Member Info for Happyhaddock

M U F O G S ...

I like it , but the real value is in the vintage baseball caps from the first time around that somebody proposed this slogan... but then there'll always be a market of new customers who might have missed out on obtaining earlier issues of such baseball caps.

Well I'd always said that the iron ore was a distraction from our non-ferrous metals, that whilst a crazy spike in iron ore to over $200/t and talk of $300/t was bound to make folk look to iron ore, nobody could put a mine in to production fast enough to captalise. More normal prices of $80/t to $100/t just didn't make sense for a small company to start on the long route to production

Seems Bruce is now saying as much, just a pitty we wasted years talking about iron ore rather than spending our funds exploring our non-ferrous metals sites to the point we ran out of cash and had to JV them out.

A nice steady start for West coast silver, the real issue of course, and as many have been worried about for some time, is what is the long term plan for UFO?

Will we benefit from their progress or is the intention that we end up with no stake or control in this project by the time silver starts coming out of the ground?

If we had a proven and dedicated BOD acting in the long term interest of UFO shareholders the answer should be obvious, but over many years the motives and priorities of Alien's management have been increasingly doubted. This prompts the question if you like Elizabeth Hill why would UFO shares be a better purchase than WCS?

Even if appearing pessimistic or condescending, given how many lose money speculating on junior explorers, the following warning to clearly identify all unknowns by separating actionable accomplishments from aspirational goals warrants periodic repetition.

I'm always amazed at the unshakable conviction folk on LSE have in their own opinions, along with their desire to have those opinions seen as more important than other people's. It is as if they don't realise that this sector is defined by uncertainty and that markets are moved by what the silent majority feel probable, not what vocal strangers on the inter-net hope or fear is possible.

Too many on LSE mistakenly equate a junior explorer's potential with guarantees of meeting every management's hopes of soon becoming producers. Companies can't announce new deals or great drill results whenever nervous folk want more reassurance that they've backed one of the rare exceptions that will go on to make a loss making sector seem appealing. Progress with physical exploration and administrative paper-work is typically far more uncertain than most can tolerate, where share dilution, delays, escalating costs and short term price volatility are the expected norm even for the best projects.

In the insular world of LSE bulletin boards some dedicate much of every day to cheering on speculative equity purchases like punters at the horse racing, or to jeering at those with contrasting opinions as if they were pantomime villains. This questionable use of time, along with the impatient hype of LSE contributors who champion extreme predictions, either to the up or downside, has no influence over, and tells us little about how, the wider markets that move share prices behave.

Insults and paranoid bickering about motive, honesty and understanding won't alter a lack of facts about which, if any, theory on future unknowns will eventually prevail. Nor does it move things along more quickly or increase the odds of a particular hope or fear being realised. Nevertheless, there are always some who think that others should share their conviction in wild opinions that cannot be objectively confirmed or denied, but where hindsight usually goes on to show unrealistic expectation to have been the most common reason companies do not deliver upon the extreme claims of those frequenting bulletin boards.

If anyone associates uncertainty and doubt with fear they should question if their temperament is suited to this sector of the market or if they have speculated with more money than they can afford to lose? Much of what impatient folk here focus their emotional energy on arguing about each day is, at best, peripheral short term noise only of relevance to their own confirmation bias, ego and self-esteem. Only the passage of time will show who was right or wrong, but I remain content to maintain a speculative share holding here.

Well for all those looking to junior explorers as a "get rich quick" scheme there's nothing about this RNS that is likely to excite the traders, if you look upon these results as the first step in what could be a long haul process to establish a major mine then its not all "bad news".

Many here keep comparing Red Setter to Telfer, so if that is the case we probably shouldn't have expected high grade deposits at surface ... Telfer was (still is) all about sheer scale, proving up something like that, if that's what red Setter actually is, will take a lot of time and money.

Even if appearing pessimistic or condescending, given how many lose money on junior explorers, the following warning to clearly identify all unknowns by separating actionable accomplishments from aspirational goals warrants periodic repetition.

