTR were only required to provide the President with an update on the status or outcome of critical-minerals trade negotiations.

It was not necessarily:

• A public report
• A tariff announcement
• A price-floor announcement
• A guaranteed market catalyst

As of July 15, there has been no public Section 232 price-floor order, tariff action, Federal Register notice, or new Commerce-USTR report tied to the deadline.

That does not mean nothing happened. The required update may have been submitted privately to the President.

The broader policy effort is still real.

The administration is considering tools such as:

• Minimum import prices
• Section 232 tariffs
• Price floors
• Strategic stockpiles
• Government procurement
• Allied critical-minerals agreements

The Pentagon’s OPEN pricing model is also real. It uses economic modeling, forecasting, and machine learning to estimate structural mineral prices.

However, European allies have resisted the proposal because they are concerned about Washington having too much control over the pricing system, how the costs would be shared, and who would fund the price support.

Another important distinction:

Government-backed purchase guarantees may require major funding and could make the government a buyer of last resort.

Tariff-enforced minimum import prices would not necessarily require the government to purchase excess production.

Conclusion:

July 13 was a legitimate legal and policy deadline, but it was incorrectly presented by some as a guaranteed public announcement date.

The U.S. critical-minerals strategy is still moving forward, but the final structure, funding, covered minerals, and allied participation remain unresolved.

Walrus

NioCorp PR timing patterns while we wait for the updated feasibility study

As we wait for NioCorp’s updated feasibility study, I went back through the company’s release history to see when management most commonly publishes news.

From January 1, 2023, through July 10, 2026, NioCorp posted 192 newsroom items.

Most common weekdays

1. Monday: 42 releases
2. Thursday: 40
3. Wednesday: 39
4. Friday: 35
5. Tuesday: 32
6. Sunday: 4
7. Saturday: 0

Monday ranks first overall, although Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday are all fairly close.

Weekdays by year

Year	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sun	Total	Winner
2023	10	13	8	14	9	0	54	Thursday
2024	7	7	7	7	7	1	36	Five-way weekday tie
2025	20	11	18	17	19	3	88	Monday
2026 through July 10	5	1	6	2	0	0	14	Wednesday

A few things stand out:

• 2024 was unusually balanced, with exactly seven releases on every normal weekday.
• 2025 produced by far the most newsroom activity, with 88 releases.
• Monday’s overall lead was largely created by the heavy 2025 release schedule.
• Wednesday leads so far in 2026, although the sample is still small.
• NioCorp issued no Saturday newsroom posts during this period.

Most common exact release times

For the 183 releases with recoverable Eastern Time timestamps, the most common exact release times were:

1. 7:00 AM ET: 38 releases
2. 8:00 AM ET: 9
3. 5:00 PM ET: 9
4. 4:00 PM ET: 8
5. 5:01 PM ET: 7
6. 6:00 AM ET: 6
7. 9:00 AM ET: 6
8. 4:01 PM ET: 5

The single most common exact weekday-and-time combination was Thursday at 7:00 AM ET, followed by Tuesday and Wednesday at 7:00 AM.

Broader timing pattern

• 44.3% of timestamped releases came before the market opened.
• 32.8% came at or after the market closed.
• Only 23.0% came during normal trading hours.
• 7:00 AM ET was by far the company’s preferred exact release time.
• Project, government-support, operational, and strategic announcements tended to appear in the morning.
• Financing, compliance, governance, and financial announcements were more likely to appear near or after the closing bell.

For those watching for the feasibility study, the strongest historical window is roughly 7:00 to 8:00 AM ET, especially Tuesday through Thursday.

The secondary window is roughly 4:00 to 5:30 PM ET.

But the timing exercise should not distract from the central issue:

NioCorp is not going anywhere meaningful without the updated feasibility study

The project needs current economics.

Investors need updated CAPEX, operating costs, mineral prices, reserve assumptions, production rates, financing requirements, debt-to-equity structure, and the economic contribution of the rare earths.

Until those numbers are published, nearly every valuation discussion remains speculative.

Government interest matters.

EXIM matters.

Offtake discussions matter.

Strategic mineral policy matters.

Higher scandium, niobium, titanium, dysprosium, terbium, and neodymium-praseodymium prices may matter enormously.

But none of those replace a completed feasibility study.

The study is the document that connects the geology, processing plan, capital requirements, operating assumptions, financing structure, and projected cash flow into one investable package.

Without it:

• EXIM cannot reach the finish line.
• Major equity financing remains difficult.
• Strategic investors lack current project economics.
• Analysts cannot build credible valuation models.
• Shareholders cannot properly judge dilution risk.
• The market cannot determine whether Elk Creek is financeable under current assumptions.

A favorable feasibility study would not guarantee construction financing.

But without a completed feasibility study, construction financing is nearly impossible.

That is why the next meaningful NioCorp release is not another conference appearance, interview, policy update, award, promotional video, or general statement about progress.

It is the updated feasibility study.

Everything else is secondary until that document is released.

Walrus

NioCorp Q3 2026: Catalysts, the Feasibility Study, the Traxys Offtake Agreement, Management Praise and Criticism, and Answers to Common Questions, Part 2

Disclaimer: This is not financial advice. Do your own research and verify all information independently. A cautious bull wrote this analysis, so there may be bias. This is a calendar Q3 2026 outlook, not a reference to NioCorp’s fiscal quarter. Any questions I attempted to answer should be double-checked by the reader to confirm the accuracy of the text.

