Login

u/WalrusTheInvestor

r/CriticalMineralStocks r/NIOCORP_MINE
Important: New (Unofficial) Elk Creek NPV Calculator to Estimate Project Value Based on Mineral Prices
▲ 12 r/NIOCORP_MINE

Important: New (Unofficial) Elk Creek NPV Calculator to Estimate Project Value Based on Mineral Prices

Important: New (Unofficial) Elk Creek NPV Calculator to Estimate Project Value Based on Mineral Prices

Link: https://unofficialelkcreeknpv.com/

Here's what it does:

-Shows how mineral pricing affects project value. You can adjust the prices of all eight mineral products and see how those changes affect the project's estimated NPV, revenue, and overall economics, including factors that could influence its attractiveness for financing.

-Makes the Feasibility Study much easier to understand. Instead of digging through hundreds of pages and manually calculating how different commodity prices affect the project, investors can explore these scenarios themselves in seconds.

-Includes additional analytical tools. There are commodity sensitivities, interactive charts, price comparisons, saved scenarios, and other features for exploring the project's economics under different assumptions.

-100% free to use. There is an optional Buy Me a Coffee link for anyone who wants to support ongoing maintenance, commodity-price updates, testing, and future improvements. Sharing the calculator with other NioCorp investors is equally appreciated!

-Feedback is welcome. I'd really appreciate any thoughts, suggestions, corrections, or questions, either in the comments or through the contact email listed on the website.

I created this primarily to make the economics of the Elk Creek Project easier for both current and prospective investors to understand.

I also used an earlier version of the calculator in this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/NIOCORP_MINE/comments/1wya3ne/elk_creek_aftertax_npv8_379_to_4745b_using_recent/

Important note: This is an independent, unofficial research tool, not a NioCorp financial model. Its NPV estimates are scenario-based and should not be interpreted as a determination of financing eligibility, NioCorp's market valuation, or a stock-price target.

Walrus

u/WalrusTheInvestor — 7 days ago
▲ 14 r/NIOCORP_MINE

These 4 Things + Honorable Mention Need to Happen or Cannot Happen for Short- to Long-Term Returns for NioCorp

These 4 Things + Honorable Mention Need to Happen or Cannot Happen for Short- to Long-Term Returns for NioCorp

Introduction: On August 11, 2026, NioCorp Developments Ltd. released its long-awaited feasibility study, and unlike its 3 predecessors, the latest release included REEs (rare earth elements), specifically Neodymium, Praseodymium, and Dysprosium, as well as small amounts of SEG Carbonate (Samarium, Europium, and Gadolinium) and Heavies Carbonate (Yttrium, Erbium, Thulium, Ytterbium, and Lutetium). Concurrent with these additions, pre-tax and after-tax NPV increased from $2.82 billion and $2.35 billion in the 2022 FS to $4.11 billion and $3.44 billion in the 2026 FS, respectively, representing increases of 45.7% and 46.4%. LOM gross revenue rose from $21.9 billion to $37.4 billion, an increase of 70.8%, while gross margin per ton increased from $398 ($562 revenue less $164 opex) to $560 ($815 revenue less $255 opex), up $162 or 40.7%.  However, gross margin percentage declined slightly from 70.8% to 68.7%, or 2.1 percentage points, and initial capex increased 62.3% from $1.14 billion to $1.85 billion, while the after-tax payback period increased 8.9% from 2.69 years to 2.93 years.

Below are four things, plus an honorable mention, that need to go right, along with what could derail them, to maximize shareholder returns over the short, medium, and long term. TL; DR version below.

1. EXIM Financing Restructuring (Short to mid-term)

(Uses $1.85B capex indicated in the August 11, 2026, feasibility study. The eligible equity comes from NioCorp’s most recent earnings report as of September 2, 2026. The share price is NioCorp’s approximate price range in the past 2-3 months: around $4.00-$5.00 per share. Uses 145M shares as the current share count benchmark, NOT accounting for warrants.)

The U.S. EXIM Bank, including its chairman, John Jovanovic, has long been vocally supportive of NioCorp’s Elk Creek Minerals project in Nebraska. Still, for maximum returns, it must back that support with action. One such important move will be to increase the debt share in the debt-to-equity ratio in the financing terms. Currently, NioCorp has approximately $420M+ in eligible equity for the loan. With the current 65% to 35% ratio, as provided in past presentations, there is a nearly $227M gap needing to be filled by raising cash through dilution, government funding, or other means of funding. Assuming EXIM does not change its financing structure, no additional external funding, and NioCorp’s share price being around $4.00-$5.00, that is 45M-60M+ additional shares needed, or around a 31-41%+ increase in share count using the 145M share-count mark (or 24-30%+ in existing-holder dilution). Frankly, that is ugly for current shareholders, and it is not ideal in terms of maximizing returns. However, even a modest improvement in the debt-to-equity ratio would substantially reduce the dilution risk. With a 70%/30% debt-to-equity ratio, NioCorp would need around $555M in equity, which translates to a $135M deficit, totaling around 28-37M new shares needed; a 19-26% increase in share count, using the same share price and count as the former scenario (or 16-21% in current shareholder dilution). 75%/25% debt-to-equity ratio would equate to around $42M needed to be raised and amount to 9-12M new shares, or around a 6-9% increase in share count (6-8% in current shareholder dilution). At 80% to 85% debt relative to equity, no additional dilution is required, assuming the capex or other complexities make the project more expensive ($50M to $143M+ surplus, respectively). In short, the EXIM chair and executives have repeatedly called the Elk Creek project a “top priority” and an economic necessity, but now it is time to follow up those words with actions by making this project easier to build, which would ultimately result in current shareholders not being diluted to death.

