Member Info for Chilli300

Lol AllThatGlitters2, I would bore you to death !

So the gentleman asking the questions (Trollip) is from ActionSA. You could argue now that there is political momentum around “ending the stalemate.” as well as legal momentum. But there has been both in the past and it hasn't worked and there has been counter litigation and failure for financing to materialise. But IF LBR linked entities have proven funding of which the BRP has stated that in court (with definitive timelines) then maybe just maybe this time it could just work.....

Below gives context

https://x.com/Action4SA/status/2019422379189911898

Https://pmg.org.za/search/?q=vantage+goldfields

If you want to go further back

3. The mine is currently under a Business Rescue process, and the matter has also been the subject of various court proceedings. These processes must be taken into account in relation to any decisions concerning funding or the implementation of recovery operations at the site.

4. The Department relied onfirmations from the BRP. documentation provided by the company as well as the Business Rescue Practitioners. The Department is unaware of other applicants on this matter, that have waited over 12 months. In a Business Rescue situation, reliance is also placed on con

5. (a) The Department continues to engage with the Business Rescue Practitioner (BRP) in order to receive updates on the progress of the business rescue process.

(b) The evaluation of potential investors or companies that may fund the reopening of the mine is undertaken by the BRP as part of the business rescue process.

(c) The Department will continue to engage with the BRP and receive regular feedback to ensure that the process proceeds in accordance with the applicable legal and regulatory framework.

Reply:

With regard to reports of illegal mining activities in and around Barberton, law enforcement authorities have been alerted given the criminal nature of such activities. Law enforcement operations are currently underway to address and put an end to these activities.

The Department has also initiated a process to take the inquest judgment on review. This decision is informed by the fact that no illegal mining activities had previously been reported to the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources (DMPR), as alleged in the judgment. Furthermore, based on the layout of the underground workings, there is no evidence to suggest that illegal mining activities could have contributed to the collapse of the approximately thirty-metre-high crown pillar. During the Mine Health and Safety Act (MHSA) inquiry, the employer also conceded that the pillar was not accessible due to its height and the design of the mining layout.

It should further be noted that the Department does not have direct jurisdiction over illegal mining activities, as these constitute criminal acts that fall within the mandate of law enforcement agencies.

The interest of the Department is to see the mine being operational so that the remains of the mine workers can be retrieved. Section 47 is not the first option in this case. The Department is continuously engaging with the BRP to impress upon them the need to ensure progress.

2. The Department has been informed of the inquest judgment as well as the Section 72 Inquiry Report. The Section 72 report was referred to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) with recommendations for prosecution. These recommendations include the possible prosecution of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Operating Officer (COO), and mine management, as they bear responsibility for safety at the mine.

In addition, the Department imposed an administrative fine on the employer for contravening the provisions of the Mine Health and Safety Act, 1996 (Act No. 29 of 1996), as amended.

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

Trollip, Mr A to ask the Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources

1) In light of the findings of the inquest judgment that illegal mining activities went uncurbed for years at the Lily Mine, including ongoing reports of illegal mining and environmental degradation, what are the reasons that he has not exercised his powers under section 47 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, Act 28 of 2002, to suspend and/or cancel the relevant mining right; 2) Whether he has been informed of the (a) inquest judgment and (b) Section 72 Investigation Report which found the mine management, SA Police Service and his department negligent and recommended prosecution; if not, why not; if so, what are the reasons that his department has not encouraged and supported the National Prosecuting Authority to institute prosecutions arising from the specified findings; 3) What are the reasons that his department has not committed funding towards the retrieval of the bodies at the mine site, given the safety risks and the reluctance of potential external funders to finance recovery operations in an unstable and unsafe area; 4) (a) on what basis did he approve the section 11 transfer in 2024 to Vantage Goldfields SA (Pty) Ltd, given concerns that the specified company has not demonstrated sufficient financial backing, transformation compliance, and/or a credible operational plan, while other applicants with financial and technical capacity have reportedly waited longer than 12 months for approvals, (b) what criteria were applied and (c) what are the relevant details of the full record of decision; 5) What (a) are the reasons that he and/or his department continue to engage with the business rescue practitioner and Arqomanzi (Pty) Ltd, despite concerns regarding the specified company’s lack of funding and its role in delaying and/or complicating the business rescue process, (b) due diligence has been undertaken and (c) steps will be taken to ensure that the business rescue process is not undermined? NW484E

THE REPLY

1. (a) The Business Rescue Practitioner (BRP) is currently assessing the recent offer made by a company and getting approval from the creditors for Vintage Goldfields Company to be taken out of business rescue. Thereafter the BRP will follow due process including application in terms section 11 of the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act to the new company.

