Member Info for Manlord

Sorry Andrbea,

Autocorrected your name to Andrea!

ML

Let’s see how this plays out over the course of the year, but with the scale, the metallurgy, the jurisdiction, and the sheer number of aligned funding and strategic pathways now clearly in place, it’s becoming harder and harder to view Pitfield as anything other than the structured build of a genuinely significant project. If execution continues at the pace we’ve seen, the gap between what we have and what the market is pricing in won’t stay open for long.

And who knows, maybe we’ll see that £1.25 Canaccord Genuity broker target come into view sooner rather than later. Currently sitting at roughly a 0.5x discount, but as we continue to de-risk throughout 2026, that discount can close toward 1x and that’s where the real opportunity sits for a re-rate into a completely different share price territory than where we are today.

GLA & DYOR

ML

Hi Andrea,

Thanks for sharing that link, genuinely appreciated.

For me it’s yet another very clear and specific piece of evidence reinforcing what we’ve been saying for a while now. Aus is right at the top of the pile when it comes to Tier 1 jurisdictions, infrastructure, skilled labour, mining expertise, world class labs, and critically a pro-resources government at both state and federal level.

What stands out in this article, any many others is how openly the EU are now acknowledging the need to secure critical minerals supply from trusted partners which is a direct response to the ever increasing geopolitical risk and supply chain vulnerability, particularly with China and Russia. I like everyone else, do not care one bit for war, but the sad reality is if you look at where these countries are turning, Aus is front and centre.

It also goes a step further by confirming it’s no longer just about digging material out of the ground and shipping it out, there is a very clear shift towards developing downstream processing capabilities within allied jurisdictions. That is absolutely key for is IMHO given we could unlock an unbelievable level of value, not just in our resource, but in the potential ability to process, refine and deliver a finished or near-finished product into Western supply chains (alone or in combination with a 3rd party partnership).

When you map all this onto Pitfield, it really does hammer the point home that we’re sitting on a district-scale titanium system in WA, with increasing evidence of near-surface high-grade, low impurity ore, and a flowsheet that is evolving rapidly in the right direction. All of that in a jurisdiction that is now being actively prioritised by both Europe, US, Japan, Saudi etc.

I genuinely believe it is only a matter of time (12 months) before we see a more directly linked “critical minerals” type RNS. Whether that comes via the WA government, federal backing, collaboration with CSIRO, Curtin University, Export Finance Australia or strategic partnerships to assist the development of Pitfield.

There are multiple pathways opening up here for Empire and all the the signs, media coverage and recent international selection to represent the Australian Critical Minerals tour of North America & Switzerland is solid validation of our project and potential.

IMHO, there are simply too many aligned incentives for Pitfield not to be successful.

1) governments looking for secure supply

2) Institutions looking to support development

3) Industry looking for long-term feedstock

4) Strategic partnerships / JV

5) Processing grants or pilot plant funding (not needed as we have access to commercial scale plants)

6) Export Finance Australia credit facility

7) Offtake-linked financing

8) Sovereign wealth fund (Saudi backers)

9) Infrastructure finance (power, rail, port, labour force)

10) R&D collaboration funding (CSIRO / Curtin University)

11) Tax incentives (already in use)

Le

A final message from “you know who” on GSCU board who now seems to being spamming there. God help them.

“Thought i would message to inform of my what seems a Permanent ban from both EEE and MATD forum. Its not a concern, things happen for a reason, I take things as blessings at times it gives me time to concentrate on important matters but i would just like extend my gratitude to your support over this last year. Fortunately im still able to post on other forums if choosing so after a Hiatus I will obviously do so on GSCU in a more constructive manner and will look out for stocks and engage when possible.

Dusty”

Dusty has now been permanently banned from both the EEE and MAT boards. That outcome speaks for itself after the behaviour we’ve all witnessed over the last 24 hours.

A genuine thank you to everyone who reported and to those who contacted LSE admin directly. They confirmed multiple complaints were received, reviewed, and actioned. That collective effort made the difference.

LSE admin have also taken note of account sign-ups linked to this situation. While I’m not privy to the detail, they’ve made it clear that any attempt to rejoin under a new account will be met with an immediate and permanent full LSE ban.

Hopefully now the Empire board can get back to what it should be, helpful, informative, and driven by proper discussion, without quality contributions being buried under nonsense.

I’d also encourage anyone else who stepped away because of the disruption to give the board another go. Your input adds real value, and the board is better with more views being presented.

And one final point, if you bully, threaten, disrupt, insult, lie, abuse or use this board as your personal counselling platform, this is ultimately how it ends.

What goes around, comes around.