Link to part 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/NIOCORP_MINE/comments/1uiar6h/niocorp_q3_2026_catalysts_the_feasibility_study/

13. Bonus: What to Watch in NioCorp’s Javelin Lobbying Filings

Links to the original filings:

LD-1: https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/ca1b153d-9878-4d1f-b7fa-5f19d9d33eb6/print/

LD-2(s):

Q4, 2025: https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/0c51bb10-ce6f-4cf4-b458-3592b1b51c28/print/

Q1, 2026: https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/471e24f9-5a7a-436c-a66e-9e77ab15753a/print/

One underfollowed source of information is NioCorp’s federal lobbying relationship with Javelin Advisors LLC.

This relationship is more important than general critical-minerals lobbying because Javelin’s disclosed assignment is unusually specific:

“Lobbying activities concerning funding and/or contracts with respect to NioCorp.”

That language appeared in Javelin’s original LD-1 registration and remained the stated purpose in the subsequent LD-2 reports.

This does not prove that federal funding or a government contract is imminent.

It does show that NioCorp hired Javelin specifically to pursue government funding and contractual opportunities rather than merely promote broad critical-minerals legislation.

The Original Javelin Registration

Javelin registered to represent NioCorp effective December 1, 2025.

The original LD-1 filing identified the general lobbying issue areas as:

• National security
• Government issues

The specific stated purpose was:

“Lobbying activities concerning funding and/or contracts with respect to NioCorp.”

The filing identified three lobbyists:

• George Sorial
• Keith Schiller
• Robert Seiden

The filing also disclosed that Keith Schiller previously served as Deputy Assistant to President Donald Trump and Director of Oval Office Operations from approximately January 20, 2017, through September 20, 2017.

That background is relevant because NioCorp is attempting to position Elk Creek as a national-security and industrial-policy project rather than merely another speculative mining development.

The registration also stated that no affiliated organization contributed more than $5,000 toward the lobbying activity and that no foreign entity had the type of ownership, control, or direct lobbying interest requiring disclosure on the form.

Fourth Quarter 2025 Lobbying Report

Javelin’s fourth-quarter 2025 LD-2 report disclosed:

• Client: NioCorp Developments
• Lobbying income: approximately $400,000
• Issue area: Government
• Specific purpose: funding and/or contracts concerning NioCorp
• Federal agency contacted: Department of Defense
• Lobbyists: George Sorial, Keith Schiller, and Robert Seiden

The reported $400,000 is substantial.

For a development-stage mining company, that level of reported lobbying income suggests that NioCorp viewed the federal funding and contracting effort as important enough to commit meaningful resources.

It also makes the Javelin relationship more than a minor Washington public-relations exercise.

However, the filing does not disclose:

• Which Department of Defense office was contacted
• Which funding program was discussed
• Whether the discussions involved grants, procurement, investment, or another structure
• How many meetings occurred
• Whether the government responded positively
• Whether any application advanced
• Whether a funding decision was made

The filing proves that the Department of Defense was lobbied concerning funding or contracts for NioCorp.

It does not prove that any funding or contract was approved.

First Quarter 2026 Lobbying Report

The first-quarter 2026 LD-2 report disclosed:

• Lobbying income: less than $5,000
• Issue area: Government
• Specific purpose: funding and/or contracts concerning NioCorp
• Federal entities contacted:
  • Department of Defense
  • White House Office
• Lobbyists:
  • Keith Schiller
  • George Sorial
  • Robert Seiden

The most important change is not the reported income.

It is the addition of the White House Office.

In the fourth quarter of 2025, the filing identified only the Department of Defense.

In the first quarter of 2026, it identified both the Department of Defense and the White House Office.

That suggests the lobbying effort expanded beyond the Department of Defense and reached the Executive Office of the President.

This aligns with NioCorp’s broader effort to present Elk Creek as a strategic national-security project involving:

• Domestic critical-minerals production
• Defense supply chains
• Rare earth independence
• Scandium and niobium availability
• Aerospace materials
• Industrial-base resilience
• Reduced dependence on China

The White House reference is meaningful, but it must not be overstated.

The filing does not identify:

• Which White House personnel were contacted
• Whether the contact was a formal meeting
• Whether NioCorp executives participated
• Which funding mechanism was discussed
• Whether the White House supported the request
• Whether the matter was referred to another agency
• Whether the contact produced any result

It proves lobbying contact involving the White House Office.

It does not prove White House endorsement or an impending funding announcement.

Why Did Reported Income Fall From $400,000 to Less Than $5,000?

The reported decline from approximately $400,000 in Q4 2025 to less than $5,000 in Q1 2026 is striking.

Possible explanations include:

• The original payment was front-loaded
• The $400,000 covered a larger engagement period
• Most compensation was paid when the relationship began
• Javelin performed limited billable work during Q1
• Work continued under a structure that generated little reportable quarterly income
• The engagement’s intensity declined
• The parties modified their commercial arrangement
• Timing or accounting treatment shifted income between reporting periods

The public filings do not tell us which explanation is correct.

Therefore, investors should not automatically conclude either:

• The Q1 filing means the lobbying effort failed
• The low reported income means the engagement ended
• The $400,000 means funding is likely
• White House contact means an announcement is close

The relationship remained active, the same three lobbyists remained listed, the specific issue remained funding and contracts, and the disclosed government contacts expanded to include the White House Office.

Those facts are more informative than the income number alone.

What Investors Should Watch in Future Javelin Filings

Future LD-2 reports may provide indirect clues about whether the government-funding effort is continuing, expanding, or losing momentum.

