In formulating our financial model for NioCorp, we have made certain assumptions about product prices as well as a number of physical and cost parameters. These are summarised below with reference to the equivalent assumptions in NioCorp’s June 2022 DFS.
In general, our assumptions regarding the physical characteristics of the orebody, mine and process plant have remained close to those set out in the DFS, as shown below:
Exhibit 6: Elk Creek physical parameter assumptions cf June 2022 definitive feasibility study
Parameter |
Value |
DFS value |
Comment |
Production (ktpa) |
1,044 |
1,044 |
Negligible variability in DFS |
Processing (ktpa) |
1,009 |
1,009 |
|
Grade |
|
|
|
Nb2O5 (%) |
0.81 |
0.81 LOM average |
Variability from 0.74–1.03 |
Sc (ppm) |
70.20 |
70.20 LOM average |
Variability from 59.24–103.26 |
TiO2 (%) |
2.92 |
2.92 LOM average |
Variability from 2.73-3.21 |
Nd2O3 (%) |
0.0524 |
N/A |
Edison estimate based on average grade in the indicated category of resources |
Pr2O3 (%) |
0.0143 |
N/A |
Edison estimate based on average grade in the indicated category of resources |
Tb2O3 (%) |
0.0012 |
N/A |
Edison estimate based on average grade in the indicated category of resources |
Dy2O3 (%) |
0.0048 |
N/A |
Edison estimate based on average grade in the indicated category of resources |
Plant recovery |
|
|
|
Nb2O5 (%) |
86.70 |
82.4 |
25 May 2023 announcement NioCorp pilot plant demonstrates higher recovery rates |
Sc (%) |
92.00 |
93.1 |
25 May 2023 announcement NioCorp pilot plant demonstrates higher recovery rates |
TiO2 (%) |
83.70 |
40.3 |
26 May 2023 announcement NioCorp pilot plant demonstrates new recovery process may double titanium recovery and produce a higher purity product |
Nd2O3 (%) |
92.00 |
N/A |
6 February 2023 announcement NioCorp pilot plant indicates rare earth recovery likely to exceed scandium’s rate of 92% |
Pr2O3 (%) |
92.00 |
N/A |
6 February 2023 announcement NioCorp pilot plant indicates rare earth recovery likely to exceed scandium’s rate of 92% |
Tb2O3 (%) |
92.00 |
N/A |
6 February 2023 announcement NioCorp pilot plant indicates rare earth recovery likely to exceed scandium’s rate of 92% |
Dy2O3 (%) |
92.00 |
N/A |
6 February 2023 announcement NioCorp pilot plant indicates rare earth recovery likely to exceed scandium’s rate of 92% |
Source: NioCorp, Edison Investment Research
In contrast to our physical parameter assumptions, our cost parameter assumptions have generally been increased to reflect known inflation in certain line items relative to the costs apparent at the time of the company’s Elk Creek DFS in June 2022. They have also been increased to reflect the inclusion of rare earth oxide and TiCl4 processing costs.
Exhibit 7: Elk Creek cost assumptions cf June 2022 definitive feasibility study
Parameter |
Value |
DFS value |
Comment |
Operating costs |
|
|
|
Mining costs (US$/t ore)* |
48.70 |
42.38 |
+14.9% variation to reflect interim inflation |
Process costs (US$/t)* |
135.27 |
106.70 |
+26.8% variation to reflect enhanced inflation in certain cost line items and the inclusion of rare earth oxide and TiCl4 processing costs |
Capex |
|
|
|
Initial (US$m) |
1,213 |
**1,141 |
+6.3% variation |
Sustaining (US$m) |
405 |
***422 |
-4.0% variation |
Closure etc (US$m) |
65 |
***44 |
+47.7% variation |
Source: NioCorp, Edison Investment Research. Note: *Together comprising c 82% of total direct cash costs. **Includes 10% contingency. ***Includes 2% contingency.
Other costs relate to water management, tailings management, miscellaneous infrastructure, general & administrative and freight costs and county property taxes. With the exception of county property taxes (which have been assumed to amount to 1.72% of tangible fixed investment) and after an initial period of ramp-up, these costs have generally been assumed to be fixed at a steady-state level of throughput. A 2% NSR has also been assumed.
Federal and state corporation tax has been assumed at a rate of 24.99%, with taxes only payable once initial capital invested and pre-commercial production losses have been recouped.