Dusty, you said just this morning that it would take bigger and bolder people to remove you. Turns out you were right about that.

Yours sincerely,

ML

Hi Stiperstones,

I agree that clarity would be worthwhile here. Some very good points and very similar thoughts to a few other shareholders on Telegram.

Again, I’m not saying I’m very unhappy with this, but some information around this and future bonus remuneration incentives would be welcomed.

ML

Well done Cev.

ML

Download the telegram app and search Empire Metals EEE.

3 new members already since I mentioned it.

Shouldn’t need to do this but “you know who” can’t join or disrupt the Empire discussion.

ML

Also text to report you know who.

I have copied this from another member but only because I agree with the below.

I would like to report this poster for ongoing abusive and disruptive behaviour on the boards. This individual has repeatedly engaged in mocking, antagonistic, and targeted commentary towards genuine contributors, with little to no relevance to the company being discussed (EEE).

As an example, their posting history from approximately 7am this morning is almost entirely made up of abusive and disruptive remarks, with no meaningful contribution to discussion on either EEE or MATD. This is not a one-off occurrence, but part of a consistent pattern of behaviour that has been ongoing for over two years.

The effect on the wider community has been significant. A large number of genuine investors, many of whom were active contributors and some paying subscribers have been driven away from the LSE boards and now engage elsewhere, such as on Telegram, simply to avoid this individual’s behaviour. While some users have resorted to filtering this poster, the result is boards filled with “green boxes,” which continues to disrupt the flow of genuine discussion.

We are simply looking for a fair and constructive environment to discuss our investments. This poster’s actions have consistently undermined that, drowning out meaningful content and discouraging participation from serious contributors.

I would respectfully ask that this poster’s activity be reviewed in full, and that appropriate action is taken in line with your platform rules, including a ban if necessary.

Thank you.

Charta,

My post just crossed sorry.

I 100% agree and am now reporting all posts as should everyone else here if said poster is off topic, abusive, or disruptive.

All genuine company posts should remain if the content is acceptable.

That’s why we’re all here.

ML

ML

@Senator

Thanks and with the greatest level of respect, could I ask you and others to refrain from lowering yourself down to our trolls level by coming onto this board to retaliate.

I would also urge any EEE investors to do the same for genuine holders of other companies as the only people suffering here are those that don’t take part in this adolescent and sad behaviour.

Please report everyone report the posts for abuse and off topic. There’s enough of us here to end it. It’s our investment that is being damaged by one person yet again and IMHO we need to take action in numbers.

We’ve just had a real world example of an investor having Empire on his watchlist but came in here and turned off immediately by our trolls behaviour.

ML

@ChartaRex

I completely get where you’re coming from, we all do. It’s very frustrating to land on a board like that when you’re just trying to get a feel for the company.

What you’re seeing unfortunately isn’t a one-off. We’ve been dealing with the same individual for the best part of two years now. It’s constant dragging in off-topic posts, and trying to drown out any genuine discussion. It’s background noise at this stage, but I appreciate it’s a poor first impression.

If you are a genuine investor, which I’ve no reason to doubt, the best thing you can do straight away is use the filter and green box the irritant. It makes an immediate difference and lets you focus on the posters who are actually contributing something of value.

There’s also an Empire Telegram group that a lot of long-term holders have moved to over time. It’s moderated (I’m not one of the admins), posts are far less frequent, and everything stays on topic and respectful. There’s a good level of balance there as well. You’d be very welcome if you wanted to join.

And just on this morning, over 50 posts in the first 90 minutes, all of it noise I’d imagine going by my own level of green boxes. It’s just a pity some folk reply rather than filtering but it tells you everything you need to know about the intent and maturity of the usual suspect.

I wouldn’t judge the company by the state of the board today, or any other day as it’s driven by just one mentally unstable person who is involved with every single disruption to this forum.

ATB

ML

At first glance, close to £1m in bonuses to directors raised my eyebrow significantly, particularly with GK’s bonus being the same as SB’s payment.

On second glance, I think the context here is important before jumping to conclusions, which I did momentarily.

The original structure was equity based, with options tied to SP targets of 14p and 18p, alongside certain operational milestones. Both of those targets were achieved quickly which in itself reflects the level of progress made during 2025.

The issue as I read it then becomes timing. We entered a closed period, and with the mgt team being inside, they were unable to grant the options at that point. By the time they could revisit it, the SP had moved significantly higher.

The key comparison for me is this, had the options been granted when the targets were met, the value would have been around £4.5m but the actual cash bonuses paid came in at just under £1m in total.

So basically we’re seeing a significantly lower payout than what the original plan would have delivered.

