Member Info for Dip666

Hi Ace, as you say covered before and Shaun referred to Havieron as a dry mine and that eventually it water would be required from Telfer. The LCA will also not recharge with water either.

@nine - as James rightly said the questions you pose can only be answered by GGP and to an extent the seller Newcrest.

Questions that also won't be answered by either fully until the sales process is over frankly. Some of us have managed to get responses from respective IR departments in regards to various topics but usually the answers are along the lines that things must play out until official market releases will be made.

This leaves you with the same choice as the rest of us, buy, sell, hold accordingly based on your best guess on how things will turn out. You can moan for the next few weeks/months but nothing will change.

I think many of us have come to the same conclusion that the decline is unlikely to restart until the sales process is completed by Newmont. So again, that leaves you with the choice to take your position based on assumptions you have on whether GGP close a deal and how accretive it might be in terms of associated equity/loans structure.

The fundamentals of the asset itself might remain unchanged but the investment case very much has with the Newmont acquisition and divestment decision adding uncertainty of the future vs the pre-set funding and JV we had in place.

SO - get your head around this and adapt your strategy. You're not trapped here by anything but your own mind and attitude as you can buy, sell or hold shares. When an investment case changes you need to revisit everything and then take action of that is what you feel is needed.

You're not going to get clarity on funding structure, LCA progress or many other topics you raise on here for obvious reasons.

CA has good insights so I find his articles useful for his POV on UFO - as for PR, it's essential for clarifying and explaining things outside official market releases and helping attract new investors.

So IMO it is good to see some focus again on this - as for progress on eth projects, this we hope to see improve in the next few months I guess.

Https://money.tmx.com/en/quote/RMR/news/7822762431276115

Most of the WA funding I think if this is what was referred to is co-funded for up to 50% of project costs with caps for various types of drilling or other methods.

https://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Geological-Survey/EIS-government-co-funded-Energy-28761.aspx

https://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Geological-Survey/EIS-Government-co-funded-1433.aspx

No - it was the right thread- time to get an extra morning coffee in before I do anything important I think ;-)

Oops wrong thread and forgot to misspell Hanc*ck to avoid the small caps etc. as filter kicks in!

max - i don't believe that ca has been 'given assurances' of any kind by alien, rather his own opinion that they will manage a deal on han**** and get it over the line. he's also invested now which is promising looking at his calls of the last year or so i've paid attention too on aim juniors.

the interview/podcast next week if it goes ahead will be interesting as he intends to ask searching questions.

Https://ftseaim.co.uk/alien-metals

He has been verified Max, that's my point ;-)

Easier to verify someone on other platforms than on here where one can create multiple IDs and use VPN to get past membership being revoked.

There are clear examples of poor management of the company, assets and project management which frankly is common.

Great assets still but poor management of above sadly has held the comp at back more so than you could allow usual orphan period and sector sentiment to justify

As it stands I think they should still be capable of getting Hanc-ck over the line but long term, need to see some serious focus and stability in building a reputable leadership team too.

Plenty of LTHers making valid commentary on the company albeit it may not be fully positive and well... it's reasonable to be annoyed IMO with certain aspects

no offence max - but you often say this or that would be madness and while i often agree, i've seen little evidence of you having any particular expertise in any commercial sense- might explain why your posts are as unbalanced as chris2 - albeit on the other side of the spectrum where he twists everything negatively.

tbf as always - you find some good info. at times but highly advisable that analysis and interpretation is made individually with more nuance and balance than you have.

smiller is very much a valid shareholder - no one needs your approval to be considered such - considering you yourself are completely anonymous here and x while being the most prolific poster on alien. many of us can easily be verified in real-life mate, some of us just have more analytical and balanced approaches than you that have been far more correct to date in reading into progress and timelines - probably due to being more commercially experienced than you appear to be.

according to some here inc. you over the last few years, we'd have been in production at han****, eh and mm by now.... i have no issue with you besides this attacking valid shareholders with concerns with ill-founded accusations and opinions. it makes the board pretty hard to bother posting for what many who could add real value to it.

Hi Barna- that's what has been communicated from their director of IR nonetheless and it was specified as 'intent' - so things could change or differ of course.

Perhaps bids need to place values for both assets so the LROR can be offered before any transaction is fully concluded.

I have shared screen captures on TG before for validity for any correspondence and would assume after the last few years, not many distrust me hopefully :-)

Below is the text of her reply on 7th May to queries I made in regards to the sales process and tailings issues.

******************

Hello Dip –

Thank you for your inquiry. Your understanding is correct that our intent is to divest the Haverion project as one package with Telfer. Unfortunately we cannot comment on the divestment process for Telfer or Havieron further as it is an ongoing situation. We will make any material public disclosures at the appropriate time.

Thanks,

Mari

******************

@EOW - The potential 20MoZ is still to be proven via MRE's and expanded drilling from underground so has less commercial value to be factored in presently. I just think 6-7 bidders to be taken into a phase 2 of any sales process after an initial stage seems oddly high and unlikely to me - but everything is very speculative with processes that are non public and also in earlier stages - so an open mind is key I guess :-)

Telfer and Hav being packaged together was confirmed in correspondence I had with Newmont's Director of IR Mariana Rose and also by JC in TG wiht a member of her team earlier than mine..

Strongly suspect that the mention of 6 to 7 companies being taken to next phase in the article is in relation to entire divestment portfolio rather than just Telfer and perhaps Telfer/Hav.

If not, then I guess the price we might pay will be higher due to lots of competitive interest, but as we will be funding through some combination of debt and/or equity vs having the money to hand, any deal will still need to be accretive and well structured from viewpoint of potential lenders, partners and shareholders.

As well as the LROR, the other options we have are for JV with Wyloo or another company, so plenty of flexibility IMO. 6 or 7 interested parties just in relation to Telfer seems extraordinarily high to me, even if Havieron included.

Not sure if that phrase about taking 6 or 7 companies across to next phase was related to the overall divestment process for all assets personally and the article just laid out badly.

Have tried emailing the journalist to gain clarification.

I don't use the word 'smart' in conjunction with John 'cornball' Cornford often but myself and others have broken down previous articles for lack of comprehension and factual information in the past, his work on other stocks is as bad. He is smart to some extent in how he takes the typical and individual questions around an investment and writes around these to suit whatever his POV is.

I would say that there aren't always definitive answers to certain questions, such as around funding acquisition of sole ownership for Telfer and Havieron - more so individual POV and thoughts on capability and structure of hypothetical deals every investor has to make for themselves. His POV and analysis tends to point to negative only for GGP and seems less than balanced, but this seems to hold true for his work in general whether he has positive or negative outlooks.

As evidenced in previous articles (examples on GGPChat looking at a couple of his in detail) - he has either intentionally or unintentionally shown a lack of understanding of various topics (such as the Option Exercise), missed key details and made incorrect assumptions. I don't care whether his POV is positive or negative - his research ability is poor and you can't build a good analysis off bad research.

Seemed a reasonable scenario to some of us inc. yourself James when the news about TSF being discussed in TG as perhaps getting the TSF repaired and ascertaining if new TSF might be required in future influences the sales price and also from a legal standpoint made sense.

Perhaps some of the process can still run in parallel if true, I've reached out to the author to clarify what he means exactly by parked until later in year and if his assumption or from official sources and if his $1bn AUD valuation by analysts is based on assumptions using the Grant Samuels report or other sources.

Https://www.miningreview.com/magazine-article/rome-resources-bisie-north-tin-project-shows-early-promise/

*writer not weiter!

Hi mark, think weiter used Greatland Gold as GGP discovered Havieron and the context was discoveries not project ownership:-)