Member Info for Manlord

Appreciate the comment Maven, thanks.

It’s a pity “you know who” seems to remain unhealthily focused on me, despite me having confirmed I have them on filter and that there’s really no benefit to any interaction for the good of the board. Yet here we are again. That said, if commentary is being made about “sucking people in”, I would hope it’s done with proper context, including when those views were shared. For anyone unsure, the screenshots below should provide that context.

I’ve shared this opportunity from 1p onwards, with multiple posts along the way outlining the investment case as it developed. From those early calls in 2021 / 2022 through to July 2025 at 27p, that represented roughly a 2,600% increase. Not bad eh!

At 27p back in July 2025, I outlined a range of 55–88p on a positive MRE. The share price peaked at 84p in Sept IIRC. From the original 1p level, that equates to circa 8,300% at peak for those who held throughout which I’ve done and continue to do.

If individuals chose to take profits in the 30’s, 40’s, 50’s, 60s, 70s or 80s, then fair play, that’s an excellent return and entirely their decision. Equally, I remain comfortable with my own personal strategy and continue to see significant upside over time, whilst buying and building my holding as every RNS derisks the project.

I don’t tell anyone to buy or sell. I simply present the opportunity as I see it, using facts, research and, where necessary, reasonable assumptions. Everyone makes their own decisions and if they have bought or sold solely on what an anonymous LSE board poster has said, I would suggest they don’t do this and only use the shared information and data to verify, build the case, assist their own research in deciding one way or the other.

Could I have predicted the post-MRE sell-off? No, and it took my by surprise as it did most people I’m sure. Some people use an investment strategy of buy the rumour, sell the news, great for them but it’s not how I invest LT.

Could I have predicted wider market shocks over the past month? Also no, at 45p recently I was expecting the funding level to be held, but I can’t expect everyone to have the same strategy as me, so general market, impatience and whatever else has seen us lower, all with strong and positive news from the company. SP’s don’t rise in continuous linear patterns so some volatility will be seen from here and all the way through 2026 / 2027. It’s the final whistle I’m here for, not the half-time result which is irrelevant to me.

What I can do, and will continue to do, is share my thoughts, research and understanding of the project as it evolves.

If “you know who” wants to focus on me rather than the fundamentals, that’s “you know who’s” choice. A sad, pathetic choice, but nonetheless a choice.

ML

https://ibb.co/3m1DQBHX

https://ibb.co/S4gY2G2Z

https://ibb.co/WWCNnPkj

https://ibb.co/MkrtsmJK

https://ibb.co/6JmLSCdf

https://ibb.co/0pkfxqC6

As Papa said, nice find Kongo! Thanks

ML

Never trust Google is the big takeaway today Ageos.

I was always wondering what the written core log data meant so good to know the correct explanation. I’ve just reviewed table 1 “Total drill hole and weathered zone intercepts from the drill programme” and indeed the table shows the depth at 68.2m which makes sense seeing the below hole 10 data in the RNS.

o 61.3m @ 6.64% TiO2 from 2.2m (DD25TOM010)

Appreciate the time taken to clarify.

ML

Https://ibb.co/yFmBxS55

https://ibb.co/PsXDyH6g

https://ibb.co/tPYqtmXM

Was interested in what these wooden markers meant on the diamond drill cores from Empire X page earlier today.

DD25TOM010

This is the drill hole ID

DD = diamond drill

25 = year (2025)

TOM = Thomas prospect

010 = hole number shown on the map circled green.

HD: 17.2

This is the total depth of the hole.

So the drill hole went down to 17.2m.

D: 1.5

This is the starting depth of that piece of core.

So this section begins at 1.5m.

R: 1.5

This is the length of the core run.

So this piece represents 1.5m of drilling.

That means the core shown is roughly from 1.5m to 3.0m depth.

O: X

This relates to orientation.

X means no orientation data was recorded for this particular section.

Basically, those wooden blocks are just telling us exactly where that piece of rock came from in the ground so the drill team and lab team can match it to results late.

In tomorrow’s geology 101 we’ll be looking at how to use a 🪏and discussing the benefits of the LSE Filter button 😁

https://x.com/empiremetalsltd/status/2033858849527025898?s=46

ML

Thank you Munchkins.

Appreciated.

ML

One correction:

From SB’s proactive interview, Thomas prospect is being targeted as fully measured in confidence, not indicated.

ML

Parking today’s RNS aside, the Feb campaign is now well underway with almost 158 holes drilled totaling 9,000m and we have 5 rigs drilling constantly so still on track for April finish and our upgraded MRE in Q3. It’s all looking rather positive in terms of scale and upgrading confidence into measured & indicated.

My own personal favourite topic next, the ASX, nothing announced yet, but worth thinking about how this likely plays out.

