Member Info for Manlord

Thank you Ageos. Good for thought indeed.

AGEOS, purely hypothetical question here.

Some people like myself have a favourite football teams like Leeds United Football Club - shortened to LUFC. Some people like abbreviations or certain combinations of letters.

Out of curiosity only, if you had to pick your favourite letter combination from the alphabet, single or multiple letter combinations for example, what would it or they be?

No reason whatsoever for asking, just curious to know if you did have favourite letters in the alphabet. I’m confident my favourite letters in the alphabet post won’t get deleted, especially on a purposely created “different thread”.

Now where was I?

Oh yeah, Snowden Optiro and understanding mineral resource estimation. Interesting podcast if you like MRE’s and should give you a more robust idea of our upcoming one.

“In EP 158 | Part 5 of 7: Understanding Uncertainty in Mineral Resource Estimation, Susan Havlin and Ian Glacken explore how Conditional Simulation and Localised Conditional Simulation (LCS) can provide a more realistic understanding of geological variability and project risk.

The episode discusses:

Uncertainty is unavoidable in mineral resource estimation, but how well are we actually communicating it?

In EP 158 | Part 5 of 7: Understanding Uncertainty in Mineral Resource Estimation, Susan Havlin and Ian Glacken explore how Conditional Simulation and Localised Conditional Simulation (LCS) can provide a more realistic understanding of geological variability and project risk.

The episode discusses:

Grade and geological uncertainty

Simulation versus traditional kriging approaches

Resource classification and confidence

Variability, risk, and mine planning decisions

Why uncertainty should be part of every resource conversation.

Stay tuned for next week's episode, Part 6 of 7, where Susan Havlin and Tarrant Elkington explore how simulation influences mine planning decisions which is next up for Empire too.

https://youtu.be/RaBEdE-5TnU

ML

60m seems excessive to me.

I assume you’re including the sales that began at 80p right back to 30p.

I don’t think we’ll ever find out but that drop smacked of market manipulation and I don’t know if it was related to the 40p funding offer.

AFAIC SB has access to the share register and could certainly find out who has dumped such volume without a TR1 but as I said, 60m seems way above my own estimates of “block sell” volume excluding all “standard sell” volume.

ML

Let’s be honest, the selling is one of two things.

A completely distressed seller which I’ve seen personally before to the tune of 15m+ shares being sold before last years rise from 10p. It happens which is why “follow the money” is never a guarantee of success.

Or

We have an individual, individuals manipulating the share price performance, for what reason I don’t know.

If not as if the news coming out isn’t great. If it was a genuine seller, if they had sold nothing and relaxed, the SP would be closer to 50p over the last 3 months and they could have dipped out slowly for close on 50% better return.

Just my guess but trading action is and has been strange with continued block sales for quite some time.

It will all come out in the wash.

ML

The original post that sent me off

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mohammed-mahmoud-239830181_mineplanning-metallurgy-projectevaluation-activity-7456052516930301952-Redw?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAAAf7tiYB_f_0iCqUItGnPP3DD_AmTXPhyQA

ML

now bring the development side in which sb has said that leasing a pilot plant in the early stages will not require massive upfront capital, so the system can be piloted, validated and optimised before any full scale build is considered or required. with our starter pit we do not need to go from discovery to a multi-billion build overnight so as has been discussed previously, it will likely be staged under a district scale project.

so we first prove it, then optimise it followed by scaling it bit by bit. if it works at even a 12mt scale using conservative assumptions, the economics are already very compelling, and even more so under an increased avg grade.

now some will think this is all pie in the sky and i get that because there are some value adding (credits) and value subtracting inputs (waste) missing but this isn’t a dfs, it’s a *** packet calculation by a random bloke on telegram 😜

but when you start joining the dots together it’s very clear we have a mega resource, at near surface meaning likely very low cost mining with grade continuity across a monumental area of land. if we can confirm a growing high grade core emerging from the remaining drill results that should come in staggered over next few weeks / months, added to a relatively solid recovery rate, a high purity end product already demonstrated, with a low cost base from the mre then you really start to see how pitfield could generate hugely significant cash flows, early!

all good on paper, but lots of work to be done and if sb and co can deliver and execute as planned, then things will start to look very enticing for govt, ii’s or majors. all the underlying ingredients are there for sure.

don’t ask how i ended up down this rabbit hole but all it took was one linked in post 🤦🏻‍♂️.

dyor because i’m exhausted 😁

ml

Estimated realised price;

$2,500 x 97.5% = $2,437.5

minus $20 transport = $2,417.5 per tonne nett.

