Graphite has been getting a lot more attention lately, and Canadian investors have had some pretty compelling reasons to notice.

One example is HydroGraph Clean Power Inc. (CSE: HG) (OTCQB: HGRAF). The graphene producer has become one of the more closely watched Canadian-listed names in the broader graphite and advanced-materials space following a significant move in its shares. Investing News Network recently ranked HydroGraph among its top Canadian graphite stocks for 2026 and reported a year-to-date gain of more than 1,300% at the time of publication.

HydroGraph isn’t a conventional graphite miner; it manufactures high-purity graphene using a patented process that uses acetylene and oxygen rather than mined graphite, but its rise has helped put a spotlight on the broader carbon-materials opportunity.

And it got me thinking.

What is happening with graphite itself?

We constantly hear about lithium, uranium, copper, and gold, but graphite doesn’t always receive the same attention from retail investors. Yet graphite is an important material for lithium-ion batteries and could have growing relevance across energy storage, industrial applications and defence.

There is also a geopolitical component.

According to First Canadian Graphite CEO John LaGourge, China currently accounts for approximately 80% to 90% of global graphite processing. He also told me graphite can account for up to 30% of an EV battery.

That raised an obvious question for me as an investor:

If Canada and the U.S. continue trying to secure domestic critical-mineral supply chains, could graphite be one of the next commodities to capture significantly more investor attention?

That’s what led me to First Canadian Graphite Corporation.

The company is advancing a graphite exploration project in Quebec and recently identified a large electromagnetic target known as Zone 13.

I was curious about the company as a potential investment, but before forming an opinion, I wanted to better understand both sides of the story: Why graphite, and what could First Canadian Graphite actually have on its hands?

So I reached out directly to the CEO, John LaGourge, and asked him to walk me through it.

What Caught My Attention About First Canadian Graphite

First Canadian Graphite has been in existence for approximately a decade, but LaGourge represents new management. He told me he became involved in late 2025 and subsequently raised capital to begin advancing the company’s Quebec project more aggressively.

FCI flew an airborne electromagnetic (EM) survey over their claims, which had never previously been explored. This led the company to a significant new discovery area it calls Zone 13.

According to LaGourge, the anomaly currently measures approximately four kilometres along strike and up to 600 metres wide, while initial geophysical interpretation suggests it could extend to depths of approximately 200 metres.

Those dimensions caught my attention, but they’re also important to put into context.

A large geophysical anomaly is not the same thing as a defined mineral resource. Further exploration and drilling should help determine the extent, continuity and grade of any graphite mineralisation.

That’s what makes the next stage interesting.

Could Grade Become an Advantage?

Grade is another part of the story I’m watching.

LaGourge told me many graphite deposits globally average approximately 5% to 6%, while the company’s broader Quebec district has demonstrated considerably higher grades in certain areas.

First Canadian Graphite has also completed early field sampling. According to LaGourge, some samples returned assays of up to 43% graphite.

Individual high-grade samples don’t mean Zone 13 averages 43%, nor do they establish an economic resource. But they could provide another reason to investigate the target.

If future drilling demonstrates substantial tonnage with consistently attractive grades, it could potentially have implications for project economics. Higher grades may allow more graphite to be recovered from the same amount of processed material, although metallurgy, recoveries, capital requirements and numerous other factors would ultimately need to be considered.

Why Quebec Could Matter

The project is located in Quebec’s Manicouagan region, north of Baie-Comeau.

LaGourge told me the property benefits from year-round road access and is approximately 50 kilometres from the Manic-5 hydroelectric facility and associated Hydro-Québec infrastructure. Baie-Comeau also provides access to port and rail infrastructure.

None of these factors guarantees that a future mine will be economic, but existing roads, electricity, and transportation infrastructure could reduce some of the development challenges faced by more remote exploration projects.

Quebec’s broader push to develop its critical-minerals sector could provide another potential tailwind.

The Catalyst I’m Watching: Drilling

For me, the most important part of this story is what happens next.

The company has completed fieldwork, collected samples and, according to LaGourge, sent metallurgical samples to Corem for testing.

Additional EM surveying is planned to better define Zone 13, followed by 3D modelling and further surface exploration.

Then comes the major test:

Drilling.

LaGourge told me the company is targeting drilling around November and discussed a potential 20,000-metre drill program.

