In Slide 13 of the May 2026 NioCorp Presentation - Building America’s First-Ever Integrated Scandium-to-Warfighter Supply Chain it now says "Possible Downstream Integration".
"NioCorp is examining the feasibility of integrating down to the production of final aluminum-scandium alloy parts for OEM manufacturers in defense and commercial markets"
https://www.niocorp.com/wp-content/uploads/NioCorp_Presentation.pdf
https://www.gurufocus.com/news/8849523/upcoming-virtual-meeting-by-benchmark-for-nb-stakeholders
On May 11, 2026, Benchmark announced a virtual meeting scheduled for May 18 at 11 AM. This event aims to engage stakeholders and provide insights relevant to the ongoing developments in the market, particularly focusing on NioCorp Developments Ltd. Participants can expect a thorough discussion on the implications for NB and the broader investment landscape.
Market Cap: $874.92 million
GF Score™: 38/100, indicating potential challenges in various aspects of the company's performance.
Financial Strength: NioCorp has a strong financial strength rating of 7/10, suggesting a stable financial position despite its current operational challenges.
What's Behind the News?
The upcoming virtual meeting by Benchmark is significant as it provides a platform for stakeholders to engage with the company's experts and gain insights into the current market conditions and their implications for NioCorp Developments Ltd. This engagement is crucial for investors looking to understand the strategic direction of the company and how it plans to navigate the evolving landscape in the metals and mining sector.
NioCorp Developments Ltd is engaged in the exploration and development of mineral deposits in North America, specifically focusing on the Elk Creek Niobium/Scandium/Titanium property. With a market capitalization of approximately $874.92 million, NioCorp operates within the Basic Materials sector, particularly in the Metals & Mining industry. The company is currently in the development phase, with no revenue reported, making it essential for investors to closely monitor its operational progress and financial health.
How Is NB Valued?
Currently, GF Value™ data is not available for NioCorp Developments Ltd. The company's P/E ratio is not applicable as it has reported negative earnings. However, its price of $6.13 reflects a significant increase of 152.26% over the past 52 weeks, indicating potential investor interest and market speculation. For more detailed information, visit the NB stock page.
What Does NB's GF Score™ Tell Us?
The GF Score™ ranks stocks from 0 to 100 based on five key aspects: Financial Strength, Profitability, Growth, Valuation, and Momentum. Stocks with higher GF Score™ values have been found to generate higher long-term returns (backtested 2006-2021).
Metric Rating
GF Score™ 38
Financial Strength 7/10
Profitability 1/10
NioCorp's GF Score™ of 38 indicates that while the company has strong financial strength, it struggles with profitability, as evidenced by its low profitability rank of 1/10. This suggests that while the company is financially stable, it may face challenges in generating consistent profits. For more insights, visit the NB stock page.
What Are Insiders Doing with NB Stock?
There has been no insider buying or selling activity reported in the last 12 months, indicating a lack of insider confidence in the stock's short-term performance or potential.
What This Means for Investors
Given the current financial metrics and the upcoming virtual meeting, investors should approach NioCorp Developments Ltd with caution. The company's strong financial strength is a positive sign, but its low profitability and GF Score™ suggest that it may face challenges ahead. For the complete analysis, visit the NB stock page. You can also use the GuruFocus Stock Screener to find similar opportunities.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is NB's GF Score™?
NB's GF Score™ is 38/100, indicating potential challenges in profitability and growth despite strong financial strength.
How is NB valued?
NB's valuation is currently difficult to assess due to its negative earnings, and GF Value™ data is not available. The stock price of $6.13 reflects a significant increase over the past year.
What is NB's P/E ratio compared to historical?
NB does not have a P/E ratio available as it has reported negative earnings, which indicates ongoing operational challenges.
This stock alert was generated using automated technology and GuruFocus financial data to provide readers with timely and accurate market reporting. This content was reviewed by GuruFocus editorial team prior to publication. Please send any questions or comments about this story to editors@gurufocus.com.
Disclosures
I/We may personally own shares in some of the companies mentioned above. However, those positions are not material to either the company or to my/our portfolios.
“SENIOR U.S. OFFICIAL: RARE EARTHS DEAL BETWEEN US AND CHINA IS STILL IN EFFECT”
“Terbium posted its largest single-month gain since 2023 in April 2026, surging 20.7% to $970.18/kg, while NdPr alloy extended its extraordinary year-to-date run to +138% — the rare earth market outlook April 2026 shows broad-based price acceleration across the complex, with only indium bucking the trend.”
https://rare-earth-mining.com/rare-earth-market-pricing-analysis-april-2026/
NioCorp on their Facebook status
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18YGKmVhyU/?mibextid=wwXIfr
If you haven't watched the Maxim video, Mark goes into more detail about what's going on in the process. If this link doesn't work, you may need to register on the site and request access.
Some notable quotes:
@ 7:57 portal project and final financing - "but this is about a nine or 10 month effort to undertake this by starting it when we are and knowing when we realistically expect to get EXIM financing, we should be finished with that portal project right about the same time that we get project financing done and we should be able to just continue with underground mind development at that point"
@ 9:05 drilling/engineering results to update FS - "All the drilling is done and that was for the purposes infield drilling just to raise the mining engineering level of reserves from probable reserves to proven reserves. That work is done complete. We submitted all the technical work to EXIM the reviewing it right now, but that work it is done."
@ 16:35 Traxys binding offtake - "I can tell you that the commercial terms are basically agreed to cause we’ve been doing business for a long time. We now have our respective lawyers putting all the legalese language into an enforceable contract. I think with some good hard work by both sides, and we’re both willing to do it, you’ll see a binding contract between Traxys and NioCorp for this non-binding off take term sheet, you’ll have a binding situation hopefully close to the end of April maybe first part of May so it’s imminent. It’s going to come together it’s a huge part of the XM financing so you’re critical for us to get that in place but it is a party. We’ve done a lot of business with over the years so I have a lot of confidence that will get there"
USA Rare Earth Round Top: Update, Timeline, and Investment Risks - Skillings Mining Review
The $1.6 billion financing package committed by the U.S. Commerce Department in January 2026 provides the necessary de-risking for a project of this magnitude. This federal backing is intended to cover both the mine development and the downstream magnet manufacturing facilities, ensuring that the ore mined in Texas doesn’t have to leave the country for processing.
Currently, China controls roughly 60% of global rare earth production and over 85% of processing capacity. The Round Top project is specifically designed to bypass this monopoly. Unlike traditional REE deposits that are often difficult to process due to high thorium or uranium content, Round Top’s rhyolite-hosted mineralization allows for a simplified heap leach extraction process.
This technical advantage, combined with the scale of the deposit, positions Texas as a central hub for the “Green Transition.” This mirrors similar strategic developments we have tracked internationally, such as the Per Geijer rare earths discovery in Sweden, where domestic supply is being prioritized over cheaper, geopolitically risky imports.