The most important items to watch are:

Agencies Contacted

Continued references to the Department of Defense and White House Office would suggest that those channels remain active.

The addition of other agencies could be significant, including:

• Department of Energy
• Department of Commerce
• Export-Import Bank
• Department of the Treasury
• Office of Management and Budget
• National Security Council
• Defense Production Act offices
• Department of the Interior

The significance would depend on the agency and the type of support NioCorp is pursuing.

Changes in the Stated Lobbying Purpose

The current language remains broad:

Funding and/or contracts with respect to NioCorp.

More specific language could be informative.

For example, future filings might reference:

• Defense Production Act funding
• Grants
• Loans
• Procurement
• Strategic investment
• Stockpile purchases
• Industrial-base expansion
• Critical-minerals production
• Specific appropriations
• Particular federal programs

More specific language would provide a better indication of what NioCorp is pursuing.

Reported Lobbying Income

A renewed increase in reported lobbying income could suggest:

• A new phase of work
• Expanded agency engagement
• A larger funding campaign
• Increased activity surrounding a particular application or contract

A continued low figure would not automatically be negative, but it would raise questions about the scale of the ongoing effort.

Lobbyist Changes

Investors should monitor whether:

• Keith Schiller remains listed
• George Sorial remains listed
• Robert Seiden remains listed
• New lobbyists are added
• Any lobbyists are removed

The addition of specialists with defense, appropriations, energy, trade, or White House experience could indicate a shift in strategy.

Termination Reports

A termination report would matter.

It could mean:

• The engagement ended without a visible result
• The assignment was completed
• NioCorp changed lobbying firms
• The company brought government relations in-house
• A funding effort advanced beyond the stage requiring Javelin
• NioCorp reduced lobbying expenditures

The reason would need to be evaluated using other public disclosures.

What Would Count as Real Progress?

The filings themselves measure lobbying activity, not success.

The strongest evidence of progress would be:

• A government grant
• A Department of Defense award
• A procurement agreement
• A strategic investment
• A Defense Production Act announcement
• A stockpile agreement
• A loan commitment
• A filed government contract
• A disclosed federal funding term sheet
• A formal agency announcement involving Elk Creek

Before one of those occurs, the Javelin filings should be treated as a secondary indicator.

They show that NioCorp is actively pursuing funding and contracts.

They do not show whether the government has agreed.

My Interpretation

The original registration and the two LD-2 reports show a deliberate federal funding campaign.

The sequence is notable:

1. Javelin registered in December 2025 specifically to pursue funding and contracts for NioCorp.
2. Approximately $400,000 in lobbying income was reported for Q4 2025.
3. The Department of Defense was identified as the federal agency contacted.
4. In Q1 2026, the White House Office was added alongside the Department of Defense.
5. The same three lobbyists remained involved.
6. The assignment continued to be described specifically as funding and contractual work for NioCorp.

That is worth monitoring.

It suggests NioCorp is not limiting its federal strategy to EXIM.

The company also appears to be pursuing some combination of defense funding, government contracts, or other executive-branch support.

However, investors should maintain discipline.

Lobbying is evidence of an attempt.

It is not evidence of an award.

The next Javelin filings may help show whether the campaign is expanding, continuing at a low level, or winding down. The decisive evidence will still be a formal government announcement or a filed agreement.

 

14. Final Take

NioCorp remains a high-upside, high-dependency development-stage company.

The project deserves praise for:

• Its unusual product diversity
• Its strategic location
• Its alignment with the U.S. critical-minerals policy
• Management’s ability to raise capital
• Management’s general professionalism
• Its potential relevance to defense, aerospace, and advanced manufacturing

Management deserves criticism for:

• Repeatedly missing self-imposed timelines
• Failing to finalize the Traxys agreement within the stated timeframe
• Repeated delays involving the feasibility study
• Providing an insufficient explanation for those delays

The technical picture has weakened.

Price is below both yearly volume-profile value areas, below several important moving averages, and below the Golden Ratio at $5.59.

However, the stock remains near its weekly 200 SMA and daily 1000 SMA, while the weekly 50 SMA remains above both the weekly 200 and weekly 500 SMAs.

The long-term structure is damaged but not broken.

The market’s message is simple:

Show us the feasibility study. Finalize the Traxys agreement. Prove the project is financeable.

Walrus

Sources that haven't been linked with the text:

https://niocorp.com/wp-content/uploads/NioCorp_Presentation.pdf
https://niocorp.com/

Sources used to answer question 2 in section 10:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1512228/000153949726000784/n2574_x310-def14a.htm
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1512228/000153949724001980/n2574_x219ex19-1.htm
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1512228/000153949725002940/n2574_x298-10q.htm
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1512228/000153949726000784/n2574_x310-def14a.htm
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1512228/000153949726000785/n2574_x309-ars.pdf

NioCorp Q3 2026: Catalysts, the Feasibility Study, the Traxys Offtake Agreement, Management Praise and Criticism, and Answers to Common Questions, Part 1

Disclaimer: This is not financial advice. Do your own research and verify all information independently. A cautious bull wrote this analysis, so there may be bias. This is a calendar Q3 2026 outlook, not a reference to NioCorp’s fiscal quarter. Any questions I attempted to answer should be double-checked by the reader to confirm the accuracy of the text.

