Member Info for BritishPeculeum

Pannage… PXC RNS dated 20 April 2026 states: ““Phoenix is currently conducting ongoing discussions with several groups about raising the necessary funds to complete detailed engineering in order to submit the Plan of Operations for the Empire Mine (“Empire”).”

In a nutshell, PXC still needs funding merely to complete the engineering work necessary to submit the Plan of Operations into the permitting pathway. And without the Plan of Operations, no application for a permit can be submitted.

Best of luck!

Prosciutto… Songo Songo/Orca is definitely relevant to Ruvuma, and I am sure that ARA will have factored-in the political/commercial risk/reward trade-off when they decided to underwrite the farm-in of Ruvuma.

That does not value Aminex at nil, but I do take the point that it should be a meaningful Tanzania/state-counterparty discount until there is actual gas production, consistent payment, and demonstrated ability to repatriate/retain value.

The Government of Tanzania might well be committed to delivery of the pipeline. Yet despite what Santos said in his last RNS, whether ARA commits capital to commercialisation of Ruvuma still remains to be seen.

Forcella… agreed 100%. Although at this stage of the game, and with NIU knocking on the door, and half the Board having been shown the door, impartiality is probably the last thing that the Board needs right now, but sufficient numbers to form a quorum. Maybe they can’t rely upon Jason Riley from ExGen to necessarily go with them, in the event a new Board member is appointed from NIU. I honestly don’t know how on earth Jason Riley’s position on the Board is tenable in the current state that the Company finds itself. ExGen’s carried interest is subordinated by the NIU secured debt position. Of course Jason Riley would prioritise the interests of EXG over those of PXC, if push came to shove viz a vis how NIU choose to take this. He’s conflicted without a shadow of a doubt. I can’t see any other way but for McDermott to show him the door.

Forcella, what are your thoughts on how NIU will play this out from hereon in?

Forcella… completely agree with that assessment of the ‘New Man’. No cost addition. PXC needed to add in-depth knowledge of the Empire scheme, and to put it bluntly, PXC need to add numbers to the Board ahead of the EGM that NIU has requisitioned. It’s as simple as that.

You might well be right, Duster… 1.2p ask has come because of tight availability of shares. That aside, there’s a lot of sorting out to be done at PXC. If McDermott pulls this off, I will personally go to Idaho and buy him a pint. Company undoubtedly needs an experienced new CFO but not sure a perm appointment will come at this stage of proceedings. I think an earlier RNS said that they were looking at an external consultant appointment into role for now, whilst investigating the Company’s governance and internal controls procedures, and to resolve funding issues. Makes sense to me, given the LOI investor, assuming they do a deal, will no doubt want to make that permanent appointment with their own man, once they’re safely in the saddle.

AIMHO

GLA

EarEyeAm …. Good boy, well done. Mummy will be proud of you.

Surrey: “It goes without saying - I would hope that anyone invested was so under the unwavering assumption that La India would *absolutely* be going into production - if it doesn't, there's no company!”

True enough, and yet at the same time, the market is primarily interested in earnings, and that is what it is constantly pricing-in. MTL in this current moment of its evolution is:

a) earnings-uncertain from Runruno, as it stutters its way home to end-of-life, with an escalating AISC per oz of material won.

b) earnings-uncertain from La India, as it moves beyond 40% complete, albeit reported to still be on-time and to-budget at this point, but with construction risk and commissioning risk up to nameplate capacity still yet an uncertain from a cost and timescale perspective.

Then there are the macro events that will affect the value of the US$ to factor in on top of that.

This moment now, through to production, as Lee says, is a moment for holding our nerve, and hoping… having faith that everything is going the right way in the remaining development of La India on time and on budget, for Runruno to keep on run running profitably to end of life, and for the price of gold to hold steady.

Sat on a yoga mat in India some years ago, I heard this: “the suffering is in the expectation.”

I’d say MTL holders have got much suffering to do between now and La India production. Question for each and every one of us every day is: “does the expected pay-off compensate for the suffering?”

GLA

Thanks Lee for that perspective.

The hope is that those projected figures are deliverable, although as Runruno pulls in to its last knockings, the risk of AISC escalation and stuttering production beyond what’s projected would not come as any surprise. Runruno owes shareholders nothing at this stage. It’s been a… well, an absolute goldmine…

Dupax would have been a great addition and most importantly, a cost effective hedge for any risk arising in the delivery of La India. Without the Dupax cover, the Company is exposed to risks in commissioning-up La India to nameplate capacity in a jurisdiction that the Company has no prior operating experience.

It’s now down to hope more than expectation that the Company delivers La India to nameplate capacity on time and to-budget. The market recognises that and the MTL share price reflects that today. If not somewhat on the bullish side of that reflection.

AIMHO

“Rig news and spud date…” give over Roger Jolly!!

Howzap I am sure it could be two separate deals, with separate finance providers, as is currently the case.

