Member Info for Chilli300

Https://www.google.com/maps/place/38°25'52.0%22N+108°57'01.1%22W/@38.4350137,-108.9632907,3149m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d38.4311!4d-108.9503?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDUxMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

https://westernmininghistory.com/mine-detail/10117962/

The Buckhorn Mine is a uranium mine located in Montrose county, Colorado at an elevation of 7,254 feet.

About the MRDS Data:

All mine locations were obtained from the USGS Mineral Resources Data System. The locations and other information in this database have not been verified for accuracy. It should be assumed that all mines are on private property.

Mine Info

Name: Buckhorn Mine

State: Colorado

County: Montrose

Elevation: 7,254 Feet (2,211 Meters)

Commodity: Uranium

Lat, Long: 38.4311, -108.95030

I think the silence probably cuts both ways to be honest. If it had completely collapsed, you’d normally expect at least one side to start shaping the narrative publicly by now, especially given how aggressive some of the prior statements were. Equally though, if everything had sailed through cleanly, you’d also perhaps expect a more coordinated update already.

My guess is the reality is somewhere in the middle — ongoing legal/commercial negotiations behind the scenes, possibly around structure, creditor treatment, proof of funding, conditions precedent or implementation mechanics. The Lily situation alone makes this incredibly sensitive reputationally and politically, so I can imagine lawyers are all over every line before anything goes public.

What also stands out to me is that the courts are still actively referencing the Vantage/Arqomanzi precedent in other mining-right cases, which suggests the legal framework around “control”, business rescue and Section 11 issues is still very much alive and relevant. That probably makes everyone even more careful about what they say publicly right now.

So personally I don’t read the silence as either obviously bullish or bearish yet, still be trying to land something that is legally robust and implementable before putting statements into the market.

What's more interesting on L2 is that you don't have anything meaningful until 2p

SNGR 1 mil and WNTS 300k sitting there. Best bid and offer pretty balanced but to 2p pretty much air past 139k at 1.8p

L2 has SNGR sitting at 1.5p with 1 000 000

There is an auction every bloody morning. it's how it works

Honestly

If the gold strategy works you might get 7p, not sure where anything near 30p is even contemplated until any meaningful Uranium development happens which is well down the line.

Https://www.coloradonuclearatlas.org/site/uravan-mineral-belt/the-earth

The more I dig into Wedding Bell, the less it looks like a random modern exploration name and more like part of a genuinely historic uranium/radium mining corridor within the old Uravan Belt. Historical references place Wedding Bell alongside camps like Slick Rock and Calamity during Colorado’s early radium boom, and when you overlay the old USGS/Colorado Geological Survey work with Thor’s later maps, everything starts lining up surprisingly well. Groundhog, Rim Rock, Section 23, Babe Ruth and Diana all sit along the same broader mineralised trend, with historic workings, radiometric anomalies and later drilling confirming uranium and vanadium mineralisation in the Salt Wash sandstone system the Uravan Belt became famous for. The district was historically made up of hundreds of small mines rather than one giant operation, which actually fits the DISA model quite well — lots of fragmented old workings, shallow mineralisation and scattered waste/dump material across a wider corridor. The more you look at it, the more Wedding Bell feels less like a single prospect and more like one piece of a much larger historic uranium system that was never really explored with modern methods. I think that's what I'm reading anyway.

What? Its mainly held in nominee accounts

For me the only remotely interesting is Sprott with a meagre amount so far (just over 4 million)

https://sprottetfs.com/nikl-sprott-nickel-miners-etf/

Https://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/publications/uranium-vanadium-mining-milling-map-colorado/

That would probably even give you google earth references

| Historic Name | County | Location Reference | Significance |

| ----------------------- | ---------- | ------------------ | ------------------------------------- |

| **Buckhorn-Eureka** | Montrose | CN 10, 48N, 19W | Active uranium mine in 1978 directory |

| **Buckhorn** | San Miguel | NESW 30, 44N, 19W | Historic inactive uranium mine |

| **Groundhog** | San Miguel | ENE 21, 45N, 18W | Historic inactive uranium mine |

| **Rim Rock No. 5** | Montrose | SESE 9, 45N, 18W | Active uranium mine |

| **Rim Rock** | Montrose | WNE 16, 45N, 18W | Historic inactive uranium mine |

| **Radium Hill No.10** | Montrose | C 15, 45N, 18W | Active uranium mine |

| **Radium No.1 / No.12** | San Miguel | 44N/43N 19W | Historic uranium mines |

| **Vanadium King No.2** | Montrose | NESW 22, 47N, 17W | Historic vanadium/uranium mine |

| |

|etc

Fascinating

Love the name Buckhorn-Eureka !