0. Current Snapshot

As of June 26, 2026, after-hours close:

• Share price: approximately $4.60
• Market capitalization: approximately $660.97 million
• Share count: broadly unchanged from the Q2 analysis
• Company stage: pre-revenue and development-stage
• Primary unresolved catalysts: the updated feasibility study, a binding Traxys offtake agreement, and further progress toward EXIM financing

NioCorp’s valuation remains dependent on future execution rather than present cash flow.

The basic situation entering Q3 is straightforward:

NioCorp has a potentially valuable and strategically important project, but two major deliverables remain unfinished:

1. The updated feasibility study
2. A finalized binding offtake arrangement with Traxys

Until those items are completed, the market has limited information with which to value the project properly or assess the probability of financing.

1. NioCorp Overview

NioCorp is developing the Elk Creek Critical Minerals Project in Nebraska.

The planned product suite potentially includes:

• Niobium
• Scandium
• Titanium
• Neodymium
• Praseodymium
• Dysprosium
• Terbium

That is potentially seven mineral products if neodymium and praseodymium are counted separately.

If neodymium and praseodymium are sold together as a combined NdPr product, the project would have approximately six commercial products:

• Ferroniobium
• Scandium product
• Titanium product
• NdPr product
• Dysprosium product
• Terbium product

Either way, that is an unusually diversified product suite for a development-stage mining company.

Most junior miners depend on one primary commodity. Some have two or three. NioCorp potentially has six or seven products, including rare earths whose non-Chinese prices have risen significantly amid Chinese export restrictions, as well as other critical minerals that the United States and its allies need.

The project’s quality is a major part of the bull case.

The difficulty is converting that geological and strategic potential into financeable project economics.

2. What Changed Since the Q2 Outlook?

The Q2 outlook focused heavily on the expectation that the updated feasibility study and an EXIM term sheet could arrive during the quarter.

That did not happen within the timelines previously discussed.

The stock has consequently fallen from approximately $4.90 on April 8 to approximately $4.60 after hours on June 26, with considerable volatility between those dates.

The company has continued communicating with investors, government officials, financial institutions, and potential commercial partners, but the two documents most critical to the near-term investment thesis remain outstanding:

• The updated feasibility study
• The binding Traxys offtake agreement

The market appears increasingly unwilling to assign a materially higher valuation without them.

3. The Major Q3 Catalysts

The Updated Feasibility Study

The updated feasibility study remains the most important catalyst.

It should provide updated information concerning:

• Capital expenditures
• Operating costs
• Mine plan
• Production schedule
• Recovery assumptions
• Reserve conversion
• Revenue mix
• Rare earth economics
• Project net present value
• Internal rate of return
• Financing requirements

The previous project economics are no longer sufficient for a final investment decision.

Inflation, engineering changes, updated metallurgy, rare earth inclusion, and revised financing assumptions can all materially alter the project.

The feasibility study does not automatically have to be spectacular for the stock to respond positively. It needs to demonstrate that Elk Creek remains economically attractive, technically credible, and financeable.

The major risks are:

• Excessive capital cost inflation
• Weak internal rate of return
• Lower-than-expected recoveries
• Rare earths not contributing meaningfully
• Additional financing needs
• Further delays

The feasibility study is not simply another corporate update. It is the document that allows investors, lenders, strategic partners, and government agencies to evaluate the current project rather than a version of the project based on older assumptions.

The Traxys Offtake Agreement

Management previously indicated that it expected to finalize and “have a binding situation” concerning the Traxys offtake agreement by the end of April or the early part of May.

As of June 27, 2026, no finalized binding agreement has been announced.

This matters because an enforceable offtake agreement can help demonstrate:

• Commercial demand
• Product marketability
• Revenue visibility
• Counterparty interest
• Lender confidence
• Project bankability

An agreement with Traxys would not finance the mine by itself, but it could strengthen the financing package and reduce commercial uncertainty.

Until a binding agreement is announced, investors should not treat it as completed.

The absence of an announcement does not prove that negotiations have failed. It does mean that the market still lacks the result management previously indicated was approaching completion.

EXIM Financing

NioCorp has requested up to approximately $800 million in financing from the U.S. Export-Import Bank.

That process remains potentially transformative.

A sufficiently large EXIM financing package could:

• Reduce equity dilution
• Lower the weighted cost of capital
• Validate the project
• Attract additional lenders
• Improve negotiations with strategic partners
• Increase the probability of construction

However, the financing is not finalized.

The updated feasibility study is important to EXIM’s due diligence, and commercial agreements, such as offtakes, can also strengthen the financing case.

The proper view is:

EXIM is a major opportunity, not guaranteed money.

Additional Government Involvement

Additional government support could include:

• Department of Defense funding
• Department of Energy support
• Grants
• Stockpile contracts
• Price support
• Loan guarantees
• Strategic investment
• Tax incentives
• Procurement agreements

NioCorp’s alignment with American critical-minerals policy remains an important strength.

Government involvement would not eliminate geological, engineering, or financing risk. It could materially reduce the project’s capital and market risks.

Geopolitical Developments

Deteriorating relations with China could increase the urgency surrounding domestic niobium, scandium, and rare earth supply chains.

This has previously contributed to sharp movements in critical-minerals stocks.

However, relying on geopolitical escalation is not a sound primary thesis.

A sustainable revaluation should come from:

• Project economics
• Binding commercial agreements
• Financing
• Construction progress
• Government commitments

Geopolitical events can accelerate the move, but they cannot substitute permanently for execution.

4. Technical Analysis

The Q3 technical picture is weaker than it was earlier in Q2.

The long-term structure has not completely failed, but both the daily and weekly charts show deteriorating momentum.

