Member Info for Mumbles2021

Except PRE isnt AIM, its on the main listing..... remind me how you spell AFC..... OH yeah..... AFC!!!!

Tony, price action implies in the next 10 minutes!!!!!!!

You were very positive in March 2023. Then the disastrous interim came out. At the moment, it looks like the stars are aligning this week. Short of another Sibanye Stillwater event. which I am sure is not on the cards this time

AS1971, I bite as you never have anything to say. It’s obvious that all you are trying to do is illicit a reaction. You’re not expecting a well constructed or argued response. I admit I putting as much thought into my responses to you as you do to the posts that you make. I also admit that I always feel much better after having told you F*ck off. You are right most of the time as you only post about a drop in the SP and only AFTER IT HAS HAPPENED, most of us have 20/20 hindsight. Funny that in between your posts the SP has always risen. Never seen you post on that .

If I was Zelensky I would sign tomorrow and tell trump to take all the rare earths he can find.

Please guys, just drop it for now, no need for the public forum anymore, point has been made

You are right, Tony. The crazy thing is that Europe and the US are still procrastinating. Meanwhile, the Angolans and other African Finance institutions have realised how valuable this critical mineral is and are deciding to finance it themselves, procuring significantly more of the upside than historically achieved.

Theo if what you say is correct, then you are probably right. But at least I am prepared to stand by my convictions. If I do owe Hallgarten and its owners an apology and any number of retractions on any number of platforms, the . I would not only be prepared to do it, I would actually be delighted to do it

Of course that does depend on me being wrong. If I am, then. It is Me Eccleston who deserves the apology. You though, showing yourself to be the spineless keyboard warrior that you are, still with zero credibility.

Theo (Christopher Ecclestone), Your Credibility Is Gone

Theo, now that it’s clear you are Christopher Ecclestone of Hallgarten & Co., let’s address your misrepresentation of Pensana and your clear conflict of interest.

I am Ian Brown, a substantial Pensana shareholder who has grown my stake based on deep research and firsthand experience in West African commodities, project development, and project finance due diligence. Everything I’ve posted is backed by verifiable sources—published reports, financing updates, technical papers, and industry insight.

You, on the other hand, have built a campaign of misinformation, personal attacks, and bias, while conveniently ignoring verifiable facts that contradict your narrative.

1️⃣ You’re Not an Independent Analyst—You’re Pushing an Agenda

• Hallgarten & Co. has published multiple reports (2020–2024) promoting American Rare Earths (ARR), yet ignored Pensana’s progress.

• You’ve produced at least five ARR reports, but not a single detailed analysis of Pensana’s financing or project updates.

• Your June 2023 ARR report positioned it as an industry leader, while Pensana—despite comparable progress—was omitted.

• Instead of balanced analysis, you spread FUD about Pensana on forums while promoting ARR under your real name.

• If you were neutral, why does your “research” and forum activity align perfectly with an anti-Pensana/pro-ARR stance?

2️⃣ You Move Goalposts & Misrepresent Facts

• You claimed AFC wasn’t involved, yet they confirmed their role in 2025. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you shifted the argument.

• You dismissed Pensana’s independent due diligence (TMC, SRK, ADP, ProProcess) despite 18,000+ scrutinized cost line items.

• You claimed no financing progress, despite ABSA approving $80M in 2025 and AFC confirming their participation.

• You portray standard project finance structures (e.g., political risk insurance) as red flags, despite them being common risk mitigation tools in higher-risk jurisdictions.

3️⃣ You Attack People Instead of Debating Facts

• You fixate on Paul Atherley and Pensana’s management—this is personal, not financial analysis.

• A real analyst debates project fundamentals—you smear individuals instead.

4️⃣ Hallgarten & Co. – A False Legacy, Raising More Questions

• The original Hallgarten investment bank collapsed in 1987, yet you use the name without disclosing that history.

• Your firm was only incorporated in 2015 and has no connection to the original.

🚨 Theo, Your Reputation is Finished

📌 You are not an unbiased observer—you are an agenda-driven promoter of ARR and a serial detractor of Pensana.

📌 You misrepresent facts, shift goalposts, and ignore legitimate financing progress.

📌 You attack people instead of debating company fundamentals.

📌 Your firm misrepresents its own legacy, further undermining your c

Theo, More Misinformation—Here Are the Facts

Theo, you keep regurgitating the “finance was imminent two years ago” line while ignoring the actual sequence of events. Since you seem to be struggling with the timeline, let’s lay it out factually, backed by official sources.

📌 The Financing Timeline – What Actually Happened

• Nov 2022: Pensana anticipated finalizing financing.

• March 2023: The Sibanye-Stillwater financing collapsed due to Sibanye’s internal issues, not project viability (widely documented since).

• June 2023: A new financing structure was announced, involving ABSA, FSDEA, and an undisclosed Pan-African Development Bank (RNS - 27/06/23).