A description of NioCorp’s products’ applications and markets is provided in the Appendix at the end of this document. Otherwise, Edison’s price assumptions have been determined independently, according to its own analyses, and are briefly outlined below. The most important prices with respect to the Elk Creek Project are those for niobium (in the form of ferro-niobium) and scandium, which together account for approximately 70% of life of mine total gross revenue, with titanium accounting for a further 15%. Four rare earth oxides – neodymium, praseodymium, terbium and dysprosium – make up the remaining 15%.
The fundamentals of the niobium market remain similar to those at the time of our note Niobium – The envy of the gods, published in August 2016. Significantly, niobium materials are not openly traded on any metal exchange. Key characteristics of the niobium market therefore are the important role played by bilateral contracts between buyers and sellers, which cover c 95% of total sales. Under these contracts, FeNb is sold directly to steelmakers, with prices typically fixed for the year, bi-yearly or on a quarterly basis, which has led to a highly stable pricing environment. Hence, between 1991 and 2005, the average export price for Brazilian ferro-niobium remained (almost exclusively) within the range of US$12.5–13.5/kg contained Nb. That changed in 2006 however, with average import prices for ferro-niobium reported by major importing countries more than doubling in 2008 relative to 2005, despite Companhia Brasileira de Metalurgia e Mineração (CBMM) doubling its niobium production capacity over the same period. What is more, while the rate of price increases slowed at the height of the global financial crisis in 2009, it did not reverse (indicating price inelasticity to demand), but instead reached a peak in 2012–13, before moderating very slightly in 2015.
Since establishing itself at its higher benchmark in 2012, the price of ferro-niobium has averaged US$38.87/kg (±US$8.00/kg) and we have therefore (conservatively) adopted this as our long-term, real price. Nevertheless, even at current prices, niobium inputs constitute only a very small portion of steelmaking input costs (eg c US$2.00 per tonne of steel produced).
Exhibit 8: Ferro-niobium price, 1990 to the present (US$/kg)
|
|
Source: Global Trade Atlas, Bloomberg
|
The current weakness in the pricing environment for niobium can be attributed to weakness in global GDP growth. However, these price declines have also been confined to a reasonable range by tight supply and the rising environmental cost (among other things) of new plants. As a result, the requirement for access to high-quality ores has become more important to consumers in sourcing raw materials.
Owing to its small size and existing concentrated end-uses, scandium pricing is opaque. The USGS indicates prices in the region of US$2,100–4,600/kg (average US$3,300/kg, with US$2,100/kg in 2022) in recent years, but some sources quote recent spot prices in China closer to US$1,500–2,000/kg. Given that no reliable exchange price exists and the extremely small current market is also dominated by one offtaker without publicly available commercial terms, caution needs to be applied in using historical pricing as a guide to the future.
Long-run commodity prices are commonly estimated using a variety of methods, including marginal cash cost, incentive prices of new production and value in use analysis (particularly for product differential/premiums). We believe value in use (ie the potential value as an additive to aluminium alloying) is the most appropriate method to estimate long-run prices for scandium as we believe the future market will be substantially larger than at present (several hundreds of tonnes rather than the current 20–30t) and supplied from new sources of supply. Either way, the market, as it develops, is likely to remain quite concentrated and one where close cooperation develops between consumers and producers regarding supply and price, with the interest of both best served by prices that encourage the competitiveness and economics of new alloys.
In terms of supply availability, we are aware of potential sources of scandium supply from new mines (six to eight potential non-Chinese producers, including NioCorp), with potential total aggregate production in the region of 250–300Mtpa. Many analysts have assumed scandium prices in the region of US$1,000–3000+/kg, so it is reasonable to assume that this is at least an incentive price floor for this size of supply. Our analysis below indicates that it will be a competitive material with prices in the region of US$2,500/kg and that the volume of demand could, in theory, be significant.
Emerging end-uses
Large-scale demand is likely to be in the form of scandium in producing new aluminium alloys for specific applications. Scandium alloy materials’ behaviour (like most alloying processes) is relatively complex, but in summary scandium has a number of beneficial effects, principally in increasing strength and heat resistance. It does this by:
■
limiting grain growth in the heat affected parts of welder components, and
■
acting as a powerful grain refiner in alloy formation, significantly increasing alloy strength.