He suggested that if the asset performs as management hopes, a program of that scale could potentially support defining up to approximately 50 million tonnes.

To be clear, that is not a current mineral resource. It represents management’s view of what could potentially be achievable if future exploration supports its geological interpretation.

That’s exactly why the drilling matters.

If the results demonstrate scale, continuity, and attractive grades, the company could progress toward a formal mineral resource estimate. If they don’t, the investment thesis would need to be reassessed.

What I’ll Be Watching

During our interview, we discussed First Canadian Graphite, which has a market capitalisation of approximately C$18 million to C$20 million.

A relatively small valuation can provide significant leverage to exploration success, but it also reflects the risks associated with an early-stage company that still has to prove its resource.

Rather than trying to predict the outcome, I’m watching a few key questions:

How large is Zone 13? Are the high grades repeatable? What does the metallurgy show? And can management execute on its exploration timeline?

But I’m also watching graphite itself.

Stocks such as HydroGraph have shown that Canadian investors are paying attention to opportunities in advanced carbon materials. HydroGraph’s story is very different from that of a graphite explorer, but the investor interest surrounding the company made me want to better understand the upstream graphite opportunity as well.

If Canada and the U.S. continue to prioritise secure critical-mineral supply chains while demand from batteries, energy storage, defence and other applications grows, graphite could become much more visible to Canadian investors.

First Canadian Graphite still has plenty to prove.

But that’s also what makes the next stage interesting.

I’ll be watching the drill results.

Disclosure & Disclaimer

I independently reached out to First Canadian Graphite Corporation and its CEO, John LaGourge, to learn more about the company and the graphite sector. No fee or compensation was paid by First Canadian Graphite Corporation for this interview or resulting editorial coverage.

This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Statements concerning First Canadian Graphite’s properties, grades, exploration targets, potential tonnage, future resources, economics and timelines are primarily based on comments made by company management during my interview and have not been independently verified by Boreal Markets unless otherwise stated.

Exploration targets, geophysical anomalies, historical resources and individual assay results should not be interpreted as current mineral resources, reserves or evidence of an economically viable mine. Junior mining securities are speculative and can be highly volatile.

References to HydroGraph Clean Power are provided for market context only and should not be interpreted as suggesting that HydroGraph and First Canadian Graphite have equivalent businesses, assets or investment characteristics.

Readers should conduct their own due diligence, review each company’s official regulatory filings and continuous disclosure, and consult a qualified financial professional before making investment decisions. My views may change as new information becomes available.

Most people who followed $CYDY remember March 30, 2021. The FDA publicly stated that CytoDyn's claims about leronlimab were "misleading and not supported by the data", no benefit was shown in COVID-19 treatment trials. The stock dropped 25%+ that day.

What happened afterward was a class action lawsuit covering investors who held $CYDY between March 27, 2020 and March 30, 2022.

A $500,000 settlement has been reached and terms are now submitted to the court for approval.

Who qualifies?

Anyone who held $CYDY during the class period and suffered losses from the alleged misrepresentations about leronlimab's effectiveness for HIV and COVID-19.

Can I still apply?

Yes, you can submit your application now and it will be processed once claims filing officially opens after court approval.

If you were damaged by this don't forget to check your eligibility. GL!

Focus Graphite $FMS.v was just mentioned as 1 of 2 Mining companies in today’s Announcement by PRIME MINISTER CARNEY.

I cannot understate how BIG this is. Focus has already received $15.4 million in NON DILUTIVE FUNDING and continues to pursue more.

https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2026/08/17/prime-minister-carney-announces-largest-clean-energy-investment-north

Hey guys, if you missed it, Rivian settled $250 million with investors over claims that it failed to disclose the true cost of producing its vehicles. And, I just found out that they’re accepting claims even though the deadline has passed.

Quick recap: In 2022, Rivian was accused of misleading investors about its vehicle pricing and production costs. In short, the company promoted its R1T pickup and R1S SUV as competitively priced electric vehicles, but investors later alleged that Rivian was losing substantial amounts of money on each vehicle sold and failed to clearly disclose how severe the cost gap was. As supply-chain issues and material costs increased, Rivian announced major price hikes that sparked customer backlash and raised concerns about the company’s financial outlook.

