Member Info for OAPK20

The SPA already fixes dilution.

The number of shares issued to UPSA vendors is not sensitive to today’s “fair value”.

Under the SPA: UPSA vendors get 97%, 776–780m shares to UPSA. AMG shareholders get 3%, 24m shares to AMG holders.

Total ≈ 800–805m shares.

This does NOT change whether UPSA is “really worth” £25m or £1bn.

The market simply reprices the enlarged equity lower.

So instead of: £1bn headline ⇒ 125p (fantasy). You get: £25–30m reality ⇒ ~3p.

The share count stays the same.

The value per share collapses.

This is important context, £1bn figure: anchors future optionality, it’s not current market value. This is not unusual, but it is dangerous for PI’s if misunderstood.

At 10–11.5p with 800m shares: Implied market cap = £80–92m

To justify that, UPSA needs at least one of: A named, binding UK offtake with scale, Clear path to £5–8m EBITDA, Credible funding plan that avoids crushing dilution.

Without that: The valuation mean-reverts toward 3–5p.

Realistic UPSA valuation today: £20–30m. So today, on fundamentals alone: A realistic “fair value today” is ~2.5–4p.

That’s the uncomfortable truth once you strip out optionality.

Bid up to dump

Rinse and repeat

🤣👍

“ And the Lambo registration is AMG£1.50”

How many sugars for Smooth on Monday morning ?

Smooth would it be correct to say current price action looks like a classic AIM clean-up phase: painful now, but structurally positive — and exactly what you want to see before an RTO crystallises.

So far it’s just AIM speak Smooth. Jam tomorrow. Why the anchor?

Now if “we” confirmed “Lab & pilot trials ongoing” or “ Pilot / framework off-take announced” it adds meat to the bones.

Say Volume: conditional pilot- 10,000 – 50,000 tpa for 6–12 months to Validate performance + logistics.

That De-risks technical adoption, Validates UK customer interest, Moves project from “speculative” → “credible”

That alone would see the gap filled pre rto.

“We” know PSA is the better option to LC³ which has a UK adoption timeline: 5–10 years to meaningful scale.

PSA - No clinker replacement redesign needed. Can be blended like fly ash / GGBS. Lower capex for buyers (Shipping costs ?) Easier trial integration. With UK adoption timeline:

2–5 years to meaningful scale.

PSA adopts faster than LC³, especially via: SCM traders, Ready-mix innovators, Blended cement suppliers.

But so far from AMG it’s Repeated “engagement” language with no progress, No volume or timeframe hints, Vague sustainability language only.

The big 🚀comes from credibility, which until there is any remains a 🚩

Are UPSA at or beyond the stage where Initial commercial conversations have started. Technical / specification fit is being discussed. Volumes, pricing bands, logistics, and timelines are being explored. Possibly under NDA?

Who with (if no NDA?) There is a lack of update. This needs future offtake to support financing or valuation, preferably conditional or binding. What if there’s no offtake?

AMG should update UPSA are undertaking Technical trials and performance testing, Compatibility checks with UK concrete mix designs, Discussions on carbon reduction and spec compliance, Early supply discussions (volumes, logistics)

Heidelberg Materials UK - Aggregate Industries UK Limited - Ecocem (UK operations) - Breedon Group (Breedon Cement)

Material performance trials in technical labs. Mix testing with Tier 1 producers and precasters. Specification alignment with UK standards (BS EN 197, BS EN 206) ; or

NeoCem - Engineered low-carbon calcined clay binder (pozzolanic) for UK concrete.

GreenCem (part of SigmaRoc / PPG) - Ultra-low carbon concrete technology used across UK precast products.

Cemblend - Powder blending specialist supplying bespoke mixes including SCM components.

They could be strategic partners or early adopters.

Marshalls Plc - Large construction materials group moving into low-carbon concrete products. (Via SigmaRoc partnership)

Heidelberg Materials UK - Largest UK cement and concrete supplier. Actively expanding SCM offerings including natural pozzolans and alternative binders.

Tier 1 companies are already blending SCMs, have R&D technical teams, and are under pressure to reduce embodied carbon. PSA fits directly into existing product lines.