I don’t expect a straight “we are now listed” RNS.

More likely we get notice that the company is preparing for an ASX listing (with Canaccord).

My “theory” on lead times below but I believe we’re already in due diligence with ASX officials (not fact just my belief based on H2 deadline from previous RNS).

Typical ASX listing timeline from what I can tell is 3 to 6 months from the moment Empire formally kick it off.

Prep + prospectus (1–2 months)

Regulator + ASX review (1–2 months)

Raise money + list (2–4 weeks)

For us specifically, I think we look well advanced behind the scenes so if announced soon, listing likely within a quarter (Q2–Q3). It’s not instant, but once announced, it moves fairly quickly and I’d like to think this is currently in progress.

If my theory is correct, the timing lines up with completion of drilling, additional flow sheet refinement and final positioning ahead of the Q3 MRE. This would make sense to me, giving Aussie investors the opportunity to enter ahead of a materially upgraded resource.

On the flow sheet side, the RNS & interview language from SB suggests refinement rather than change. Small adjustments, optimisation, improving what’s already working.

Stepping back as a shareholder, now now have, scale, grade, near-surface geometry, low drilling costs, ongoing met work, mine design inputs underway and it’s all fully funded.

I’ve said it so many times in the last month, but you don’t commit A$3.7m to a 750+ hole programme, with a full technical team across geology, metallurgy and processing, unless there is strong internal belief in the commercial outcome.

That decision IMHO is backed by data we as shareholders don’t fully see yet, but the BoD and the host of industry expert employees do and have been for months.

Still plenty of steps to complete, but this is moving in the right direction, and doing so in a controlled, methodical way, with hand on support from the Aussie govt and associated organisations.

Ignore the noise.

Happy St. Patrick’s Day all

ML

Another solid RNS this morning, and one that continues to move things forward in a very structured way.

SB’s purpose for the DD programme was very clear, to improve geological understanding, collect metallurgical samples, gather geotechnical data, and support the next MRE update.

The key outcome for me is the confirmation of a high-grade central zone within the weathered cap at Thomas with thick intervals consistently above 6% TiO2 from surface. Then we have multiple near-surface (3m) high-grade zones approaching 10% TiO2 and again showing strong consistency across multiple drill holes.

So we’ve now confirmed we’ve got both grade and thickness, but more importantly it’s sitting near surface within the weathered profile. Bingo!

That central zone has now been interpreted over at least 5km x 1.25km, which proves without a shadow of a doubt the scale at Thomas.

One thing I liked seeing here, and something that has clearly been addressed, is cost.

I’m glad to see that Shaun has, as his reply demonstrated three weeks ago, taken note of shareholders’ feedback and said he would make sure future updates provided clarity around costs and removed any potential unknowns.

We now have the costs and at A$90 per metre drilling cost (all-in), that’s as tight as we could have realistically hoped for (although I had previously hoped for A$75 /m but I was being greedy based on volume of holes being drilled). At least it removes the big unknown around scalability and cost control as we expand the resource.

Fair play as well, it’s good to see a MD actually taking shareholder feedback on board and then acting on it.

When we everything, 754 planned holes, 41,250m programme, ~A$3.7m fully funded, correct me if I’m wrong but it shows a very controlled, disciplined approach rather than just spending for the sake of it.

Next up will be the MRE improvement and upgrade, Met test work (bulk samples already collected but I’d like news on those), geotechnical inputs for mine design which were referenced as in progress or about to start. We now have everything we need to move toward feasibility stages.

CTD….

I think Kongo hit the nail on the head there.

ML

Genuine question, not meant as criticism, but when you bought at 62p the company was at an earlier stage than it is today. Since then the project has expanded significantly, the scale of the deposit has become clearer, and the overall fundamentals are far stronger than they were when you first invested.

So I’m just trying to understand the logic. If the original reason for buying was belief in the project and where it could ultimately go, why would a lower share price now be the point to exit completely rather than a point to reassess the opportunity? 30% down on AIM is nothing and my own family member who bought in at 11p (IIRC) was down 50% at one stage but again, the fundamentals were improving with every update.

Everyone’s circumstances and risk tolerance are different of course, and nobody is obliged to average down or hold indefinitely, but if someone bought into a development-stage company knowing the end game was still a couple of years away, selling simply because the price moved against them seems more like a short-term trade that didn’t work out rather than a change in the underlying story.

Not saying any approach is right or wrong, just trying to reconcile your decision when the fundamentals appear stronger now than when you first bought?

ML

@Iainuser 1 month ago.

“Sold all but a few grand. Lost a few grand but recovered some from re-investing in RR. Aim not for me. Never again”

You said the exact same thing on another share too within the last month, but here you are posting on an AIM share and clearly you feel compelled to offer such intriguing and informative posts for shareholders.

