Member Info for Happyhaddock

@ripley, no shame in taking a profit off the table if it is available.

There is always the eternal dilemma that traders who take smaller profits risk missing the big profits, whilst those who hold for big profits risk losing the smaller profits. All that matters is that you can live with the consequence of your own actions and aren't swayed by the wild euphoria or melodramatic despair of other emotional speculators.

@Dr - I've been here since before the spike in 2020 and I'm not selling up now, I simply made the most of the lows this summer to add to my position.

Right or wrong I'm not a trader that jumps in and out on volatility, I'm here for the long haul, it is just that on the bad days such an approach sometimes leaves you thinking that being a trader might be more beneficial.

Well the sensible thing to do when any share offers you quick and easy profits is to take a little off the table "just in case", however, I hope I am not proved wrong in saying this doesn't feel like the time to be taking profits just yet.

They were certainly implying that they didn't want to JV Pepas as the costs of shallow open pit mining of high grade ore are low, but let's keep in mind that is still a relative term as in it will still cost a heck of a lot, just not as much as deep underground mining with lower grades.

However we are a long way from having a defined resource to mine, or even raise funds to mine just yet... at the moment we are just enjoying the attention of producing some spectacular drills results and the expectation that there may be more such results to come.

@Islandgirl - I've come across mention of 5/g/t Au so often I too take it as a given threshold for re-testing, but are you aware of the actual law or code of practice that formally decrees this value and if so, is it universal globally or just within specific countries or regions?

It seems to be one of those things that "everybody knows" by way of word of mouth, but where the original source of which never gets formally referenced.

@taverham - I don't know if it is law or simply convention, but to avoid accidentally reporting to market grades that are the result of "bodged" assays, anything that returns abnormally high grades tends to go back through the lab a second time to verify that you still get the same results if tested again.

Consequently the merest hint of a delay in results can get some excited rather than assume something more mundane like somebody was off sick for a few days or that a vital piece of equipment broke down. However given the results we have been getting back from previous drill holes, it isn't unreasonable to assume that we may be getting another great sets of results.

There is clearly ambiguity over both the need to make an uplift payment to Windfield Metals upon the decision to mine Hanc*ck, along with the value of such a payment if needed. Others have previously suggested that Windfield's 10% of Hanc*ck isn't worth much of an uplift payment. However, the potential uplift payment does not relate to the small percentage of Hanc*ck that Windfield still own, but the larger fraction of the Hammersley tenements (Hanc*ck plus the much bigger Brockman) we bought from them.

Windfield were already one of our major shareholders when in 2021 we announced the desire to increase our ownership of the Hammersley tenements from 51% to 90%. When this was first being negotiated there was a combined exploration target for Brockman and Hanc*ck of approx. one quarter of a billion tons of high grade iron ore, whilst the price of such ore was pushing over $200/t.

However, there is no way the increased portion of such early stage projects would be worth the almost $20bn arrived at from calculating 39% of 250m tons of ore priced at over $200/t. The euphoric forecasts this bulletin board was making at the time suggesting Alien's mkt cap would hit hundreds of million dollars before the end of 2021 seemed equally unachievable. Project valuations would need to discount for the considerable risks and years of expenditure needed to convert exploration targets to measured reserves and on to permitted projects, as well as allow for volatility in operational costs and projected revenue streams. So, what percentage of that $20bn might have been judged an acceptable sale price for the extra 39% ownership?

I'd guess below 0.1% ($20m) but sadly we just don't know. All we do know is that the first deal offering Windfield shares in UFO with a value (based upon exchange rates and our share price at the time) of about $3m didn't go through. A year later we handed over a cash payment and shares with a combined value (based upon exchange rates and our share price at the time) of just over $1.5m. However, the revised deal that did go through added the new clause (worded ambiguously in Alien's RNS) of the potential up-lift payment upon a decision to mine.

It is easy to suggest that Windfield were willing to postpone receipt of most of a payment in order to achieve a higher sale price. Private investors weren't told the reasons for revising the terms of the sale but any extra performance uplift payment is to be somewhat subjectively defined as half of any gains in perceived value; Alternatively there seems to be the option to wait out the five year performance uplift period and not start work until 2027.

The above doesn't resolve the ambiguity in valuing any uplift payment or mean the unknowns must be as described above. It simply explains why I've long been saying that we can't ignore the possibility that a deferred payment of many millions of pounds may hamper finding a partner to advance Hanc*ck.

Gently par-boil, chop then pan fry with a little sausage meat, chopped apple, chestnuts and light splash of lemon juice ... absolutely lovely!

Alternatively for the brave cook a Beaufort; - baked bean and sprout curry!

@Dip - conversely I seem to have a little too much spare time on my hands this last week or so. Although that comes off the back of a very busy period of working seven day weeks... just a few days ago a neighbour who is always curious about my "unusual" employment asked if I'd done anything interesting at the weekend ... in all honesty I could tell him I'd spent it in a convent with a group of school girls making instruments of torture ... I'll say no more as further explanation would spoil a lot of wild imaginings with some rather mundane truth 😉.

Anyway, one point we do seem to agree on is that I also don't like averaging up (or down) on junior explorers, used, as you say, as a form of insurance against pouring good money after bad on volatile equities where the outcomes are far from certain. I make a decision , take a punt and then want to give it plenty of time to play out. I want to know one way or the other that it has either flopped, or made such material steps forward as to present a different opportunity.

The ideal outcome is a situation where I gambled early days upon buying a boat-load of shares for next to nothing to see it improve enough to have become investable. Hopefully the next time I put in cash it will be for far fewer shares at a far higher cost but with some certainty of outcome and where the initial gamble effectively averages down the cost of a later purchase so as to give me an "instant safety net" on the later investment.