Questions still remain why has it taken so long to get a listing? Why not on ASX? Will U.K. companies believe they can ship PSA from Australia to U.K. without compromise to their “Green Credentials? Is it a viable product?

Gap at 28p to fill.

Dumping continues.

Revised full-exit VWAP estimate~10.2p – 10.4p

Next TR-1 below 10% → exit >50% complete

Smooth.

IF this is a genuine RTO and the drilling campaign isn't just the one hole on each lot then why is there a lack of detail in everything this Board releases?

The man behind UPSO gets paid twice already. You'd think ASX investors would be all over an opportunity as good as this, yet the UK is the preferred option for the man behind Clayston Masonry PTY ltd who received development consent to extract, screen and transport sand and rock and to construct and operate a concrete batching plant on Lots 5, 6 and 7 in deposited plan 264346 on the Yammacoona Estate at Kaloona in Northern NSW on the 15th of January 1988.

In 1989 the decision was made to supply the extractive materials to Boral and TnT (boral.com.au) so the concrete plant wasn't built. Boral are no longer involved with Clasyton Masonry PTY ltd so extraction stopped until "Mr Clift sought alternative markets and manufacturers for the material"

That's from the October 2010 Preliminary Assessment Yammacoona Estate Sand Project - Clayston Masonry Pty Ltd.

So from 1988 to 2010 to the incorporation of UPSA on 25th May 2023 with Mr Clift as a director, following the registering of Claystone International Pty Ltd on 22nd December 2016 owned by Mr Clift, why hasn't there been a listing on ASX?

Incidentally isn't Mr Clift also a shareholder in UPSA? Incidentally isn't Claystone International Pty Ltd also a shareholder in UPSA?

38 years Mr Clift and now AMG are getting a too good to be true opportunity to be the vessel for Mr Clift getting a listing.

An opportunity so good Peel are dumping. And the old guard are still pumping.

🤣🤣🤣😘🧐🥴🥴🥴🤣🤣🤣🤣

SmoothOperater Premium Member

Posts: 1,217

Price: 41.00

Strong Buy

RE: SP Tomorrow9 Dec 2024 13:05

Regulatory approval Morocco - finalise funding - regulatory approval UK - asset transfer - Market communication.

That's all that's left and will happen quickly after approval.

Rinse. Repeat.

SuperWoofer pumping since MNRG 🤪🤣

It’s easy to spot the “House Posters” 🥸

Alright half decent small cap miners. Ones that haven’t been issuing shares like confetti then do a 100 to 1 share consolidation.

“ Drill specifics aren’t usually released piecemeal”

Disagree with you there Smooth. You only have to look at any other small cap miner drilling.

The updated CPR Smooth. After drilling. The current CPR is to be replaced. A full re-write or a cut n paste with the additional of the drill plan and results.

Is there a drill plan available from AMG specifying the costs, drill method, number of drill holes, planned depth, grid pattern, or expected release date of results ?

Smooth,

It’s worth noting that at 270,000 tpa (initial offtake discussions) on start up, a Aus$1 per tonnne trucked road levy has a significantly higher percentage impact on margins.

Either UPSA have to build the road in a short timescale or ramp up production in a much shorter timescale.

As it looks just now (if the $1 clause hasn’t been removed) there is a Fixed contractual burden so far of US $3.65/tonne.

This is before any operating costs.

Yes, the project can be profitable even after the US $3/t royalty and A$1/t road levy — but it is only meaningfully attractive at scale (≥1mtpa).

At low volumes it is cash-positive but does not support a very large valuation.

The project fails if two things happen together:

1. PSA sells at ≤ US $25/t, and

2. Delivered cost creeps above US $22/t

That leaves no margin after royalties and road levies.

At what sustained annual production volume does the project generate ≥US $20m EBITDA after royalties and road levies, and how much additional capex is required to reach that volume?

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

Smooth if you 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.

Smooth can you correct if you have the information?

Deeds survive DA modifications unless:

• the deed itself is formally varied, or

• the DA modification explicitly extinguishes the obligation.

A modification to Condition 11 alone does not automatically override a deed.