The most important conclusion remains the same:

The market wants the feasibility study and the Traxys agreement.

Daily Chart

NioCorp’s daily chart as of the June 26, 2026, after-hours close.

Based on the attached daily chart:

• Price: approximately $4.55, or approximately $4.60 after hours
• 50-day SMA: $5.61
• 100-day SMA: $5.40
• 200-day SMA: $6.04
• 500-day SMA: $3.77
• 1000-day SMA: $4.60
• VWAP: approximately $4.56
• RSI: approximately 35.64
• MACD: negative
• Daily volume: approximately 7.25 million shares

Daily SMA Interpretation

The stock is below:

• The 50-day SMA
• The 100-day SMA
• The 200-day SMA

That is bearish on the short and intermediate daily timeframes.

The stock is approximately at the 1000-day SMA and above the 500-day SMA.

That means the deeper multi-year structure has not completely broken, but price is now testing an important long-term support area.

The daily 50-day SMA remains below the daily 200-day SMA:

50-day SMA: $5.61
200-day SMA: $6.04

That is a bearish moving-average alignment, often associated with a death-cross structure.

The 50-day SMA is above the 100-day SMA, but that relationship is less important while price remains below both averages, and the 50-day remains below the 200-day.

Daily RSI

The daily RSI is approximately 35.64.

That is weak and approaching oversold territory, but it is not yet below the conventional oversold threshold of 30.

The RSI indicates selling pressure, not necessarily an immediate reversal.

Daily MACD

The daily MACD remains below zero, with a negative histogram.

That indicates bearish momentum.

A bullish improvement would require:

• The histogram to turn positive
• The MACD line to cross above the signal line
• Preferably both lines beginning to move toward or above zero

That has not happened yet.

Daily Volume Profile

The yearly daily volume profile shows:

• Point of Control: $6.02
• Value Area Low: $4.87
• Value Area High: $6.73

The Point of Control is the price where the greatest amount of volume traded during the selected period.

The value area is the range containing most of the traded volume, usually approximately 70%, depending on the platform settings.

Current price is below the daily Value Area Low of $4.87.

That is bearish in the immediate term because the stock has moved below the price range where the market previously conducted most of its business.

A reclaim of $4.87 would put price back inside the value area.

The daily Point of Control at $6.02 also sits almost directly on the daily 200-day SMA at $6.04.

That creates an important resistance cluster.

Weekly Chart

NioCorp’s weekly chart as of the June 26, 2026, after-hours close.

Based on the attached weekly chart:

• Price: approximately $4.55
• 50-week SMA: $5.66
• 100-week SMA: $3.83
• 200-week SMA: $4.46
• 500-week SMA: $5.48
• VWAP: approximately $4.78
• RSI: approximately 42.42
• MACD: negative
• Weekly volume: approximately 18.98 million shares

Weekly SMA Interpretation

The stock is below:

• The 50-week SMA
• The 500-week SMA
• Weekly VWAP

That is bearish to neutral.

However, the stock remains slightly above:

• The 200-week SMA at $4.46
• The 100-week SMA at $3.83

That means the longer-term structure is under pressure, but it has not completely failed.

The most important current weekly crossover is:

50-week SMA: $5.66
500-week SMA: $5.48

The 50-week SMA remains above the 500-week SMA.

This is a rare, very long-term bullish relationship. It means the average price over approximately the last year remains above the average price over approximately the last decade.

This is not the conventional golden cross, which usually refers to the 50-period moving average crossing above the 200-period moving average.

However, the weekly 50 SMA is also above the weekly 200 SMA:

$5.66 > $4.46

That is a conventional bullish long-term moving-average alignment.

The problem is that the current price is now below the 50-week and 500-week averages.

The long-term averages remain constructive, but price action has weakened.

Weekly RSI

Weekly RSI is approximately 42.42.

That is below neutral but not oversold.

It indicates weakening momentum without showing full capitulation.

Weekly MACD

Weekly MACD is negative, and the histogram is also negative.

That is bearish.

The weekly chart is not currently showing strong upside momentum.

Weekly Volume Profile

The yearly weekly volume profile shows:

• Point of Control: $5.50
• Value Area Low: $4.71
• Value Area High: $6.53

Current price is below the weekly Value Area Low of $4.71.

That is another sign that the market has rejected the prior accepted trading range, at least temporarily.

The weekly Point of Control at $5.50 is particularly important because it sits near several other indicators:

• Weekly 500 SMA: $5.48
• Weekly Point of Control: $5.50
• 0.618 Fibonacci retracement: $5.59
• Daily 50 SMA: $5.61
• Weekly 50 SMA: $5.66

That creates a major resistance cluster between approximately $5.48 and $5.66.

The daily and weekly volume profiles do not need to produce identical numbers. Different candle aggregation and profile binning can shift the exact values slightly.

Both profiles communicate the same broad message:

The stock is currently below the market’s recent value area and must reclaim that territory before the technical picture improves materially.

5. Fibonacci Retracement

The Fibonacci retracement is drawn from:

• High: $12.58
• Low: $1.27

The important levels are:

• 0.236: $9.91
• 0.382: $8.26
• 0.500: $6.92
• 0.618: $5.59
• 0.786: $3.69
• 1.000: $1.27

The Golden Ratio

The 0.618 Fibonacci retracement at approximately $5.59 is commonly called the Golden Ratio.

Earlier in Q2, NB spent considerable time around this level and attempted to break above it.

That breakout failed.

The stock is now trading materially below the 0.618 level.