I'm always amazed at the unshakable conviction folk on LSE have in their own opinions, along with their desire to have those opinions seen as more important than other people's. It is as if they don't realise that this sector is defined by uncertainty and that markets are moved by what the silent majority feel probable, not what vocal strangers on the inter-net hope or fear is possible.

Too many on LSE mistakenly equate a junior explorer's potential with guarantees of meeting every management's hopes of soon becoming producers. Companies can't announce new deals or great drill results whenever nervous folk want more reassurance that they've backed one of the rare exceptions that will go on to make a loss making sector seem appealing. Progress with physical exploration and administrative paper-work is typically far more uncertain than most can tolerate, where share dilution, delays, escalating costs and short term price volatility are the expected norm even for the best projects.

In the insular world of LSE bulletin boards some dedicate much of every day to cheering on speculative equity purchases like punters at the horse racing, or to jeering at those with contrasting opinions as if they were pantomime villains. This questionable use of time, along with the impatient hype of LSE contributors who champion extreme predictions, either to the up or downside, has no influence over, and tells us little about how, the wider markets that move share prices behave.

Insults and paranoid bickering about motive, honesty and understanding won't alter a lack of facts about which, if any, theory on future unknowns will eventually prevail. Nor does it move things along more quickly or increase the odds of a particular hope or fear being realised. Nevertheless, there are always some who think that others should share their conviction in wild opinions that cannot be objectively confirmed or denied, but where hindsight usually goes on to show unrealistic expectation to have been the most common reason companies do not deliver upon the extreme claims of those frequenting bulletin boards.

If anyone associates uncertainty and doubt with fear they should question if their temperament is suited to this sector of the market or if they have speculated with more money than they can afford to lose? Much of what impatient folk here focus their emotional energy on arguing about each day is, at best, peripheral short term noise only of relevance to their own confirmation bias, ego and self-esteem. Only the passage of time will show who was right or wrong, but having already taken more than my original stake off the table I remain content to maintain a speculative share holding here.

Obviously folk are free to do as they see fit in terms of how they allocate their time and capital, but you do have to wonder about the mentality and motivation of people who voluntarily spend all day everyday, month after month, arguing with strangers on the internet whom they obviously consider to be idiots... clearly they must have a lot of time on their hands and enjoy arguing and being insulted!

Expecting to find calm, moderate, rational and knowledgeable debate on an internet bulletin board is perhaps a little naive to say the least, so you have to assume that to some degree, most people visit these boards knowing they will find extreme opinions. Just seems a little strange to voluntarily spend time anywhere populated by such views if you know they are going to annoy or offend.

There are certainly far better sources to conduct research into companies if that is what you want, LSE is for conducting research in to the often irrational and extreme views of small investors.

@threeturn - you are going to make yourself very unpopular on here if you keep speaking common sense like that... The bulletin boards here are used primarily for petty squabbling and for the insecure to seek communal affirmation of their wild opinions.

It doesn't take long to learn which names on a bulletin board you can't engage in intelligent discussion as they only know how to respond with hostile abuse. Similarly you soon learn which names views are just fantasy, where if in doubt it is best to stay away from these bulletin boards all together.

I've said many times elsewhere that I Joined LSE after the sector's pandemic spike in 2020 to study the reason resistant exuberant faith of many private investors and how it can drive such irrational moves in share prices. The hope being that it might give me a better understanding of when irrational mania can run further, and when it might all come crashing down. I'm not sure all the rubbish spoken on LSE has made me any the wiser, perhaps just a little more cautious and less greedy, where today has made my recent decision to top slice a good chunk of OMI at 40p quite prudent. I still own the majority of what I've held for many years since the 2p to 4p days, but I recently recouped all my initial outlay plus more than enough profit to cover the time value of my money being in OMI for several years and free up plenty extra to find a new home to go someway to rebalancing the speculative element of my portfolio which had reached a point it was being dominated by OMI.