Basically if you open up some of the zip files in those links the information is there. I have a sneaky feeling between Thor / Met 1 / DISA someone at some point has trawled through it all (wish I had the time). Even if you look at Thor's drilling strategy they're following a pattern on a district scale CGS (Colorado Geological Survey study 2024) and not just a recycled 1950s uranium paper (USGS bulletin 1952))

The US government drilled massively across the Colorado Plateau uranium districts during the Cold War. Some of that data may still exist in:

USGS archives,

DOE archives,

Colorado School of Mines,

Colorado Geological Survey,

or old Union Carbide/Umetco records.

“Uranium and vanadium minerals formed irregularly shaped ore deposits often in patches, commonly referred to as uranium rolls or roll fronts.”

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT NOVACORE ARE DOING ELSEWHERE ON A MASSIVE SCALE (quietly)

The ANE project with multiple district scale plays quietly building in the background if ever consolidated as a North American Platform could be more than we could ever imagine

It's there if you have the time to find it

"The DOE performed location reconciliation on many of these locations using aerial imagery and

topography maps. Limited field verification was completed to verify some locations including in

the Tallahassee District in Fremont County, Maybell District in Moffat County, and the Uravan

Mineral Belt in Colorado (DOE, 2014)."

Https://cologeosurvey.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=28e1efe2d4fb4d8abee5fd24ff7adce8

https://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/publications/location-map-descriptions-metal-occurrences-colorado-economic-potential/

https://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/2020/re-introducing-historic-metal-mining-districts/

https://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/publications/colorado-usfs-aml-data/

https://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/publications/reconnaissance-investigation-critical-minerals-historic-mine-related-effluent-colorado/

https://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/publications/uranium-vanadium-mining-milling-map-colorado/

https://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/publications/uranium-vanadium-mining-milling-map-colorado/

On Finland post )Reality Check)

Metals One did genuinely increase the Black Schist resource in Finland to 57.1Mt in 2024 and the company has talked about a longer-term exploration pathway towards potentially defining a much larger ~200Mt scale system, while also pursuing EU Strategic Project status under the Critical Raw Materials Act. But that’s very different from already having a 200Mt resource, secured EU funding or a proven “world-leading” battery metals project. The current resource is still largely inferred, the grades are relatively low by global nickel standards, and the economics will depend heavily on scale, metallurgy, processing costs and financing. The real investment case is probably less about “world’s largest nickel mine” hype and more about whether Finland’s mining-friendly jurisdiction, the nearby Terrafame processing analogy and Europe’s push for domestic critical mineral supply can eventually make a large low-grade system commercially viable. There is definitely a strategic narrative there, but it is still a long way from being de-risked or proven economically. From what I've looked at in the past anything under 200Mt doesn't become economic at these nickel prices

So in part I think we have

“Ground surveyed” strongly implies: field visits already occurred + physical dump identification exists + likely GPS polygons exist + possibly radiometric measurements exist + potentially volumetric approximations already exist internally"

BUT

As far as I can find there is no geometry , depth, average grade etc etc etc to Wedding Bell, Groundhog, Rim Rock,,Section 23, Edna May, Babe Ruth, Diana which are just the Thor sites. The Colorado Geological Survey reports about 1,200 small mines. this was NOT a single mega-mine system, but an enormous distributed network of small uranium-vanadium workings.

Which fits perfectly with: localized waste dumps, scattered historic workings, and a modular/mobile recovery approach like DISA. Easier to permit etc etc than say Historic Mill by Miguel river that has the 13 million etc etc. Which is capped and would be an absolute nightmare to permit, and is at least 26km from any MET1 claim as far as I can see.

No reliable dump lengths, widths, heights, surveyed volumes or bulk-density assumptions exist publicly so you can't even make that calculation. IMHO

I could go on and bore you to death on it.

Which means: no reliable tonnage, no throughput model, no revenue model, no realistic valuation framework yet.And that is exactly why: gamma walkovers,

assays, and DISA characterisation is the next step.

As I said earlier they might have done this at DISA MET1 level which has enabled them to sign the deal or progress from term sheet

Even if you analyse Thor's maps and similar waste dumps and run analysis model you most likely get a relatively small portal-side waste pile with assumed dimensions and loose rock density, giving a rough estimate of:

~2,400–20,000 tonnes per dump.