By 2030, USA Rare Earth aims to process 40,000 metric tons of feedstock per day. This scale is necessary to support the “integrated technology platform” vision. This isn’t just a mining company; it is a magnet company. The goal is to produce permanent magnets for EVs and wind turbines using Texas-sourced materials.
The extraction will utilize advanced mineral processing technologies to separate the heavy rare earths, which are significantly more valuable and harder to find than “light” rare earths like cerium or lanthanum. Heavy REEs (like terbium and dysprosium) are the essential ingredients for magnets that can operate at high temperatures: the exact kind required for electric vehicle motors and defense applications.
USA Rare Earth (USAR) has finalized a $73 million strategic buyout of Texas Mineral Resources Corporation (TMRC), securing 100% operational control and the total economic benefit of the Round Top project. This consolidation marks a pivotal moment for domestic mineral security, as Round Top represents North America’s largest known deposit of heavy rare earth elements (REEs) and essential critical minerals.
The transaction, structured as an all-stock deal involving approximately 3.8 million shares of USAR common stock, effectively ends the previous joint venture structure. By absorbing TMRC’s 18.6% interest, USA Rare Earth now commands the full development trajectory of a site that is expected to become the cornerstone of a non-China critical mineral technology platform.
The $73 million acquisition includes long-term leases on approximately 950 acres at the Round Top site in Hudspeth County, Texas, along with prospecting rights for an additional 9,345 acres. For operators and investors, the move simplifies a complex governance structure that previously required alignment between two distinct corporate boards.
With full ownership, USA Rare Earth can now streamline capital planning and accelerate its technical milestones without the friction of joint venture negotiations. This is particularly relevant given the high-stakes nature of the Round Top deposit, which contains not only rare earths but also significant quantities of lithium, gallium, beryllium, and nickel.
The Round Top project sits on land leased from the Texas General Land Office. In a unique fiscal structure, the lease proceeds support the Texas Permanent School Fund, directly linking the success of this mining operation to public education funding in the state.
For investors looking at the “Krameresq” high-conviction landscape, the consolidation of Round Top signals a “Buy” signal for the broader domestic critical minerals sector. While USA Rare Earth remains a private entity (with public listing aspirations), the ripple effects of this $73M deal are profound across the market.
1. MP Materials (NYSE: MP) – The Benchmark Play
If you like the USA Rare Earth consolidation, you have to love MP Materials. They are the current king of domestic REE production. While USA Rare Earth is aiming for 2028, MP is already extracting and moving toward vertical integration with magnet manufacturing. This consolidation at Round Top validates the valuation of domestic assets. Action: Buy the dips as a long-term hedge against Chinese export quotas.
2. Energy Fuels Inc. (NYSE: UUUU) – The Processing Powerhouse
Rare earths are useless without processing. Energy Fuels has been pivoting its White Mesa Mill to handle monazite sands. As USA Rare Earth scales up to its 40,000 metric tons per day goal, the demand for North American processing capacity will skyrocket. Action: Hold for the infrastructure pivot.
3. Texas Mineral Resources (OTCQB: TMRC) – The Final Exit
For those holding TMRC, the 3.8 million share exchange for USAR stock is a transition from a junior explorer to a piece of a “globally integrated technology platform.” This is the classic M&A exit. Action: Transition into the USAR equity and watch the 2028 production milestones.
4. Lithium and Battery Metals (Global Perspective)
The Round Top site isn’t just about neodymium and dysprosium; it’s a lithium play. As we’ve noted in our global battery revolution analysis, domestic sourcing is the only way to satisfy the upcoming EV tax credit requirements.
Under the “Accelerated Mining Plan,” USA Rare Earth has set an aggressive schedule to bring the project online.
While the consolidation is a net positive, investors must weigh the inherent risks of a project with a 2028 start date:
As we noted in our April 2026 Mining Intelligence briefing, the shift toward domestic self-reliance is the primary driver of M&A activity this year. The USA Rare Earth/TMRC deal is a textbook example of this trend.
The Round Top buyout is a signal that the era of fragmented junior mining in the critical minerals space is coming to an end. Consolidation is the name of the game. For Texas, this project brings high-tech industrial jobs and a renewed status as a global leader in energy materials.
For the mining professional, the integration of Round Top signifies a shift toward large-scale, tech-heavy operations that prioritize sustainability and national security. As seen in recent Skillings Mining Review reports, the intersection of government policy and private capital is now the most powerful force in the industry.
A few afternoon reads while we continue to wait for a completed Traxys Deal & pending DFS...
911f1c55eaf89a979188aa0e3dd276fcbcf65aec.pdf
EXIM is already processing NioCorp's $800M loan.... \"let that sink in!\"
⏳ Waiting Game or Final Setup? NioCorp Nearing the Inflection Point (May 2026 Update)
Right now, NioCorp ~ we shareholders are sitting in that uncomfortable but often rewarding zone between what’s known and what’s about to be confirmed. The two biggest near-term catalysts: The pending Traxys deal and the DFS expected any time through June—aren’t just routine updates. Together, they represent the final pieces needed to shift Elk Creek from a development story into a fully financeable, construction-ready project.
On the demand side, the picture is getting clearer by the day. With Thyssenkrupp already locking in a major share of niobium, and Traxys potentially stepping in as a global distributor across the remaining products, NioCorp is moving toward something rare in this space: a project with its production effectively pre-sold. That removes one of the biggest risks lenders worry about—who’s actually going to buy the material—and lines up perfectly with what the Export-Import Bank of the United States needs to see before committing financing.
On the technical side, this isn’t a blank-slate project. NioCorp has spent years advancing its processing flowsheets and refining how it plans to produce niobium, scandium, titanium, and rare earths. That level of preparation matters because it supports the upcoming DFS, which is expected to formalize the economics, validate the flowsheet at a commercial level, and provide the backbone for financing discussions.
Timing is everything here—and the timeline is tightening. Portal construction has been underway since March, dual portals are targeting completion around September, and EXIM FID is being telegraphed for mid-2026. If the DFS and Traxys deal land as expected, NioCorp could move directly into full construction upon financing. That’s a rare alignment: technical readiness, commercial demand, and government-backed funding all converging within months—not years!!
So yes, the wait has been real, but it’s not without reward. It’s the kind of wait where multiple de-risking milestones are stacking behind the scenes. If those last two pieces—Traxys and the DFS—fall into place, the narrative changes fast: from “potential” to execution. And when that switch flips, the market usually doesn’t move slowly—it reprices all at once.
When NioCorp delivers the Traxys deal and the DFS as expected, the shift from waiting to execution happens fast & the market won’t have the luxury of slowly catching up. You’d have demand largely spoken for, financing in clear view, and a construction-ready asset aligned with urgent U.S. strategic needs. As Mark Smith has said, this is a “National Strategic Asset”—and when a project moves from concept to inevitability under that kind of backdrop, valuation gaps don’t linger… they close. "All Aboard!"...