This confirms that $5.59 is currently resistance, not support.

The level remains extremely important because it aligns closely with:

• Weekly 500 SMA at $5.48
• Weekly Point of Control at $5.50
• Daily 50 SMA at $5.61
• Weekly 50 SMA at $5.66

A sustained reclaim of this cluster would materially improve the chart.

Lower Fibonacci Support

The next major Fibonacci level below the current price is:

0.786 at $3.69

That level also aligns closely with:

• Daily 500 SMA at $3.77
• Weekly 100 SMA at $3.83

This creates a major lower support zone from approximately $3.69 to $3.83.

A breakdown below the weekly 200 SMA near $4.46 would increase the probability of a test of this lower support area.

6. The Most Important Technical Levels

Immediate Support

$4.46 to $4.60

This area includes:

• Weekly 200 SMA at $4.46
• Daily VWAP near $4.56
• Daily 1000 SMA near $4.60
• Current price

This is the immediate battleground.

A decisive weekly breakdown below this area would weaken the long-term structure.

First Reclaim Zone

$4.71 to $4.87

This area includes:

• Weekly Value Area Low at $4.71
• Weekly VWAP near $4.78
• Daily Value Area Low at $4.87

Reclaiming this zone would move the stock back into the recent value area.

Major Resistance Cluster

$5.40 to $5.66

This area includes:

• Daily 100 SMA at $5.40
• Weekly 500 SMA at $5.48
• Weekly Point of Control at $5.50
• 0.618 Fibonacci level at $5.59
• Daily 50 SMA at $5.61
• Weekly 50 SMA at $5.66

This is the most important resistance cluster on the chart.

Secondary Resistance

$6.02 to $6.53

This area includes:

• Daily Point of Control at $6.02
• Daily 200 SMA at $6.04
• Weekly Value Area High at $6.53

Upper Resistance

$6.73 to $6.92

This area includes:

• Daily Value Area High at $6.73
• 0.500 Fibonacci retracement at $6.92

A sustained move above this region would materially change the technical picture.

7. Technical Conclusion

The current technical setup is weaker than it was at the beginning of Q2.

Bearish signals include:

• Price below both yearly Value Area Low levels
• Price below the daily 50, 100, and 200 SMAs
• Price below the weekly 50 and 500 SMAs
• Negative daily MACD
• Negative weekly MACD
• Failed breakout above the 0.618 Fibonacci level
• RSI below neutral on both charts
• Heavy weekly selling volume

Constructive signals include:

• Price remains near or above the weekly 200 SMA
• Price remains above the daily 500 SMA
• Weekly 50 SMA remains above the weekly 200 SMA
• Weekly 50 SMA remains above the weekly 500 SMA
• The major multi-year base has not completely failed

My interpretation is:

The long-term structure is damaged but not broken. The short-term and intermediate technical picture is bearish.

The chart needs a catalyst.

The obvious catalysts are the feasibility study and a binding Traxys agreement.

8. Management Praise

Ability to Raise Capital:

Management deserves credit for being able to raise approximately $500 million in one year.

Most junior miners cannot do that.

Raising that amount of capital for a development-stage project shows that NioCorp has access to investors and financing channels that many junior miners lack.

That does not eliminate future dilution or financing risk, but it is still a major accomplishment.

Professionalism:

NioCorp maintains professionalism.

For example, executives or official social media accounts associated with MP Materials, United States Antimony, and Critical Metals Corp. have, in my opinion, occasionally acted immaturely.

NioCorp generally avoids that behavior.

Management presents the company professionally in interviews, conferences, filings, and public communications.

That matters when negotiating with:

• Government agencies
• Banks
• Institutional investors
• Defense contractors
• Strategic partners
• Potential customers

Project Quality:

The quality and diversity of the Elk Creek Project deserve praise.

Most junior miners, and miners in general, have one product, perhaps two or three.

NioCorp potentially has seven mineral products, or six if NdPr is treated as one combined product.

Those products include rare earths, whose non-Chinese prices have increased due to China’s export controls, as well as other critical minerals that the United States and the rest of the world need.

A diversified product suite can reduce dependence on the price of one commodity.

It also creates a more complicated processing operation, so diversification is both a strength and an execution challenge.

9. Management Criticism

Repeated Timeline Slips:

NioCorp has missed the timelines it set for itself.

For example, Mark Smith, on April 21, 2026, said he expected to finalize and “have a binding situation” for the Traxys offtake agreement by the end of April or the early part of May.

However, as of June 27, 2026, no such agreement has been announced.

Other examples include repeated timeline misses concerning the updated feasibility study, which moved from expectations surrounding the second half of 2025 into the present.

These two items are critical to advancing the financing process.

Until these items are completed, the stock will likely struggle to go anywhere sustainably unless geopolitical tensions involving China deteriorate sharply, similar to movements seen around April or October 2025.

I am not an experienced businessman like Mark Smith, nor am I a member of management.

However, I do not believe management should give a date or narrow completion range unless it has a high level of confidence that the deadline will be met.

If management does not have a reliable date, it would be better to say that no specific date is available or to provide a much broader timeframe.

A common argument is that timeline slips are normal in the mining industry.

That is true.

For example, USA Rare Earth reportedly expected its approximately $1.6 billion U.S. government transaction to close by the end of Q1 2026. The expected closing was later moved to April, and the transaction reportedly closed on June 3, approximately three months after the original timeline.

The counterargument is that just because delays are common does not make them good or automatically excusable.

