Member Info for Mumbles2021

It is chromatography, stop the semantics. The process has been demonstrated to work on a commercial scale. Uncles of course you are referring to the method being explored by Penn State for the Rainbow product. On which there is progress being made, but certainly isn’t commercial yet. They are two different processes. One has been demonstrated to work with enough confidence to generate 100’s of millions in capital the other is till at pilot stage in South Africa

SP stop changing the narrative, your argument was that an MOU isn’t binding, the fact is. You are wrong. An MOU and also Heads of Agreement are frame works against which the final offtake contract is drafted. Once the initial terms are agreed (in the MOU/HOA). Ihey still require good faith on the part of both parties, i eve gave you precedents where MOUs not being honoured resulted in large court actions where settlements were agreed and had to be paid. Non Binding MOUs mean there is no recourse, the precedent illustrates there are consequences if an MOU is not stated to be Non-Binding .

Post 2 of 2 – Chromatographic vs ‘Ionic Separation’

Following on from my first post — let’s settle this “ionic separation” nonsense. Pensana’s downstream partner, ReElement Technologies, is not using ionic or solvent extraction.

“Ionic separation” refers to the mining and leaching process used in southern China’s weathered clay deposits, where ammonium salts are flushed through the ore to dislodge ion-adsorbed rare earths. It’s a low-grade, environmentally damaging extraction method — not a refining or separation technology. Once you’ve produced a mixed rare earth concentrate, that stage is already over.

ReElement’s process is ligand-assisted chromatographic separation, which sits at the refining end of the chain. It uses a fixed-bed resin system — a solid phase that separates elements by retention time and affinity, much like a fractional distillation column in oil refining. There are no organic solvents, tailings ponds, or ionic leaching. The result is high-purity oxides suitable for magnet manufacture.

This isn’t theory — it’s already in operation at Noblesville, Indiana, and scaling rapidly at ReElement’s new Marion Supersite. As ReElement themselves state:

“Phase 1 of Marion capacity, designed for approximately 2,500–3,500 metric tons per annum of refined output, will utilize approximately 5-foot diameter columns – increased from the 18-inch diameter columns in Noblesville – showcasing the efficient modularization of the platform to rapidly increase capacity. Installation of Phase 1 is estimated to occupy approximately 40,000 square feet within the existing 400,000+ square-foot facility, leaving significant capacity for expansion and the co-location of complementary partner technologies. To date, ReElement has ordered, identified, or begun installation of more than 60% of the equipment required for Marion’s initial contracted growth phase. Once complete, the Supersite will provide large-scale refining capacity for magnet-grade rare earths, battery materials, antimony, and additional defense elements.”

That’s ligand-based chromatographic separation — modern, modular, clean, and U.S.-funded. Anyone still calling it “ionic” is confusing mining with refining.

I’ll answer this in two posts — one covering the difference between binding and non-binding agreements, and another addressing the nonsense being posted about so-called ionic separation.

First, on the legal side. The phrase “non-binding” isn’t decoration; it’s protection. When those words are included, courts treat an MOU or Heads of Agreement as a statement of intent only. When they’re omitted, and the document sets out specific deliverables, timelines or obligations, it can — and often has — been ruled a binding contract.

The classic precedent is Texaco v Pennzoil (1987). Getty Oil and Pennzoil had nothing more than a “memorandum of agreement.” Texaco interfered, and the court decided that memo was binding, awarding US $10.5 billion in damages (later settled around $3 billion). The label didn’t matter — the conduct and commitments did.

Later cases such as Loral v B.F. Goodrich, Midwest Energy v Orion, and Morgan Stanley v Peak Ridge reached the same conclusion: once the core terms are agreed and the parties start performing, the paper becomes enforceable, regardless of its title.

Which brings us to Pensana and VAC. Their memorandum isn’t described as non-binding. It contains performance targets and a defined 2027 timeline tied to U.S. defence supply rules. Pensana has already accelerated Longonjo’s build to meet that date — clear reliance.