• Oct 2023: The undisclosed Pan-African bank was still engaged (RNS - 31/10/23).

• Jan 2025: ABSA formally approved $80M in funding (RNS - 23/01/25).

• Feb 2025: AFC confirmed as the Pan-African bank previously mentioned (Mining Indaba 2025).

So your “two years and no progress” claim is deliberate misrepresentation—the original financing failed, and a completely new structure had to be built. This isn’t unique to Pensana—it’s normal in project finance.

📌 What About Saltend? It’s Not Stalled—It’s Being Reassessed

Your claim that Saltend has been “silent for two years” is also misleading. In September 2024, Pensana announced that downstream refining is being reassessed in Angola with U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) grant support.

📌 The DFC committed $3.4M to feasibility studies for increasing Longonjo’s capacity and adding REE separation in Angola.

📌 This is part of the U.S. strategy for critical mineral supply chain diversification.

📌 Feasibility work under this grant could lead to further U.S. financial support.

So rather than Saltend being “quietly abandoned”, Pensana is evaluating a more vertically integrated structure with government-backed feasibility work. That’s called adapting to changing market conditions, not failure.

📌 Your Fixation on Share Price Means Nothing

📌 Market prices don’t define a project’s fundamental value—if they did, every undervalued resource stock would be worthless.

📌 If share price = success, how do you explain ARR’s price fluctuations despite your glowing Hallgarten reports?

📌 ABSA, AFC, and DFC are engaged in financing discussions—if the project was dead, why would they still be here?

📌 Final Thought: You’re Pushing a Narrative, Not Facts

🚨 You ignore every financing milestone.

🚨 You dismiss independent technical due diligence.

🚨 You fixate on temporary share prices while ignoring long-term fundamentals.

Theo, your narrative collapses under scrutiny. If you have actual, verifiable evidence that contradicts ABSA’s approval, AFC’s confirmation, or DFC’s grant funding—post it. Otherwise, it’s just more goalpost shifting.

Your obsession with discrediting Ozango due to one man is misguided and disrespectful to the Pensana/Ozango teams, financiers, and thousands of shareholders.

Here’s what’s actually happened in 20 months:

June 2023 – Financing strategy announced: FSDEA (equity), ABSA (debt lead), Pan-African Development Bank involvement. (RNS)

August 2023 – FEED initiated, geotechnical & process assessments began. (RNS)

Jan 2024 – TMC completes independent due diligence, reviewing 18,000+ cost line items, mine plan, process validation. (RNS)

Feb 2024 – FSDEA commits $15M equity loan, ABSA/AFC structure debt. (RNS)

Jan 2025 – ABSA formally approves $80M credit facility. (RNS)

Feb 2025 – AFC publicly confirms role at Mining Indaba. (RNS)

This is structured progress, not “kicking the can.” Independent experts (SRK, ADP, ProProcess, TMC) have reviewed every aspect of the project.

Theo, you were wrong about AFC. You’re wrong about “no progress.” If you have evidence that contradicts ABSA’s approval or AFC’s confirmation, post it. Otherwise, time to move on.

Theo, Your Arguments Have Lost All Credibility

Your obsession with discrediting individuals rather than engaging in fact-based discussion is undeniable. This isn’t scepticism—it is character assassination, misinformation, and outright bitterness.

Across Pensana and Alkemy (ALK), you follow the same pattern:

In Pensana, you denied AFC’s involvement, ignored ABSA’s approval, and moved the goalposts whenever your claims were proven false.

In ALK, instead of discussing financing, you’re making wild, personal accusations about share options, salaries, and executive structuring—including attacks on family members who have nothing to do with the company’s financial decisions.

Let’s be clear:

1️⃣ You attack people, not projects.

In Pensana, it’s Paul Atherley.

In ALK, it’s Vicky and others, including family members—a line no rational person crosses in a financial debate.

2️⃣ You misrepresent facts to suit your narrative.

You were wrong about AFC. Wrong about financing progress. Wrong about “no progress” in Pensana.

Now, in ALK, you’re twisting standard corporate practices into some elaborate conspiracy.

3️⃣ Your tone isn’t critical—it’s personal.

Mocking people’s compensation, inventing financial “gymnastics,” and dragging in family members doesn’t make you a truth-seeker—it makes you a bitter detractor.

So, Theo, let’s settle this:

📌 If you have verifiable evidence contradicting the RNS disclosures and verified facts from Pensana or Alkemy, post it. Otherwise, this isn’t a debate—it’s just you pushing personal grudges.

Your credibility is gone. It’s time to move on.

Theo, Your Arguments Have Lost All Credibility

Your obsession with discrediting individuals rather than engaging in fact-based discussion is undeniable. This isn’t scepticism—it is character assassination, misinformation, and outright bitterness.