2. Construction + Commercial-Scale Ramp (Mid to long-term)

According to NioCorp and Mark A. Smith, the construction for the Elk Creek project, which costs nearly 1.85B as we mentioned earlier, is supposed to be completed by 2029, in about 3 years, and production will start in the latter half of that year (as of September 3, 2026). However, this timeline is not possible if capex overruns, construction delays, general project complexities, and other delays occur. The FS economics only becomes real if NioCorp can build and operate the project close to design assumptions. Otherwise, the corporation will burn cash while delaying the very thing that is supposed to generate cash flow, and if this hypothetical situation becomes severe enough, it will likely result in more equity raises, aka dilution, which is not ideal for returns. The bull case here is near-budget construction, limited delays, and recoveries/throughput approaching FS assumptions, while the bear case is everything described before this sentence.

3. Durability of Ex-China Pricing / Geopolitics (Mid to long-term)

On April 4, 2025, The People’s Republic of China placed export controls on seven key rare earth elements in response to President Trump’s sweeping tariffs on Liberation Day, April 2, 2026, and further restrictions on October 9, 2025, which included a requirement that any product manufactured outside China containing 0.1% or more of specified Chinese-origin heavy rare earths receive explicit approval from Beijing before shipment, causing a massive spike in ex-Chinese rare earths since then. NioCorp’s $4.1B pre-tax NPV in its 2026 feasibility study reflects this surge; however, the long-term durability of these ex-China premiums will be one of the largest determinants of Elk Creek’s ultimate returns. If U.S.-China tensions, export restrictions, Western stockpiling, defense procurement, price-support mechanisms, and demand for secure non-Chinese supply remain elevated, the current pricing environment could persist or strengthen, particularly for scandium, dysprosium, terbium, and the heavy rare earths. In that scenario, the 2026 feasibility study could ultimately prove conservative. Conversely, if China substantially normalizes exports, geopolitical tensions ease, or enough competing Western supply enters the market to eliminate the scarcity premium, realized prices could fall below current levels and weaken project economics. For NioCorp, maintaining a structurally separate and higher-priced ex-China market is therefore one of the most important long-term variables outside of the company’s direct control.

4. Demand + Offtake Absorption (Mid to long-term)

The massive price increases mentioned in section 3 are fabulous for NioCorp, but it means very little if NioCorp fails to secure offtake and demand at those prices. One of the biggest issues is scandium, which makes up 38% of NioCorp’s potential revenue pie, and while NioCorp plans to produce roughly 118 tons/year of scandium oxide, today’s market is much smaller than that. However, there are signs of improvement. On August 4, 2026, NioCorp and Lockheed Martin signed an MOU for a potential purchase of up to 15 ton/year of scandium oxide or aluminum-scandium alloys over the decade. Other developments include the $10M DoD award NioCorp received specifically for scandium, although you could reasonably argue that much of the work funded by the award also helped de-risk the Elk Creek Project as a whole. NioCorp has also acquired technology and intellectual property for aluminum-scandium master alloy production, is working on scandium metal production, and has repeatedly stated that potential customers are waiting for material. The other major piece is Traxys, which is expected to market essentially all remaining planned production not already covered by existing agreements. Both the Lockheed MOU and Traxys arrangement need to become binding agreements. Until then, the demand and offtake case has improved substantially, but it is not fully de-risked.

Honorable Mention: Management Needs to Stop Giving Optimistic Timelines That Usually Do Not Follow Through (Mid to long-term)

I believe that NioCorp management needs to stop giving overly optimistic timelines that repeatedly fail to materialize. Whether it is financing, offtake agreements, the feasibility study, EPC work, or other major catalysts, management tends to use phrases such as "short order," "very near future," or provide aggressive target dates that shareholders then naturally price into their expectations. Not only does it hurt investors, from big institutions to small retail investors, but it also hurts NioCorp management themselves, losing more credibility with each missed timeline. I think NioCorp needs to redirect to more blunt, yet more truthful forward guidance to get credibility back, give shareholders realistic ranges, leave yourself some buffer, and then beat the timeline instead of repeatedly missing it.

