Member Info for Chilli300

I’ve pulled together a consolidated view on MET1, NovaCore, and the broader Red Basin uranium narrative. This combines disclosed facts, geological interpretation, and some clearly labelled conjecture. The key point is that while there are some very interesting overlaps emerging, much of the strategic linkage remains unproven at this stage. Just for clarity I have used Ai to pull together the thinking across many documents and it's my conjecture.

From a factual standpoint, MET1 has assembled a portfolio of uranium and vanadium assets across the western United States, including Wyoming (Squaw Creek), Colorado/Utah (Uravan Belt, Vanadium King, Wedding Bell/Radium Mountain), and New Mexico via its ~35% stake in NovaCore, which is advancing the Red Basin – Ane project. Red Basin is framed as a district-scale opportunity with historical U.S. Department of Energy work suggesting potential for ~40M lbs of U₃O₈, and MET1 has described upcoming drilling there as “high impact.” In parallel, MET1 has exposure to downstream optionality via its DISA partnership, which introduces a potential processing/remediation angle with minimal capital burden.

Geologically, Red Basin appears to be a classic sandstone-hosted roll-front uranium system controlled by paleosol redox horizons and permeable channelised sand bodies. Importantly, this type of mineralisation is stratigraphically controlled and not constrained by claim boundaries. Academic work, combined with Myriad’s recent high-resolution geophysics, suggests sinuous channel systems trending broadly west–east and migrating down-dip basinward. On that basis, it is reasonable to interpret that Myriad historically held more of the drilled “core” of the system, while NovaCore’s ground could represent along-strike and down-dip continuation. This is an interpretation rather than a confirmed fact, but it is consistent with the geological model.

What's important to remember here. And maybe just conjecture.

https://myriaduranium.com/myriad-uranium-appoints-douglas-christopherson-to-technical-committee/

NovaCore's board of directors include Neil Herbert (Founder & Chairman) and Douglas Christopherson (Founder& Technical Advisor) both of whom played key roles in the management of AIM and TSX listed Uramin Inc. which was sold for US$2.5 billion.

And not only is Douglas Christopherson involved in Red Basin Geology Interpretation, he was also involved in Copper Mountain from 2024 which is around the time Novacore started staking ground in Red Basin.

Https://8vc.com/about-us

https://www.overmatch.vc

Https://investingnews.com/myriad-uranium-to-sell-red-basin-uranium-project-for-us-2-5-million-retain-10-free-carried-interest-and-enter-into-strategic-alliance-with-a-new-venture-backed-by-leading-u-s-technologists/

Subatomic CEO, Timothy Chilleri commented: "We are thrilled to partner with Tom and the Myriad board using a new model oriented around partnership and American uranium production. This partnership with Myriad Uranium is a defining milestone for the company. As power generation demand soars, the world is experiencing a structural paradigm shift that will reshape economies for decades to come. Uranium is the essential feedstock powering nearly 10% of global electricity needs. As the megatrends of energy and decarbonization accelerate, nuclear power will play an increasingly larger role. We are excited to partner with Myriad to advance the Project while exploring opportunities for resource growth."

About Subatomic

Subatomic Industries Corporation is backed by 8VC and Overmatch Ventures combining technical mining expertise with a disciplined, technology-forward approach to resource development.

We need to find out who Sub Atomic Red Basin LLC are

Myriad Uranium sells New Mexico project to tech venture for 6X return

https://www.mining.com/myriad-uranium-sells-new-mexico-project-to-tech-venture-for-6x-return/

Myriad Uranium (CSE: M) plans to sell its Red Basin project in New Mexico to a new mining tech venture and partner with it on other uranium opportunities.

In a statement Thursday, the Canadian uranium explorer said it will sell all claims comprising the property to Subatomic Industries, which is backed by 8VC and Overmatch Ventures, for $2.5 million cash and retain a 10% free-carried interest on the project.

The parties will also form a strategic alliance respecting exploration and development of other projects beyond Red Basin, Myriad said.

IF this links to Neil Herbert / Novacore, then this could become VERY interesting

Https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/revitalising-south-africas-gold-legacy-metals-ones-strategic-long-ww1we/?trackingId=coXLpa96Rtit5Q2Ltkdteg%3D%3D

This article gives you the best take on it. Or certainly one angle.