Applied across the currently disclosed dump counts:

Uravan Belt (8 dumps) was estimated at roughly 20–160kt total,

Wedding Bell/Radium Mountain (13 dumps) at roughly 30–260kt total.

BWTFDIK

Just for clarity

EPA references to the historic Uravan Superfund mill cleanup, where more than 13 million cubic yards of tailings/sludge/contaminated material were consolidated into engineered repositories during remediation of the old Union Carbide/Umetco mill complex.

That is NOT the same thing as:

MET1 ownership

MET1 / Thor / Standard / etc dump inventories

DISA treatment agreements

or measured recoverable uranium inventory.

Separately:

MET1/Thor disclosures reference 13 prospective waste dumps at Wedding Bell/Radium Mountain

plus 8 waste dumps at Uravan Belt near Buckhorn.

And separately again:

the “up to 4.17% uranium” figure comes from a single spot sample from historic waste material (UV5), not an average grade across all dumps.

And then separately again:

DISA talks about up to ~90% uranium/radium removal efficiency from treated waste.

I think those four things have been blended together into a very bullish headline narrative which currently isn’t supported by the public disclosures.

But again let me know if there is a link that I've missed

I've also cross referenced below and there is no historical data to verify any tonnage

And trust me I've looked. Let me know what I've missed

Historic / government / geological references

EPA Uranium Mines and Mills Location Database

https://www.epa.gov/radiation/uranium-mines-and-mills-location-database-0

Colorado Geological Survey – Uranium in Colorado

https://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/energy/e-uranium/

USGS Bulletin 1144-E

https://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1144e/report.pdf

Atomic Energy Commission / Bull Canyon district study

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1393218/m2/1/high_res_d/metadc1393218.pdf

Additional Uravan Superfund context

EPA Uravan Superfund review

https://semspub.epa.gov/work/08/1828381.pdf

NRC Uravan decommissioning page

https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/uranium/umetco-uravan

DISA licensing / remediation model

DISA receives first-of-its-kind NRC licence

American Atomics / DISA NRC licence commentary

I don't know where you're getting 13 million tons from.

That sounds like confusion between the giant historic Uravan Superfund mill tailings complex and the much smaller MET1/DISA mine-dump agreements.

The public MET1 / Thor / DISA disclosures currently reference:

13 separate prospective waste dumps across the Wedding Bell & Radium Mountain projects

8 abandoned uranium mine waste dumps at the Uravan Belt project near Buckhorn

But importantly, there are currently no public dump tonnage figures, no surveyed volumes and no NI 43-101/JORC-style inventory published for those dumps.

The only public uranium grades disclosed are spot sample assays from selected historic waste material, including up to 4.17% U from one sample (UV5). That is not an average grade across all dumps and definitely not across millions of tonnes.

In fact, the best available public analysis currently estimates the known dump inventory at only:

~20–160kt for Uravan Belt

~30–260kt for Wedding Bell/Radium Mountain

…and even those are explicitly described as low-confidence heuristic estimates, not measured resources.

The “13 million tons” narrative appears to be mixing MET1’s localized mine dumps with the much larger historic Uravan mill/Superfund tailings inventory, which is a completely separate EPA/NRC-regulated remediation complex and not something MET1 owns or has rights to process based on current public disclosures.

The DISA angle is still interesting in my opinion because:

first-of-its-kind NRC remediation licence

revenue-share model with no direct MET1 capex

potentially high-grade legacy material

broader U.S. uranium remediation optionality

…but I think people need to be careful extrapolating that into “billions guaranteed” from 13 million tons that currently do not appear anywhere in the actual disclosures.

synthesis document:

Waste Dump Evidence at MET1 and Thor Uranium Projects

Primary underlying sources referenced within that research:

MET1 / Thor / DISA RNS and project disclosures

MET1 – Agreement to treat uranium waste dumps with DISA

https://www.investegate.co.uk/announcement/rns/metals-one--met1/agreement-to-treat-uranium-waste-dumps-with-disa-/9087906

MET1 – Expansion of agreement with DISA Technologies

https://www.investegate.co.uk/announcement/rns/metals-one--met1/expansion-of-agreement-with-disa-technologies/9570433

MET1 – Uranium rock chip sampling assay results

https://www.investegate.co.uk/announcement/rns/metals-one--met1/uranium-rock-chip-sampling-assay-results/9135824

MET1 – Update re acquisition of Thor uranium project

https://www.investegate.co.uk/announcement/rns/metals-one--met1/update-re-acquisition-of-thor-uranium-project/9048681

THR – Binding agreement signed with DISA Technologies

https://www.investegate.co.uk/announcement/rns/thor-energy--thr/binding-agreement-signed-with-disa-technologies-/9188532

Metals One uranium/vanadium projects page

https://metals-one.com/projects/uranium-vanadium-projects/

What bit do you want to know about RIFT?