Now together;

At 70% recovery;

Contained TiO2 = 732k tonnes.

Recovered product = 512.4k tonnes.

Gross revenue = 512.4k x $2,500 = $1.281B.

Transport = 512.4k x $20 = $10.25m

Royalty = 2.5% x $1.281B = $32.0m

Rock cost = $516m.

Total cost = circa $558m.

Operating surplus = $723m per yr.

Margin per tonne = $723m / 512.4k = $1,410/t.

At 60% recovery;

Recovered product = 439.2k tonnes.

Gross revenue = 439.2k x $2,500 = $1.098B.

Transport = $8.78m

Royalty = $27.45m

Rock cost = $516m

Total cost = $552m

Operating surplus = $546m per yr.

Margin per tonne = $546m / 439.2k = $1,243/t.

So even before stress testing these numbers, we’re looking at an uplift in annual cash generation and margin per tonne driven purely by a 1% avg grade increase. Now this is where the break even framework becomes useful.

The MRE cut-off grade equation is.

Cut-off grade = Total ore cost / (Recovery x Price x (1 minus Royalty) minus Transport) x 100

Using the October MRE assumptions.

$40 / (0.70 x $2,500 x 97.5% minus $20) x 100

Which simplifies to;

$40 / $1,692.25 x 100

= 2.36% Ti02 cut off grade

Which is well below our current 5.1% TiO2 MRE grade, and importantly even further below a potential uplift scenario in the 6.1% range (possible on today’s grade drill results).

So straight away, even being ultra conservative, Pitfield sits comfortably above the estimated break even grade.

Now stress testing it further;

Recovery reduced to 55% (pilot recovery before optimisation over time)

Price reduced 10% to $2,250

Ore cost increased circa 20% to $50/t

And apply a further 10% efficiency haircut just for good measure.

Contained TiO2 under the uplift scenario.

732k tonnes.

Recovered.

732k x 55% x 90% = 362k tonnes.

Revenue;

362k x $2,250 = $815m

Costs;

Ore cost = 12Mt x $50 = $600m

Transport = $7m

Royalty = $20m

Total = $627m

Operating surplus = $188m

Which equates to;

$188m / 362k tonnes = $520 per tonne margin.

So even under a heavy stress case, Pitfield still generates positive cash flow, and importantly at a margin level that is higher than the original base case 5.1%.

Now look at the break even grade under those heavily stress tested inputs;

$50 / (0.55 x $2,250 x 97.5% minus $20) x 100

Which gives roughly a 4.2% TiO2 cut-off grade.

And if you treat the 10% efficiency hit as effective recovery.

Meaning 49.5%, then we have 4.6% TiO2 cut-off grade which is still below both the current 5.1% MRE grade and any reasonable uplift scenario based on first drill results.

Based on Empire’s confirmed inputs, Pitfield appears to have a big buffer to fall back on.

CTD…..

Right, on Saturday afternoon I came across a post on LinkedIn, it was specifically around copper break even points and how revenues scale once you move through certain production thresholds, and TBH I have got into a few copper companies over the last couple of months (FCX, ASCU & MARI) which I see as a 2035–2040 long term play, but it got me thinking whether that same framework could be translated to Pitfield.

The basic copper theory is very simple because it isn’t trying to be a DFS or a financial model, it’s just asking what level of production is needed before revenues start outrunning costs, so all I tried to do was see if that logic would translate across in some way.

I wasn’t expecting to have to adjust the calculations, but it is actually quite timely that we had an RNS today, and all that has been done here is I’ve made a couple of assumptions to see how sensitive the model is to changes, one of those being an increase in grade based on the strong intercepts we saw in the first batch of drilling results.

Now you dont just go from 5.1% to 6.1% on the back of one RNS but I’ve made an assumption based on the higher grade zones within Thomas rather than the full system but for the purpose of the break even calcs and how valuations change with even small changes in grade at this scale, I’ve used 6.1% as the grade.

Bear with me here!

Revenue = production volume x product price.

Operating cost = production volume x cost per tonne.

Operating margin = revenue minus operating cost.

Payback period = capex / annual operating margin.