Chico
America shot its arsenal empty in 2 wars. Now it needs Beijing’s permission to reload
On Wednesday, the Trump administration finally let the cat out of the bag that Operation Epic Fury, America’s war on Iran, has burned through $25 billion so far. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. The White House has already requested a supplemental budget of $200 billion for its war on Iran.
The inventory math is brutal. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) finds that in Iran alone, the United States burned through 45% of its Precision Strike Missile stockpile, half of its THAAD interceptors, nearly half of its Patriot PAC-3 inventory, roughly 30% of its Tomahawks, and more than 20% of its long-range JASSMs.
That is just one war. Add Ukraine, where, since 2022, the United States has shipped roughly one-third of its Javelin inventory, one-quarter of its Stinger stockpile, more than two million 155mm artillery rounds, and thousands of GMLRS rockets. The combined drain is what the Pentagon’s own internal assessments now describe as a “near-term risk” of running out of ammunition.
The fact that the weapons cupboard is bare is one thing. What is rarely reported is the fact that it will not be restocked without Beijing’s approval.
Leave Ukraine aside. Forget the Javelins, the Stingers, the GMLRS rockets, and the two million artillery rounds that were used in Ukraine. Setting Ukraine aside, consider four weapons that the United States just burned through in Iran, and the critical material required for each — which flows almost exclusively through China.
Tomahawk cruise missile. The United States burned through over 1,000 Tomahawks in Iran — ten years’ worth of production. Each one’s fin actuators run on samarium-cobalt magnets. China mines and refines 99% of the world’s samarium and placed it under export licensing on April 4, 2025. To rebuild the inventory, Raytheon must turn to Beijing for samarium.
Patriot PAC-3 interceptor. The seeker uses samarium-cobalt (SmCo) to slew its guidance head; the radar’s traveling-wave tubes use SmCo to focus the microwave beam; yttrium-iron-garnet phase shifters tune the array. Replenishing the 1,200-plus interceptors expended in Iran requires roughly 1.2 to 2.4 tons of high-temperature SmCo, plus yttrium oxide. Between 2020 and 2023, China supplied 93% of U.S. yttrium imports.
JASSM-ER stealth cruise missile. The fin servos and seeker run on neodymium-iron-boron magnets (NdFB) doped with dysprosium and terbium for thermal stability. Strip out the heavy rare earths, and the magnet demagnetizes in flight. Roughly 1,100 missiles expended translates to between 1.5 and 3 tons of NdFeB feedstock. China refines the vast majority of the world’s dysprosium and terbium.
F-35 Lightning II. For a decade, the Department of Defense itself has repeated that each F-35 contains 920 pounds of rare earths. The strategically critical content is the high-temperature SmCo and dysprosium-doped NdFeB in the engine actuators, electric drives, and radar. These are precisely the materials Beijing has placed under license.
Across these four weapon systems, the back-of-the-envelope replenishment requirement is between five and ten metric tons of finished defense-grade rare earth magnets, more than 95% of which will arrive from the People’s Republic of China.
China holds all the cards and knows how to play them. Gallium and germanium controls came in August 2023. Antimony controls came in August 2024, with a full ban of shipments to the United States in December 2024. As a result, antimony prices surged by 134%. Tungsten restrictions were imposed in February 2025; the price skyrocketed by over 557% per metric ton. Then MOFCOM Announcement No. 18 of April 4, 2025, placed seven medium and heavy rare earths under discretionary licensing. Chinese rare-earth magnet exports were curtailed by 74% the following month. In October 2025, Beijing extended the regime extraterritorially to any product, anywhere in the world, containing as little as 0.1% of Chinese-origin rare earths.
This brings us to May 14, 2026, when President Trump is scheduled to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping. Not surprisingly, critical materials sit at the top of the meeting’s agenda. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated in early April that the goal of the meeting is “to ensure we can continue to get rare earths from the Chinese.”
There is only one thing worse than being unprepared for the war you started. It is being unprepared for the next one, because your adversary controls the periodic table.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune*.*
https://reddit.com/link/1t0qydu/video/bqxghsnaeiyg1/player
US Critical Mineral Plan: Why It Buys China Metals
When governments attempt to reduce dependence on a rival's resources, the textbook playbook calls for immediate decoupling. But commodity markets do not operate on political timelines. Decades of deliberate infrastructure investment, technological specialization, and vertical integration cannot be unwound through policy declarations alone. The tension between geopolitical intent and supply chain reality sits at the core of the US critical mineral inventory plan, and understanding it requires looking beyond the headlines to examine how global mineral supply chains actually function.
Critical mineral processing is not simply a matter of mining rock and shipping it. The transformation of raw ore into battery-grade lithium carbonate, separated rare earth oxides, or semiconductor-quality gallium requires highly specialized metallurgical infrastructure built over decades. This is precisely why a country can announce resource independence as a policy goal while simultaneously purchasing the very materials it aims to stop importing. The gap between aspiration and execution defines the opening phase of Project Vault.
Project Vault is a $12 billion public-private stockpiling program administered by the US Export-Import Bank, designed to build a commercial buffer against critical mineral supply disruptions while simultaneously sending long-term demand signals to domestic and allied-nation producers. The program was first revealed in February 2026, and the most detailed public discussion of its structure emerged in late April 2026 at a packed conference session in Washington DC, where Ex-Im Bank chief banking officer Brian Greeley appeared alongside executives from commodity trading houses Glencore Plc and Hartree Partners LP.
The financial architecture of the program combines two capital streams:
This design philosophy reflects a recognition that centralised commodity procurement tends to fail in opaque markets. A single large buyer broadcasting demand into a thin market can trigger immediate price dislocations, front-running, and supply hoarding. By assigning procurement to traders with established relationships in specific mineral sectors, the program attempts to preserve pricing discipline while building inventory at scale.
The physical storage system is planned across three development phases:
Certain minerals require specialised storage conditions. Lithium compounds are reactive with moisture, some rare earth materials require controlled oxidation environments, and radioactive byproducts from rare earth processing need licensed handling. These technical realities mean that a single warehouse model cannot serve all 60 minerals under consideration.
The confirmation that the US critical mineral inventory plan includes buying China metals during its initial phase has drawn significant attention, but framing this as a contradiction misreads the program's logic. The initial stockpile fill is, as confirmed at the April 2026 Washington DC panel, driven primarily by availability. For a meaningful subset of the roughly 60 minerals under consideration, Chinese-linked supply chains represent the only scalable source in the near term, regardless of policy preference.
Furthermore, this reality sits within a broader context shaped by China's rare earth restrictions, which have progressively tightened the available supply outside Chinese-controlled channels. This is not a minor administrative detail — it is the structural constraint that defines the program's near-term sourcing strategy.
China's dominance in critical minerals is not primarily about where deposits are located. It is about where processing and refining infrastructure has been built, which is overwhelmingly in China. This distinction matters enormously for understanding why sourcing alternatives requires years, not months, to develop.