Across Pensana and Alkemy (ALK), you follow the same pattern:

In Pensana, you denied AFC’s involvement, ignored ABSA’s approval, and moved the goalposts whenever your claims were proven false.

In ALK, instead of discussing financing, you’re making wild, personal accusations about share options, salaries, and executive structuring—including attacks on family members who have nothing to do with the company’s financial decisions.

Let’s be clear:

1️⃣ You attack people, not projects.

In Pensana, it’s Paul Atherley.

In ALK, it’s Vicky and others, including family members—a line no rational person crosses in a financial debate.

2️⃣ You misrepresent facts to suit your narrative.

You were wrong about AFC. Wrong about financing progress. Wrong about “no progress” in Pensana.

Now, in ALK, you’re twisting standard corporate practices into some elaborate conspiracy.

3️⃣ Your tone isn’t critical—it’s personal.

Mocking people’s compensation, inventing financial “gymnastics,” and dragging in family members doesn’t make you a truth-seeker—it makes you a bitter detractor.

So, Theo, let’s settle this:

📌 If you have verifiable evidence contradicting the RNS disclosures and verified facts from Pensana or Alkemy, post it. Otherwise, this isn’t a debate—it’s just you pushing personal grudges.

Your credibility is gone. It’s time to move on.

Pensana timeline on current funding strategy

28/4/23

https://pensana.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/RNS-Issue-of-Shares-to-M-G-and-FSDEA-_28-April-2023.pdf

27/6/23

https://pensana.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Pensana-LSE-Announcement-_Funding-Update-27-June-2023.pdf

21/8/23

https://pensana.co.uk/longonjo-operational-update-august-2023/

31/10/23

https://pensana.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Update-on-Finance-for-Longonjo-and-Saltend-Projects-October-23.pdf

24/1/24

https://pensana.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2024-24-01-Technical-due-diligence-report-on-Longonjo.pdf

5/2/24

https://pensana.co.uk/longonjo-mrec-product-quality-approval/

26/2/24

https://pensana.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2024-02-25-Longonjo-Financing-Final.pdf

30/7/24

https://pensana.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Pensana-awarded-Sustainability-Gold-by-Ecovadis.pdf

9/9/24

https://pensana.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Offtake-and-Co-operation-Agreement-with-Hanwa.pdf

24/9/24

https://pensana.co.uk/technical-assistance-grant-from-the-us-international-development-finance-corporation/

23/1/24

https://pensana.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Update-on-Longonjo-Finance.pdf

6/2/24 - AFC confirm in presentation at India mining conference that they are the previous undisclosed Pan African Infrastructure development bank mentioned in previous notices

Theo, let’s stick to facts and official disclosures. Here’s why your statement is misleading.

“Two years of internal credit analysis!”

🔴 Misleading.

✅ Fact:

Technical & budgetary due diligence completed in early 2023 (RNS - 24/01/24).

Internal credit analysis followed—a normal step in structured financing.

Pan-African financing strategy outlined in June 2023 (RNS - 27/06/23), meaning discussions have been ongoing for 20 months, not two years of inactivity.

“Who ‘officially confirmed’ AFC was a participant?”

🔴 Ignoring formal disclosures.

✅ Fact:

AFC voluntarily confirmed its role at Mining Indaba (Feb 2025) (RNS - 06/02/25).

Previously disclosed as a Pan-African Development Bank (RNS - 31/10/23) and (RNS - 26/02/24).

🔎 Reality check: AFC’s own disclosure confirms advanced discussions on debt and equity.

“Is this an unconditional commitment?”

🔴 Shifting goalposts.

✅ Fact:

AFC’s confirmation is not yet a formal commitment but voluntarily disclosed at an advanced stage (RNS - 06/02/25).

ABSA’s $80M conditional credit approval confirmed in Jan 2025 (RNS - 23/01/25).

No further clarifications requested since Oct 2023 [(AGM disclosure)].

“ABSA approved the loan only if someone else takes the risk?”

🔴 Misrepresenting ABSA’s approval.

✅ Fact:

ABSA’s $80M credit approval confirmed (RNS - 23/01/25).

Political & commercial risk insurance is standard in African project finance, not a sign of a weak deal.

AFC’s participation significantly de-risks the project.

“$50k a month to kick the can for four years?”

🔴 A lazy attempt to dismiss progress.

✅ Fact:

Current financing strategy launched in June 2023, not four years ago (RNS - 27/06/23).

Technical due diligence completed in early 2023 (RNS - 24/01/24).

ABSA approved $80M in Jan 2025, AFC confirmed its role in Feb 2025—clear progress.

Final Verdict

✅ Theo’s claims are misleading, dismissing documented progress.

✅ AFC’s confirmation & ABSA’s approval show clear financing momentum.

✅ Financing is advancing, not stalled.