This effect is seen across the various families of aluminium alloys, but usually with relatively small additional scandium additions (0.1–0.5%). As an example, according to data from Hydro Aluminium, for the commonly used 5xxx alloys (Al-Mg based), strength increases 150% (2.5-fold) for scandium additions of 0.1–0.25% while maintaining ductility and plasticity, which is essential for manufacturing processes. There are three potential benefits:
1.
Weight reduction (less material usage): a stronger alloy means that less metal can be used for a given application, which leads to lightweighting. Less metal can mean thinner or smaller components, but can also mean fundamentally redesigned components to achieve the same function. The exact relationship between changes in strength and materials usage is complex (given component design takes into account a number of factors other than strength), but a trial by Airbus on the redesign of an aircraft partition in 2020 indicated a 45% reduction in weight.
2.
Cheaper manufacturing costs: scandium usage can mean that alloys can be produced without expensive heat treatment.
3.
Consumer benefits from value in use: weight reduction of materials means that less fuel is consumed and less CO2 emitted during lifetime use, which is particularly relevant to transport applications.
The effect of overall cost for weight reduction is illustrated below for a common 5xxx series aluminium alloy. Exhibit 9 shows the cost of adding varying quantities of scandium at US$2,500/kg (oxide basis). The cost rises as scandium replaces aluminium in the metal (we are assuming a generic 5xxx alloy and displacing only aluminium with scandium in this analysis). We also include the cost allowing for strength change described above (ie the volume impact of being able to potentially use less material for a given function). We exclude from this analysis the cost of oxide through to metal addition, but also the savings made from alloys not requiring heat treatment. For example, scandium increases the recrystallisation temperature of aluminium alloys to above 600°C, significantly above the range of heat treatable alloys.
This analysis indicates that weight savings alone potentially justify the use of scandium up to 0.12% at US$2,500/kg and up to 0.2% at US$1,500/kg. At US$1,500/kg, the majority of 0.05–0.25% scandium alloys in the 5xxxx alloy category could be justified on weight savings alone. This is probably unrealistically low from a value in use viewpoint, as it is before any potential benefits that come from lightweighting to the consumer, which are likely to add considerably to the attractiveness of the alloy usage. As such, we believe an assumption of US$2,500/kg is reasonable, which allows for value in use (lightweighting, emissions offsets) to also be reflected in pricing.
Exhibit 9: Illustrative effect of scandium cost impacts pre- and post-weight reduction
|
Exhibit 10: Illustrative effects of cost impact post-weight reduction at varying scandium prices
|
|
|
Source: Edison Investment Research
|
Source: Edison Investment Research
|
Exhibit 9: Illustrative effect of scandium cost impacts pre- and post-weight reduction
|
|
Source: Edison Investment Research
|
Exhibit 10: Illustrative effects of cost impact post-weight reduction at varying scandium prices
|
|
Source: Edison Investment Research
|
Sizing the potential market
There are two potential effects of the adoption of scandium alloys: intrusion into the conventional alloy market, and then potentially new applications and increases in share of materials for applications that do not currently use aluminium. In terms of very broad scope, the global primary aluminium market is approximately 65Mt, much of which is used in applications where a scandium alloy is likely not to be of interest (eg food packaging). Approximately 23% (c 15Mtpa) is used in transportation (light and heavy vehicles, airlines, rail and public transport). At 0.2% scandium content (the midpoint of potential intrusion of 5xxxx alloys, which are common in transport applications), this would require 10ktpa of scandium after weight reduction. This is, of course, an unrealistic target but does highlight that small market intrusions would have a strong impact on scandium demand. For 500tpa to be realised, only a c 5% market intrusion into this subsection of alloy demand would be required.
This also does not take into account that scandium alloys could be used in applications where aluminium is currently not used as a material (ie applications using iron and steel). Higher heat resistance means that aluminium alloys can be used to displace other materials such as iron or steel in various components, reducing weight. This means that engine and other automotive parts could see a displacement of other materials in large-scale applications such as automotive and electric vehicles (EVs). Russian aluminium producer Rusal, for example, has examined using a very low scandium content alloy (Alloy ‘1581’ alloy with 0.03% scandium) in railcar applications to boost longevity.