The bit that you need to look into is RIFT - NEIL HERBERT - NOVACORE EXPLORATION - URANIUM - RED BASIN - MET 1 - Douglas Christopherson - Uramin - Subatomic - Myriad

And possibly

Https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-05/documents/402-r-05-009.pdf

https://www.mininghistoryassociation.org/Meetings/Telluride/Guide%20to%20Assessing%20Historic%20Mining%20Resources%20Part%20I%20Uranium%20Radium%20Vanadium.pdf

https://coloradogeologicalsurvey.org/publications/baseline-radiological-uravan-belt-colorado/

https://semspub.epa.gov/work/08/1828381.pdf

https://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/0988a/report.pdf

https://wcsecure.weblink.com.au/pdf/THR/02690594.pdf

https://thorenergyplc.com/investor-updates/uranium-drill-approvals-granted-wedding-bell-and-radium-mountain-projects-usa/

https://www.investegate.co.uk/announcement/rns/metals-one--met1/uranium-rock-chip-sampling-assay-results/9135824

Metals One Plc announced assay results from rock chip sampling at its Uravan Uranium-Vanadium Project in Colorado. Highlights include uranium assays reaching up to 41,768 ppm U (4.17%) from historic waste material. Vanadium assays showed up to 24,688 ppm V (2.46% V), also from waste. Copper concentrations reached up to 11,449 ppm Cu (1.14%), and silver hit 99.4 g/t Ag. A scintillometer survey identified anomalies up to 27,000 CPS, coinciding with historic mine sites. These results confirm the presence of ore-grade uranium, vanadium, copper, and silver in the area, validating the high value of historically mined material.

Yes been quiet, working away on a big project and for another week.

The LBI / LBR story has gone quiet, so I'm taking that as positive and financing is being sorted at whatever level

All I can see at LBR level is (that I haven't seen before)

https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/1365931-36

Lions Bay Resources FAQs

When was Lions Bay Resources founded?

Lions Bay Resources was founded in 2025.

Where is Lions Bay Resources headquartered?

Lions Bay Resources is headquartered in South Africa.

What industry is Lions Bay Resources in?

Lions Bay Resources’s primary industry is Holding Companies.

Is Lions Bay Resources a private or public company?

Lions Bay Resources is a Private company.

What is Lions Bay Resources’s current revenue?

The current revenue for Lions Bay Resources is .

How much funding has Lions Bay Resources raised over time?

Lions Bay Resources has raised $1.8M.

Who are Lions Bay Resources’s investors?

Metals One, Lions Bay Capital, and Salamander Magnesium International have invested in Lions Bay Resources.

What's actually interesting is if you start looking at DISA properly

https://disatech.com/resources

Graphite / Gold / Copper

Then you start looking at what's possible across Fidelity Minerals, EV1 Graphite etc etc etc and even down the line Copper at Chikundo.

Like I've always said Uranium is arguably the biggest play here eventually especially the Red Basin..

Especially when you look at Subatomic Myriad (8VC and Overmatch Ventures)

https://myriaduranium.com/myriad-uranium-to-sell-red-basin-uranium-project-for-us2-5-million-retain-10-free-carried-interest-and-enter-into-strategic-alliance-with-a-new-venture-backed-by-leading-u-s-technologists/

https://www.holdcomarkets.com/post/myriad-uranium-red-basin-uranium-project-to-be-sold-strategic-alliance-signed

The DISA / MET1 story increasingly feels bigger than a simple uranium remediation play. DISA is now openly describing itself as a “critical mineral processing and domestic uranium remediation” platform, with commercial units reportedly installed at several global sites and over 100 abandoned uranium mine sites already secured under contract. Backing from BHP Ventures, Halliburton Labs and others also materially changes the credibility profile here.

For MET1, the interesting part is the structure. DISA funds permitting, remediation and operations, while MET1 contributes the project exposure and keeps upside via a revenue share from recovered concentrates. So rather than a traditional capex-heavy mine development story, this increasingly looks like a capital-light optionality model with exposure to a potentially scalable mineral-processing technology platform.