Now, the good news is that the company agreed to settle $250 million with them, and even though the deadline has passed recently, they’re accepting late claims.

So, if you invested in $RIVN when all of this happened, you can still check the details and file your claim here.

Anyway, has anyone here invested in $RIVN at that time? How much were your losses, if so?

the war department's office of strategic capital committed $400m on friday to build a scandium mine, in a metal where, per its own release, "no primary mine-source scandium supply exists globally, and foreign competitors dominate the supply side, accounting for approximately 80% of global mining production and nearly 100% of scandium processing."

in practice that means every kilogram of scandium in the world right now is recovered as a byproduct of processing something else.

the money is a 25-year conditional loan to sunrise energy metals (asx: srl) for syerston in new south wales, a 60.3-million-tonne deposit grading 390 ppm scandium. first development targets about 60 tonnes a year of high-purity scandium oxide over a 32-year mine life, which works out to roughly $6.7m of federal loan per annual tonne of output. osc director david lorch put the combined figure at a "nearly $1 billion deal, bringing together public and private capital."

the release calls the commitment non-binding, subject to due diligence, definitive documentation, binding offtake agreements and equity deployment conditions. first production is targeted for the second half of 2028.

chairman robert friedland, who founded ivanhoe mines, called it "a landmark moment for sunrise and australia's mining industry." the company also said it plans to pursue a us exchange listing.

the same office signed a second loan the same afternoon going the other way: $150m to niron magnetics for permanent magnets made from iron nitride, using no rare earths at all. niron goes from a 1-2 tonne-a-year arpa-e pilot to a 1,500 tonne-a-year plant in sartell, minnesota, a $605m facility with first output targeted 2027, and a second plant at 10,000 tonnes a year due to break ground in 2028.

Public-source BCCL / BHARATCOAL investor update

This is a significant escalation in the Chhatabad land-subsidence matter.

According to today’s Prabhat Khabar (Dhanbad, 11 August), a case has been registered at Katras police station following a complaint over the Chhatabad land-subsidence incident. The newspaper says the case covers senior BCCL management, including the:
• CMD
• GM (Safety)
• Project Officer
• and other BCCL officials

and cites BNS Sections 324(5), 326(f) and 61(2).
That takes this matter well beyond a ₹2.05 crore property-damage story.

Why should BHARATCOAL shareholders care about an FIR?
Because the criminal case reaches the top executive, safety and project-management levels of the listed company. For a mining company, those aren’t peripheral functions.

The CMD sits at the top of management.
GM Safety sits within the safety-control architecture.
Project management is directly connected to execution at the operating level.

So the investor issue is no longer simply:
“How much compensation could BCCL have to pay?”
It is:
What does a criminal investigation involving BCCL’s CMD, GM Safety and project officials mean for management, mine operations, safety controls, potential liability and stock-exchange disclosure?

The sections cited in the case also deserve attention
The newspaper refers to BNS Sections 324(5), 326(f) and 61(2).
Section 324(5) falls within the BNS provision dealing with mischief/property damage above the specified threshold.
Section 326(f) deals with a category of mischief involving fire or explosive substance under the conditions specified in the statute.
Section 61 concerns criminal conspiracy.
Those are serious criminal-law provisions.

But there is an equally important distinction:
An FIR starts a criminal investigation. It does not establish that the offences occurred, that blasting caused the subsidence, or that any BCCL official is guilty.

The complainant’s accusations—including negligence and uncontrolled blasting—remain matters for investigation.
That distinction shouldn’t reduce the importance of the FIR for shareholders.
It defines it correctly.

The timing makes this more important
BCCL is not entering this episode from a position of strong operating momentum.
FY2025-26 production fell from roughly 40.50 MT to 35.52 MT — down ~12.3%.
Offtake fell from 38.26 MT to 33.06 MT — down ~13.6%.
PAT collapsed from ₹1,240.19 crore to ₹128.28 crore — down ~89.7%.
And the weakness has continued into FY27.
For April-July 2026, BCCL produced:
9.00 MT vs 11.41 MT last year — down 21.1%.
Offtake was:
10.58 MT vs 11.53 MT — down 8.2%.
So the important number arising from this FIR is actually not ₹2.05 crore.