Consider the processing chain for rare earth elements. Ore deposits exist across Australia, the United States, Canada, and parts of Africa. However, converting rare earth concentrate into separated, individual lanthanide oxides requires solvent extraction technology, trained metallurgical teams, and environmental management systems that took China decades to develop at commercial scale. Building equivalent capacity elsewhere is a multi-year capital project measured in hundreds of millions of dollars per facility. The complexity of rare earth supply chains underscores precisely why this transition cannot happen overnight.
The same logic applies across several mineral categories:
The tungsten price movement is particularly instructive. A single commodity experiencing a 200%+ price increase within months illustrates exactly what supply concentration risk looks like in practice: not a theoretical concern modelled in policy papers, but an immediate, quantifiable cost event with real consequences for manufacturers dependent on the material.
Project Vault operates on a tiered procurement hierarchy that governs how and where materials are sourced as the program matures. This framework, described as a sourcing waterfall by panelists at the April 2026 briefing, functions as follows:
The cost premium acceptance requirement for domestic sourcing is a notable design feature. It creates a structural incentive for US producers that goes beyond simple market competition. Domestic miners and processors can secure demand commitments even when their costs are higher than international competitors, provided they can demonstrate supply reliability.
This functions as an implicit offtake signal: the program's long-term purchasing commitments give US-based producers the revenue visibility needed to justify capital expenditure on new mines, processing facilities, and refining infrastructure. Without this demand certainty, financing new critical mineral projects remains difficult regardless of resource quality. In addition, the broader critical minerals executive order framework has reinforced this domestic preference by establishing regulatory pathways that support faster permitting for qualifying projects.
The April 2026 announcement of producer-level fines for rare earth quota breaches represents a qualitative escalation in China's enforcement posture. Previous controls focused on export licensing; the shift toward production-level enforcement and financial penalties for quota violations signals that Beijing is tightening supply management at the source, not merely at the border (Mining.com, April 29, 2026).
The strategic dynamic this creates is self-reinforcing: the more aggressively the US builds alternative supply chains, the greater China's incentive to accelerate export controls to extract maximum geopolitical leverage while it still holds dominant processing positions. Project Vault's initial China-inclusive sourcing phase can be understood as buying time against this escalation cycle.
The long-term success of Project Vault depends on whether allied nations can develop the processing and refining capacity to replace Chinese supply at meaningful volumes. Several countries have been identified as viable alternative sources across specific mineral categories:
Japan's inclusion in bilateral germanium agreements is strategically significant. Germanium is one of the minerals where China holds the most concentrated production position, and establishing alternative supply flows, even at limited volumes, creates price competition pressure and reduces single-source dependency.
The honest answer, for now, is no — but the trajectory matters more than the current state. The critical minerals demand surge projections show that allied nations must dramatically accelerate processing infrastructure investment simply to keep pace with growing consumption, let alone displace Chinese supply. Project Vault's demand signals are designed to catalyse exactly this kind of investment, providing revenue certainty that can unlock otherwise stalled capital decisions.
One of the least discussed but most consequential aspects of Project Vault is the deliberate decision to match procurement to specialist trading firms rather than using open bidding processes. This design choice reflects sophisticated understanding of how illiquid commodity markets actually function.
In thin markets, a single large buyer announcing significant demand can trigger immediate responses: competing buyers accelerate purchasing, sellers hold inventory awaiting higher prices, and prices move dramatically before meaningful supply is secured. For materials like cobalt, heavy rare earths, and specialty bismuth compounds, where annual traded volumes are measured in thousands of tonnes rather than millions, a single large procurement program could materially distort market dynamics.
By routing procurement through firms with established long-term relationships in specific mineral sectors, Project Vault aims to access supply through existing commercial relationships rather than through price signals that broadcast demand to the entire market. Traders with deep cobalt networks can access DRC supply through established channels. Rare earth specialists can navigate the complex Chinese processing ecosystem during the initial phase without triggering public market reactions.
This approach also addresses a less obvious challenge: many critical minerals are not traded on transparent exchanges. Pricing is often negotiated bilaterally, with limited public price discovery. Specialist traders with market expertise are better positioned to evaluate fair value and execute efficiently than government procurement officers operating in markets they may not fully understand. For a detailed breakdown of how this program has been reported on, the full US critical mineral inventory analysis at Mining.com provides additional context on the program's structure and market implications.
Trump’s mineral reserve plans to buy rare earths from China - MINING.COM
Shelves of PrNd oxide, the primary final product produced at MP Materials. Credit: MP Materials
The US Export-Import Bank’s proposed stockpiling initiative would initially source critical minerals from anywhere in the world, including China, an official involved in the project has revealed.
The $12 billion Project Vault would later shift to a replenishment model that prioritizes domestic production first, followed by allied nations and other sources as a last resort, executives including Ex-Im chief banking officer Brian Greeley said Wednesday unveiling some of the first details publicly announced on the project. Greeley spoke alongside representatives of Glencore Plc and Hartree Partners LP, which will be among trading houses procuring materials for Vault.
The project aims to build an immediate buffer against critical mineral supply shocks while using future purchases to send a stronger demand signal to US and friendly-nation producers.
Vault — which combines about $2 billion in private capital with a $10 billion Ex-Im loan — is President Donald Trump’s latest effort to build an alternative supply chain for the materials, which are key for the production of electric vehicle batteries, solar panels and other low-carbon technologies. China is the dominant supplier of critical minerals worldwide.
The recent panel was the most robust public discussion of Vault since Ex-Im revealed the program in February. For nearly three months, metals investors, traders and consumers have sought details as the government worked behind the scenes to flesh out the project.
Attendees packed a conference room at a hotel in Washington, DC, to get details on Vault’s sourcing hierarchy and payment structure. After brief introductory remarks, the panel unexpectedly opened up the floor to an almost hour-long question-and-answer session.
The program’s so-called waterfall would give preference to domestic suppliers even when their material comes at a premium to allied alternatives, with participating manufacturers expected to accept that trade-off as part of joining the program, panelists said.
The initial stockpile fill, however, would be driven chiefly by availability, reflecting the reality that some of the roughly 60 minerals under consideration are produced only in limited geographies and, in some cases, remain heavily influenced by China.
Vault is being structured as a demand-driven vehicle rather than a government-directed stockpile, according to panelists. Manufacturers would determine which minerals are stored, with the program then work with traders to secure supply. It’s designed to give US firms more leverage in opaque and fragmented markets where individual buyers often struggle to source smaller volumes efficiently or at transparent prices.
On storage, Greeley said the project will begin by relying on warehouse networks already controlled by trading partners and procurement providers. Over time, Vault is expected to develop its own storage network, either by building facilities or leasing them. A mature system could combine its own sites with third-party warehouses.