We do not include a forecast by year of scandium demand as clearly the market in aluminium alloys is the key volume impact and this is somewhat ‘build it and they will come’ in concept (ie major producers cannot adopt scandium alloys until the market is widely available, as any usage would dwarf current supply and create extreme price spikes). Nevertheless, we believe it is reasonable that over the course of the 2020s a market of several hundred tonnes emerges and that this is supplied by largely new sources of primary scandium supply, most likely under long-term offtake arrangements.
The only broadly traded market of significant volume for TiCl4 in the world is in China, where the vast majority of production is sold to titanium sponge manufacturers.
Prices in China were stable at CNY8,500/t (US$1,195/t) on average in Q422, owing to lower operating rates amid renewed COVID-19 restrictions, but then generally declined in 2023, in part reflecting general global economic conditions and in part in line with lower chlorine gas prices.
Exhibit 11: Titanium tetrachloride (TiCl4 or ‘tickle’) price, 2011-present (US$/t, US and ex-works China)
|
|
|
Notwithstanding the recent weakness in the ex-works China price of TiCl4, its average price over the prior 12.75 years has been US$1,043/t – to which the equivalent US price has traded at a 51.2% premium – implying an average US price over the same period of US$1,577/t, which we have therefore adopted as our long-term, real price of TiCl4, although it is worth noting that the price of tickle now is about three times more sensitive to the price of chlorine than it was in 2021 (the last US price point in Exhibit 11).
The major two REEs in demand for the energy transition are neodymium (Nd) and praseodymium (Pr), owing to their use in high strength NdFeB magnets. Broadly, NdFeB magnets were commercialised during the 1980s, initially in uses such as computer hard disk drives, but then in applications such as small electric motors. Demand has since accelerated in uses where large magnets or induced magnetic fields had traditionally dominated, principally electric motors in vehicles and generators in large wind turbines. Total global demand for NdPr was approximately 50,000t in 2022, with wind turbine magnets accounting for approximately 18% and electric vehicle (EV) motors accounting for approximately 15%. The balance of demand is a wide range of small electric motors used in vehicles and automation more generally.
Based on a split of 70% dual motor and 30% single motor (2019 average), we estimate that an EV currently contains in the order of 1kg of REO (a mix of neodymium and praseodymium oxides), which goes into making a magnet that weighs approximately 2.8kg. As an order of magnitude, the full electrification of 100m personal vehicles would therefore require annual demand of c 100,000t. Wind energy will also strongly add to demand growth; offshore wind turbines, in particular, consume approximately 213kg/MW (213t/GW) REOs cf 61kg/MW (61t/GW) for their onshore brethren. At the same time, there is a trend towards less complex, low speed direct drive turbines as this improves operating costs, particularly for offshore wind farms.
Both wind turbines and EVs can avoid the use of NdPr by using motors/generators that mechanically induce an electric field for their operation. However, powerful permanent magnets improve vehicle efficiency by approximately 3% for an EV, critical for adding to range and particularly useful in low-speed, high-torque, stop-start city driving. As a result, based on a 70:30 dual motor to single motor split (2019 average), a typical EV might currently contain 2.5–3.0kg of rare earth magnets that need approximately 1kg of NdPr to produce (the balance being iron and boron). This means that rare earths add perhaps US$70 to the materials cost of a vehicle at long-run prices, which is small in comparison to the trade off in other materials usage for the additional motor efficiency.
Wind turbines can also use induction motors rather than rare-earth motors, but again there are cost and efficiency issues at play. As wind power has progressively moved offshore, wind turbines have become far larger and needed to be designed for minimal maintenance. This favours a direct-drive mechanism based on permanent magnets rather than highly geared, faster rotating induction motors.
Rare earths are very politically exposed. Rare earth mining and processing has become dominated by China over the past two decades, in part owing to lower prices forcing out western suppliers and, in part, owing to its being one industry where China has a natural resource endowment. China accounted for 70% of rare earth mined production in 2022. However, this was as high as 90% in recent years. Moreover, the next largest producer (the United States at 14%) has been sending its mined rare earth concentrates to China for processing. This is now ending, with the US shifting to domestic rare earth separation and ultimately magnet making (US production is dominated by US-listed MP Materials, which has been striking backward integration partnerships with General Motors). De-globalising rare earth supply chains is a key long-term strategic priority in terms of supplying energy transition materials.