Persistent delays are one reason investors discount junior miners so heavily.

I also believe NioCorp management is hurting itself by repeatedly missing self-imposed timelines.

As the company grows, institutional ownership will likely grow as well. Institutional investors are generally less tolerant of repeated timeline misses than long-term retail shareholders.

Continued slippage could eventually place pressure on Mark Smith’s leadership, potentially before the company reaches its highest-growth period.

That does not mean removal is imminent. It means repeated missed timelines create unnecessary governance risk.

Lack of Explanations for the Delays:

Investors can often tolerate delays when management provides a clear explanation.

NioCorp has not adequately explained why the feasibility study and Traxys agreement have taken longer than expected.

Possible explanations could include:

• Engineering revisions
• Updated cost estimates
• Metallurgical work
• Reserve conversion
• Customer negotiations
• Financing conditions
• Legal review
• Government due diligence
• Product pricing assumptions
• Confidential strategic negotiations

Investors do not need every confidential detail.

They do need enough information to understand what remains unfinished and why previously discussed timelines were not met.

Silence increases speculation.

Some investors assume the delays mean high-stakes negotiations are occurring.

Others assume the feasibility study is weak.

Neither conclusion can be proven from the public information.

Management could reduce unnecessary speculation by explaining the categories of work responsible for the delay without disclosing sensitive negotiations.

10. Answers to Common Questions

Question 1: When Will the Updated Feasibility Study Be Released?

I have no idea.

I do not work for NioCorp.

Hopefully sometime in July, but investors should not treat that as guidance or a prediction.

At this point, management should release it when it is complete and accurate rather than provide another narrow timeframe that may be missed.

Question 2: Is the Lack of Insider Buying Concerning?

The lack of insider buying is not strong evidence that the feasibility study or EXIM process is going badly.

The closer NioCorp gets to material nonpublic developments, the less legally able informed insiders may be to purchase shares.

According to NioCorp’s filed insider-trading policy, the company imposes several restrictions.

No Trading While Possessing Material Nonpublic Information

An insider cannot buy, sell or otherwise transact while aware of information a reasonable investor would consider important.

The size of the trade and the insider’s personal reason for trading do not change that restriction.

Mandatory Pre-Clearance

Directors, executive officers, and certain employees must receive approval before trading.

They must certify that they do not possess material nonpublic information.

The company may deny trading permission without providing a public explanation.

Regular Quarterly Blackouts

NioCorp’s scheduled blackouts reportedly begin on:

• March 22
• June 22
• September 22
• December 22

The blackout generally continues until the third business day after the company releases the relevant financial results.

As of June 27, 2026, directors and executives are therefore inside the regular June blackout period.

A voluntary open-market purchase during this period would generally be prohibited unless it occurred through an approved Rule 10b5-1 plan, received permitted prior approval, or qualified for an exemption.

Event-Specific Blackouts

Management may impose confidential event-specific blackouts when material developments are underway.

These blackouts are not publicly announced.

The public, therefore, cannot determine whether insiders were restricted during every trading window since November 2024.

Nobody outside the company can honestly prove either of these claims:

• Management has been continuously prohibited from buying since 2024
• Management has been free to buy throughout that period and deliberately refused

The public evidence does not establish either conclusion.

Information That May Be Material

NioCorp’s policy identifies matters such as the following as potentially material:

• Significant Elk Creek Project developments
• Changes to resources or reserves
• The gain or loss of financing
• Non-routine financing transactions
• Severe liquidity issues
• Significant contracts or customers

That language could encompass:

• The updated feasibility study
• EXIM financing
• Project economics
• Reserve conversion
• The Traxys agreement
• Other major offtake negotiations

The November 2024 Purchases

The last substantial insider cash purchases were connected to the November 2024 private placement rather than ordinary open-market buying.

Reportedly:

• Mark Smith purchased 183,422 units for approximately $324,198
• Dean Kehler purchased 56,577 units for approximately $100,000

Each unit included a common share and warrants.

Those purchases showed a willingness to provide capital directly to the company.

They were not the same signal as executives independently buying common shares in the open market.

Later option grants were compensation-related and did not involve the same out-of-pocket commitment.

My Assessment

Since June 22, 2026, the lack of insider buying is not concerning because the normal blackout period is in effect.

Immediately before a material feasibility study, financing, or offtake announcement, the lack of buying would also not be concerning because insiders may possess material nonpublic information or be subject to an event-specific blackout.

Across every open trading window since November 2024, the absence of voluntary open-market purchases is mildly concerning because it removes one potential vote of confidence.

However, it is not evidence of:

• A bad feasibility study
• A failed EXIM process
• Concealment
• Impending litigation
• Management is expecting the stock to fall

The fair conclusion is:

The absence of recent voluntary insider purchases removes one positive signal, but it does not prove that management is hiding bad news.

Note: All sources used to answer this will be linked at the very bottom of this post.

Question 3: Does the Traxys Delay Mean the Agreement Is Dead?

No.

The absence of an announcement does not prove the negotiations have failed.

It does not mean investors should not value the agreement as completed.

A verbal expectation, memorandum, or negotiation is not the same as a binding commercial agreement.

The proper position is to wait for the signed terms and evaluate them when disclosed.

Question 4: Is EXIM Financing Guaranteed?

No.

NioCorp’s EXIM application and lender engagement are meaningful, but financing is not guaranteed until definitive agreements are signed and all conditions are satisfied.

Investors should distinguish among:

• Application
• Letter of interest
• Due diligence
• Indicative term sheet
• Final commitment
• Financial close
• Funding

Those are separate stages.

