Member Info for FloatingBye

Hello Hogsnipe,

Bravo!

As the company is the only official source that can provide clarity following the RNS, I have sent multiple communications seeking further information but have received no response to date.

I suspect many other shareholders have made similar enquiries and are awaiting clarification.

Hello Oscar,

From my post on March 10th following the shareholder meeting that I attended:

Personal interpretation of the discussion (opinion):

* The Cascade equity investment could take a few months to complete.

* The ABSA debt facility, supported by the EXIM guarantee, may follow approximately 6–9 months after the equity component is finalised.

* A binding offtake agreement could occur at any point, depending on the board’s discretion and prevailing market conditions.

* The target of commissioning by the end of 2027 appears optimistic, given the number of steps that remain in the development and financing process.

Purely based on what I heard in the meeting and the past history of open to interpretation information from the company.

Chinasyndrome,

It was because a 2018 RNS was being referenced I asked the question.

It wasn’t clear why we are revisiting this and if shareholders should draw parallels?

Referencing the 2018 RNS about the resignation and the arrival of Paul Atherley naturally invites comparisons between then and now, people might read it in different ways:

History repeats itself angle — could imply a cycle of boardroom reshuffles, big promises, and recurring shareholder disappointment.

Same as the old king angle — could suggest leadership changes may ultimately produce the same outcomes or culture.

Support/tribute angle — you could simply be acknowledging Atherley’s role in building the company and expressing concern about where things are heading without him.

Hello Chinasyndrome,

Is your post inferring that Paul Atherley is going to step down?

From my post following the shareholder meeting on 9/3/26:

It was further stated that the scale of the proposed investment created complications in relation to takeover threshold percentages if the investment were made directly at the plc level. As a result, the structure was moved to Sable in order to avoid these regulatory complications.

It was also clearly communicated that the restructuring had no connection to concerns about not achieving the required 75% shareholder approval for the original resolution. This suggestion was categorically rejected during the discussion.

OscarGolf,

I didn’t hear Paul Atherley say it was 2 large US funds.

I have documented:

“It's two very, very large funds, bigger than our existing shareholders. Our existing shareholders are FSDA and M&G. These are funds considerably larger than those.”

I didn’t hear any reference to the funds being US, however, I could be mistaken .

give a few details. I think you'll all be very happy.

This isn't going to be some private equity firm you've ever heard of.

China,

Please could you confirm which RNS references the ‘Oman SWF’ providing the finance?

Apologies in advance but I’m struggling to find this.

Hogsnipe,

Do you have a view on how someone could build a significant position greater than 3% without having to disclose it?

Mumbles,

To compound this, under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and related Pentagon regulations:

The U.S. military is currently restricted from sourcing rare earth elements and critical components from China (and a few other countries considered adversaries).

This applies especially to: magnets (used in jets, missiles, radar) processed rare earth materials (not just raw ore).

The restriction is about the entire supply chain, not just mining.

These rules are tightening over time. A key deadline is around 2027, when stricter sourcing requirements fully kick in for many defence systems.

OscarGolf:

This is what was communicated by Paul Atherley at the March 9th meeting:

With regard to offtake agreements, it was communicated that the company is not currently committing to a binding offtake arrangement. The view expressed was that delaying such agreements represents a prudent strategy given the strong current interest in rare earth supply and the anticipated growth in demand. Reference was also made to ex-China pricing trends, suggesting that rare earth prices are expected to strengthen. Consequently, the view communicated was that delaying binding offtake commitments could allow the company to secure more favourable pricing terms.

As stated MAA86, this is purely my opinion based on past experience as a Pensana shareholder.

I hope this helpful for everyone on this board.

With regard to offtake agreements, it was communicated that the company is not currently committing to a binding offtake arrangement. The view expressed was that delaying such agreements represents a prudent strategy given the strong current interest in rare earth supply and the anticipated growth in demand. Reference was also made to ex-China pricing trends, suggesting that rare earth prices are expected to strengthen. Consequently, the view communicated was that delaying binding offtake commitments could allow the company to secure more favourable pricing terms.

The 2027 production timeline was addressed during the meeting, with the objective stated as achieving commissioning towards the end of 2027.

On the subject of downstream processing and broader supply chain participation, there was no clear indication that the company intends to own downstream processing assets.

My interpretation of the discussion is that the strategic approach is to focus on building partnerships across the supply chain.

Specifically, this could involve working with midstream processing partners such as Solvay, eVac and ReElement, while also developing relationships with OEMs, with examples including Apple and Microsoft.

The intention would be to maximise value extraction from the underlying resource across the supply chain, particularly during periods of favourable pricing, without necessarily owning or operating the entire mine-to-magnet production pathway.

Personal interpretation of the discussion (opinion):

* The Cascade equity investment could take a few months to complete.

* The ABSA debt facility, supported by the EXIM guarantee, may follow approximately 6–9 months after the equity component is finalised.

* A binding offtake agreement could occur at any point, depending on the board’s discretion and prevailing market conditions.

* The target of commissioning by the end of 2027 appears optimistic, given the number of steps that remain in the development and financing process.

I attended the Pensana meeting yesterday.

Here is my interpretation and summary of the key points communicated during the discussion.

It was communicated that the Coola project is no longer a core focus, primarily due to the additional drilling success at Longonjo, which has further reinforced the company’s strategic emphasis on that asset.

Regarding the restructuring of the strategic investment—from Pensana plc to Sable—it was communicated that the strategic investor wished to ensure that sufficient equity was provided to fully fund all requirements necessary to bring the mine into production. This includes contingency provisions, the costs associated with a NASDAQ listing, and the incorporation of the heavy rare earth circuit.

It was further stated that the scale of the proposed investment created complications in relation to takeover threshold percentages if the investment were made directly at the plc level. As a result, the structure was moved to Sable in order to avoid these regulatory complications.

It was also clearly communicated that the restructuring had no connection to concerns about not achieving the required 75% shareholder approval for the original resolution. This suggestion was categorically rejected during the discussion.

While no firm timeline was provided for when the $150 million strategic investment will be received, it was confirmed that legal documentation from Cascade has been received and the process has formally commenced. It was emphasised that there is no perceived risk of the strategic investor withdrawing from the transaction. It was also highlighted that processing the long-form documentation at the Sable level, should assist in accelerating the overall completion process, due to lesser governance required.

The NASDAQ listing is no longer expected to occur within the originally anticipated six-month timeframe. The reasoning communicated was that the parties behind Cascade will lead this strategy, given their proven track record of successfully bringing companies to major US exchanges. This initiative is expected to progress once the equity component has been completed and the strategic investor has obtained representation at board level.

When asked about the identity of the parties behind Cascade, it was communicated that they wish to remain anonymous at this stage, and that those involved from Pensana have specifically been instructed not to disclose their identities.

It was also noted that once the equity component is in place, this should facilitate the progression of the ABSA debt facility. In combination with an EXIM debt guarantee, the expectation is that this will unlock more favourable terms.