And just as a point of ref in that court summary from the Facebook post..

"Lions Bay Resources is managed by the Salamander Mining Group, led by former Harmony Gold chief executive Graham Briggs, alongside senior industry executives Lloyd Birrell and Deon Robbertze."

Just FYI

To get anywhere near 3.1p Catalyst Stack ( What if anything actually moves this) Apart from a bloody rocket

Stepping back from day-to-day price action, feels like MET1 is less about any single asset and more about a stack of catalysts that need to start landing.

Here’s how I’m currently thinking about it, and apologies if I've missed something (PGE etc):

Near-term / market-moving

EV1 – Chikundo soils + drill strategy (first real geological validation)

Lions Bay / Vantage Goldfields (court outcome + cogeneration plant decision)

EV1 – financing + Chilalo licence (arguably the biggest overhang right now)

Strategic / narrative building

Uranium platform and possibly Helium (Rift 2026 IPO):

Novacore permitting + drilling (Red Basin)

DISA remediation angle

EU Strategic Project designation + broader nickel strategy (incl. potential Råna repositioning)

Optionality

Swales gold – potential JV or partner

Fidelity Minerals (Huaquillas, Peru) – high-grade narrative but needs scale/continuity

Financial / portfolio realisation

CTL + Fulcrum – crystallisation, warrants, proving NAV vs reality

Big picture, the market doesn’t seem to be pricing NAV — it’s pricing execution risk and funding uncertainty.

So for me, the re-rate likely needs:

→ a Tier 1 catalyst (e.g. EV1 funding or Vantage clarity)

→ alongside a Tier 2 validation (uranium, nickel, or external partner)

Until then, feels like we stay in this “prove it” phase with someone exiting and someone absorbing or accumulating

Interested if others see a different order of importance or think I’ve missed anything.

What I also have one eye on is the share incentive plan announced 16/02/26

MET1’s Tranche 2 from how I read it requires achieving a market capitalisation at least 50% higher than 2 January 2026, assessed using either the closing share price on 31 December 2026 or the average VWAP across 2026, which implies an effective hurdle of roughly ~3.10p, and while the inclusion of a year-end closing price test technically allows the target to be met by a strong finish to the year, the more meaningful dynamic surely is the VWAP calculation, where arguably time works against management: the longer the share price remains at lower levels, the more those prices are embedded into the annual average, leaving fewer trading days to lift it, meaning that as the year progresses the share price needed to achieve the same VWAP increases materially, so although a late-stage spike could theoretically do the job on the KPI, the more credible and repeatable path has to be sustained rerate driven by underlying developments, rather than a short-term move. So they're either confident they have news flow to do this, or just accept the fact that they won't meet the KPI.

If that makes sense

So essentially the Vantage Business Rescue process is awaiting judgement and next steps. Which I assume they will either delay announcement on the Newcastle Cogeneration plant until there is some resolution on the judgement. The decision on next step on the cogeneration plant from memory was due on 28th Feb as either an extension or yes / no we're going to buy it type of scenario. The Barberton Mine in Particular probably their first port of call IF legal process is successful, and deal with flooding and challenges with Lily further down the line. There are all kinds of Section 11 issues and so on they would have to deal with, so none of this as far as I can see is simple. There is also the matter of Bosveld mine and a historical loan that has passed from Salamander to Lions Bay Capital and seemingly now used as security against MET1 / LBI loan (as well as equity in Fidelity minerals etc etc etc).So Bosveld Mine debt is also apparently a legal process (which was secured against tailings) although I can't find any evidence of any legal process (and I've looked) So if Vantage bid fails, I would assume they have "other options" for feedstock for the roaster strategy within say 300km or so of Newcastle). I suspect with recent "liquidity event" lots of stock changing hands that this is one of the biggest contributing factors to trading patterns.

Forward Ever

So below was a post on Facebook - Lily Mine Barberton Workers Group .

