Member Info for Chilli300

Background

In July 2023, Metals One acquired the entire issued share capital of FinnAust Mining Northern Oy ("FinnAust Northern") from 80 Mile (the "2023 FinnAust Transaction"). FinnAust Northern holds Metals One's Black Schist Project in Finland with a 57.1 Mt nickel-copper-cobalt-zinc JORC Inferred Resource adjacent to one of Europe's largest nickel producers. As set out in the Company's AIM Admission Document dated 25 July 2023 (available on the Company's website at https://metals-one.com/investors/#news), 2,000,000 Deferred Consideration Shares and would have become payable by Metals One to 80 Mile in the future ("FinnAust Deferred Consideration Shares").

Separately, in March 2025, Metals One also entered into an agreement with 80 Mile for the conditional acquisition of the entire issued share capital of FinnAust Mining Finland Oy ("FinnAust Mining Finland") from 80 Mile (the "2025 FinnAust Transaction"). FinnAust Mining Finland holds certain licences comprising the Hammaslahti Copper-Zinc Project and Outokumpu Copper Project and in Finland.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and the payment to 80 Mile of £150,000 cash and costs incurred in connection with the 2025 FinnAust Transaction, the parties have agreed to terminate the 2025 FinnAust Transaction and also for no further consideration to be payable to 80 Mile in respect of the 2023 FinnAust Transaction (including the 2,000,000 FinnAust Deferred Consideration Shares that Metals One would have had to issue).

Accordingly, Metals One is not continuing with the intended acquisition of the Hammaslahti Copper-Zinc Project and Outokumpu Copper Project and in Finland but retains its 93.75% interest in the Black Schist Project in Finland, which the Directors believe offers excellent optionality in a future recovery of the nickel price as evidenced by the Preliminary Economic Assessment announced on 31 January 2025.

Furthermore, 80 Mile is no longer entitled to appoint a Director to the Board of Metals One and therefore the Company will not continue with the appointment of Olga Solovieva as announced on 17 April 2025. 80 Mile is no longer a shareholder in the Company following the disposal of its shares as notified on 16 May 2025.

No that's not the case. As per this RNS https://otp.tools.investis.com/clients/uk/metals_one_plc/rns/regulatory-story.aspx?cid=2778&newsid=1963720

I took my info from https://uk.investing.com/equities/metals-one-ownership

https://metals-one.com/investors/#share-capital-information

I think Bluejay mining is out. They are linked to 80 Mile etc etc

In all honestly I don't think it's even that

The ~71% “institutional ownership” figure that Simply Wall St shows is a bit misleading.

A big portion of that number comes from broker nominee accounts like as Hargreaves Lansdown, Trading212, Barclays, Interactive Brokers and IG. These are typically custody platforms that hold shares on behalf of thousands of retail investors like us, but databases classify them as “institutional” because the nominee is the registered holder.

So data technically shows ~72% institutional ownership, much of that is actually retail investors held through platforms rather than funds investing directly.

There are a few genuine institutional names in the register from what I can see though. Aberdeen Group holds or held around 11%, and Sprott Nickel Miners ETF also holds a small position (~0.36%), which at least shows some specialist mining fund exposure. But it's only something like 4.5m shares

So the register is likely a mix of retail via platforms plus a handful of institutions, rather than anything remotely close to 70%

By reducing the stake from ~6.33% previously to just under 3%, MET1 has effectively removed the ongoing disclosure requirement for normal trading activity. That gives them more flexibility to buy or sell CTL shares without triggering repeated market disclosures, unless they move back above 3%.

Also worth noting the 20m warrants (6p strike to 2030) don’t count toward the disclosure threshold until exercised.

So the partial sale achieved several things at once:

• realised profit

• strengthened cash position

• retained upside via shares + warrants

• and reduced regulatory reporting constraints.

