Member Info for HarChris

I stand by my point beyondthesea, if you'd asked clued up shareholders what they'd like to have seen by the end of 2025 it would be more than the four events you mentioned, especially as they were all concluded a few months after suspension. My comment was to look at the share price on Jan 31st (0.68p) and assume it was based on investor expectations. On the operational front things have been slow, imagine NEO was trading and there hadn't been an RNS of note since May... obviously sentiment wouldn't be booming. At the same time 0.68p was a five year low and the share price had been briefly above a penny just a few weeks prior. Add in what's happened with gold and the very positive uranium backdrop and I think with a couple of good RNS' in the lead up to relisting (which should be v soon, surely?!) then it's possible NEO actually rises off the bat rather than falls back.

The best of luck to you SYN, I happen to have had another top up earlier this week rather than any thought of selling but different views make a market and all!

Two main factors at play -

(i) is the progress over the suspended period what the market expected over said timeframe or is it better or worse? For me it's worse, I'd have liked more progress on the debt financing front rather than the placing that's coming next

(ii) how has the commodity backdrop changed since suspension, the same, better or worse? Well it's undeniably better, gold was seen as potentially 'toppy' on Feb 1st and yet it has risen from $2800/oz to $4200/oz, amazing. Uranium price has risen from ~$71/lbs to $78/lbs so around a 10% gain. Less transformational but positive all the same with the U backdrop ever improving.

So overall difficult to gauge what the immediate share price reaction will be when this eventually relists.

The are all paid in shares and there’s also options starting at 0.5p for Nick and Mike assuming Mike still gets to benefit from the others making a success of this?!

I think Nick has 80m shares ie £160k at the current depressed price, the others much less. I’d be happy to see some options agreed for Mike and Chris over the coming months to ensure they are meaningfully incentivised.

I agree with you that the low share price is due to the market perception that ECR is an all talk no trousers company but those following closely know that (i) the gold price being so high makes even the most average of execution a success and (ii) this is a hugely improved board of directors taking the company forward.

It’ll take real skill to fail at alluvial gold mining with POG at $4200/oz.

It’s definitely not ‘expected’ in the price, just look at the broker notes and the chance of success applied to SGC for example. Stellar data will take the CoS to more like 90%.

Just because it’s expected by a loyalist PI base doesn’t mean it’s expected by the market.

I’d say ‘good’ is priced in sans deal ie repeating the findings of P1a . ‘Excellent’ would be numerous partial responses and unequivocally stronger efficacy signals as was seen in P1a.

We won’t have to wait for early p2 data if the upcoming results are what we’re hoping for. P1a data unequivocally showed far superior safety and provided efficacy signals well beyond the norm for such an early trial with such heterogeneity in patients, p1b is being designed to go well beyond that and essentially powered to confirm that Ava6000 in SGC is far more efficacious than current treatment options.

That should be enough for a deal.

So you keep regurgitating but personally I can’t see the heavily invested directors diluting themselves when there’s £81m coming a little further down the line.

I have quietly read that misspelling numerous times thinking 'no, no, no we want the accelerator pedal pushed down not the brake!'

If a 1.4p offer was made in April it's because the company had a totally different outlook, that's why the share price traded above 1p because Emma was promising 1000 ounces per month near term and with that the debt paid right down. Instead the debt has more than doubled, production has fallen and there's 6 weeks to find some sort of company saving solution.

If Bill made an offer for the company he'd need to (i) buyout the rest of the shares he doesn't own, 87%, and (ii) find $10.2m to meet the end of year obligations and continue trading. That makes the company much more expensive today even at the lower share price.

Haha not used to dealing with shares with so many decimal places! I think it’s sub 5% now though.

Bres is too different to compare but what is true is that BRES has delivered against strategy, they’ve taken the conventional feasibility path, they have a Jorc compliant resource, major US government backing, massive offtakes sorted and look likely to pull off large-scale debt funding.

TGR took a completely different fast-to-market approach and Shishir messed up to such a degree that it’s now incredibly hard to scale with such limited resources and access to capital due to a poorly supported share price.

I agree with you John that there’s absolutely no room for error and missed targets from this point forward but I’m talking more financially. There’s already hundreds of millions of shares that will hit the market at 3.75p, if they fail to significantly boost production and have to go back to the market again there won’t be a slew of investors rushing to fund the company at 3.75p, it will be at a fraction of that.

Really need to make progress with the funds they currently have available or it gets very messy (even messier than it is now). Management have put their money where their mouths are and worked damn hard to get into this position so I do hope they pull it off.

If you find the last 30 or so low ratings ~90% are those angry about the £75 mystery box. Something that can easily be rectified (ie discontinue it and learn from it) so I don’t think these bad views are are all that telling.

I remain convinced the sell off is way overdone.

They don’t *have* to relist as soon as they release the full year accounts as proved by the fact they didn’t relist after releasing last year’s accounts in mid July - they chose to stay suspended because they knew they were going to miss the July 31st deadline for the next year (my word it’s confusing!).

