Member Info for Chilli300

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.

Https://pulse2.com/disa-technologies-33-million-raised-to-scale-critical-mineral-processing-and-domestic-uranium-remediation/

That is Topaz Minnesota not Greenland

For me the most important bit is the gap between public disclosure and what’s probably being discussed privately between the BRP, creditors, regulators and the court. Publicly we’ve only seen limited funding details, but the High Court was told there was a “fully funded binding transaction,” which suggests key stakeholders may have seen materially more information than shareholders have.

The court had the chance to move Lily/Vantage into liquidation and didn’t. Instead, liquidation was adjourned, the Lions Bay proposal was referenced as a funded binding transaction, and the BRP was ordered to keep reporting back. That suggests the rescue process is still alive. (Links below)

DMPR also seems more focused on reopening, retrieval and preserving jobs than cancelling licences. (Links below)

Arqomanzi looks central to the process as well, with enough creditor influence that no realistic plan likely works without them.

To me, the biggest gap is between what’s public and what key stakeholders may already have seen privately. Public disclosures remain limited, but the court was told there was a “fully funded binding transaction,” which suggests creditors, regulators and the BRP may have materially more visibility than the market does. (Link to SAFLII below for the quote)

At this point, the key question probably isn’t whether the rescue is legally alive. It’s whether LBR/MET1/LBI can actually deliver the funding and execution needed to reopen and restart the assets.

Also noting "LBR has received an indicative confidential proposal to fund the balance of the capital required to complete the acquisition of the assets of Barbrook, together with additional initial mine start‑up capital, and is also considering other confidential funding proposals. Further information will be disclosed in due course in relation to these arrangements." link to the RNS for the quote below)

https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPJHC/2026/306.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://pmg.org.za/hansard/41990/

https://static.pmg.org.za/251105MNA.pdf

https://pmg.org.za/committee-question/37394/

https://pmg.org.za/hansard/42162/

https://static.pmg.org.za/251127MIN-NA.pdf

https://otp.tools.investis.com/clients/uk/metals_one_plc/rns/regulatory-story.aspx?cid=2778&newsid=2050016

“The US$42 billion LNG buildout in Tanzania also unlocks the supporting infrastructure for the country’s graphite, helium and rare earth potential.”

Https://tanzaniatimes.net/how-the-world-plans-to-use-tanzania-in-bypassing-the-gulfs-strait-of-hormuz/

Bigw77

If the Barbrook vote is anything to go by, I wouldn't expect an update until Monday

There might be some social / media commentary but there was very little on the last vote

Then LBR followed it on with some YouTube content

Depending on how much water they have to handle if you compare to Helium One drill history !

Very true LBI2026

As well as cogeneration plant capital and everything else that comes with trying to restart these assets.

My challenge with all this is that LBI are trying to position themselves as this “mining finance and investment company focused on unlocking the potential of resource assets” vehicle, but in reality they don’t yet seem to have the clout or credibility that comes from actually delivering a successful transaction themselves.

The John Byrne “track record of value creation” narrative is largely historical from the Western Canadian Coal days, but looking specifically at the LBI period, I struggle to see what they’ve actually executed so far.

You really have to question what function LBI serves in the structure unless they can actually bring funding or strategic partners to the table.

The last few weeks and months have obviously seen some uplift in the LBI share price, but on very little volume, and it’s a tightly held stock mainly owned by insiders anyway. Feels like any meaningful selling pressure from outside that circle would send it straight back down again.

And weirdly for me, a lot of the current value at LBI level now seems tied to Fidelity Minerals actually showing some execution too. But apart from some evidence of an access road and general project activity, we still haven’t really seen a major update there either.

So for me it all still comes back to the same thing — eventually this structure has to start demonstrating actual execution and funding capability rather than just strategic positioning.

Very true LBI2026

As well as cogeneration plant capital and everything else that comes with trying to restart these assets.

My challenge with all this is that LBI are trying to position themselves as this “mining finance and investment company focused on unlocking the potential of resource assets” vehicle, but in reality they don’t yet seem to have the clout or credibility that comes from actually delivering a successful transaction themselves.

The John Byrne “track record of value creation” narrative is largely historical from the Western Canadian Coal days, but looking specifically at the LBI period, I struggle to see what they’ve actually executed so far.

You really have to question what function LBI serves in the structure unless they can actually bring funding or strategic partners to the table.

The last few weeks and months have obviously seen some uplift in the LBI share price, but on very little volume, and it’s a tightly held stock mainly owned by insiders anyway. Feels like any meaningful selling pressure from outside that circle would send it straight back down again.