Good Luck recovering your losses elsewhere as nobody takes pleasure in seeing someone lose, but there is no need for you to dig in here.

ML

Looks like the author William Hughes might have actually read my post here last night 🤣

Even mentions the 2 companies I referenced being major Japanese titanium players.

Anyway, for me it all points to one thing………Empire will be highly sought after from multiple locations across the globe.

Just got to sit back, keep buying where possible (personal choice and my investment strategy) and let the BoD get on with building us shareholders a company that should offer great RoI.

ML

As I was saying last night.

Crux article out today aligning with almost everything I mentioned in terms of Japan absolutely needing the highest grade available for their applications and sponge metal production.

Make no mistake - Empire will be the Rolls Royce of titanium supply!

https://www.cruxinvestor.com/posts/sovereign-metals-mitsui-mou-adds-early-commercial-validation-for-kasiya-rutile

Enjoy your weekends.

ML

Hi P&P,

Good to hear and absolutely not.

ML

And what also makes Pitfield different is the quality of our material.

The metallurgy has demonstrated the ability to upgrade the material beyond 99% TiO2. That level of purity is what makes the project particularly interesting when thinking about the titanium value chain and lead to opening doors to higher-value downstream applications.

So when you combine the sheer scale of Pitfield, the purity levels already demonstrated in the metallurgy, and the fact that the entire system sits in WA which is the most stable mining jurisdiction on the planet, you start to see why we could become strategically important in the global titanium industry.

Projects like we have simply do not appear very often and for anyone who has not watched it yet, the recent company presentation video does a very good job of explaining the scale of the system and why mgt. believe Pitfield could ultimately develop into something far bigger than originally thought.

Who knows……… Pitfield might just turn out to be one of those discoveries that only come along once in a generation, but didn’t someone we know say that recently?

DYOR

https://youtu.be/A4Kn8f7V0L0?is=L3ghHU6YwxkFATrX

ML

Firstly, credit where it’s due to Sovereign on securing an offtake MOU with Mitsui for Ti02 supply from Malawi.

Pity they released the news when the markets are crumbling but nonetheless it’s a very strong signal of how strategically important titanium feedstock is becoming globally, particularly when viewed alongside the increasing cooperation between the US, EU and Japan around critical mineral supply chains.

The Japanese are big players in the titanium ecosystem, companies like Toho Titanium and Osaka Titanium Tech who produce high-spec titanium alloys used across aerospace, defence and advanced manufacturing contribute hugely as buyers and then as suppliers.

The fact that a major trading house like Mitsui is already looking to secure feedstock years in advance should not be underestimated by Empire shareholders. When they start positioning around future supply it usually reflects long-term strategic thinking rather than short-term commodity trading and I see this latest news as a full validation of the wider titanium industry rather than competition between either project, and if there were competition, I’d relish the challenge given our “top trumps” stats and facts. (Anyone else used to play them in school in the 90’s 😄)

Anyway, as most here will know, Sovereign’s project is mineral sands deposit producing rutile concentrate at >95% TiO2. We’re dealing with a completely different geological setting, but the met work already released has demonstrated our simple ability to upgrade material to <99%+ TiO2, (commercial scale soon to be confirmed IMO.) that is effectively pigment-grade purity that we’ll exceeds the 95% at Sovereign.

So while the deposits themselves are different, the end markets being targeted (pigment and titanium metal) are ultimately the same.

The other point that stood out to me is the strategic context around Japan. When you see them actively signing MOUs to secure supply of critical minerals, it tells you how seriously govts and industrial powers are taking supply security. They are one of the most advanced manufacturing economies in the world, and titanium is absolutely essential across multiple sectors which were all well versed on now (aerospace, defence, electronics, manufacturing and pigment) so they cant afford to rely on geopolitically sensitive supply chains.

That is why projects in stable, mining friendly tier 1 jurisdictions like Aus are becoming more important.

Now look at Pitfield!!!!

We are not talking about a small niche deposit. We are talking about a district-scale system that already covers hundreds of sq kms and is still being explored. The current drilling campaign is targeting another 50% of the area so the hunt is on.

Ctd..

@Pies&Pints,

Fair comment, and I can understand why you and others were hoping or expecting something in Q1.

Personally though, I wasn’t really looking at Q1 as the moment where the share price necessarily moves. For me, 2026 is the year where we continue to build out the full picture of what Pitfield actually is, rather than rushing to release incremental updates purely for market reaction and short-term trading action.

We have just started what is our largest drilling campaign to date, targeting roughly another 50–60% of the tenement area. That’s a substantial programme by any measure and you could debate whether exploration drilling immediately “advances the mine”, but committing to something of that scale suggests to me anyway, a very high level of confidence in what they’ve already been seeing through recent assays, mineral analysis, metallurgical testing and the flow sheet development work.