When the accounts are signed off they will be released, you can’t hold back audited info from the market… this delay is a genuine delay. They may well choose to remain suspended until after the Dec 31st half year report deadline is met.

Ironveld's Benefits -retains governance oversight while Daemaneng drives execution; on track for commissioning and first production milestones, enhancing cash flow from both ROM and DMS outputs.Demonstrates tangible momentum from the October pacts—e.g., equipment mobilization and team alignment—de-risking the project further and signaling imminent revenue. CEO Andersson noted the "commitment and progress" of Daemaneng, aligning with prior timelines for rapid ramp-up.

These updates mark a strategic pivot for Ironveld - from capex-heavy development (pre-2025 challenges like heavy rains delaying construction) to a subcontractor-led model that offloads ~£21.6M+ in expenses while securing supply chains and dual revenue streams (ROM + DMS magnetite). The October deals laid the contractual foundation, and today's RNS provides execution evidence, with operations poised to restart imminently—potentially unlocking sustained profitability in strategic metals amid rising demand for vanadium in batteries/steel.

With a little help from my friend AI.

Ironveld PLC has made significant progress in de-risking and operationalising its Lapon mining site and associated Dense Media Separation (DMS) magnetite processing plant through partnerships with Daemaneng Minerals. The collaboration shifts capital and operational burdens to Daemaneng while preserving Ironveld's ownership, licence control, and revenue upside. Below is a contextual summary of the two prior updates in October and today's RNS (Nov 11, 2025), highlighting the progression toward integrated, low-cost production

October 7th - Binding Mining Operations Agreement (Lapon Site). Key Details - Ironveld's 74%-owned subsidiary, Lapon Mining signed a five-year agreement with Daemaneng, making Daemaneng fully responsible for all mining activities at the Lapon site. This includes funding ~ZAR 500 million (approx. £21.6 million) in capital and operational expenditure (e.g., equipment, logistics, labor, compliance, and on-site infrastructure). Daemaneng recovers costs from sales of run-of-mine (ROM) material, with no equity stake in Lapon Mining.

Ironveld's Benefits: Eliminates Ironveld's direct mining costs and risks; guarantees ore supply to the DMS plant; introduces new revenue from ROM sales (managed by Daemaneng). Production ramp-up targeted within 30 days, with initial ROM offtake sales to generate near-term cash flow. This "defining moment" (per CEO Kris Andersson) revives stalled operations at Lapon (previously mined in 2018) and aligns with Ironveld's capital-light strategy.

October 30th - Binding Term Sheet for DMS Plant Operations. Key Details - Building on the mining agreement, Ironveld's subsidiary Altona (operator of the JV DMS plant with Sable Exploration) signed a term sheet appointing Daemaneng as exclusive sub-contractor for plant management. Daemaneng handles all operations, logistics, and sales of DMS-grade magnetite, with revenues shared via a profit waterfall (guaranteed base per tonne for Altona/Sable). No capex/opex for Ironveld or partners.

Ironveld's Benefits - Fully integrates mining-to-processing chain under Daemaneng's oversight; Daemaneng acts as sales agent, ensuring market access without Ironveld's financial exposure. Targets rapid mobilization leveraging Daemaneng's site familiarity. Complements the October 7 deal to create a "performance-driven, capital-light" model, positioning Ironveld for scalable growth and profitability without upfront costs.

Today's news - Operational Progress Update. Key Details - follows the October agreements, confirming on-schedule preparations for DMS plant restart. Highlights include - Delivery of a new Caterpillar generator to the site on November 10, 2025, for power reliability. Phased handover, processing of stockpiled material to begin "later this week"; full inspections, pipework/crusher optimizations, and additional equipment (e.g., screens, excavators) deliveries imminent. /1

You'll find it's a client-held account not IIs, ie some holders within the TPI client fund have sold. It is not one single institutional entity.

How recent is that info? There has been more than 1.3B shares traded in just two weeks, add in a couple of extra trading days and that’s 10% of the company traded.

Anyway Turner Pope Investments isn’t an indivisible II, its client-held so there’s no reason to assume they will all sell out for such a pitiful profit.

I like to keep it simple and so I go back to this from the March update: 'A bulk testing campaign will aim to validate the Company's financial modelling before potentially moving to production. The Blue Mountain Gold Project is estimated by ECR to have an indicative revenue potential of approximately A$470,000 (US$295,000) monthly, based on a 0.6 g/BCM grade, a 25 tonnes per hour wash plant, and a gold price of US$2,790 per ounce. This could potentially increase with dual wash plants and the current higher gold price.'

_________________

I remember thinking 'using $2790/oz is perhaps a bit rampy seeing as it's close to an all time high gold price' but also factor in the dual wash plants and that would levek it out... now we have $4100/oz gold and a 60tph wash plant the $295k monthly revenue figure balloons and it doesn't take a genius to conclude if it's economical at $2790/oz it's economical at $4100/oz. If the 0.6g/BCM grade ends up looking conservative then we really are in the money.