If an agreement is meant to be aspirational only, “non-binding” must appear in black and white. It doesn’t here — and that omission matters.

Next post: the technical side — why ionic separation isn’t what Pensana or its U.S. partner are using.

Peter, i know you are doing this on purpose just to wind up the members on the board. but there are significant differences. the other MOU's confirmed firm interest in Pensana product, and illustrated that it is a buyers market. this one is Binding, it outlines firm commitments including time lines. It also states that VAC are the off takers, same as ReElements agreement with POSCO stated POSCO will be the off taker. There is a reason for this VAC partnership/POSCO are buying raw material direct, ReElement is acting as a processor of the MREC to Rare earth Oxides for both parties. i wont be responding to you, this is for any other readers

MAA86,

Fair points, but today’s RNS clearly marks a progression from the earlier announcements.

The previous agreements with Hanwa, ReElement, and Toyota Tsusho were all serious, commercial MoUs — each representing tangible offtake or processing pathways. What makes today’s announcement different is the language: the VAC partnership RNS drops the usual “non-binding” disclaimer and uses operational phrasing —

“Pensana has entered into a memorandum of understanding with Vacuumschmelze GmbH & Co. KG to establish a mine-to-magnet supply chain in the United States.”

That’s deliberate. When an RNS omits “non-binding” and uses wording like “to establish,” it signals a move from expressions of intent to a commercially committed framework, with core terms already aligned and only formal documentation to follow.

Also worth noting: the RNS explicitly states Pensana is “looking to accelerate completion” of Longonjo — the exact opposite of a delay. With Phase 1 fully funded and a Tier-1 magnet manufacturer now publicly aligned, this reads as implementation and acceleration, not hesitation.

Good afternoon Montacute, the $4 a share is the price a share has to be for a straight listing, it doesnt correlate with MCAP, once on the exchange the listing can go as low as a dollar. Pensana have issued an RNS advising the shareholders that if $4 equivalent isnt achieved, then they will consider a consolidation of shares to achieve the require NASDAQ listing price. hope this helps

Let’s deal in facts, not fiction.

1️⃣ Funding – Pensana is fully funded for Phase 1 of Longonjo through a US $260 million package from AFC, FSDEA and ABSA. The facility covers mine construction, commissioning and ramp-up. There is no “cash shortage” — the only borrowings visible in the accounts are legacy bridging lines awaiting draw-down.

2️⃣ Wood Group – The huge volume last Friday and Monday (≈ 7 million shares) wasn’t “panic selling.” It was the market absorbing the 4.6 million shares Wood Group received on 9 October for completed EPC work. Wood’s own shares were suspended this morning after its takeover by Sidara collapsed and its accounts were delayed. Faced with that situation, Wood’s treasury liquidated its Pensana holding ahead of the suspension — a sensible move for them, nothing to do with Pensana’s health.

3️⃣ Development – Longonjo is under construction, fully permitted, connected to hydroelectric power, EcoVadis-certified and heading for a Nasdaq dual listing. Partners now include POSCO, Hanwa and Solvay.

4️⃣ Market reality – The Wood block has been cleared and absorbed by new buyers at £1.45 – £1.55. The register is cleaner, supply tighter and the next price move will follow fundamentals — not scare posts.

Stop trying to spook readers. The facts don’t support your story, and anyone who checks the RNSs can see it.

Foxykiwi..... do you actually read anything...... it is fully financed,

Cheers, StockGenius — appreciate the note. Just to clarify, it’s not a BCA setup — Pensana isn’t merging with anyone. The Nasdaq move will be a straight listing of the existing company, not a business combination.

No merger partner as such, though there are strategic and financing links on the U.S. side (EXIM, DFC, POSCO/ReElement, etc.). Your six-month timeline isn’t far off, but that’s from filing rather than any “combination agreement.” With the AGM in December, Q1 next year still looks about right.

Construction’s modular — the main plant units are being fabricated offsite and will be shipped to Angola around Q2 next year. Plenty of progress photos on the Pensana website if you’ve not seen them yet.