That said, it’s not perfect and should be queried.

IMO, cash bonuses are always less aligned than equity bonuses, and the level of remuneration for Greg as finance director relative to the SB as Managing Director should be questioned to some degree and I will do so this week as I think it’s only fair that shareholders have full clarity on that payment. Am I wrong?

Some might ask whether the initial share price targets were sufficiently stretching, given how quickly they were achieved but I’m not as concerned about that for obvious reasons (company performance overall).

For me personally, it does feel more like a pragmatic workaround to a specific timing issue rather than anything misaligned to shareholder value. The BoD have acted with the highest level of integrity and transparency to date, so it’s not a criticism, more something I’d like clarity on.

The important thing from here is what comes next, IMHO incentives should 100% revert back to equity based, LT alignment, tied to definitive milestones as we move toward feasibility studies and beyond.

If that happens, this becomes a one off. If it doesn’t, then it’s something that would warrant closer scrutiny and direct discussion with SB & Co at the next shareholder meeting.

I am currently very content with what I’m seeing with the company, the management, employees and our development but would like context around Greg’s payment vs. SB’s payment figure as it appears out of kilter with what I would have expected. Maybe I’m wrong, but only one way to find out.

Any thoughts here folks?

ML

I’m disappointed to say I completely missed this in the final results RNS the other day. It’s section 11 and I had assumed (wrongly) all the main info had been read. Thanks to Rbewes on ADVFN for referencing it.

“Executive Incentive Plan 2025-2026

 

In May 2025, the Remuneration Committee approved the Executive Incentive Plan 2025-2026 (the "Plan"), designed to reinforce alignment between management, directors and shareholders. The Plan comprised a combination of equity-based incentives and a cash performance element.

 

The equity component included share options over approximately 32 million shares, subject to share price targets of 14p and 18p together with defined operational milestones. These targets were intended to represent stretching value creation thresholds aligned with shareholder interests.

 

Both share price targets were achieved in June 2025, reflecting strong operational delivery and market recognition of the Company's progress. At that time, however, certain directors and employees were in possession of inside information and the Company subsequently entered a closed period in connection with its interim results. In accordance with the AIM Rules and the UK Market Abuse Regulation, the Company was therefore unable to grant the equity awards at that time.

 

During the restricted period, the Company's share price increased materially. The Remuneration Committee considered alternative structures but concluded that issuing options at that stage would not have reflected the original commercial intent of the Plan nor appropriate principles of fairness and alignment.

 

In September 2025, the Committee approved cash bonus payments in recognition of the achievement of the performance milestones and short-term operational objectives, and as a partial substitute for the value that would otherwise have been delivered through the equity component. The aggregate bonuses paid to directors totalled £808,334. Based on the share price prevailing at the time the performance milestones were achieved, the equity awards would have had an estimated intrinsic value of approximately £4.5 million in aggregate. The cash outcome therefore represents a materially lower value than would have arisen had the options been capable of grant.

 

The bonuses approved to directors during the year were as follows:

 

Role

Managing Director - S. Bunn

£367,500

Finance Director - G. Kuenzel

£376,250

Non-Executive Chairman - N. O'Brien

£90,000

Non-Executive Director - P. Damouni

£81,667

Non-Executive Director - P. Brumit

£81,667

Total £997,084

 

The Board believes this approach reflects a balanced and proportionate outcome, recognising strong performance while maintaining strong governance standards and alignment with shareholders.”

Well said MrBB

ML

Hi Gerry,

Appreciate the kind words and a very fair question. Congrats on your first post 👍🏼

On funding, I actually think the level of potential govt and II support is being underestimated by the market. When you step back, Pitfield is exactly the type of project Western govts are actively trying to encourage, large scale, long life, low impurity, and in a Tier 1 jurisdiction.

On the science and processing side, the involvement and direction of organisations like CSIRO & Curtin University is key. They sit at the centre of Australia’s push to move up the value chain in critical minerals, working directly on beneficiation, refining and downstream processing technologies. More importantly, that work is now being backed by real federal funding, including a newly announced A$53m critical minerals research centre specifically aimed at commercialising refining technologies and unlocking value from projects like Pitfield and similar.

At a federal level, the tailwinds are becoming stronger and more defined. Titanium is now officially recognised as a critical mineral in Aus, which makes projects like ours fully eligible for a wide range of govt support mechanisms across exploration, processing and value-add. On top of that, there is a $4b critical minerals facility via Export Finance Australia designed to fund projects as they move toward development, and we’re now seeing (and using) tax incentives and international funding partnerships being rolled out to accelerate domestic processing and reduce reliance on China / Russia.