Panelists said the use of specialist traders would also be tailored to individual metals. Rather than sending orders into an open bidding process, Vault is expected to match procurement to firms with expertise in specific markets, allowing traders with relationships in cobalt, rare earths or other niche material sectors to handle those flows. The goal, panelists said, is to preserve pricing discipline, improve execution and avoid creating a scramble for hard-to-find materials.
(By Joe Deaux and James Attwood)
EXIM is already processing NioCorp's $800M loan.... \"let that sink in!\"
The headlines over the last 48 hours couldn’t be clearer: the U.S. defense machine is running hot & running low. Between Iran and Ukraine, stockpiles of missiles, interceptors, and precision weapons have been burned down at an alarming rate. And here’s the kicker: replenishment isn’t just a matter of money or manufacturing—it’s a matter of materials! Rare earths like dysprosium, terbium, samarium, and neodymium—along with critical alloying metals—are still overwhelmingly controlled by China. Even with Project Vault ramping up and initial stockpiling underway, the U.S. is effectively buying time, not solving the problem. The need for secure, domestic, scalable supply chains has officially moved from “important” to mission-critical.
That’s where NioCorp’s Elk Creek Project starts to look less like a mining story and more like infrastructure for national defense. You’re talking about six fully integrated critical mineral pathways—niobium, scandium, titanium, and the full magnet rare earth suite (Nd/Pr, Dy, Tb)—all aligned with exactly the materials bottlenecking U.S. weapons systems and advanced manufacturing. And this isn’t theoretical anymore. Policy frameworks (FORGE, price floors, coordinated procurement), funding vehicles (EXIM, DPA, IBAS), and demand signals (Project Vault) are all converging to support projects that can actually deliver.
Now layer in the pending Traxys deal, and things get even more interesting. Traxys isn’t just a trader—they’re a global distribution engine already wired into defense, industrial, and specialty metals markets. If finalized, they effectively become the back-end commercializer of NioCorp’s production, quietly channeling materials into high-priority supply chains—potentially DFARS-compliant, U.S.-sourced, and ready for defense contractors who can’t afford sourcing risk. Combine that with ThyssenKrupp already locking in 50% of niobium, and you start to see a fully de-risked, pre-sold production profile taking shape.
Meanwhile, the timeline is tightening fast. Portal construction has been underway since March 2026, with dual portals expected to wrap around September. The DFS is now pending any day through June, and the EXIM ~$800M FID—reportedly with JPMorgan involved is being targeted for mid-2026. That sequence matters. If financing lands as expected, the transition from development to full construction could be immediate. That’s not years away—that’s a live runway forming right now toward potential production by 2029, possibly sooner depending on execution.
And don’t overlook scandium and aluminum-scandium (ScAl) alloys here. This is a material class with massive upside—lighter, stronger, corrosion-resistant, and ideal for aerospace, defense, and next-gen manufacturing. Jim Sims has already confirmed activity across multiple nodes, not just isolated R&D. With rising interest from defense primes and advanced manufacturing players, ScAl could evolve from a niche alloy into a strategic performance material, especially as weight reduction and durability become critical across air, space, and autonomous systems.
So step back and look at the full picture: a geopolitical supply crunch, a U.S. government shifting to aggressive intervention (stockpiling, financing, price support), and a single domestic project aligned across all major critical mineral categories—with financing, offtake, and infrastructure all lining up. And the market is still pricing this at ~$6/share?
At some point, the disconnect between strategic reality and market valuation closes.
As Mark Smith put it: this is a “National Strategic Asset.” ****And as Jim Sims made clear—this isn’t one pathway… it’s all of them, moving in parallel.***
The only question left isn’t if—it’s how fast the rest of the market catches up.
You must ask yourself: Can the U.S. afford to go without what NioCorp is positioned to deliver? Look at the battlefield math, the supply chain choke points, and the policy response—then answer that honestly!
When missiles, interceptors, aircraft, and next-gen systems all trace back to the same handful of constrained materials—and those materials are overwhelmingly controlled by a strategic rival. ***Projects like Elk Creek stop being “nice to have” and become essential infrastructure. Six aligned critical mineral pathways, domestic sourcing, vertically integrated potential, and demand signals already forming through defense, industry, and government programs… and it’s still sitting at ~$6?
That’s not just a disconnect—that’s a market asleep at the wheel. If this truly is, as Mark Smith says, a “National Strategic Asset,” then the real question isn’t valuation today—it’s how violently that valuation corrects when the market finally realizes the U.S. can’t execute its future without it.
"All Aboard!"
Waiting with many...
Chico
May 6th, 2026 Critical Minerals M&A Heatmap: 10 Projects the Majors are Watching
2026 Critical Minerals M&A Heatmap: 10 Projects the Majors are Watching | Skillin
The era of tentative exploration is dead. In March 2026, the global mining landscape has shifted from “discovery mode” to “acquisition at any cost.” We are no longer discussing the possibility of a supply gap; we are living through the most aggressive commodity supercycle of the 21st century.
The catalyst isn’t just the energy transition. It’s the Pentagon’s Mandate.
Washington has finally realized that mineral security is national security. With the Department of Defense (DoD) now taking direct equity stakes in domestic mining operations and issuing billion-dollar “Buy American” directives, the majors: BHP, Rio Tinto, Glencore, and Vale: are in a race to secure Tier-1 assets before they are either nationalized or locked into exclusive long-term government contracts.
This is the 2026 Critical Minerals M&A Heatmap. These are the assets currently under the microscope of the world’s largest balance sheets.
The Methodology: Decoding the ‘Buyability Score’
Evaluating a mining project in 2026 requires a different lens than the spreadsheets of 2019. Cash flow is secondary to strategic relevance. To rank these projects, we developed a proprietary Buyability Score (out of 30) based on three critical pillars:
The projects below represent the “Heatmap”: the targets where the Venn diagram of geology and geopolitics overlaps most aggressively.
The Top 10 Heatmap: 2026 Analysis
1. Perpetua Resources (Stibnite Gold Project) – Score: 28/30
Primary Mineral: Antimony (and Gold)
Location: Idaho, USA
Perpetua is the undisputed “Golden Child” of the Pentagon’s domestic mineral strategy. Antimony is the bottleneck for everything from armor-piercing ammunition to large-scale liquid metal batteries. China currently controls the lion’s share of global supply: a fact that keeps US defense planners awake at night. Perpetua’s Stibnite project has received over $59 million in DoD backing to date. The asset is no longer just a mine; it is a strategic reserve. The majors aren’t just looking at the gold; they’re looking at the antimony moat.
2. NioCorp Developments (Elk Creek) – Score: 27/30
Primary Minerals: Niobium, Scandium, Titanium
Location: Nebraska, USA
Elk Creek is the highest-grade primary niobium deposit in North America. Niobium is the “secret sauce” in high-strength, low-alloy steels used in jet engines and rockets. With JPMorgan predicting massive shifts in commodity valuations, assets that offer a trifecta of superalloy materials are seeing their “Buyability” skyrocket. The project is deep in the permitting process and fits perfectly into the “secure supply chain” mandate.