And Ctl (Of which I'm also a shareholder) is probably better off with MEt1 being a smaller part of their share register

The key thing for me is the expiry date. The CTL warrants run until 2030, which gives Metals One several years of optionality on the Laguna Verde project. At 12p the warrants have about £1.2m intrinsic value, but if CTL were to rerate to say 20–25p over the next few years the warrant exposure alone could be worth £3–4m. That’s why it makes sense that MET1 sold some shares but retained all of the warrants — they provide the leverage to a future rerating without committing more capital today.

BuyMeAnother

Roughly speaking yes. MET1 still holds about 5.85m CTL shares which are worth ~£700k at 12p. The interesting part is the 20m warrants with a 6p strike. At 12p those have about 6p intrinsic value each, or ~£1.2m, giving a combined exposure around £1.9m. If CTL were at 15p, the warrants would be worth roughly 9p each (~£1.8m), and the combined exposure would rise to around £2.7m. Of course the warrants would require £1.2m to exercise, but they give MET1 significant leverage to any rerating in CTL.

Fell

It may actually be a bit of both. The company has realised roughly £2m recently from partial disposals in CTL and Fulcrum while still retaining equity and warrants in both. That looks more like capital recycling than forced selling. What makes it more interesting is that the Oak Securities initiation note in early March estimated the company already had around £7–8m cash on the balance sheet. If that figure is broadly accurate, then after the recent disposals MET1 could potentially have around £9m liquidity relative to a ~£20m market cap. That suggests the disposals may be strengthening the balance sheet while keeping upside exposure, which would reduce the need for dilution but also leaves capital available for opportunities like EV1 or developments around Lions Bay.

Bowlers, I completely get it. What for me is interesting is the silence across the entire portfolio. Or they're "very selective" The question is now is are we now going into a new phase, they've obviously crystallised proportions of their investments in CTL (rightly or wrongly, too early / or was their stake sold to a more strategic investor for CTL and that this was the plan between both entities, which is possible post CEOL news?) leaving x number of shares, subject to any post CEOL news selling down if any. LORD mentioned some discussion that a proportion might have been offloaded post announcement (speculative?) and also some evidence of similar strategy with FMET. Both arguably either building a war chest for any LBR / LBI / Vantage Goldfields Business rescue / Cogeneration plant shenanigans or simply adding into the cash reserves and in turn runway? Or that money goes into somewhere like Swales Gold, which has been extremely quiet with zero update on phase one exploration that was mentioned mid 2025.

What's also interesting to me is how their 6% investment in RIFT Helium pre AIM IPO 2026 (discussed) and how Neil Herbert (Novacore) and weirdly a guy called Vincent Hendrickx is involved (companies house. Hendrickx is an "Investor in helium and uranium exploration." and was a Director

at URAMERICA LIMITEDURAMERICA LIMITED

Jan 2007 - May 2013 · 6 yrs 5 mosJan 2007 to May 2013 · 6 yrs 5 mos

Managed all aspects of the business, primarily operations, investor relations, and new business development, as part of the executive team. Then, helped secure a $20M investment from Cameco.

Which might be intriguing to follow if the Uranium side starts becoming a North American platform with a similar Novacore IPO either here or ideally in the states?

Also research Patrick Ambwene Muwowo if you have time....

Also research Dr Patrice Tlhopane Motsepe - ARCH and actually ARM too (African Rainbow Minerals) and how he is linked to EV1

So some big power networks involved

All we can do is sit wait and see how it plays out, or I suppose sell and put money elsewhere. As simple as that

He is Managing Director of EV1 not ex director and obviously executive chair at Met1

She is:

former Member of Parliament

former Deputy Minister

member of the ruling CCM party

Probably helps with Government alignment:

ministry coordination

local government support

community agreements.

State financing discussions? They did mention Sovereign banks when updating on Financing for Chilalo

So would she help on project alignment with national policy / understanding local expectations. And I guess protection of the governments 16% stake in Kudu Graphite.