You can’t just lift and drop the copper logic straight across to titanium, because it’s sold into downstream chains, whereas what SB is telling us feels different (moving down the value chain and producing a high purity TiO2 product) so the value sits at the higher end rather than the low grade feedstock.

So starting with the data we know from the Oct MRE and a simple reference point of 12Mt throughput per yr (purely because SVML gave us that real world t-put benchmark recently), with 6.1% TiO2 (1% increase on today’s RNS intercepts) that gives us;

12Mt x 6.1% = 732k tonnes contained TiO2.

From there it comes down to recovery.

At 70% recovery (RNS’d previously)

732k x 70% = 512k tonnes.

At 60% recovery?(lab scale to pilot scale reduction)

732k x 60% = 439k tonnes.

Now assuming that is upgraded into a high purity TiO2 product (easily upgraded says SB) with pricing at $2,500 per tonne, which is exactly what is referenced in the Oct MRE inputs.

Revenue becomes;

512k x $2,500 = $1.28B per yr.

439k x $2,500 = $1.10B per yr.

Now on the cost side, again using the October MRE inputs directly;

Mining = $3/t rock.

Incremental ore = $0.5/t rock.

Processing = $38/t rock.

G&A = $1.5/t rock.

Total = $43/t rock.

Ore cost;

12Mt x $43 = $516m

Transport;

$20/t product.

Royalty;

2.5% of revenue.

CTD….

The critical minerals narrative just gets stronger and stronger. Sooner or later well we in the eye of this storm.

https://discoveryalert.com.au/australia-japan-critical-minerals-cooperation-supply-chain-2026/

https://youtu.be/iKuLhAEzpt8?is=pAtquk6aOxXqF7xs

ML

hi ******

now will cannacord increase the unrisked nav or increase the nav multiple from 0.5 to 0.65 for example!

by the time an asx listing is confirmed i'm hoping the nav multiple is 1 or the unrisked nav is £2 and beyond.

less risk = higher sp expectations & could be timed with full mre update and aussie launch. don’t forget with only 700m sic, this can move violently upwards in a very short period of time. thats works both ways of course.

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/1085425/canaccord-starts-empire-metals-with-62p-target-flagging-upside-from-pitfield-titanium-project-1085425.html#

ml

I did an updated valuation and you’d be astonished as to just how much extra margin is involved with our ore tonnage with even a 1% grade quality increase.

I mean ASTONISHED.

Busy with month end reporting next few days but will give proper thoughts ASAP.

Well done for ignoring the noise! Not long to go ladies & gents.

ML

Interesting one here with rumble resources that I hadn’t really considered properly before.

They’ve secured funding by selling a 2.5% NSR royalty, bringing in upfront capital with no dilution, no debt, no repayment pressure which is about as clean as it gets.

Yes, you give up a small slice of future revenue, but you keep control, protect the share register, and move forward without the usual funding overhang.

But the bigger point for me is that it’s becoming more obvious when you look across this critical minerals sector that if the resource is good enough, big enough, safe enough, the finance options will find it.

I do not believe Pitfield will be a case of going cap in hand trying to beg for funding, the capital will actively seek out the opportunity, and we’re already seeing that across the sector, whether it’s royalties, non-recourse funding like Iluka’s, government backing, or strategic partners / JV.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I don’t see this as a binary funding outcome and I think we’ll have multiple funding pathways opening up, and ultimately should become a position of strength, where we get to choose the structure that best protects long-term value for the company and us shareholders (assuming results, metallurgy, flowsheet, PFS & ASX all go according to plan.

Hopefully some tangible news soon to discuss in detail as it feels like I’m repeating myself. Would be nice to review actual data and discuss the specifics. All in good time I suppose.

ATB

ML

https://discoveryalert.com.au/rumble-resources-western-queen-royalty-deal-non-dilutive-capital/

As I mentioned previously, there have been queries around our development pathway timelines and some slight frustrations, but this is just giving an indication of members on the Telegram group and what they feel, please see below, this is my interpretation of the data from 100+ investors.

Only 4% think we should be producing by now tells me straight away that expectation is not based on reality for a project of this scale, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Then you’ve got 40% saying it’s going exactly as expected and another 27% saying it’s actually ahead of comparable projects, so 67% of Empire holders are effectively aligned that timelines are either on track or better than industry norms.

Even the 29% in the middle aren’t negative, they’re simply acknowledging that some elements may feel slower while still being comfortable with overall progress.