It is the number BCCL has not yet publicly quantified:
How many tonnes, if any, are at risk because of Chhatabad?
If the criminal/technical investigation has no effect on mining, blasting or project operations, investors should know that. But if there are restrictions, stoppages, remediation requirements or changes to mining/blasting operations, the financial pathway becomes straightforward:
investigation → operating restriction → fewer tonnes → lower offtake/billing → revenue/margin pressure → EBITDA/PAT impact.

With production already 21.1% behind YoY after four months, that question becomes considerably more relevant.

Then comes the governance question
There is another unusual aspect.
BCCL’s published investor-relations information identifies the CMD and Director (Finance) among the KMPs authorised to determine materiality of events/information for disclosure purposes.
Here, the CMD himself is named in the criminal case according to the newspaper.

That makes this a legitimate shareholder question:
Who is independently assessing the Regulation 30 materiality of the FIR when the CMD himself is one of the officials named in it?
This is not an allegation that BCCL’s disclosure process is compromised. It is a governance question created by the circumstances.
And there is an interesting precedent.
BCCL’s own Investor Relations page contains a previous Regulation 30 announcement titled:
“Filing of Complaint Case against Senior Management Personnel.”
That doesn’t automatically mean the Chhatabad FIR requires identical treatment.
But if BCCL previously considered a complaint case involving senior management appropriate for a Regulation 30 announcement, shareholders can reasonably ask how it has assessed a criminal case involving the CMD, GM Safety and project officials after a land-subsidence incident.

What has BCCL told the exchanges?
I checked the available BCCL investor-relations/NSE/BSE-facing material.
I could not locate a Chhatabad FIR-specific disclosure in the checked sources as of approximately 08:15 IST on 11 August 2026, subject to further verification.
That does not establish concealment or a Regulation 30 violation.
But given the level of management named in the criminal case, I think shareholders now need clear answers to five questions:
1. Has BCCL formally received/verified the FIR, and what is the precise legal status of the CMD, GM Safety and other officials?
2. Has the investigation resulted in any restriction on blasting, mining or contractor operations?
3. How many tonnes of production/offtake have been affected, if any?
4. Is BCCL assessing any compensation, rehabilitation, remediation or legal provision?
5. Has the FIR been formally evaluated under BCCL’s Regulation 30 materiality policy—and what was the outcome?

These answers matter much more to me than the ₹2.05 crore headline.

The key distinction
Nobody should treat an FIR as a conviction.
Nobody should treat the complainant’s blasting allegation as a technical finding.
But the reverse is also true:
An FIR against the CMD, GM Safety and project officials of a listed mining company arising from a serious land-subsidence incident is not ordinary local news.

It is now a criminal-law, management, mine-safety, operational and disclosure development that BHARATCOAL shareholders should track.
And with BCCL’s April-July production already 21.1% below last year, the next material number isn’t the amount claimed by residents.
It is the number of tonnes—if any—that this case and its aftermath ultimately affect.

Source: Prabhat Khabar, Dhanbad edition, 11 August 2026 (attached clipping); BCCL official Investor Relations/materiality and operating disclosures; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Not investment advice. This is a public-source investor update for shareholder discussion. The registration of the criminal case/FIR is being discussed on the basis of the cited newspaper report. The accusations contained in the complaint/FIR remain subject to investigation and are not findings of guilt.
Corrections, the FIR copy, BCCL’s response, police/court updates or any subsequent NSE/BSE filing are welcome.

Deadline is August 14th so we can still see some more changes coming through. Not gonna cover every company but some of the interesting ones include:

TREKOR METALS LIMITED (TKO.TO)

This stock had 0 institutional presence in Q1 but saw about 9.3 million shares in Q2, largely a major North American copper producer, but it also does some exploration on the side. 

Osisko Gold Group Inc. (OGG)

Another North American focused company, this one is focused on reviving historic mines “in friendly jurisdictions”, it saw about 180% increase in share purchases. 

Almonty Industries Inc. (ALM)

Almost entirely tungsten focused, these guys saw about a 5x in share purchases in comparison to Q1. 

Ferroglobe PLC (GSM)

Silicone metal producer, given AI demand for this stuff it makes sense. The stock recently ran up a bit and share purchasing has doubled since last quarter. 

Keep in mind that some of these shares are cheap so these aren’t gargantuan value positions being moved around. I just think that seeing continued share buying is a potentially interesting indicator.