📌 Theo, repeating doubts won’t change the facts. If you have verifiable evidence contradicting ABSA’s credit approval or AFC’s confirmation, post it—otherwise, time to move on.

links to RNS mention in next post

Theo, let's stick to facts.

The current financing structure was outlined in June 2023, confirming ABSA as the lead debt financier and FSDEA as equity backer. By late 2023, the involvement of a Pan-African Development Bank was revealed, though the name wasn't disclosed. Then, in February 2025, AFC was officially confirmed as that bank, putting a name to the previously mentioned participant. While the structure had been known for some time, AFC publicly reinforced its role at Mining Indaba 2025, confirming its participation in debt and equity financing for Longonjo.

So, when you say, "There was no mention whatsoever of AFC," you are simply wrong.

Since 2023, Pensana has managed the technical side, ensuring operational readiness, while FSDEA has driven the financing. FSDEA owns 25% of Pensana, 10% of Longonjo, and provided a $15M loan on the financing announcement—set to convert to equity.

You claim, "since March 2023, they've got nowhere," yet in January 2025, ABSA announced credit approval for its $80M portion of the debt. Then, in February 2025, AFC confirmed funding 50% of the debt and likely 50% of the equity. Since June 2023:

ABSA has conditionally approved $80M (January 2025).

AFC has publicly confirmed its role as a debt and equity participant (February 2025).

No financing parties have requested further clarifications since October 2023.

Technical and budgetary due diligence were completed in early 2023—since then, it has been internal credit analysis.

Financing is advised (anecdotally) to be at the credit committee stage.

FSDEA Leads Financing, AFC Defines the Structure

FSDEA is driving the financing process.

AFC is shaping the final deal as both a debt and equity participant.

AFC's involvement significantly de-risks the project for ABSA.

The financing process is advancing, not stalled.

AFC has a clear policy of keeping Africa's resource value within the continent and supporting local processing over raw material exports. Longonjo fits directly into this strategy, reinforcing AFC's commitment.

Let's be clear:

FSDEA is leading the financing.

AFC is structuring the final terms as both a debt and equity participant.

The financing is progressing.

Theo, repeating doubts won't change facts. If you have verifiable evidence contradicting ABSA's credit approval or AFC's confirmation, post it—otherwise, it's time to move on.

Theo, what part of FSDEA is the one driving this don't you understand. They lost patience nearly 2 years ago. This is an Angolan project and Ozango is the borrower . Pensana own 84% of the asset, the Angolans own 25% of Pensana and 10% of Ozango, a stake that is going to at least double Pensana are having to let some of their equity in Ozango go. This dilutes the FSDEA Pensana stake in Ozango but increases their direct stake. The FSDEA stands to make a far greater immediate return from the shares in Pensana than the stake in Ozango, but they will be at the top of the dividend payment waterfall from Ozango when Longonjo start producing.

Theo, what’s clearer?, the ECIC have been part of the lending structure since ABSA became involved. It’s not as if it is anything new. Also not unusual for lenders supporting loans, or any other trading operation operating in higher risk environment or outside their normal sphere of operation to insure their exposure. The discussions with the ECIC were well advanced early in 2024. Why are you insistent on pointing out vanilla risk management processes as though they are unusual It also has the added advantage of knocking a couple of points off the interest rate charged to the borrower as well.

Theo, I'm fully aware of your experience. My post was not for your attention but for those you were trying to mislead by only telling half a story. I.e., that risk mitigation by spreading the risk over multiple lenders is standard practice. This left those with less experience to believe that the lending structure in place for the Ozango was determined due to a lack of risk appetite for the specific project rather than a well-established practice for large loans.

Where does it say : "Subject to finding someone to take all the risk on their 80"

The specific statement is:

Leading Pan-African bank Absa Bank Limited, acting through its Corporate and Investment Banking Division ("Absa"), has conditionally approved a credit term sheet for its 50% participation in an approximately US$160 million syndicated loan facility ("the Facility"), subject to the conclusion of definitive loan documentation and the fulfilment of conditions precedent contained therein as well as obtaining political and commercial risk insurance cover from a reputable political risk insurer on Absa's exposure under the Facility.The Facility will provide senior funding for the Phase 1 development of the Company's Longonjo rare earth mine ("Longonjo") in Angola through its 84% owned subsidiary Ozango Minerais SA ("Ozango").

Theo, this is one of the most disingenuous statements I have seen you make. "Now we are down to one bank saying they will lend the money if someone else takes the risk".

You say this as though it is an unusual practice. ABSA is a substantial bank, but a $160 million loan to one borrower is a lot even for them. Sharing risk by syndicating participation in loans is a prudent and widely accepted risk management process, as you know well. The fact that ABSA has taken on 50% of the loan to the value of $80 million is an endorsement of its own. I've been in projects where a $27 million loan was syndicated to 9 banks.