(b) There were reports of invasion of Lily Mine by members of the community and former workers. They were demanding that the business rescue process be expediated so that Vintage Goldfields Company to be taken out of business rescue.

(c) There is no work done to stabilise the site because the mine is still under business rescue.

(d) The site is being kept secure by business rescue practitioner to prevent damage and/or loss of life.

2. The Business Rescue Practitioner is responsible for the assessment of the availability of funding by any preferred bidder or potential company to take the Vintage Goldfields Company (Lily Mine) out of business rescue.

3. (a) The successful company will have to settle the creditors claims which will be inclusive of the salaries and wages of employees, and

(b) The mine will be reopened by sinking a decline to 74 Level and a new ventilation shaft, to be able to access the underground workings.

(c) Thereafter the mine will have to search for the container and the remains of the deceased workers. This will also ensure that the families get closure and bury the remains of their family members. The Department had requested Vantage Goldfields to submit plan on how to re-open the mine which included the items in (b), above.

4. The business rescue process is governed by the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008. The Department has been engaging the BRP and Vantage Goldfields to ensure that the business rescue process is finalised.

5. The first phase will be the re-opening of the mine by sinking a decline to 74 Level (at vertical distance of about 80 metres form surface) and a new ventilation shaft, to be able to access the underground workings. This is expected to take 9 to 12 months. The second phase will be to make the underground workings safe and properly equipped before the search of the container and the remains can commence. The time required to search of the container will depend of the extent of the fall of ground, and the amount of rock that will have to be loaded/ removed to get access to the container. It is difficult to provide timeframes estimates.

The Department will closely monitor the planned timeframes of the successful company and provide feedback to the families and stakeholders.

THE QUESTION

25 May 2026 - NW2267

Profile picture: Trollip, Mr A

Trollip, Mr A to ask the Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources

1) Whether his department has conducted any formal assessment of the (a) current business rescue process relating to the Lily Mine and associated entities and (b) reported invasion of the Lily Mine by members of the community and former workers; if not, why not; if so, what are the findings of the specified assessment and measures have been taken to (a) stabilise the site and (b) prevent further damage and/or loss of life; 2) Whether his department has verified the availability of funding by any preferred bidder and/or entity proposing to acquire the assets of the affected companies; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; 3) Whether his department has been informed of any alternative proposals with demonstrable funding to (a) settle creditor claims, (b) reopen the mine and (c) facilitate the retrieval of the container with the remains of the deceased workers; if not, why not; if so, what steps has his department taken in this regard; 4) Whether his department has intervened or intends to intervene in terms of its regulatory powers as custodian of mineral resources to ensure that the business rescue process complies with applicable legislation and serves the public interest; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details; 5) Whether he will furnish Mr R A P Trollip with a clear, time-bound plan for the retrieval of the container holding the remains of the three deceased mineworkers; if not, why not; if so, what are the timelines and responsible entities? NW2373E

Https://pmg.org.za/committee-question/37815/

The more I look at this, the less it feels like a financing issue and more like a Section 11 next step.

Workers are being paid, cession structures are already in place, Lions Bay still seems willing to fund things, and they’re openly talking about Barbrook restart timelines and operational plans.

That doesn’t really sound like: “we can’t finance this.”

Even the vantage commentary and counter RNS' seem to have been quiet, so far anyway.

Maling’s wording :“waiting on the Section 11 notice from the Minerals Department.”

Not looking for funding. Not reviewing options. Not seeking partners. Just waiting. Although all of that might be the case too, but if you go from what he says it feels like the commercial framework probably already exists, but Section 11 is the final gate everyone is fighting around. And once that lands, the balance of power could shift pretty quickly.

Bowlers, % of trades at the ask doesn’t automatically mean the SP has to rise. It depends how much stock the MMs are feeding into the market at that price point and whether there’s a larger seller in the background.

On LBR quite possibly yes

So over past 6 months I've been working on the historical docs that exist.