More validation of critical minerals funding

https://m.miningweekly.com/article/us-offers-190m-for-victorys-western-australia-ree-project-2025-04-23

https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/king/media-releases/australia-invests-53-million-help-unlock-critical-minerals-future

https://international.austrade.gov.au/en/do-business-with-australia/sectors/energy-and-resources/critical-minerals/why-australia-for-critical-minerals

The govt are also actively working on a critical minerals strategic reserve, with mechanisms such as price stabilisation or floor-type support being considered to reduce volatility and strengthen project economics. That’s a major shift IMO in how these projects are treated versus the previously.

When you combine all of this, CSIRO led processing innovation, direct federal funding into refining, access to large-scale financing facilities, and growing geopolitical demand (AUKUS and other allies like Japan), it’s not hard to see how projects like Pitfield could ultimately attract significant “non-dilutive” or strategic funding. We’ll have to see.

So yes, in my view, if Empire continues to deliver technically and commercially, I think the chances of attracting increasing government and institutional support are very real. Projects of this scale, in this location, with this potential strategic importance, are exactly the kind that governments usually want to see succeed.

ML

Well done Baron!

I’ve plans to buy more later this week at any price in and around here.

ML

Well said Baxi.

Sad individuals and I fully agree. Filter and STOP replying as it’s making the forum unusable AGAIN.

ML

Another sub human into the green box!

Jesus, why can’t they even string a cohesive sentence together with an opinion backed up with some detail or facts!

Absolute cretins!

ML

Great to see the ASX listing mentioned again and I firmly believe that we are already in the due diligence period based on expected lead time for launch (by end of H2) and the fact Cannacord have already put out a broker note (£1.25 discounted by 0.5 bringing it to 64p). I’ll look forward to that RNS soon fingers crossed.

The biggest takeaway (apart from confidence in the likely commercialisation of Pitfield) is the cash. With 34,000m drilling planned and 5 drill rigs running right now as confirmed last week, they’re weeks into the programme. By 20 March ($8.4m on hand from today’s RNS), it’s reasonable to estimate around $1 to $2m has been spent from the $3.5m budget. Against a reported $8.4m cash position which would suggest we likely still had roughly $6m to $7.5m remaining, leaving us well funded to complete the campaign and move into feasibility.

Game on and took another £5k this morning. Every little bit helps and 28p IMHO is the gift that is hiding in plain sight under the guise of negativity.

GLA & DYOR

ML

My thoughts exactly Ageos.

A very comfortable hold and an extremely exciting time to be an Empire Metals shareholder.

I also can’t see the Australian government bypassing us given Pitfields potential future strategic importance.

What continues to stand out here for me is the calm, methodical way the company is building this from the ground up. Every step from drilling to metallurgy, from scale up to engagement with local government agencies and soon to be end users feels deliberate, joined up, and aimed at creating something far more substantial in value. It certainly doesn’t always deliver instant gratification, but this is exactly how real, long life projects are developed.

For those willing to look past the day to day noise, it’s hard not to see a business being carefully and systematically built with a clear end goal in mind.

GLA and thanks for the reply Ageos.

ML

Hello Ageos,

As always, thanks for the time and effort you put into your posts. Your analysis of the DD data, and how the historic and current programmes tie together with the geochemical and metallurgical work, is genuinely top class and appreciated by all. It adds real depth for those of us trying to properly understand what’s unfolding at Pitfield.

I also completely respect your approach of focusing purely on the technical side and steering clear of share price predictions or broader market commentary. That consistency is a big part of why your posts carry so much weight IMO.

That said, I wanted to ask purely from a fundamentals perspective, whether you’d ever consider sharing your thoughts on how the technical progress might translate into the bigger picture for the project.

Not in terms of short-term valuation or speculation, but more around the significance of the continuous piloting plans and flowsheet development. The key milestones still required to demonstrate economic viability and how you see the project evolving technically toward something that could support scale in the future.

There’s clearly a lot happening beyond the drill result, government engagement, critical minerals positioning, international exposure, potential ASX launch and possible strategic interest, but your perspective on how the core technical work underpins a pathway to a meaningful operation would be incredibly valuable to not only me, but I’d image everyone else here.

Speaking personally, I can see a pathway, if execution continues to something very substantial over time, potentially even at a billion pound plus MC (no lead time guess, just at some point in the future). I’d be very interested in whether, from a purely technical and development standpoint, you see that as a realistic outcome, and what would need to be proven along the way. I’d imagine those execution points are similar to what I believe need to happen?

Appreciate anything you’re willing to share, and thanks again for the quality of insight you consistently bring.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

ML