Question 5: Is the Feasibility Study Guaranteed to Be Bullish?

No.

The feasibility study could be:

• Strong
• Acceptable
• Mixed
• Weak

Important variables include:

• Capital cost
• Operating cost
• Internal rate of return
• Recovery rates
• Rare earth economics
• Reserve size
• Mine life
• Financing requirements
• Commodity assumptions

The release itself is not automatically bullish.

The content matters.

Question 6: Why Has the Stock Not Gone Anywhere?

Because the market is waiting for the information required to value the project.

The technical chart reflects that uncertainty.

The stock failed at the Golden Ratio around $5.59, fell below both yearly volume-profile value areas, and is now testing major long-term support near $4.46 to $4.60.

The market needs proof.

That proof is most likely to come from:

• The updated feasibility study
• A binding Traxys agreement
• Material EXIM progress
• Additional government involvement

Question 7: What Would Move the Stock Higher?

The most important bullish catalysts are:

1. A credible and economically strong feasibility study (critical)
2. A binding Traxys offtake agreement (critical)
3. A meaningful EXIM financing milestone (critical, and preferably finalization of financing)
4. Additional U.S. government support
5. Strategic investment or partnership
6. Confirmation that rare earths are economically recoverable
7. Manageable capital expenditures
8. Strong recovery rates
9. A clear construction financing plan
10. Renewed geopolitical urgency concerning the Chinese critical mineral supply

The feasibility study and Traxys agreement are the most immediate items.

Without them, sustainable upside will be difficult unless the entire critical-minerals sector is pulled higher by geopolitical events.

Question 8: NioCorp Management Needs to Take a Pay Cut. Have They?

NioCorp's executive compensation in 2025 relative to 2024.

Mark Smith's compensation graph, 2019-present.

Yes.

Based on NioCorp’s 2025 proxy compensation figures, the company’s three leading executives saw total compensation fall by roughly half compared with 2024:

• Mark Smith, CEO: approximately $451,000, down 53.32%
• Scott Honan, COO: approximately $364,000, down 48.55%
• Neal Shah, CFO: approximately $334,000, down 50.70%

For Mark Smith specifically, his 2025 compensation fell back near the levels seen around 2020 and 2021.

His reported 2025 compensation consisted of:

• $325,000 salary
• $126,000 in stock or option awards
• $0 bonus
• $451,000 total compensation

So the claim that management has ignored the company’s delays while continuing to increase its own compensation would not be accurate for 2025.

Management did take a substantial compensation reduction.

That deserves acknowledgment.

However, it does not erase the criticism regarding missed timelines, the delayed feasibility study, or the unfinished Traxys agreement. Compensation discipline is a positive governance signal, but execution remains the main issue investors are watching.

11. Major Risks Entering Q3

Further Delays

Another quarter without the feasibility study or Traxys agreement would likely damage credibility further.

A Weak Feasibility Study

A weak feasibility study is one of the largest fundamental risks entering Q3.

The study could disappoint through:

• Excessive capital expenditures
• Weak internal rate of return
• Lower-than-expected recoveries
• Higher operating costs
• Limited rare earth contribution
• Reduced reserves
• Shorter mine life
• Aggressive commodity assumptions
• Greater financing requirements
• Greater equity dilution risk

The release of the feasibility study is not automatically a positive catalyst.

A weak study could confirm that the project is technically possible, but not sufficiently attractive or financeable under realistic assumptions.

Investors should focus on the contents of the study rather than celebrate the release itself.

Capital Expenditure Inflation

If the updated project cost rises materially above prior estimates, NioCorp may require:

• Additional debt
• Additional equity
• Strategic capital
• Government grants
• A larger financing package

Weak Economics

A low internal rate of return or weak project margins would reduce financing interest.

Dilution

NioCorp has raised substantial capital, but future equity issuance remains possible.

Financing Risk

EXIM and other financing sources are not finalized.

Processing Complexity

Producing six or seven products is a major opportunity, but the flowsheet is more complex than that of a single-product mine.

Commercial Scale-Up

High recoveries achieved in test work do not guarantee identical recoveries at commercial scale.

Offtake Risk

Commercial interest does not become bankable revenue until binding agreements are signed.

Management Credibility

Repeated timeline misses can reduce investor trust even when the underlying project remains sound.

Commodity Pricing

Higher non-Chinese critical-mineral prices support the thesis, but the project must remain viable under conservative long-term pricing rather than temporary shortage prices.

12. Q3 Bull and Bear Cases

Bull Case

The feasibility study is released and demonstrates:

• Manageable capital expenditures
• Competitive operating costs
• Credible recoveries
• Economic rare earth production
• Acceptable internal rate of return
• A clear path toward EXIM financing

Traxys is finalized as a binding agreement.

The stock reclaims:

• $4.71 to $4.87
• $5.48 to $5.66
• $6.02 to $6.04

A move through $6.53 to $6.92 would then materially improve the long-term chart.

Bear Case

The feasibility study is delayed again, or it contains weak economics.

The Traxys agreement remains unfinished.

The stock loses:

• Daily 1000 SMA near $4.60
• Weekly 200 SMA near $4.46

That would expose the major lower support cluster around:

• $3.69 Fibonacci level
• $3.77 daily 500 SMA
• $3.83 weekly 100 SMA

A breakdown below that region would materially damage the long-term technical thesis.

This is the end of part 1. Sources and my final take will be listed in part 2.

Walrus