Red Basin does look more like a district-scale sandstone uranium reinterpretation built around old DOE-era basin geology and modern claim consolidation.

The key themes repeated through the Chamberlin / McLemore work are: preserved roll-front uranium systems, paleosol-hosted mineralisation, groundwater migration, fluvial channel complexes and the idea that much of the exposed surface mineralisation may represent oxidised/leached remnants, while preserved uranium could remain down-dip below the water table.

That is apparently classic sandstone uranium logic. And I'm certainly no geologist. Once you overlay the NovaCore claims against the DOE favourable area maps, NURE airborne uranium data and geological layers, the staking starts looking far more deliberate than random land grabbing. The geometry is probably the biggest tell. The claims form long corridor-style strips and broad basinward blocks rather than clustering around tiny historical workings. It looks like someone interpreted a basin-scale hydrogeological model first and then staked accordingly. Probably Douglas Christopherson.

NC-311 in particular stands out to me. It sits inside the DOE favourable corridor, along the interpreted fluvial trend and near some of the stronger nearby uranium responses from the NURE overlay work. Importantly, it also seems positioned basinward/down-dip from the historical Red Basin occurrence itself exactly where Chamberlin suggested preserved roll-front mineralisation may survive below the water table.

I also think the ISR angle is becoming clearer. That does not mean ISR viability is proven — far from it — but the combination of shallow paleosol depth, channelised sandstones, broad basin geometry and preserved groundwater concepts increasingly looks ISR-testable rather than conventional hard-rock uranium logic. None of this proves economic uranium exists. There is still no compliant resource, no drill program and no hydrogeological validation.

The next thing that really matters now is probably not another presentation. It is permits and drilling.

https://www.sedarplus.ca/csa-party/records/document.html?id=6ff1a4bdef10fb34dae9dfcdedda30b2dcde81397131c969c0e432453bda85ad#:~:text=MYRIAD%20RED%20BASIN%20LLC%2C%20a,BASIN%2C%20LLC%2C%20a%20Nevada%20limited

“Buyer may have developed its own theories and interpretations regarding the potential for mineral development of the Claims…”

“remaining 14 square miles” (Chamberlin)

"“Retained interest: 10% free carried interest in the Red Basin Uranium Project and an agreed area of mutual interest comprising the surrounding acreage at Red Basin.”

Https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1129/US/socorro/

Becomes interesting when you overlay with ground staking strategy

Claim Latitude Longitude

NC-003 34.3722 -107.9293

NC-004 34.3722 -107.9250

NC-005 34.3722 -107.9293

NC-006 34.3722 -107.9250

NC-018 34.3610 -107.9245

NC-028 34.3536 -107.9242

NC-038 34.3426 -107.9238

NC-048 34.3354 -107.9237

NC-058 34.3281 -107.9237

NC-070 34.3209 -107.9237

NC-071 34.3795 -107.9120

NC-080 34.3722 -107.9205

NC-090 34.3611 -107.9201

NC-100 34.3537 -107.9198

NC-110 34.3427 -107.9194

NC-118 34.3390 -107.9194

NC-119 34.3391 -107.9151

NC-128 34.3282 -107.9193

NC-130 34.3282 -107.9193

NC-138 34.3209 -107.9193

NC-140 34.3209 -107.9193

NC-150 34.3795 -107.9077

NC-151 34.3796 -107.9033

NC-160 34.3574 -107.9070

NC-170 34.3501 -107.9067

NC-180 34.3428 -107.9065

NC-190 34.3319 -107.9065

NC-200 34.3210 -107.9065

NC-201 34.3210 -107.9022

NC-220 34.3575 -107.8983

NC-230 34.3502 -107.8981

NC-240 34.3428 -107.8979

NC-250 34.3319 -107.8979

NC-260 34.3576 -107.8897

NC-270 34.3502 -107.8895

NC-280 34.3429 -107.8893

NC-290 34.3320 -107.8893

NC-300 34.3211 -107.8893

NC-301 34.3212 -107.8850

NC-311 34.3833 -107.8730

NC-330 34.3650 -107.8769

NC-380 34.3212 -107.8807

NC-409 34.3106 -107.8679

NC-410 34.3468 -107.8636

NC-430 34.3286 -107.8635

NC-652 34.3470 -107.8250

NC-656 34.3434 -107.8249

NC-659 34.3397 -107.8292

NC-670 34.3325 -107.8248

NC-688 34.3180 -107.8248

NC-705 34.3397 -107.8206

NC-711 34.3361 -107.8206

NC-729 34.3216 -107.8205

NC-732 34.3215 -107.8162

NC-762 34.3502 -107.7949

Https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1129/US/socorro/

If anyone wants to research

Core Geological / DOE / Academic Sources

Chamberlin (1981) – Red Basin Uranium Model / Figure 4

(Primary source behind the “30–45 Mlb” conceptual model and preserved roll-front interpretation)

https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/openfile/details.cfml?Volume=138