So IMHO the vast majority do not see Pitfield as lagging behind expectations, they see it as progressing in line with what a discovery of this size and complexity should look like, if anything slightly ahead when benchmarked properly, but the underlying understanding of the timeline looks solid to me.

GLA

ML

https://ibb.co/NdFyyLbm

A large % of total mass is removed at this stage, which has a direct impact on downstream costs, because we are not carrying waste material through more expensive processing. As SB has said, we have an extremely low level of deleterious material and the cost savings should not be underestimated compared to peers.

Once we have that upgraded concentrate we move into leaching, where the titanium is chemically extracted using sulphuric acid, again far less acid required than peers.

The key development here is the move towards atmospheric leaching, lower temperature, normal pressure and simpler plant design, which if it holds at scale has a direct impact on both capex and opex.

After leaching the titanium is brought into solution, then recovered, refined and finished into a high purity TiO2 product.

That is where the 99.25% figure comes from. Not from the ground, but from the full process.

So at lab level that full pathway has already been demonstrated, which proves the chemistry works. This links back to Ageos’s point and the fact SB is now openly talking about conversion into titanium rutile pigment and feedstock for titanium metal, which also to me is a strong signal that the team is already thinking in terms of end markets and product outputs.

Now, lab success is only part of the story as the real test is moving to continuous pilot scale. AFAIC, it is not unusual at this stage to see recoveries come in slightly below lab results or for parts of the flowsheet to need optimisation. That is simply part of scaling up but what matters is how quickly that is understood and improved, and in many cases companies can also expect performance to move back towards, or even beyond, lab results as the system stabilises, so maybe 70%+?

The key factor is consistency. If we can produce high purity product continuously with controlled costs, then we have a scalable and commercially viable process. The transition into continuous piloting soon is where the real value inflection sits, and where the market will ultimately make its judgement. I’m pretty confident our development progress will be matched by our share price progress in ‘26 and into ‘27.

Hope that helped even one person thinking about investing in EEE.

DYOR & ATB

ML

Great post Ageos. As always you are keeping us informed on the technical realities at the product end of this, which is hugely valuable for the board. Thanks.

Reading your post it struck me that while you are covering the more advanced processing and product pathways, there are probably quite a few investors here, new and existing, who may not be as familiar with how a project like Pitfield actually moves from dirt in the ground through to a finished product, so I thought it might be useful to explain that in simple terms, if nothing else as a refresher and to help understand what we should be looking for in upcoming RNS’s.

As we’ve gone through a relatively quiet period in terms of RNS’s, which in my view reflects the amount of work going on in the background rather than anything to be concerned about (poll to be shown at end of post), it does mean we’ve likely picked up new investors along the way.

First thing to be clear on, we are not digging high purity TiO2 out of the ground. What we have is a large, consistent orebody containing titanium minerals, and the job is to progressively upgrade and refine that material into a high purity end product.

It starts with mining, and one of the major advantages here is that the mineralisation sits near surface within the weathered cap. So this is free digging material, straightforward extraction with no need for blasting or anything remotely challenging , which already puts us in a very favourable position from a cost and scalability point of view.

From there the material goes through basic scrubbing and grinding. Nothing overly complex, just breaking it down and preparing it for separation.

The first real value step is beneficiation, primarily through whole ore flotation, where the titanium bearing minerals are separated from waste material. That means a large portion of non value material is rejected early in the process.

That is where the 34% TiO2 concentrate comes from, and when we talk about 70% recovery it simply means around 70% of the titanium entering that stage is captured into that concentrate.

CTD….

Make no mistake, if this MRE lands as expected, bigger, higher confidence, and ahead of previous schedule (Q3 anytime), all while continuous piloting starts to prove the flowsheet at scale, then this stops being a question the market needs answers to and starts becoming one of the most compelling undeveloped titanium assets globally, and at that point the disconnect between current valuation and what this could become will look completely unsustainable, especially sitting in a tier 1 jurisdiction with scale, purity and a pathway to real product all aligning at the same time.

Throw in the ASX and boom! Timing could be perfect.

ATB

ML

Thank you to MIK on Telegram for sharing the interview!

IMO SB is clearly pointing to a mid-year MRE update as the key near term catalyst, and importantly it looks ahead of schedule rather than drifting which has been a hot topic across the boards recently.

I just looked at the last drilling cycle and whilst it can’t be guaranteed, it gives a lead time benchmark.