What's also interesting is that ARCH didn't participate in the latest round of funding as per form 604 https://api.investi.com.au/api/announcements/ev1/0c1f179e-b81.pdf

Full sequence of announcements here - https://evolutionenergyminerals.com.au/asx-announcements/

Be fascinating to study the post-offer share register as it emerges.

Whether they simply didn't participate or sold their rights to a strategic partner or simply to other institutional investors?.

Although it is also linked to the allocation policy and shareholder %'s / Controlling interest limitations

https://api.investi.com.au/api/announcements/ev1/5d94b547-a3a.pdf

Https://evolutionenergyminerals.com.au/board-and-management/

Very Interesting timing on the addition of Dr Mary Mwanjelwa as Country Manager Tanzania & Chair, Kudu Graphite. Tanzanian public policy and governance specialist with extensive experience across government, mining and international development. She served as a Member of the Parliament of Tanzania from 2010 to 2020 and held several senior leadership roles, including Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Deputy Minister of State in the President’s Office responsible for Public Service and Good Governance.

Prior to entering government, Dr Mwanjelwa worked in the resources sector as Senior Liaison Manager for Placer Dome Tanzania (now Barrick Gold) and later as Corporate Director for Population Services International Tanzania. She brings deep expertise in government relations, stakeholder engagement and public policy. etc etc

This about a week (maybe a little more) after Marshall Lee joined as Chief Financial Officer (CFO)

I guess my earlier point "Lord1" is that even if you estimate Washburn at 400k - 600k through the last known point that during the last 6-9 months a lot has happened, and we can't currently definitively project cashburn and how much of that s being offset by crystallising of CTL and FMET as an example. And my communication lines with "management" are now non existent since I started questioning or asking for clarity on the Lions Bay strategy and the risk stack

From the half year report it's around £500k

https://otp.tools.investis.com/clients/uk/metals_one_plc/rns/regulatory-story.aspx?cid=2778&newsid=1991798

You might read it differently

Sorry to disappoint....

Let me know how you get on trying to get in touch with them

So if you estimate cash position at £7m to £8m

Cash burn absolutely zero idea personally right now. The clarity or updates on what I'd call their own projects rather than investments in public or private entities has been minimal to say the least, and wouldn't have the foggiest what exploration spend they have committed to on say Swales Gold, or the Uranium projects.

For me this venture style evolution is lovely when it works on CTL and FMET and soon to see on EV1 I suppose if we get a chikundo update, but from my own personal opinion I've never liked the Lions Bay Capital (LBI), LBR and Fidelity angle, too "murky" for me. If they succeed on Vantage bid and in turn actually need the cogeneration plant then great, but for me it's a lot of investment in something that seems highly dependent on a messy Business Rescue Process that's already taken 10 years and still unresolved in SA. With any loans secured (whatever that actually means in the real world) mostly secured agains a Bosveld loan that's been passed from entity to entity over at least 5 years, equity in Fidelity (which historically has it's own social acceptance issues). I have zero doubt that there is a huge amount of gold, silver and copper in Peru, but for me they're risking a very big biscuit.

The one for me is Red Basin and Neil Herbert Involvement and my hope is that they actually have a strategy to form a North American Uranium Platform out there which then arguably tidies all the uranium plays into one vehicle and start simplifying "what" Metals one" actually is now.

If it was me I'd also wrap any gold involvement (Swales) into Fidelity (tightly held) and let that be an Americas play.

The nickel plays as largely depended on Nickel price and if EU think it's worth the bother.

Until LBI / LBR story plays out I think even crystallising CTL and FMET is literally just noise.

I have no idea

TheLord1 by that do you mean odds. Or number of projects out of the portfolio that might have a degreee of success?

Or perhaps positioned more as "If investors follow a network of related companies, they may rotate capital depending on where the immediate catalyst sits."

Never know some "in the know" might have taken money out of MET1 to put into CTL and now they might even put it back into MET1 https://www.oak-securities.com/clients

If you look at their client list... Just fun conjecture ... Not that there would ever be any whispering in anyone's ear anywhere

Https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13158110/persons-with-significant-control