But in the position that PXC is at this moment, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a deal that rolls both capex and revenue expenditure requirements in to an all-encompassing deal. The time and complexity to get one deal done rather than two is a factor, and so is the position that NIU are in.

Interesting times ahead…

Howzap… terms being agreed prior to raising capital is how it usually works. The deal that is agreed will be subject to due diligence, contract, and funding close.

In PXC’s current state, it’s likely that the deal will be an “all-encompassing” deal, which includes an assessment of the total funding need to include the working capital gap, aswell as capital expenditure for the Empire open pit construction, and to factor-in how NIU is to be dealt with.

AIMO

McDermott: “Phoenix is currently conducting ongoing discussions with several groups about raising the necessary funds to complete detailed engineering in order to submit the Plan of Operations for the Empire Mine ("Empire"). The Company's intention is to agree funding structures that are as non-dilutive to shareholders as possible.”

Which translates to:

* No deal agreed

* No exclusivity signalled

* No committed funding

* Time has already been extensive (10+ months)

AND: “We look forward to providing our shareholders with further updates in the coming weeks and months.”

PXC’s got weeks of oxygen left in the tank, not months.

NIU as secured lender will force the pace of this.

The simple fact is that any conversation that the Accredited US Investor has with PXC must involve NIU.

How amenable NIU will be to a restructure or a partnership with a third party only time will tell.

GLA

Red666… Given NIU holds secured debt over the asset and can force the situation if needed, it’s not clear how opposing a Board seat helps shareholders.

We don’t fully know NIU’s role in how matters have unfolded, but they are not necessarily the problem — and they are now central to any solution. Any credible funding or restructuring will require NIU’s involvement whether we like it or not.

Why delay matters further by excluding them? Is there realistically a viable funding path that does not involve them?

At this stage, whoever controls the funding controls the outcome — and NIU is the only clearly identified party in that position.

GLA

Cheety… good luck.

Multiplier… I’ve never taken the view that the position here is simply down to NIU.

The initial US$5m drawdown took place under the original structure, at a time when the original Carry Agreement between ExGen Resources Inc. and Phoenix Copper Limited was still in place.

At that stage, the original Carry Agreement required secured development funding to be conditional upon the delivery of a Bankable Feasibility Study, which, despite the initial drawdown of $5m, had not been completed by PXC at the time. Whether or not that was the sole reason for the absence of further drawdowns is not entirely clear from the disclosures, but it was certainly part of the framework.

The position then changed with the revised Carry Agreement in December 2024, which fundamentally altered the economic structure by pushing ExGen’s returns to a later stage in the project cycle, and also tellingly, the revised agreement also removed the requirement for a Bankable Feasibility Study in connection with any further bond drawdowns.

Despite that change, there have been no further drawdowns under the NIU facility and no material progress on development since that point. That raises the question as to why the Company sought alternative bond funding when an existing facility was already in place.

So I don’t think it’s as simple as saying NIU “failed” PXC — the sequence of events is more nuanced than that, and the issues go back to how the project and its funding structure evolved over time.

Oh Dear Alan… NIU involvement at Board level is likely to raise some obvious questions around how the current position has evolved — including whether prior funding arrangements, the use of proceeds and ongoing obligations under the NIU bond continue to align with the Company’s present position. None of that is entirely clear from the disclosures to date, but it probably helps to explain why this is taking so much time to unravel. Once NIU have a seat on the Board, for better for shareholders or worse, is a cleaner governance and disclosure position likely to evolve? I think it is fair to say that given the low bar that has been set by the Company, it would be difficult for the situation to get any worse.

James Blackstone… I think the RNS that landed Friday is probably a big part of the answer.

The Company has received a requisition from NIU to call an EGM, including a proposal to appoint a representative to the Board. Given NIU’s position as a secured lender, that’s a meaningful development in terms of influence over how the funding situation is handled.

It doesn’t necessarily change their economic position, but it does formalise their ability to be fully sighted on, and involved in, decisions at a critical point in the process.

Taken together with the Company’s cash position, it suggests that what we’re seeing isn’t just delay — it’s likely a function of how control over the next funding step is being worked through between the various parties. At this stage, whoever controls the funding likely controls the outcome.

EGM should be interesting.

STCM outperforms the metrics Y-O-Y for the third quarter in a row… gathering momentum. Hopefully the Company can maintain this momentum into launch of its step-up in capacity in Summer 2027, to hit the ground running. Significant step up in EBITDA anticipated beyond that point.

Well done again, STCM.

Bufflehead, welcome to Phoenix Copper… you’ve landed in new world, a chaotic situation for sure, where we are all wishing that Time Lawd could pick us up and take us with him in his police call box, and take us far far away from here, or the genie in a bottle could give us three wishes… what would they be wrt PXC? I’d settle for (1) full value of bond secured before end of April 2026.

(2) new credible management with impeccable track record on board and fully committed.

(3) a share price of 12p

GLA