McLemore (2011) – Red Basin / Pietown Uranium Discussion

(ISR comments, roll-front discussion, district geology)

https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/openfile/details.cfml?Volume=543

New Mexico Bureau of Geology – Uranium Resources

(Regional uranium context and basin geology)

https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/resources/uranium/

NURE / USGS Geophysical Sources

USGS OFR 2009-1129 – Socorro Quadrangle NURE Data

(Aeromagnetic + aeroradiometric survey metadata and datasets)

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1129/

USGS Aerial Gamma-Ray Surveys

(National uranium reconnaissance program)

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1999/ofr-99-0562/

USGS Aeromagnetic Datasets

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/ofr-02-361/

Helium / New Mexico Helium Geology

Broadhead – New Mexico Helium Systems

(Radiogenic helium migration, basement faulting, regional helium context)

https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/openfile/downloads/400-499/483/OFR-483.pdf

Broadhead – Helium in New Mexico Basins

https://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2018/11095broadhead/

Claim / Mapping Sources

The Diggings – Catron County / T2N R10W Claims

(Useful for visualising NovaCore staking geometry)

https://thediggings.com/usa/new-mexico/catron-nm084/township-t2n-r10w

MLRS (BLM Mineral & Land Records System)

(For checking active claims, claim ownership, filings and updates)

https://mlrs.blm.gov/

Roll-Front Uranium Deposits – USGS Overview

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs104-97/

ISR Uranium Mining Overview – World Nuclear Association

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/mining-of-uranium/in-situ-leach-mining-of-uranium.aspx

Crevasse Canyon Formation

https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/UnitRefs/CrevasseCanyonRefs_7557.html

Baca Formation

https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/UnitRefs/BacaRefs_575.html

The interesting thing for me now is that the 3p+ area doesn't feel like some random aspirational number pulled from thin air. Oak arrived at a 3.3p SOTP valuation and, while almost certainly commissioned/paid for by the company in some form, the actual methodology still felt relatively grounded rather than wildly promotional. Most of it was based around listed holdings, invested capital, replacement value and straightforward carrying assumptions, without assigning huge upside to things like Red Basin, DISA or broader uranium platform.

At the same time, management’s own incentive structure also seems to align around a very similar area. Using the Jan 2026 base reference, tranche 2 effectively does point toward roughly 3.1p adjusted territory based on sustained performance rather than a one-day spike.

So you now have Oak SOTP around 3.3p, incentive tranche alignment around 3.1p adjusted and then moderate catalyst execution pointing somewhere in the 3–5p range. That’s why I keep coming back to the idea that the market at 1.5p is still basically pricing for very little to work.

Like I said I’m not even really including Black Schist, Rana or near-term Swales success in that thinking. To me the nearer-term focus is much more around KC progression, DISA data, CTL warrants becoming valuable, EV1 rerating enough to recover initial investment and the Red Basin / NovaCore story continuing to build. But as ever WTFDIK

I actually think it's healthy Bowlers12

When I was working 18 hour days over the last few weeks and was seeing all the ramping drivel and all seems are buys and all that I really couldn't be arsed to read it all. I think Longtimeinvestor gives a balanced view and yes somewhat bearish but again MET1 have diluted the hell out of investors over the last 12 months and have a high risk strategy with Vantage, so to a degree he is right, and blindly shaking MET1 pom poms is not the way to go either.

There isn't a single post I've done which is either a recommendation to buy or sell. And I think that's important too as everyone has their own risk appetite at various price points.