3. Graphite One (Graphite Creek) – Score: 26/30
Primary Mineral: Graphite
Location: Alaska, USA
Graphite is the heaviest component by weight in an EV battery. Without it, the “Green Revolution” is a fantasy. Graphite Creek is the largest known graphite deposit in the US. As the West attempts to decouple from Chinese processing, Graphite One’s plan for an integrated mine-to-anode supply chain makes it an irresistible target for a major looking to verticalize.
4. South32 (Hermosa) – Score: 25/30
Primary Minerals: Zinc, Lead, Manganese
Location: Arizona, USA
South32 has already signaled the value here by designating Hermosa as the first project to be covered by the FAST-41 federal permitting process. It is a massive polymetallic play. Specifically, its battery-grade manganese potential puts it squarely in the sights of companies looking to diversify away from African supply chains. This is a “Majors” project in both scale and execution.
5. Defense Metals (Wicheeda) – Score: 24/30
Primary Mineral: Rare Earth Elements (REE)
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Rare earths are the most vulnerable link in the tech supply chain. Wicheeda is a world-class light rare earth deposit with infrastructure access that most remote projects lack. For a major looking to break into the rare earth supply sector, Wicheeda offers a derisked entry point in a Tier-1 jurisdiction.
6. USA Rare Earth (Round Top) – Score: 23/30
Primary Mineral: Heavy Rare Earths, Lithium
Location: Texas, USA
Round Top is a unique “heap-leachable” heavy rare earth deposit. It provides the dysprosium and terbium needed for permanent magnets in EV motors and wind turbines. The Texas location offers a favorable regulatory environment and proximity to emerging tech hubs. Its multi-commodity nature (including lithium and gallium) makes it a complex but high-reward acquisition.
7. MP Materials (Mountain Pass) – Score: 22/30
Primary Mineral: Neodymium-Praseodymium (NdPr)
Location: California, USA
MP Materials is already a producer, which changes the M&A calculus. They aren’t a “project”: they are a platform. However, at their current valuation, they represent a “bolt-on” for a diversified major wanting instant market share in the magnetics space. The downside? The California regulatory environment remains a persistent friction point compared to states like Nevada, which reclaimed its crown as the top mining jurisdiction in 2025.
8. Guardian Metal Resources (Pilot Mountain) – Score: 21/30
Primary Mineral: Tungsten
Location: Nevada, USA
Tungsten is the “forgotten” critical mineral, yet it is essential for heavy weaponry and industrial tools. Pilot Mountain is one of the largest undeveloped tungsten resources in the US. In a world of restricted trade, securing a Nevada-based tungsten source is a tactical masterstroke. The “buyability” here is high because the entry price for a major is relatively low compared to the strategic upside.
9. Aclara Resources (Carina) – Score: 20/30
Primary Mineral: Heavy Rare Earths (Ionic Clays)
Location: Brazil
While the focus is often on North America, the majors are looking at “friendly” jurisdictions globally. Aclara’s ionic clay deposits are easier and cleaner to process than traditional hard-rock REE mines. Brazil’s mining-friendly stance makes this a key satellite asset for a global critical minerals portfolio.
10. 6K Additive (Circular) – Score: 19/30
Primary Category: Critical Mineral Recycling
Location: USA
M&A in 2026 isn’t just about digging holes; it’s about “Circular Supply.” 6K Additive uses microwave plasma technology to turn scrap into battery-grade materials. For a major mining company, acquiring a recycling leader is the ultimate ESG hedge. It allows them to claim a “closed-loop” system, which is increasingly becoming a requirement for European and US government procurement.
Conclusion: The ‘What’s Next’ for Investors
The trend is clear: M&A is no longer optional.
In the previous decade, majors could afford to wait for juniors to de-risk projects completely. That luxury is gone. Today, the Pentagon and the Department of Energy are the new “Lead Investors.” When the DoD grants a $50 million Title III award to a project, they aren’t just funding a feasibility study; they are flagging that asset as a “Must Own” for the Western alliance.
For investors, the signal is in the permitting and the partnerships. Watch for FAST-41 designations and DoD grants. Those are the markers of the projects that will be absorbed by the majors before the decade is out.
The supply crunch of 2026 was predicted years ago. Now, it’s a reality. The scramble for the heatmap has only just begun.
A few afternoon reads with your brew of choice...
Dual portal ramp construction ongoing since March 2026.
NioCorp Developments (NASDAQ: NB) announced Nebraska enacted legislation giving the company greater flexibility to qualify for approximately $200 million in state tax incentives over the first ten years of operations at the Elk Creek Project in southeast Nebraska, in return for investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the state and creating approximately 450 full-time equivalent jobs. Signed by Governor Jim Pillen on April 16, 2026, the legislation extends the period during which companies must meet Tier 6 Nebraska Advantage Act employment and investment requirements.
"I want to thank Governor Pillen, Revenue Committee Chairman Brad von Gillern, Senator Hallstrom, and members of the Nebraska Unicameral for supporting this effort," said Mark A. Smith, Chairman and CEO of NioCorp Developments. "Nebraska has stood behind the Elk Creek Project from the very beginning, and this is another clear demonstration of that commitment."
The Elk Creek Project is expected to create approximately 450 permanent direct jobs in southeast Nebraska, support an estimated 2,100 additional jobs throughout the broader state economy, and generate approximately $6.59 billion in operating expenses over the project's life. NioCorp Developments is a leading U.S. critical minerals developer focused on advancing the project toward production.
FORM YOUR OWN OPINIONS & CONCLUSIONS AS ALWAYS:
⏳🔥 NioCorp: From “Speculative Junior” to Strategic National Asset? (May 7th, 2026 Update)
The market still has NioCorp sitting around a $6 share price while the entire critical minerals landscape is being rewritten in real time. Meanwhile, new industry rankings are now placing Elk Creek among the most strategically important critical mineral projects in North America—ranking ahead of or alongside many peers already commanding multi-billion-dollar valuations. Why? Because Elk Creek is no longer just a niobium story. It’s a fully integrated U.S. critical minerals platform with SIX potential commercial pathways: niobium, scandium, titanium, magnetic rare earths (Nd/Pr, Dy, Tb), plus the downstream potential of ScAl alloys and advanced materials.
The timing could not be more important. The Pentagon, DOE, EXIM, and U.S. policymakers are openly admitting America’s supply chains are dangerously exposed after years of dependence on China for defense-critical materials. Niobium strengthens military steel and aerospace alloys. Scandium and ScAl alloys could revolutionize lightweight aerospace and defense manufacturing. Dy/Tb rare earths are required for high-temperature magnets in missiles, EVs, radar systems, and the F-35 supply chain. Titanium feeds aerospace, defense, and industrial demand. Elk Creek touches nearly every chokepoint the U.S. is now scrambling to secure.
