Graphite One’s Alaska Bet Just Got a Rare Earth Lift — and a Tariff Blow

ITC ruling removes tariff shield for US graphite, hitting Graphite One stock. However, heavy rare earths from Alaska samples and Lucid supply agreement offer long-term hope.

Graphite One finds itself straddling two very different trajectories. New lab results hint at a potential revenue stream from heavy rare earths, but an abrupt decision by the US International Trade Commission has erased the tariff protection that was supposed to shield domestic producers from cheap Chinese imports. The stock, trading in Frankfurt at €0.73–€0.74, has lost roughly 37–38% since the start of the year, a decline that reflects the widening gap between the company’s long-range ambitions and the near-term headwinds.

The ITC ruled in March that Chinese graphite anode materials do not cause “material injury” to the US industry, effectively killing the antidumping and countervailing duties that the Commerce Department had earlier calculated at well over 150% for certain imports. The case had been initiated in December 2024 by an alliance of US producers. For Graphite One, the implications are stark: China controls more than 90% of global graphite processing, and without a tariff barrier, the cost advantage of incumbents makes it harder for a greenfield US project to compete on price.

That cost pressure makes every potential value-adder more important. Core samples from the planned open-pit mine at Graphite Creek in Alaska, analysed under the February 2025 feasibility study, have returned elevated concentrations of dysprosium, yttrium and scandium in the garnet fraction. Lab results show that 85% of the rare earth elements in that material belong to the magnetic or heavy category. Dysprosium ranged from 32 to 63 parts per million, with yttrium and scandium also above background. If Graphite One can economically extract those metals alongside graphite, it would create a second revenue stream. The company plans to begin work with a US national laboratory in 2026 to test recovery processes.

On the demand side, Graphite One has locked in a multi-year supply agreement with Lucid Group for natural graphite sourced from the US. Deliveries to Lucid and its battery partners are scheduled to start in 2028. While the contract does not generate revenue today, it signals that an automaker is willing to commit early to domestic supply chains. The deal is paired with a memorandum of understanding under the MINAC alliance, which aims to reduce reliance on foreign sources for critical minerals.

The bigger regulatory clock is ticking in Alaska. Graphite Creek entered the FAST-41 permitting process in June 2025, a framework designed to accelerate federal environmental reviews and approvals. The current target for completing that review is September 29, 2026. Hitting that date is critical if Graphite One wants to maintain its place in the fast-track lane. The company still aims to break ground in Alaska in 2027.

But the lane is getting more crowded. Two other US graphite projects — in Alabama and New York — were granted FAST-41 status in March, meaning the race is not just about getting permitted but about who gets to production first. Local opposition in Alaska is also complicating the timeline: critics are pressing for a full environmental impact statement rather than the streamlined process, and if regulators agree, the construction schedule could slip.

Graphite One’s strategy also depends on building a downstream anode plant in Ohio. The facility is designed for staged production of up to 100,000 tonnes of active anode material per year, with an initial ramp-up to 48,000 tonnes by 2028. A later expansion to 169,000 tonnes would follow once Alaskan graphite arrives. The company plans to submit the Ohio project for FAST-41 status as well. In February 2026, it raised gross proceeds of C$35 million through a public offering to fund planning, permits, equipment and working capital.

Financing remains incomplete. The US Export-Import Bank has issued non-binding letters of interest totalling $2.07 billion, which would cover roughly 70% of estimated project costs. Graphite One is in discussions with five large North American investment banks to cover the remainder. The non-binding supply agreement with Lucid covers both synthetic and natural graphite anode materials, but it does not provide the firm offtake that would underwrite debt.

For investors, the next twelve months will be decisive. The September 2026 deadline for federal approvals is the first major gate. Progress on the FAST-41 application for Ohio and credible results from the rare earth recovery tests would give the story more depth than a pure graphite play. A stall on either front, especially without tariff protection and with new domestic rivals entering the fast track, would shift the market’s focus squarely onto the capital that still needs to be raised.