Member Info for InquisitiveNatur

I do wonder whether Mr Moulton and Mr Maling have any real regard for the shareholders of this company. Are investors’ interests genuinely being prioritised, or is that simply rhetorical? Communication is sparse, transparency lacking, and some of the recent decisions are difficult to understand from a shareholder perspective. And yes NickBee, I also wish I had only put £1k in!

I think a lot of this comes back to MET1’s senior management (shout out to Mr Moulton and Mr Maling!) and how they’ve been running the business and some of the recent "strategic" choices.

They’ve got a lot to do to rebuild confidence, but so far they don’t seem to be prioritising or visibly committing to the sort of engagement and remedial action the market would expect. Their priority should be on (re)building investor value, yet everything they’re doing appears to be pushing in a different direction.

I do wonder what Mr Moulton and Mr Maling are doing at present to improve value for shareholders…

AT LAST, a positive RNS for investors, in line with the original strategy the firm set out for investors 12+ months ago.

It was undeniably transformational for me and for many investors, albeit in entirely the wrong direction.

This meeting is really about whether shareholders are willing to back the Board’s new direction and give it the space to deliver, despite the extremely difficult period we’ve just been through. Voting in favour means giving the Board room to execute and show that last year’s work can translate into progress and value — not to mention accepting further share dilution via the employee incentive scheme. A vote against is a call for clearer delivery, tighter discipline, and more proof before granting additional authority. I’ll be voting against, though realistically it may not change the outcome.

Has anyone watched the conference yesterday? Any thoughts?

It felt like Daniel was just running through his marketing deck, briefly name-checking each project — nothing groundbreaking, though I appreciate time was limited.

JS, you should explain how this information about the former CEO came to your attention. That’s a very serious allegation and potentially grounds for litigation; if true, MET1 will have a lot of explaining to do.

I’ll be honest — I had to triple-check this wasn’t a fake JS account. You’ve gone from championing the company to criticising it almost overnight. For those of us who’ve read your posts for months, it’s a shock.

That said, you’re far from alone. Many of us are fed up with what looks like a random, venture-capital-style approach at MET1. Early investors backed a very different plan — Scandinavian or lower-risk jurisdictions, a handful of critical metals, a targeted strategy. Now the company seems all over the place, spending shareholder money as if it were a gamble with no tomorrow. If the Board don’t start listening to shareholders, they will never regain trust — and this could very easily end up in court.

This is very positive news. A US OTCQB quote can improve visibility and open the door to a much larger pool of investors who like uranium and energy-transition stories but wouldn’t normally touch AIM. More potential buyers should, over time, mean better liquidity and tighter spreads – and all of this comes without dilution or the cost of a full US listing.

So when this finally does move, it has the potential not just to move… but to absolutely take off. 🚀

Finally!!!!!

This sudden move up after such a sharp drop (with no RNS in sight!) definitely suggests there’s plenty happening behind the scenes — and clearly, some people know more than WE mere retail mortals do. Whatever’s brewing looks promising, and I can’t wait to see how the share price reacts once those drilling results land.

Looks like we have 2030 to look forward to guys :-)

https://vocal.media/trader/me-t1-share-price-forecast-2030-financial-outlook-and-stock-market-insights

After doing a bit more digging, it turns out that on 25 September 2025, the European Commission opened the second call for Strategic Projects under the Critical Raw Materials Act. The cut-off date for submissions is 15 January 2026 at 12:00 CET.

I really hope Metals One plans to jump on this and move ahead with the Black Schist application — surely that would be a far more productive use of time and resources than chasing questionable “strategic” ventures like Fidelity Minerals.

As mentioned earlier, even a short RNS update to let investors know where things stand would go a long way. Without it, we’re left to speculate… and that never helps confidence.

Thanks, Professor1. That’s actually why I reached out to them. Since they’d announced plans to apply for “Strategic Project” status in the first quarter of 2025, I followed up to see whether the application had gone ahead. Their reply suggested it hadn’t — though that was a few months ago, so it’s worth checking whether anything has changed since.

When I reached out earlier this year about Black Schist, Vigo Consulting said:

“With regards to EU Strategic Project Status for the Black Schist Project, the company intends to apply once the EU Commission confirms the application window is open.”

Might be worth getting back in touch with them to see if there’s been any update on this front.

I do wonder how much longer Mr Moulton and Mr Maling will let the share price slide while the market tries to guess what’s actually going on. At least when Mr Owen was in the chair, the RNS updates came thick and fast — it gave the impression that something, anything, was happening.

And don’t even get me started on that last “strategic” investment in Fidelity Minerals. What on earth were they thinking? It’s an ultra–early-stage play with no verifiable or bankable resource — hardly the kind of move that fits any coherent strategy.

Meanwhile, the company’s website still says: “Following our recent portfolio expansion, we are working on a new website which will be launched in August featuring all our projects.”

We’re now well into mid-October — so what’s the excuse?

I’m still rooting for MET1 (I’m invested, after all), but honestly, Mr Moulton and Mr Maling need to wake up. If they keep drifting like this, they’ll steer the company straight into the ground — and take investors' cash with them.

MET1 is in critical energy-transition metals, not rare earths. But there’s an indirect connection: metals like lithium, graphite, nickel, and cobalt are also critical to the green-tech supply chain, just like rare earths — but they’re used for batteries and energy storage, not magnets or displays.

I sincerely hope you are right!

In a past interview, leadership described themselves as “the three amigos.” What’s changed? Why has Jonathan Owen stepped down mid-course? Right now, MET1 looks scattered—too many projects, not enough focus. Investors need a coherent plan with clear near-term deliverables, not just another RNS announcing yet another acquisition. The potential is there, but Mr Maling and Mr Moulton must tighten strategy and execution. We need clear priorities, defined milestones, and accountability.

Well said, Jbatch!