Well, as is so often the case, the release of important news fails to deliver upon the wild forecasts of a bulletin board's most exuberant voices leading to much arguing about who said what and when, and much back-tracking, denial and counter claims.

If you can learn to ignore all the noise that is a bulletin board, then today's news is another positive step forward, you just have to accept that the future is rarely as positive as many here would want you to believe, and a consequence of that is that share prices rarely achieve all that some here most fervently argue they will as actual facts have a tendency to bring prices back in line with reality.

Would be great if shares did always deliver on the wildest of claims made here, but those with more experience know that sadly, the voices that most often prove accurate are the ones that are dismissed as boring and conservative in their forecasts... or better still have the sense not to make forecasts given that this is such an uncertain sector.

I'm kind of in agreement with Dip about this;

We can never be sure of what motivates the wider markets, but junior explorers are always high risk where you have to have trust in the management to even risk a little of your beer money, let alone invest serious cash. For the last five years it has been hard to even know who our management are, let alone what their motives are. All trust has been blown by the transient merry go-round of "here today gone tomorrow" lackadaisical directors we've suffered, where it will take some hard work and staying power from Bruce Garlik to prove he is not just more of the same.

Furthermore, whilst nobody with any sense acts upon the over excitable opinions of strangers on the inter-net, it is harmful to the general perceptions of any visiting LSE for all the talk to be promoting things that consistently fail to come to fruition as it just adds to the disappointing impression of not achieving anything. Surely it is better to allow the past rate of past progress to dictate more modest future expectations that a company has a realistic chance of meeting? Not that it stops the "usual suspects" from making countless wild claims and short term forecasts, aggressively shouting down any who question their fantastical claims, only to then slink off with their tails between their legs when, for the umpteenth time over the last few years, they are proved wrong again.

Two ways of looking at the current situation;

1) If only the share price reflected the sentiment of this bulletin board, then the decisions most most folk here have made would have made them much wealthier.

2)If only this bulletin board reflected the sentiment expressed by the share price, then most folk here would have made decisions that would have made them much wealthier.

So, is it easier to change the sentiment of the wider market to align with your own expectations about share price , or to change your own expectations about share price to align with the sentiment of the wider market?

We all know the history of some on this bulletin board who endlessly claim that imminent news will cause our share price to rocket. They constantly dismiss warnings of over-optimism only for reality to keep falling short of their excitable predictions. As our share price kept falling from its high of above 3p in 2020, how often did they argue that "this time is different" because whatever was about to happen next was "the most important thing" or a "game changer"? So, when Alien's struggles have been typical of this risky sector, can repeated failures to meet this bulletin board's high hopes be attributed to unrealistic expectation?

In autumn 2023, many here claimed that a share price re-rate was imminent based upon Hanc*ck being certain to get native title approval before the end of Nov.2023. These people robustly dismissed suggestions that, even if approved without objection, a decision may take some time to be formally ratified and may not move the share price as they hoped for. As it was we only had to wait until mid Dec.2023 to receive an RNS confirming native title approval. On anticipation our share price climbed from about 0.17p to start the week that native title approval was announced at 0.32p. Following that RNS it immediately dropped to 0.22p, soon reaching 0.13p.

With that fall in our share price, this bulletin board's "justification" for predicting an imminent re-rate switched to months of jubilant claims that our mining permits would be issued "within days". Again folk dismissed warnings of over-optimism with anticipation lifting our share price back up to 0.22p. We finally received the RNS confirming the issue of our mining permits in Apr. 2024 whereupon our share price quickly fell below 0.18p, dropping as low as 0.11p in the following weeks.

This bulletin board then fixated on our share price re-rating on an imminent JV to finance iron ore production. Hope took our share price back to 0.24p only to fall below 0.06p after being told in 2025 that a deal on Hanc*ck had fallen through because volatile iron ore prices had made it uneconomic. Our share price briefly spiked up on news of a silver JV, with a platinum group metals JV following soon after. So, does our current price action reflect a change of sentiment or unchanging sentiment?