What separates NioCorp from many peers is that this project is not starting from scratch anymore. The separation flowsheets have already been heavily advanced and refined at scale. That matters. Plenty of deposits exist on paper; far fewer have proven processing pathways capable of commercial execution. As the pending DFS approaches—expected any time now through June—the market could finally receive updated economics, recoveries, and validation of a project that has already spent years quietly de-risking behind the scenes.
Then there’s the commercial side. Thyssenkrupp already locked in a major niobium offtake position. Now the pending Traxys deal has investors increasingly believing NioCorp could secure broad global distribution and potential anchor investment support across the remaining product suite. If confirmed, that would dramatically reduce one of the largest financing risks in mining: proving long-term buyers exist. In other words, the market may soon realize Elk Creek’s production is effectively spoken for before the mine is even built. That is EXACTLY the kind of setup EXIM wants to see before issuing a Final Investment Decision.
And the timeline keeps tightening. Dual portal construction continues advancing toward completion around September 2026. EXIM FID has repeatedly been telegraphed for mid-2026. If the DFS and Traxys announcements land successfully, NioCorp could move directly from ramp development into full-scale construction financing. That’s when the valuation discussion changes entirely. At that point, Elk Creek stops being viewed as a distant concept project and starts being valued as a strategic U.S. industrial asset with locked-in demand, advanced processing capability, government alignment, and long-life production potential.
As Mark Smith recently stated, “We’re advancing all the pieces necessary to move this project forward.” That statement carries a lot more weight today when you stack Elk Creek against many of the other critical mineral players now chasing billion-dollar valuations. NioCorp already has the permits, advanced separation work at scale, ongoing underground development, potential EXIM backing, existing offtake interest, a pending Traxys deal, and an imminent DFS expected any time through June**—all supporting SIX potential commercial pathways spanning niobium, scandium, titanium, magnetic rare earths, ScAl alloys, and downstream advanced materials.**
While others are still years away trying to prove concepts, Elk Creek is already engaged in the execution phase. That’s why a ~$6 share price looks increasingly disconnected from the strategic value sitting in the ground. In a world scrambling for secure U.S. critical mineral supply chains, NioCorp is starting to look less like a speculative junior and more like a true National Strategic Asset hiding in plain sight!
"All Aboard...!"
Chico
Let's GOOO!!!
Nice to see NioCorp in the news again.
From Oil To Critical Minerals: The Next Energy Security Risk
When tensions in the Middle East escalated this spring, the Strait of Hormuz turned into a focal point of global concern. Oil prices surged, markets tightened. Governments scrambled to assess exposure.
Roughly a quarter of global seaborne oil trade passes through this narrow corridor. Any disruption would be felt instantly across the global economy. So much so that the International Energy Agency (IEA) described the situation as the “greatest global energy security challenge in history.”^(1)
For many, this only reinforces the case for accelerating the clean energy transition.
Renewable energy sources are largely independent of fuel price fluctuations, offering a more stable and lower-cost base. Countries with higher shares of clean electricity and electrified end uses are already proving more resilient to current fuel price shocks.
Chokepoints like Hormuz are not just affecting fossil fuel flows. They also disrupt the industrial inputs needed to build clean technologies.
Nearly half of global seaborne sulfur trade passes through the Strait, with sulfur playing a critical role in processing nickel and cobalt for EV batteries. At the same time, supply constraints are affecting aluminum – around 9% of global production originates in the Middle East – which is widely used across renewable infrastructure, as well as graphite feedstocks essential for battery anodes. ^(3)
As electrification accelerates, so does demand for lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite and rare earth elements. The IEA estimates that demand for these materials could more than triple by 2040.
These supply chains are among the most geographically concentrated of any global industry.
In many cases, a small number of countries dominate not only extraction, but processing and refining. China, in particular, has spent decades building a strategic position across these value chains. Today, it accounts for around 60% of global rare earth mining and as much as 90% of processing capacity. In some downstream segments, its dominance is even more pronounced: around 95% of global permanent magnets are produced in China, up from roughly 50% just two decades ago.^(4)
***In other words, the transition does not eliminate dependency – it redistributes it. From oil to minerals.***
If the transition is becoming more material-intensive, reducing pressure on primary supply becomes critical. One of the most immediate levers is circularity.
Recycling and reusing materials already in circulation can significantly reduce reliance on new extraction, potentially lowering primary demand for critical minerals by up to 35% by 2035.
Current recycling rates remain far below their potential. For key materials such as nickel, copper and aluminum, they stand at around 40%, despite technical potential exceeding 90%. Unlocking this gap will depend on innovations, both to increase recovery rates and to make recycling processes more efficient and economically viable.
Recovered materials – from batteries, industrial waste and end-of-life technologies – can form a secondary supply base that is more localized and less exposed to geopolitical disruption.
As argued previously, circularity can reduce geopolitical risk by lowering exposure to volatile global supply chains without changing underlying material demand.
But circularity does not fundamentally change what the system depends on.
This is where innovation in materials and chemistry becomes strategic.
New battery technologies are already reducing reliance on scarce inputs such as cobalt and nickel. At the same time, alternative materials – from advanced carbon-based compounds to bio-based inputs – are beginning to reshape supply chains at their core.
In some cases, substitution is moving from concept to reality. Graphene-based materials are being explored as alternatives to traditional battery components, while nanocoating and new electrolysis technologies are reducing dependence on scarce metals such as iridium or platinum. Biological materials like lignin are also entering the equation, opening new avenues for material innovation rooted in abundant, renewable sources.
This is also where a new wave of startups is translating advances in chemistry into industrial applications. Sublime Systems, for example, is rethinking cement production by redesigning the process around more abundant feedstocks and simpler supply chains, while also co-producing critical minerals. Others are targeting strategic materials more directly: Kore Metals* is developing electrolysis-based processes to produce high-purity silicon from abundant silica, pointing to a more localized and resilient supply chain.
For regions with limited domestic resources, like Europe, this represents a strategic opportunity. Competing on raw material extraction will remain challenging, but competing on substitution, efficiency and advanced materials offers a different pathway to resilience.
Governments are increasingly treating access to critical materials as a strategic issue.
In the United States, measures such as the Inflation Reduction Act have already started to reshape supply chains by incentivizing domestic production and allied sourcing of critical minerals. While recent changes under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act have weakened some incentives^(5), newer initiatives, such as establishing a national raw materials reserve, point in the same direction: critical materials are increasingly seen as essential to national security and industrial resilience.
Europe is pursuing a parallel, though more complex, approach. Through the Critical Raw Materials Act and related initiatives, the European Union is seeking to reduce strategic dependencies by scaling domestic production, strengthening partnerships with resource-rich countries and building mechanisms for joint procurement and stockpiling.^(6) These efforts are also tied to broader ambitions to increase recycling and processing capacity within Europe itself.