I would argue from an outside shareholder perspective, that’s actually quite encouraging as companies don’t typically expand drilling campaigns like that unless the internal data is pointing them in the right direction, or a new mineral direction to accompany the Titanium and assist us in becoming the worlds newest and biggest multi-commodity mining district.

The other thing worth remembering is that Pitfield already appears to be shaping up as a very large system, and in projects of that scale the value tends to build in stages, drilling, understanding the mineralisation, proving the metallurgy and then gradually demonstrating the commercial pathway and whilst the SP has not risen, it has held very well during a particularly difficult time across all markets and industries.

So for me the interesting question isn’t really “why hasn’t the share price moved in Q1”, but more where the company might be by the end of 2026 once a much larger portion of the district has been tested and the processing route becomes clear.

And alongside all of that, there is also the potential monetisation of Eclipse sitting in the background. If that asset were to be sold, it could provide additional capital and further strengthen the balance sheet without the need for dilution, which would obviously be another positive step for shareholders. Due by month end I believe.

As I suspect it will, if the scale of the system continues to grow, the metallurgy keeps improving and the company continues to execute on these fronts, I suspect the market will eventually catch up with the underlying story, especially given our Australian government relationships are unbelievably robust.

GLA

ML

Evening Katia,

May I just echo the thoughts of Ageos and I’m certain almost everyone else here I saying, it is extremely pleasant and a relief to see that this board does have many, very decent, shareholders and contributors, no matter what the frequency of those posts are.

Another excellent post Ageos, and it could very well prove to be Pitfield emerging as a multi-commodity, district-scale mineral system, with the potential to host several critical minerals of global significance and evolve into one of the more strategically important new resource developments of the coming decades and towards the next century.

Likewise, Nobby. It’s funny how sometimes the shortest posts can be the most hard-hitting. Just a few words that say everything that needs to be said. I’m probably not known for keeping things brief, but maybe I should take a leaf out of that book more often. I’ll try to start after this post ;-)

Keep up the great work and I would encourage any lurkers out there, to share your knowledge and input. I know it sometimes seems like “what’s the point” with the green box barrage but there are plenty of shareholders, myself fully included, that do value the sensible contributions.

Q2 fast approaching.

ML

Apologies, the actual link to pdf and it starts on page 62.

ML

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6182172c8c1fdb1d7425fd0d/t/685c72f27c8606647a6fec2c/1757643786515/Australian-Sustainable-Finance-Taxonomy.pdf

The 2nd aspect is the processing route that has been discussed in interviews. SB has indicated that the ore characteristics will allow atmospheric leaching rather than more energy intensive processing routes used elsewhere by competitors and 90% of the industry. If that proves correct through our upcoming commercial scale pilot work it will mean lower energy consumption and a smaller carbon footprint for Pitfield.

Then there’s our jurisdiction. WA is considered the most stable and well regulated mining region globally. From an ESG perspective jurisdiction matters because it determines environmental oversight, labour standards, governance transparency and community engagement frameworks like the ones our management team take part in with the community and representatives of the Three Springs Shire Council. Many II’s now place a large weighting on jurisdiction when assessing ESG risk so it’s definitely worth noting that we have already referenced the involvement of environmental and social specialists alongside our geological and metallurgical teams (Carrie Pritchard specifically). Integrating these areas early is good practice and it allows environmental factors to be built into the project design rather than retrofitted later. We started our almost 1 year ago no IIRC.

Of course, none of this on its own proves that Pitfield will be an ESG leader. That will ultimately depend on the detailed work that comes out of the PFS / FS / DFS, but what it does suggest to me is that a lot of the underlying characteristics of Pitfield may already align quite well with the direction the mining industry is moving.

If governments and Ministers (the ones we’re currently in the US with as an Australian touring mining and resource delegation) and II’s increasingly prioritise secure supplies of critical minerals that are produced responsibly, a project like Pitfield combining scale, purity and favourable environmental characteristics will attract disproportionate positive interest.

For most of us the investment case still revolves around the fundamentals we discuss here but ESG is clearly becoming another extremely important consideration through which major capital providers view mining projects, and it is interesting to consider that Pitfield may ultimately tick quite a few of those boxes as the project evolves.

For anyone interested in how mining and critical minerals are being integrated into ESG investment, see below link. As always this is simply a personal observation rather than a prediction, but I thought it was an interesting angle that does not get discussed very often here when we talk about Empire and Pitfield.

Have a nice weekend all genuine investors, to the subhumans who infest this forum, enjoy licking windows over the weekend 👍🏼

https://www.asfi.org.au/australian-taxonomy

ML