Exhibit 12: Global rare earth mine production
|
Exhibit 13: Global rare earth reserves
|
|
|
Source: USGS, Edison Investment Research analysis
|
Source: USGS, Edison Investment Research analysis
|
Exhibit 12: Global rare earth mine production
|
|
Source: USGS, Edison Investment Research analysis
|
Exhibit 13: Global rare earth reserves
|
|
Source: USGS, Edison Investment Research analysis
|
Exhibit 14 below shows the long-run Nd oxide price (note that Pr prices are very similar). There was a spike in 2011 driven by a political dispute between China and Japan which resulted in a restriction in supply. For much of the 2011–19 period, Nd oxide prices gravitated towards US$50/kg (in nominal terms), which resulted in much of western mining separating and closing, as well as the domination of China as a source of supply. Since 2020, prices have increased rapidly as end-use demand has accelerated, with spot prices peaking at US$160/kg (see Exhibits 14 and 15), before retreating during the course of 2023 (following the decline in lithium prices and a shorter downcycle in demand for EV materials). Given the structural acceleration in demand and the need for a diversification in supply, a return to the US$50/kg levels seen in the 2011–19 period (c US$70/kg in inflation adjusted terms and similar to the current spot price) seems unlikely in our view. High-quality western producers need higher incentive prices to bring on production and the structural demand from EVs and wind energy will continue. In our view, a price in the region of US$95/kg for Nd/Pr oxide is a reasonable long-run assumption and one that should enable continued growth of non-Chinese value chains.
Exhibit 14: Nd oxide price, 2001 to present
|
Exhibit 15: Nd oxide and lithium carbonate price, 2020 to present
|
|
|
Source: Bloomberg, Edison Investment Research
|
Source: Bloomberg, Edison Investment Research
|
Exhibit 14: Nd oxide price, 2001 to present
|
|
Source: Bloomberg, Edison Investment Research
|
Exhibit 15: Nd oxide and lithium carbonate price, 2020 to present
|
|
Source: Bloomberg, Edison Investment Research
|
For terbium and dysprosium oxides, we believe that prices of US$1,125/kg and US$436/kg are appropriate. For terbium, this compares with a current price of US$1,143/kg and an average price, since April 2013, of US$838/kg. However, this assumption may well prove conservative, given that demand is likely to follow the pattern for Nd/Pr and there are no substitutes (despite 20 years of trying). For dysprosium oxide, it compares with a current price of US$370.50/kg and an average price, since April 2013, of US$295/kg (see Exhibits 16 and 17, below).
Exhibit 16: Dysprosium oxide price, 2005 to present (US$/kg)
|
Exhibit 17: Terbium oxide price, 2005 to present (US$/kg)
|
|
|
Source: Bloomberg, Edison Investment Research
|
Source: Bloomberg, Edison Investment Research
|
Exhibit 16: Dysprosium oxide price, 2005 to present (US$/kg)
|
|
Source: Bloomberg, Edison Investment Research
|
Exhibit 17: Terbium oxide price, 2005 to present (US$/kg)
|
|
Source: Bloomberg, Edison Investment Research
|
A comparison of the metals prices used by Edison in our valuation of Elk Creek and of NioCorp, relative to those used in NioCorp’s June 2022 DFS, is as follows:
Exhibit 18: Elk Creek prices cf June 2022 definitive feasibility study
Parameter |
Value |
DFS value |
Comment |
Niobium price (US$/kg) |
38.87 |
47.00 |
17.3% negative variance from DFS value. |
Scandium price (US$/kg) |
2,500 |
3,674 |
32.0% negative variance from DFS value. |
Titanium price (US$/kg) |
1.577 |
0.99 |
DFS assumed US$0.99/kg price for 95% TiO2 based on rutile concentrate price free on board (FOB) Australia. Edison price of US$1.577/kg reflects higher value-added nature of TiCl4, but is actually more conservative per unit of titanium when adjusted for the 2.375x mass conversion of TiO2 into TiCl4. |
Rare earths |
|
|
|
Nd2O3 (US$/t) |
95,000 |
N/A |
|
Pr2O3 (US$/t) |
95,000 |
N/A |
|
Tb2O3 (US$/t) |
1,125 |
N/A |
|
Dy2O3 (US$/t) |
436 |
N/A |
|
Source: NioCorp, Edison Investment Research