And weirdly for me, a lot of the current value at LBI level now seems tied to Fidelity Minerals actually showing some execution too. But apart from some evidence of an access road and general project activity, we still haven’t really seen a major update there either.

So for me it all still comes back to the same thing — eventually this structure has to start demonstrating actual execution and funding capability rather than just strategic positioning.

For me LBI 2026 the most interesting project is potentially Novacore Exploration which has the same team as RIFT, well they have Neil Herbert at least in common. And one would expect that to have an update at some point.

It is also interesting that Nickel is starting to come back to life somewhat

https://www.miningmx.com/news/base-metals/65130-arm-makes-strategic-marketing-step-towards-re-opening-nkomati-nickel/

ARM could well become interesting in many ways, potentially BEE side eventually, and of course Motsepe also linked to ARCH Sustainable Resources Fund LP which is also linked to EV1. I still have one eye on the noted EV1 move into gold mentioned around May last year. No idea how that pans out though.

My only challenge to a MET1 raise is whether financing would be done at LBR level or even Lions Bay Mining Level

The helium project is RIFT Helium

Https://www.sedarplus.ca/csa-party/records/document.html?id=754042bbd9ff69492521f20059cef1fe5f910b38d851beb80eabdce171e9e1b0

Could also be a potential incoming cornerstone investor wanting to put someone on the board

Ministry of minerals especially after the election late last year are "on it" and really don't think they'd go into this with a song and dance right now without some prospect of success. I've also thought of them especially in the last year to review exploration and mining licenses proactively and give a proverbial rocket if foreign entities start dragging their feet

Recent (April 2026): Licences revoked for inactivity

Tanzania revoked 40 exploration licences outright

Reason: companies were sitting on assets without developing them Government explicitly called out: “asset hoarding” + failure to progress projects. Licences are now being reallocated to operators who will actually move them forward

Use it or lose it

Legal requirement: operations must start within ~18 months

Government has: issued warnings + revoked licences + forced timelines

Policy direction: tightening control + speeding delivery

Shift toward: faster licensing + stricter compliance + removal of inactive players

Plus lots and lots of infrastructure projects

https://www.clydeco.com/en/insights/2025/08/infrastructure-sharing-in-mining-corridors

https://ticgl.com/how-mining-is-powering-tanzanias-growth/

Something that stood out to me reading the Ministry post wasn’t just what they said, but how they said it. I'm commenting on it from following Evolution Energy Minerals (Kudu Graphite).

If you look at how Tanzania usually talks about mining projects — graphite, gold, nickel — the tone is normally quite steady and practical. It’s about investment, permits, development, jobs. Supportive, but pretty standard. etc etc etc

This felt a bit different.

They’re clearly leaning more into the bigger picture here. Phrases like “strategic frontier” and talking about global supply chains isn’t typical wording for a normal project update. It reads less like “another project progressing” and more like they’re trying to position helium as something nationally important.

They also spend more time explaining why helium matters globally — limited supply, no substitutes, used in medical tech, semiconductors, aerospace. You don’t usually see that level of context in updates on other minerals.

The government stake is another point. Tanzania often has equity in projects, but here it feels more central to the story — tied into a wider message about making sure resources deliver long-term value for the country. One of their key focuses is processing and value add in country.

And overall, the tone just feels more confident than usual. They’re talking quite openly about moving toward production and what this could become, rather than keeping things more cautious like you often see at this stage.

Doesn’t change the underlying risks, but it does feel like helium is being treated a bit differently — not just another mining project, but something they see as more strategic.

To be clear — Sproule don’t explicitly state that uplift introduces downside risk in the report.

The relevant section is this:

“Recovery factors… have assumed normal pressure gradients… however the tectonic history… has shown considerable burial and uplift which can result in overpressured reservoirs…”

So what they’re doing is linking the burial/uplift history to a potential upside case (overpressure), and keeping recovery assumptions conservative until proven.

My earlier comment wasn’t that Sproule themselves are calling out both sides directly — more that the same burial/uplift history they reference is generally understood geologically to introduce both upside (overpressure) and risk (trap integrity / leakage), depending on how the system behaved.

So that part is my interpretation rather than something explicitly stated in the report. But I thought I'd explained that already. If you read my wording I was trying to balance out the risk element on it. Which I actually thought the discussion was about. But if we are blindly not looking at both sides of the scenario, then I'll step out of posting on this board

Thanks have a good Saturday and good luck

I tweaked my wording on a previous post, I'm not doing it again

Not in the slightest. I have a holding here. I was literally just saying

"can have" yet unproven etc etc etc

Jesus won't bother