Longtimeinvestor I think I'm being a lot more conservative than that

I think I have 5 catalysts on a list that could work. And I stress "could" not "will"

1. Monetisation of the 20 million Cleantech Lithium Warrants

2. Take out % of initial investment in EV1 with free carry into any news on Graphite or most likely Copper side

3. DISA progress with some meaningful data

4. Some random Subatomic Industries link to Red Basin and Novacore IPO impact

5. Cogeneration Plant progresses as a strategy with power / steam / off take power / off take perhaps linked to Bosveld Gold debt Loan

So they're arguably achievable to x degree

I don't attribute any meaningful success to Nickel -Black Schist / Rana

I also think Swales looks like closer to 2027 maybe 2028 realistically although they've mentioned earlier work which I don't believe.

Fidelity Las Huaquillas Project might somehow get local buy in because of illegal mining issues and if they keep to 350 tonne a day mine and mill operation they might be able to get away with it. Environmental permits have existed in the past so plausible. If I see social acceptance then that could be massive. From what I can see there hasn't been any pushback to the access road, but again we haven't had a real update on that.

So I separated out the cogeneration plant as a stand alone, and then following on from that you have Barberton / MIMCO and the Vantage mess. of which if it works great. The section 11 should be straightforward and linked to retrieval of the container (a pre condition of Section 11) Politically parliament need this to work now, whether its LBI or someone else that manages to get it over the line eventually is another matter. Although feels at moment that LBI are essentially buying creditor votes themselves by paying ex employees debt off (cession arrangement ), and regardless of who takes the vantage deal ultimately across the line they at the very least will become a post-commencement funder.

So even if the top 5 I mentioned above work that takes you to 3p - 5p range

If Barberton works then you could get to the 7p range with AIM emotion and LBI level trickery and free carry element to that then anything between 7p - 12p is possible

It's currently priced for none of that to work. Which is stating the bldy obvious

Yes you could look at other bits like RIFT - but the money involved there is minimal. And Lillefjellklumpen Project as far as I've researched is just a geological oddity rather than anything that could be meaningfully economic or transformational

Longtimeinvestor I think I'm being a lot more conservative than that

I think I have 5 catalysts on a list that could work. And I stress "could" not "will"

1. Monetisation of the 20 million Cleantech Lithium Warrants

2. Take out % of initial investment in EV1 with free carry into any news on Graphite or most likely Copper side

3. DISA progress with some meaningful data

4. Some random Subatomic Industries link to Red Basin and Novacore IPO impact

5. Cogeneration Plant progresses as a strategy with power / steam / off take power / off take perhaps linked to Bosveld Gold debt Loan

So they're arguably achievable to x degree

I don't attribute any meaningful success to Nickel -Black Schist / Rana

I also think Swales looks like closer to 2027 maybe 2028 realistically although they've mentioned earlier work which I don't believe.

Fidelity Las Huaquillas Project might somehow get local buy in because of illegal mining issues and if they keep to 350 tonne a day mine and mill operation they might be able to get away with it. Environmental permits have existed in the past so plausible. If I see social acceptance then that could be massive. From what I can see there hasn't been any pushback to the access road, but again we haven't had a real update on that.

So I separated out the cogeneration plant as a stand alone, and then following on from that you have Barberton / MIMCO and the Vantage mess. of which if it works great. The section 11 should be straightforward and linked to retrieval of the container (a pre condition of Section 11) Politically parliament need this to work now, whether its LBI or someone else that manages to get it over the line eventually is another matter. Although feels at moment that LBI are essentially buying creditor votes themselves by paying ex employees debt off (cession arrangement ), and regardless of who takes the vantage deal ultimately across the line they at the very least will become a post-commencement funder.

So even if the top 5 I mentioned above work that takes you to 3p - 5p range

If Barberton works then you could get to the 7p range with AIM emotion and LBI level trickery and free carry element to that then anything between 7p - 12p is possible

It's currently priced for none of that to work. Which is stating the bldy obvious

Yes you could look at other bits like RIFT - but the money involved there is minimal. And Lillefjellklumpen Project as far as I've researched is just a geological oddity rather than anything that could be meaningfully economic or transformational

Https://www.sedarplus.ca/csa-party/records/document.html?id=6ff1a4bdef10fb34dae9dfcdedda30b2dcde81397131c969c0e432453bda85ad#:~:text=SUBATOMIC%20RED%20BASIN%2C%20LLC%2C,Name%3A%20Timothy%20Chilleri

Https://www.subatomicind.com

Minimalist theme continues...

Fascinating

If it's not 7 - 12p I'll be disappointed