Stock genius, whilst MMs comment dont seem to be deliberately down ramping, they are wrong. Pensana timeline still remains Q1 2027, with US production, and NASDAQ list which we also cant wait for

There is a lot of speculation on this board regarding Pensana, just as many on this board rightly live and breath MKANGO, the same holds for PRE Last week Paul Atherley the chairman of Pensna unambiguously advised via at least 4 media outlets(Sky,Bloomberg, BBC and Sunday times) that the Saltend separation plant has been shelved in favour of processing in USA and stated the reason why. For clarity, Saltend has been on the back burner since June 2023 whilst Funding was sought and obtained for the Longonjo mine in Angola. On March the 18th this year, The Angolan Sovereign wealth fund (also a 25% holder in Pensana PLC), the African Finance Corporation and ABSA finalised a 268million USD finance package for the Angolan Mine and and Mixed Rare Earth Carbonate refining facilty. Since then ReElement Technologies have signed an MOU for offtake of the full Phase 1 20kt MREC production, and have also signed with POSCO (a 15 billion Korean conglomerate) to work produce magnets from Rare earth oxides produced by ReElement. ReElement are already scaling ups production for their Marion Indiana plant which will the colocated facilty for Posco and ReElement and will be ready at the same time that the Longonjo mine and facilty will be in production . this is the location of the Marion site for your interest https://maps.google.com/?q=3301+S+Adams+St,+Marion,+IN+46952 . Longonjo will be producing MREC in Q1 2027, is on budget and on schedule. the only mention n of 3 years or 2028, may be attributed to phase two when another 20kt making 40,000 Mts of MREC (mixed rare earth carbonate) in total, containing 4,400 Mts of NdPr Oxide. The pivot to the US has been on the cards for at least 2 years, and certainly since they were in receipt of a 3.4 million USD grant form the DFC. I hope this clarifies the Pensana situation and puts a halt to the unfounded speculation. last week, Wood group who were owed quite a few million in project cost accrued during the saltend development were awarded several million shares in lieu of payment, it is believe that the recent large number of shares being sold can be attributed to Wood group liquidating their share. I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate all the MKA shareholders on their project and wish all the best to us all hon what is a very exciting time for this Sector

Regardless of any other reason, a treasury in a major multinational does not, as a matter of policy, hold stocks. The shares were received as payment for services rendered. Unless the Wood group made a formal board decision to remain invested in Pensana, the shares would need to be liquidated as soon as possible. No reasons needed

Canetoad, Lynas got bankrolled by the Japanese in 2012, same as Pensana are seemingly to be bankrolled by the US. SO Lynas got a head start by the foresight of another countries government. Seems that Pensana, and potentially a few others will be pushed by the US. Immigration not taking anything away from Lynas by the way, they have done a hell of a job.

SP...thats up to them, To do due diligence you need to know what you are looking at. From your statements today, it is obvious you dont. so dont worry your head about it. if you are at all interested get some one to help explain it to you, if it is still too difficult, just ask for a new box of crayons. The books seem to have satisfied a Sovereign wealth funds,UK Investment funds and one of the largest infrastructure development fund in Africa and South Africas largest bank. But im now very concerned that you are questioning the competence of all the institutions staff (not to mention the staff of the DFC who awarded the 3.4 million USD grant to Pensana). i am going to sell my whole shareholding now..... (NOT)

Kurtz, i appreciate that. and thanks for your post. the problem is, even if he doesn't believe it himself. others might.

SP..... NO IT F*CKING DOESNT!!!!! You are talking about asset value, not liability. we own 84% of the asset, the liability is non recourse to ANY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS.........................

I did this for a living, what are your qualifications and experience....?

How many times do i have to say it, they do not have liability for the debt...... should Ozango fail, Pensana are nor responsible, same as Gencore et al, were not when HZM went under....... they lost their investment, (same as Pensana would), but ar not liable for the debt, so it doesn't show as a liability....... FFS

Thats a parent company guarantee......