Member Info for OAPK20

“Sand would be hauled from the mine on B-double trucks each carrying two containers weighing around

25 tonnes each.“

$25 additional cost per truck. Until road built. If below agreement remains.

“ a Deed of Agreement with the former Yallaroi Shire Council (now Gwydir Shire Council) was entered into. This required the upgrade of the road on a basis to be negotiated and payment of a contribution of $1.00 per tonne per load carried from the land until such time as the road is upgraded to a 2 lane gravel road with bitumen surface to an area adjacent to the house in the village of Kooloona. ”

“Laboratory testing has revealed particle size distribution of 42% between 1.16mm and 6.7mm, 39%

between 150µm and 600µm, the remainder being less than 150µm. The samples tested were from 22

test pits to 15 metre depth over the site and the uniformity of the samples and field observations suggest

that the resource is relatively consistent over the entire site. Grid sampling for the planning and

scheduling of extraction is incomplete at this stage. However, it is expected that excavation would start

at the northern end of the site and proceed in a southerly direction.

A 30,000 tonne bulk sample is to be extracted under the existing development consent to be used in a

trial production run.

WORKFORCE

The sand mine would work two shifts per day six days per week, each shift comprising of 12 hours

duration. The following tables provide an estimate of employee numbers per shift, excluding

administrative employees, for the 200,000 tonne and 500,000 tonne operations.

Table 1 Estimated direct employment per shift at 200,000 tonnes per annum.

At a production output of 200,000 tonnes per annum direct employment would be 34 employees over

the two shift operation and for 500,000 tonnes per annum this would rise to 82 workers.

Excavator/loader operator 1

On-site truck driver 2

Screen operator/container loader operator 1

Delivery driver 12

Unloader operator 1

Total 17”

Day 240 is around 27–28 March 2026. That’s the outer target under the Rules.

Mid–February to mid–March 2026 Is about 180–210 days after July submissions

If the story was getting stronger, people wouldn’t need to keep telling everyone they’re buying more.

2.18–2.25p — Liquidity Sweep Zone

“Find forced sellers before allowing trend.”

2.38–2.48p — Fair Value Pivot

If price holds above this after first hour: intraday bias turns bullish.

2.62–2.72p — Momentum Trigger

First area market makers become net short inventory. Above here they must hedge risk. This is where moves accelerate.

2.95–3.10p — Distribution Ceiling

Psychological 3p level. Unless unexpected catalyst appears, this is where they likely sell stock back into demand.

Sounds a great appointment. Institutional-grade governance imported into a junior structure.

Good to announce before open.

If you are using a stop you might find out the hard way.

Read what I posted. I didn’t say it was listed on AIM. Do your homework. Maybe find out what an AIM liquidity probe is.

Watch for an AIM liquidity probe.

That ‘15x’ only works if you pretend AMG owns the uranium. It doesn’t. It owns 9.9% equity of a private company that owns it, with no licence, no cash flow and no way to turn that in-situ number into money. The arbitration outcome is still months away at best, with any cash even further out.

3 May 2019

Farm-in Agreement update on Uranium Project

MetalNRG plc (NEX:MNRG) today announces that it has suspended the terms of the

farm-in agreement with IMC (the "Farm-in Agreement"), announced on 27 March

2019 (the "March Announcement") in relation to the Kamushanovskoye uranium

deposit in Kyrgyzstan with a side letter dated 3 May 2019 (the "Side Letter").

Under the Side Letter, MetalNRG and IMC agree that:

* IMC will waive the obligation of MetalNRG under the Farm-In Agreement to transfer to IMC the Initial Payment of $400,000, payable upon MetalNRG's proposed Admission to the Official List.

* From the date hereof, and throughout the duration of the Uranium Ban, IMC will waive the obligation of MetalNRG under the Farm-In Agreement to make the Tranche Payments on each of the Agreed Dates.

* From the date hereof, and throughout the duration of the Uranium Ban, the Right of First Refusal (as defined in the Farm-In Agreement) shall continue to apply in favour of MetalNRG.

* If the Uranium Ban continues for a period of 12 months from the date hereof, MetalNRG shall have the right to terminate the Farm-In Agreement in its entirety by written notice to IMC and MetalNRG shall not be liable for any unpaid payments thereunder.

* If, within 12 months of the date hereof, either (i) the Uranium Ban ceases to be in force or (ii) the government of the Kyrgyz Republic allows IMC to progress work under its existing mining license for the sole purpose of processing waste (an exemption under the Uranium Ban), MetalNRG may, in its sole discretion, elect to re-enter the Farm-In Agreement, subject to the adjustment, if necessary, of the Agreed Dates in relation to the Tranche Payments and valuation of the Uranium Project.

IMC has continually held that its activities at the Uranium Project of 'cleaning' the peat and contained groundwater, which carries high levels of uranium (such uranium often contaminating the local water supplies), amount to those of processing waste.

IMC holds a mining licence with concomitant rights. The license was officially granted by the government of Kyrgyzstan in April 2019. MetalNRG's current economic interest in the Uranium Project, as a result of its total investment to date of US$170,650, is 8.5%

6th Feb 2023

At the time of the ban, MetalNRG held a 9.9% equity interest in the asset; since the ban, MetalNRG has supported IMC with a convertible loan facility for a total of US$ 341,441 to date. The agreement between IMC and MetalNRG provides that repayment of the convertible loan facility is either (i) via a conversion at 3 times the principal amount advanced into equity in IMC, if the project is reinstated; or (ii) repayment of 300% of the principal amount advanced in cash, in the event that IMC receives or reaches a compensatory settlement with the government of Kyrgyzstan.