I've repeatedly said that debt, delay and dilution are normal both for this risky sector's many failures and rare successes. Most steps forward are sign-posted in advance leading fickle traders to "buy the rumour and sell the news" driving spikes in trading volume and new names to appear on this bulletin board predicting imminent price gains. For over five years I've repeated my belief that our wealth lay in the long term potential of our non ferrous metals. So, now this bulletin board's most exuberant "rampers" are promoting them as they once promoted our iron ore, can we hope that their claims are now more realistic and that this time really is different?

Well as has been pointed out many times over the years, these grades should be no surprise to anybody familiar with EH, where in the past, whilst excellent, such grades have done nothing to sustain more than a brief bit of volatility in UFO's share price.

So we'll see if the market feels different this time with much wider market focus on silver generally, or if the sentiment here remains one of UFO not immediately extracting metal to benefit financially from repeatedly delivering excellent drill data.

I tend to find that the sort of speculators that chase silver juniors aren't the most patient and are rarely willing to wait for returns.

I've said before on various other LSE bulletin boards that I 'm always amazed at the conviction posters have in their own views about such a wild and unpredictably volatile sector such as ours... Whilst rarely the most useful thing to hear, the opinions I have most faith in are those that claim not to have a clue about where things may go next.

Long term I still believe there are plenty of reasons to remain optimistic about precious metals, as for where we may be next week I'd not be surprised if we ended up at half current prices, nor would I be surprised by a rapid recovery back to new record highs.

Some brave souls may try to trade the volatility, one or two may even get lucky and profit from such trades but I'd never encourage others to take such risks.

@A.J. - the biggest problem with any analytical technique has always been and will always be user interpretation ... far too often even the lab technicians running machines, let alone management staff in offices look at the numbers spit out by this or that gadget and make assumptions based upon what they think the numbers mean.

If people don't understand the theory behind how an analytical technique works they can't know exactly what it is or isn't capable of measuring, meaning it is often better to have no data than data people mis-understand.

Somewhat tangentially, a while ago I lost money on a junior explorer based upon them going bust because the "gold" mine they built didn't really have much gold in it... Seems that much as some of their tests had delivered very high gold grades, along the way the BOD and contractors had made various mis-assumptions about just how much could be inferred and extrapolated from the drill results they had. As a consequence they raised and spent many millions to dig rock out of the ground and run it through a newly built mill only to find the rock was only rock, not gold ore... or more truthfully pitifully poor grade ore that was not economic to process.

Analysis is all fun and games and something I've done myself in the past... I've long wanted a pXRF machine of my own for my home workshop but never been able to justify the cost, but I was first using XRF machines getting on for 30years ago when they were huge and far from portable.

I've also done a bit of fire assaying work as well as extracting metals from ores in the lab and still have the equipment in my home workshop to do so, though it's been a while since I last needed to do so.

@A.J.49 I'm sure they did run pXRF scans over the samples but XRF is a spot surface analysis test. I've used the analogy elsewhere before but it tells you a lot about very little; the danger is in assuming it tells you something about everything you didn't test; It would be like assuming everybody in the crowd at a football game was aged 42 and called Steve because the person you asked was 42 and called Steve.

You have to crush and mix samples from inside the core to lab test to get any sense of average grades throughout rock... with native silver on the surface of a drill core you could probably look at it with the naked eye and say that bit there is silver without needed pXRF to prove it, but still not know how much more native silver was inside the core.

Well this sector is currently awash with folks desperate to indiscriminately throw money at seemingly anything, so you can't blame management for putting their hand out and taking some of that cash... all too often junior explorers struggle to raise a bean.

The secret, if you can even call it that as a speculator, is to expect it and not position yourself to lose out when it happens. The Tungsten news was fairly positive and as such a great hook to hang another placement on.

Well, whilst maybe not the kind of grades to set the world a light or instantly scream commercial mine, it's hard to see this as anything other than positive news and another step forward.