RE: Dig deeper...21 Apr 2026 12:08
Responding to Theorist:
Before investing in Pensana, I had rarely bought shares at all. A recommendation led me to look into the company, and I liked what I saw. At that stage, I knew very little about rare earths, although I had many years of experience in commodities, particularly in West Africa. I didn’t even know the Chairman’s name.
Since then, my own research has taken me much further. The transition economy is not simply policy-driven — it is rooted in fundamental efficiency. Electrification operates at roughly 85–90% efficiency versus 25–35% for internal combustion. As energy storage improves, the direction of travel becomes increasingly inevitable.
Against that backdrop, the geology of Longonjo — in terms of both scale and extraction economics — stands out, in my view, as one of the most compelling rare earth opportunities globally.
For clarity, I am not a “Pensana operative.” I am a significant shareholder with a vested interest in understanding the asset and the structure around it. When I see statements presented as fact that are either unsubstantiated or misleading, I will challenge them — as any investor should.
I fully accept that readers will form their own views on contributors here, myself included. The only thing I would suggest is that those views are based on what can be evidenced, rather than what is asserted. I try to be clear when I am stating what I know, what I have inferred, and what is simply my opinion.
In respect of Paul Atherley, I have attended multiple AGMs and EGMs and have met several members of the Board, including Paul, on a number of occasions. My experience has been that he is direct about what he can and cannot say within the constraints of market disclosure.
That personal experience is fundamentally at odds with the characterisation you are presenting.
You have also been clear that your position is not dispassionate and that your focus is on the Chairman. That is, of course, your prerogative. However, it is important for readers to distinguish between commentary driven by personal views of individuals and analysis of the underlying asset, funding structure, and project execution.
There also now appears to be a growing reaction to the tone of some of the commentary on this board, which is perhaps understandable. However, once the discussion shifts — in either direction — from facts to personalities, it ceases to be of value to those trying to assess the investment case.
Most investors here are focused on the asset, the funding, and the path to delivery — not personal disputes.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