TL;DR

  1. EXIM Financing: The final financing structure may be the biggest short-term determinant of shareholder returns. A move from 65/35 toward 75/25 or 80/20 debt/equity would materially reduce the amount of new equity NioCorp may need to raise and therefore reduce dilution.
  2. Construction + Ramp: Once financing is secured, NioCorp has to actually build Elk Creek near budget and on schedule, then reach the recoveries, throughput, and operating costs assumed in the FS. Major overruns or delays could destroy a lot of otherwise strong project economics.
  3. Ex-China Pricing / Geopolitics: Elk Creek benefits heavily from the current premium for secure non-Chinese critical minerals. Continued Chinese export restrictions, geopolitical tensions, Western stockpiling, and price-support mechanisms could make the 2026 FS conservative, while normalization of supply could weaken returns.
  4. Demand + Offtake: High prices mean little without buyers. Lockheed and Traxys still need binding agreements, and scandium demand must grow enough to absorb NioCorp’s planned ~118 tons/year while maintaining attractive pricing.

Honorable Mention: Management needs to stop giving overly optimistic timelines that repeatedly slip. Missed timelines hurt credibility, frustrate both institutional and retail shareholders, and can unnecessarily pressure the stock price.

Sources used:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAIAIzpN4P8 -
EXIM Chairman: Elk Creek Is “Exactly the Type of Opportunity EXIM Was Always Designed to Support”, December 8, 2026

https://www.niocorp.com/ - NioCorp’s Official Website

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001512228/000119312526223959/nb-20260331.htm - NioCorp’s Q1 2026 (Calendar Q1) 10-Q

https://www.niocorp.com/niocorps-elk-creek-project-confirmed-as-the-second-largest-indicated-or-better-rare-earth-resource-in-the-u-s/ - NioCorp’s Elk Creek Project Confirmed as the Second Largest Indicated-Or-Better Rare Earth Resource in the U.S., May 17, 2022.

https://www.niocorp.com/niocorp-project-to-expand-production-to-8-made-in-usa-critical-minerals-over-a-40-year-mine-life-with-an-estimated-4-1-billion-pre-tax-npv8%C2%B9/ - NioCorp Project to Expand Production to 8 Made-in-USA Critical Minerals Over a 40-Year Mine Life with an Estimated $4.1 Billion Pre-Tax NPV8%, August 10, 2026.

https://www.niocorp.com/lockheed-martin-and-niocorp-sign-mou/ - Lockheed Martin and NioCorp Sign MOU, August 4, 2026.

https://www.niocorp.com/u-s-department-of-defense-awards-up-to-10-million-to-niocorps-subsidiary-elk-creek-resources-corp/ - U.S. Department of Defense Awards up to $10 Million to NioCorp’s Subsidiary Elk Creek Resources Corp, August 5, 2025.

https://www.niocorp.com/niocorp-reaches-non-binding-agreement-with-traxys-north-america-for-potential-purchase-of-all-of-niocorps-remaining-planned-products/ -
NioCorp Reaches Non-Binding Agreement with Traxys North America for Potential Purchase of All of NioCorp’s Remaining Planned Products, April 9, 2026.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NIOCORP_MINE/comments/1uenknq/niocorp_voice_to_text_translation_not_a_formal/- NioCorp voice-to-text translation (not a formal transcript) from the J.P. Morgan Natural Resources Conference, June 24, 2026.

 https://www.youtube.com/@NioCorpDevelopments -
NioCorp Developments Official YouTube Page

Walrus

u/WalrusTheInvestor — 1 month ago
▲ 17 r/NIOCORP_MINE

NioCorp (NB) Q2 2026 Top 10 Holders: Brevan Howard Adds to 7.08M, Citadel Cuts from 6.20M to 1.81M

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.

reddit.com
u/WalrusTheInvestor — 2 months ago
▲ 7 r/NIOCORP_MINE

Update On The "Submit Your NioCorp Questions for RedChip" Post

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

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

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

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

u/WalrusTheInvestor — 2 months ago
▲ 19 r/NIOCORP_MINE

Lockheed Martin and NioCorp Sign MOU

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.

reddit.com
u/WalrusTheInvestor — 2 months ago
▲ 14 r/NIOCORP_MINE

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

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

reddit.com
u/WalrusTheInvestor — 2 months ago
▲ 15 r/NIOCORP_MINE

Submit Your NioCorp Questions for RedChip

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

reddit.com
u/WalrusTheInvestor — 3 months ago
▲ 15 r/NIOCORP_MINE+1 crossposts

Unverified Statement and Subsequent Written Correction Concerning a Possible Reason for Delays to the Updated Feasibility Study During 2026

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.)

reddit.com
u/Chanisspeed — 3 months ago
▲ 27 r/NIOCORP_MINE+1 crossposts

Updated Feasibility Study Still Targeted for the End of July, Subject to Change, According to RedChip

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

reddit.com
u/WalrusTheInvestor — 3 months ago
▲ 12 r/NIOCORP_MINE

White House: Trump's order requires contractors to exhaust options for domestic products and map critical mineral and component supply chains for weapons systems.

u/WalrusTheInvestor — 3 months ago