Drilling kicked off in early June, finished in early July, and the MRE landed in October, so call it roughly 4 months from start to finish.

I might be wrong but IMHO this time it should be quicker, the modelling framework is built, the geological understanding is there, and all the early stage unknowns around how to present and structure the MRE have already been solved, so the upgrade process should be more efficient one would think?

The 41,000m drill programme is far larger than before and SB says were mainly targeting areas outside the existing resource while tightening the core, so we’re looking at both expansion and conversion into higher confidence categories which should entice II’s / govt etc.

For me, he also made a few things clear, one being that Pitfield is definitely bring positioned as a globally significant titanium system with low contaminants, near surface ore, and a flowsheet that is already producing high purity TiO2 using conventional methods, which as he said removes a lot of the usual technical risks.

He also reinforced the scale angle, 40km strike, around 10km width, and only a fraction drilled to date, which tells you how early we still are in defining the full system despite already having a 2.2Bt resource. It’s actually very exciting.

Processing was also covered by SB, as we know and have discussed endlessly, we’re moving from batch work into continuous piloting this year, and that is critical because that is what bridges the gap between lab success and real world economics, again something II’s / govt agencies / JV partners will be waiting to see and review.

He also touched on the bigger picture, not just concentrate but pigment and potentially titanium metal, which shifts this towards adding downstream strategic value to the company.

For me, the earlier than planned MRE timing is a big signal, they are clearly pushing pace, not waiting, and when you combine that with what we already know from the Ignite interview, scale, purity, simple mining, and a credible processing route, this next update has the potential to materially change how the market views Pitfield, especially given the location in WA and with the infrastructure already in place, rail, port, power generation etc.

CTD….

Https://youtu.be/sK-uFG6cPyc?is=puD0ErFpPnRaPVms

SB laying out Pitfield as a genuine opportunity, a multi-billion tonne, near surface titanium system in a tier 1 jurisdiction with minimal waste, low contaminants and a flow sheet already delivering high purity product.

What sets us apart is not just the scale but the simplicity and cost advantages, whole ore processing, no meaningful iron penalty, and a clear path from resource to pigment and even titanium metal.

With our major drilling campaign complete or close to, we can expect a resource upgrade coming (5Bt IMHO) and we start continuous piloting next, so we’re moving firmly into development with the potential to become one of the lowest cost, fully integrated titanium producers globally.

Ignore the noise! We’ll be shouting about this soon enough IMO!

Enjoy the long weekend

ML

Ore to product all on one site!

SB appears to have zero concerns of commercial viability but let’s see.

https://streamable.com/l3s10c

ML

Thanks Blanca, that’s a sensible take and I’m very much aligned with your thinking.

I think that’s exactly it with Pitfield, the scale is both the opportunity and the reason this isn’t an overnight success story, it just can’t be. It needs to be de-risked properly, step by step, and like yourself I keep coming back to the fundamentals and in my view they’re as good as we’ve seen over the last 4 since the find! (May 22 correct?)

Your point on partners/JVs is a really interesting one. I can see the logic in bringing in a larger player for financing and tech support, particularly if it helps accelerate development. The idea of a partner taking the 30% (or less) held by Century is actually quite clever in that context, it could bring in serious backing while allowing EEE to retain control of the 70%+.

Like you and most in the recent Telegram poll, I’d still lean toward us ultimately trying to maximise ownership and go alone with govt support, but the JV is possibly more realistic option but Im genuinely torn here as to what I think will happen. That 30% could become extremely valuable over time so I think it comes down to timing, funding routes, and the quality of any potential partner that might want in.

@RP - your comment ties into this quite nicely too. The idea that this evolves in stages, piloting refining the flowsheet with customer input, then a first operation at Thomas, followed potentially by further mines like Cosgrove makes a lot of sense, especially if it can be scaled using cash flow rather than requiring huge upfront capex and heavy dilution. That phased development across potentially multiple deposits is probably the most logical way to approach something of Pitfields size. Who knows what we might find in the step out drill results! Titanium was a surprise the first time around, maybe copper will be the next surprise. Anything is possible across such a large geologically special area.

If we can combine that staged approach with either strategic funding or the right JV partner at the right time, it could significantly de-risk Pitfield while still preserving long-term upside for shareholders.

And fully agree with the point that it’s good to see the board getting back to proper, reasoned discussion.

ML

I no nating! 🇪🇸