Following many months of negotiations with the incumbent Government, IMC has now filed for arbitration with the International Centre for Settlements of Investment disputes (the "ICSID").

IMC's claim before the ICSID is for a minimum compensatory payment of US$ 63 million, plus interest and legal fees, to be assessed. The ICSID tribunal designated to hear the claims has now been constituted and the first hearing is scheduled for 9 March 2023.

The legal firm representing IMC, ENYO Law, who are based in London, have agreed a contingent fee arrangement based on the successful outcome of the claims presented to the ICSID. ENYO Law will receive 50% of any sums awarded, after the deduction of legal expenses. The balance of any award will be due to IMC (which will then distribute any sum on the basis of the arrangements currently in place with MetalNRG. If the case is lost before the ICSID, IMC has no obligations or liability for legal Enyo Law's fees.

Attack the poster ignore the substance.

That’s the only argument the pumpers have. Instead of addressing the post it’s just insults.

Why are they so obsessed with AI? Why do they fear AI so much?

The Kamushanovskoye uranium project itself is owned 100% by International Mining Company Invest Inc (IMC). Atlas Metals doesn’t own the asset. What AMG owns is a minority equity interest in IMC — usually described as 9.9%, sometimes rounded to 10%. Either way, it’s a non-controlling stake.

So the obvious question is: how does AMG actually turn that into money?

There aren’t many routes.

The most straightforward would be selling the IMC shares. That only works if IMC equity is saleable, which probably means some combination of arbitration clarity, a settled licence position, or a partner deal that puts a real valuation on the project. Without one of those, there’s no obvious buyer.

If the arbitration or licensing situation improves, AMG might be able to reverse some or all of the historic impairment. That would lift book value, but it’s accounting only — no cash comes in, and shareholders aren’t any better funded as a result.

If IMC wins or settles the arbitration, any payout goes to IMC, not AMG. AMG only benefits if IMC decides to distribute cash, which is unlikely while the project still needs development capital. Even then, timing and amounts are completely unknown.

Another possibility is a JV or farm-in at IMC level. A partner could fund development in return for an interest, which might re-rate IMC and, by extension, AMG’s stake. Again, that only matters if AMG then sells — there’s no automatic cash outcome.

The important thing to keep in mind is that the US$700m “in-situ value” being quoted isn’t a valuation of IMC and certainly not a valuation of AMG’s interest. Any value to AMG here is indirect, minority, and conditional.

In reality, this is optionality rather than monetisation — not that different from owning shares in AMG itself and hoping future events move the price.

What specifically does the “9.9% stake in IMC 9.9% stake in IMC, with an option to increase that interest” mean in relation to the “uranium asset” you refer to?

9.9% share is it. If successful of course.

International Mining Company Invest, Inc. v. Kyrgyz Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/22/25)

Mr William Clifton (just why hasn’t he listed this on ASX?) owns Claystone Masonry and Claystone International and is a director of UPSA, how were the extraction rights and royalty terms benchmarked to ensure they are arm’s-length?

What protections exist for UPSA shareholders if Claystone entities controlled by a UPSA director seek to renegotiate terms post-Admission?

“ Under the 20 June 2023 Agreement, the parties agreed that the Lessee shall pay the Lessor the sum of US $3.00 per metric ton out of the consideration received by the Lessee from its sale or assignment of the deposit rights.”

What does the owner of lots 5 and 6 get? TBC.

“ a Deed of Agreement with the former Yallaroi Shire Council (now Gwydir Shire Council) was entered into. This required the upgrade of the road on a basis to be negotiated and payment of a contribution of $1.00 per tonne per load carried from the land until such time as the road is upgraded to a 2 lane gravel road with bitumen surface to an area adjacent to the house in the village of Kooloona. ”

Has the road been built ?

There is no mention in available council minutes from 2024–2025 of:

• An Adams Scrub Road / Kooloona Road upgrade project

• A completed bitumen upgrade between the quarry and Kooloona

• A new sealed haulage route matching the 1980s consent requirement

Eats into that £10. Makes the £5 question relevance clearer.

On the information available, the $1 per tonne trucked still applies. Until the road is built.

At scale:

• 1 Mtpa = $1 million per year

• 5 Mtpa = $5 million per year

That is:

• A real, recurring cash leakage

• Not a one-off capex

• Directly impacts EBITDA and valuation

If anyone can, please confirm whether the $1.00 per tonne road contribution deed remains in force following the December 2016 modification, and if not, provide the executed deed of variation or council resolution extinguishing the obligation.

Please explain precisely who owns the PSA reserves, who owns the extraction rights, and under what circumstances those rights can be terminated, diluted, or renegotiated following a change of control.

The RNS says UPSA has rights via an “extraction partner” and Claystone holds the original rights; detailed legal terms (termination, change-of-control provisions) are not yet disclosed.

Most SCMs trade at £3–7/t in-ground, not £10.

Who legally owns the carbon credits: UPSA or the concrete producer, and on which registry are they verified?

If UPSA doesn’t own them, they don’t belong in the valuation.

If the PSA were worth £5 per tonne and carbon credits were unavailable, would this transaction still proceed on the same terms?

Everyone wants a profit. That doesn’t answer dilution, funding, or execution risk.

If you think those don’t matter, explain why.

The substance stands on its own. If there’s a factual rebuttal, post it. If not, the point is made.