I don't have access to a further SSC Letter to Creditors posted on there 4 days ago. There is also some commentary on a Fred Ardense filmed piece REF The Peoples Eye (if you search you'll find a YouTube link - this won't let me post it here. Fred Arendse - SSC Group (Pty) Ltd (historically a bidder and creditor for the Lily and Barbrook mines)

Michelle Barnardt

3 March at 11:39

·

Feedback on Court Hearing 2 March

Court dealt with three issues:

Salamander’s intervention application,

The liquidation application,

Removal application.

The proceedings commenced with arguments from

Salamander in support of its application for leave to intervene. Salamander addressed the Court on its interest in the proceedings and why it ought to be joined (namely that it was merely a formality given that they are an affected person, which we agree with). The Court granted the intervention. This was the only ruling made.

Salamander further argued that a provisional liquidation order would not necessarily be detrimental, because a provisional liquidator would be able to approach the Court for extended powers and, once armed with such powers, could effectively pursue asset sales or transactions like what might occur under business rescue.

Salamander's position is legally correct.

Other parties addressed the practical and legal distinctions between business rescue and liquidation.

The Court then heard arguments in the liquidation application. SSC and Train the Nation that the business rescue has effectively failed, that the companies are no closer to being rehabilitated, and that liquidation is now the appropriate and inevitable outcome.

The BRP (not at court) opposed liquidation and maintained that this was incorrect, referring to the Court’s earlier order, and submitted that the Court had previously anticipated that potential investors might emerge. This has now occurred and based on this the BRP asked the Court to grant a further six months to allow him to engage with new potential offers and funding proposals. Arqomanzi also opposed liquidation, relying on both its previously stated continuity arguments and on technical grounds regarding the bond of security. The most significant portion of the day was devoted to the Removal Application.

Both Gold Stream and Salamander advanced the grounds for removal comprehensively. The issues of reporting failures, accounting, transparency, the handling of the UCL proposal, and the regulatory position were all addressed. Importantly, the BRP conceded that only the board can appoint a new BRP, there had not been proper reporting and that there were failures in accounting. He argued, however, that removal is not a mechanical or “tick-box” exercise and that even if certain shortcomings are established, the Court retains a broad discretion and must make a value judgment based on the overall circumstances. The Court showed particular interest in Gold Stream's submissions concerning the suspension of the licence and was clear that this aspect of the matter engaged the Court’s attention meaningfully. At the conclusion of arguments, the Court reserved judgment.

(No indication was given as to the likely outcome or the anticipated timing of the judgment.)

There is a real possibility that the BRP will be removed however it is impossible to be certain.

I'm assuming Chikundo soil results are close, if they're not disclosing or announcing their EV1 update

Previous holding:

90,885,000 shares → 16.90%

New holding:

157,551,667 shares → 19.29%

Https://api.investi.com.au/api/announcements/ev1/597160a6-909.pdf

Https://metals-one.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/170326-Metals-One-General-Presentation_end_March-2026_FINAL.pdf

Most notable for me Page 6

Ben Stacey – Corporate Finance Manager

Adam Monaco – CFO

Winton Willesee – Business Development

From memory Winton was on the board (non-executive director)

He resigned July 2025

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/MET1/result-of-agm/17157897

Https://api.investi.com.au/api/announcements/ev1/f93335c9-05e.pdf

annoyingly there is a pdf on this link that is a ssc letter to creditors (which i didn't have access to), and i think they've taken the page private rather than public after uploading the pdf.

https://www.********************247831828940483

update could be closer than we think

Weirdly the Nickel narrative is easier, but not at this Nickel price WTFDIK

I think the issue MET1 have is that its a muddled narrative, but yes with a diverse portfolio with multiple catalysts (potentially positive / negative) and arguably its hard tor institutional investors to buy in when it's this complex, and that interest might appear project level etc etc So many investments in private entities Novacore / RIFT Helium / LBR story to name a couple it's also really tough to track. And until steps are taken to Ring Fence some of the assets then it will always be a complex narrative. For me if North American Uranium platform formed, Gold story tidied even with Fidelity becoming a North American vehicle for Swales / Peru exposure. Then South Africa becomes cleaner less risky and hopefully things start getting simpler. WHo bldy knows

Https://otp.tools.investis.com/clients/uk/metals_one_plc/rns/regulatory-story.aspx?cid=2778&newsid=1944910