Delivery, however, continues to lag behind demand.
Diversification is progressing, but too slowly. Planned projects outside dominant producers are expected to cover only a limited share of future demand – especially in refining and downstream manufacturing, where gaps are most pronounced.^(7) In other words, the parts of the value chain that matter most strategically are also the hardest to rebalance.
New supply is also much harder to build than policy frameworks suggest. Higher costs, long permitting timelines and structural investment uncertainty continue to delay projects, while development cycles often span more than a decade.^(8 9)
This is why ambition alone will not be enough. Closing these gaps will require sustained capital, faster permitting, industrial coordination and a longer-term approach to building resilience across the full value chain – from extraction and refining to recycling, advanced materials and substitution.
The events around the Strait of Hormuz have once again exposed how vulnerable global energy systems remain to geopolitical shocks.
But they also point to a broader shift that is still not fully understood.
As the world moves away from fossil fuels, it is not moving away from dependency. With the global economy electrifying, risk is shifting from oil fields and shipping lanes to mines, refineries and material processing hubs.
That changes the logic of energy security. In the next phase of the transition, resilience will not be defined only by how much clean power a country can generate, but by whether it can secure the materials, processing capacity and substitute technologies that make electrification possible in the first place.
Countries that recognize this shift early, and act on it, will be best positioned to lead in the clean energy economy. Not simply by building more wind turbines or electric vehicles, but by ensuring that the supply chains behind them are more resilient, diversified and, increasingly, circular.
Otherwise, the next global energy security crisis will not be about oil but about minerals.****
A few reads with your morning coffee...
The initiative is part of Nippon Steel’s broader investment into its acquisition planned by 2029
U.S. Steel to build $2B advanced ironmaking plant in Arkansas
U.S. Steel’s Big River complex in Arkansas is getting a nearly $2 billion advanced ironmaking facility, the Pittsburgh-based company announced Wednesday.
The plant will use the direct reduction method to purify iron ore from U.S. Steel’s Minnesota mines. Iron is traditionally smelted in blast furnaces fueled by coke. This newer technology involves passing hot gases, in this case methane, over the ore to remove oxygen, leaving behind a porous “sponge iron.”
The iron will then be fed into Big River’s four electric arc furnaces to produce steel. U.S. Steel says the operation will be the first in the country to move direct reduced iron into furnaces while it’s still at high temperatures.
Construction is expected to start right away and take about 2½ years.
Big River is the “natural home” for the direct reduced iron plant, said Amanda Malkowski, a spokeswoman for U.S. Steel, because it contains a majority of the company’s electric arc furnaces.
U.S. Steel’s Mon Valley Works in Southwestern Pennsylvania and Gary Works in Indiana strictly use blast furnaces, producing nearly 6 million tons a year of specialized steel for automobiles and other products that can’t be made with electric arc furnaces, according to Malkowski.
United Steelworkers represents employees at the Mon Valley Works and Gary Works, but not at Big River, where no union has taken hold. Bernie Hall, the union’s Pennsylvania director, expressed disapproval of the Big River plans.
“We’re disappointed that (U.S. Steel) continues to prioritize its Big River complex, allocating nearly $2 billion that could be invested in ensuring its existing facilities continue producing world-class steel,” he said in a statement. “Moving forward, we urge management to demonstrate this same kind of commitment to the long-term future of these operations and the surrounding communities that have supported the company for 125 years.”
The direct reduced iron facility is a piece of the $11 billion in investments that Nippon Steel, the Japanese steelmaker that bought U.S. Steel last year, plans for its new holdings by 2029. This money is allowing the Big River investment to happen “years sooner than would have otherwise been possible,” U.S. Steel CEO David Burritt said in a statement.
Responding to Hall’s criticism, Malkowski noted U.S. Steel has announced two major projects at the Mon Valley Works “that will protect and create jobs while producing higher-quality steel more efficiently.”
Nippon is sinking $100 million into a new slag recycler at the Edgar Thomson Works, the 151-year-old steel plant in Braddock and North Braddock. The Allegheny County Health Department granted a critical air quality permit for the project in February.
The plant is also slated to receive a new hot strip mill that will cost at least $1 billion to build.
A total of $2.4 billion will go toward the Mon Valley Works. U.S. Steel has yet to announce how the remaining Mon Valley Works money will be spent.
EXIM is already processing NioCorp's $800M loan.... \"let that sink in!\"
This is one of those timing alignments that’s hard to ignore. The new advanced ironmaking facility from United States Steel Corporation—backed by Nippon Steel—is targeting startup right around 2029, using direct reduced iron (DRI) and electric arc furnaces to produce higher-quality, lower-emission steel. That process shift matters, because it increases demand for high-performance alloying inputs to achieve strength, durability, and specialized applications—exactly where niobium comes into play.
Now line that up with NioCorp Developments Ltd.. Elk Creek is targeting production in that same 2029 window (pending financing), with niobium as a primary revenue driver alongside scandium, titanium, and rare earths. Niobium is widely used in advanced steels to improve strength, reduce weight, and enhance weldability—critical attributes for automotive, infrastructure, and energy applications that DRI/EAF steelmaking is increasingly geared toward. In other words, you’ve got new U.S. steel capacity coming online just as a potential domestic niobium source comes online.
Layer in the broader setup: a pending commercial relationship with Traxys to help distribute production, a DFS expected soon, and a potential EXIM-backed Final Investment Decision in mid-2026 supported by institutions like Export-Import Bank of the United States. With dual portal construction already underway and tracking toward completion around September 2026 (per Mark A. Smith), the sequencing is clear—finance → full construction → production ramp into a tightening domestic supply environment.
And it’s not just niobium. The “six pathways” approach means Elk Creek would also supply scandium (and ScAl alloys), titanium, and magnet rare earths—materials increasingly tied to advanced manufacturing, defense systems, and electrification. While the steel plant highlights the niobium angle specifically, the bigger picture is a multi-material supply chain feeding multiple industrial expansions happening at the same time.
Bottom line: if these timelines hold, you’re looking at new U.S. industrial demand (steel, infrastructure, manufacturing) intersecting with new U.S. critical mineral supply coming online in parallel. Add policy support, financing momentum, and distribution channels—and it starts to look less like coincidence and more like coordinated industrial rebuilding.
2029 stops being a projection and starts looking like an inflection point. As new U.S. steel capacity coming online just as domestic critical mineral supply arrives to feed it. With financing pathways advancing, distribution lining up, and construction already in motion, NioCorp Developments Ltd. is positioning itself to meet real, onshore demand at scale. As Mark Smith has said, Elk Creek is a “National Strategic Asset”!
When assets like that intersect with a rebuilding industrial base, they don’t sit idle… they get pulled straight into the core of it. 🚂 "All Aboard!"
Waiting for more material news as it becomes available with many! (Oh & that dam DFS too!...Let's GOOooooo already!)
Chico