@Dip - much as I am familiar with the Lassonde curve and the approach you describe, where I'm trying to recall which media experts advocates this buying/timing strategy - I want to say Lobo Tiggre but may be wrong - do you think it specifically applicable to UFO and our non ferrous metals?

EH was already an established mine that simply had the potential to be put back in to production, so in some sense the DTM had already been given once in the past, so I wouldn't expect the typical Lassonde progression a second time around. Munni Munni was also something that had been widely explored to define resources before we got our hands on it. Much as there remains a lot of exploration potential across the wider Pinderi Hills region and I would rather see UFO go on to become a dividend paying miner, I see UFO more as a project generator.

That is to say I feel it more likely that any money made here will be in one-off deals simply putting together projects for somebody else to exploit. Something where you sit waiting, bored, hoping, then one day get a surprise as one of the prospects you thought most interesting has suddenly gone in exchange for a bag of cash.

Sitting holding risks dilution, trying to time buying back in before the action risks missing out. My preference is for a small speculative punt I can afford to leave doing nothing whilst I invest elsewhere in safer more dependable endevours.

@Dip666 - you say anybody holding UFO has been consistently wrong in them managing to deliver.

I've long said that hanc*ck probably wouldn't deliver revenue before 2024 and that because such things typically take longer than expected 2025 would be my first date for appraising our progress. I've also said repeatedly that I feel that the profit margins for small iron ore miners are too slim and subject to the volatility of ore prices as to offer any certainty as a business, and that as such I was here based on the potential of our non ferrous metals.

To date Hanc*ck hasn't delivered any revenue whilst the potential of our non ferrous metals has improved over the last five years by uniting Pinderi Hills under our single ownership.

Our share price is now a fraction below where I first bought in at almost five years ago but our mkt cap is up almost three fold, plus 2025 hasn't even started yet, let alone finished... So, whilst time may yet prove me wrong in having taken this small speculative punt, I do feel it is too soon to make the call to have been wrong just yet!

The best way to combat FUDsters is not to deny the many unknowns and risks they identify, but to simply point out that the junior exploration sector is defined by uncertainty and doubt; to suggest that those who associate uncertainty and doubt with fear may not be best suited to speculating in this risky sector.

Those of a more emotional disposition should perhaps move on elsewhere to "safer" grounds, otherwise understand how this sector works (or more often as not doesn't work) accept the risks and live with the consequences of your decisions.

ECR have many prospects and it seems that wherever we look we find traces of minerals that suggest it is worth keeping on looking, but it feels to me as if we are still waiting on that WOW result that says we have found what we are looking for.

@Helx2 - I'd argue that little of anything said on here has any real influence on the sales or purchases of any sensible investors. There might be one or two or genuinely lap up and believe all they read but, even if true they won't be numerous enough to move markets.

Personally as a contrarian speculator I look for negative sentiment as one of my buying signals and was put off increasing my share holding in UFO for several years because of the excessive bullishness which seemed out of kilter with our actual chances of success.

@yayay - I used the phrase only the other day - "strategic ambiguity"

If you are selling hope you need to leave folk to imagine and dream. Those who aren't interested will imagine the worst but if they weren't going to be buyers anyway the management have lost nothing. However by leaving things hanging in the air those that "believe" will construct all sorts of good news that "might" be the reason for an ambiguous silence.

The hardest thing for emotional speculators to do is simply remain calm and patient whilst they wait for actual confirmed facts, whilst accepting that in such a risky sector, the wait may be a long one, whilst the facts ,may not be ones you'd want to hear.

However we wouldn't call it speculating if we were all allocating cash on the basis of guaranteed outcomes!

I'm not sure my hunch is for a new CEO, just a sense that somebody different may be introduced rather than the face(s) we may be expecting to answer questions...

Do we know who the tea-lady is for Alien metals?

I can't substantiate the following with any evidence or claim it to be more than a hunch, which is no basis for making financial decisions but...

I'm half suspecting that when the rescheduled webinar does take place it may be introducing us to somebody who has not had to represent UFO before .. whether that is good news, bad news or simply a wildly inaccurate and misplaced hunch I don't know?

... If it happens I called it first, if it doesn't I said nuffink guv'nor 😉

Amidst talk of the postponed "webinar", it seems beneficial to reflect upon why so many speculators here on LSE had such extreme positivity and high expectations for UFO as to now be angry and surprised by how things have turned out.

I've long highlighted that delay, dilution and failure are the norm in an exploration sector that deals in hope. For years I said that our share price may struggle as Hanc*ck was unlikely to deliver revenue before 2024; that, because such things typically take longer than expected, 2025 would be my first date for appraising UFO's progress.

Expressing these views lead to years of insults from those here who, since 2020, have fed other people's confirmation biases and endlessly asserted that we would start mining Hanc*ck imminently. We didn't received permits to mine until 2024, are yet to start any physical preparations, and our share price is over 95% down on its 2020 high.

Our excessive turnover of directors has left us without a CEO since late 2023. Despite marketing Hanc*ck with some very optimistic projections, each prior CEO claimed that they couldn't actually guarantee their estimated timelines. Similarly our management keep hinting that we are near to securing a deal to finance Hanc*ck but are yet to formally confirm anything.

Despite months of Chinese stimulus, high grade DSO is down from about $140/t at the start of 2024 to around $105/t as of writing this. Hedging one year ahead on the futures market to late 2025 currently secures $100/t, whilst for late 2026 that figure is below $95/t. In 2021 and again in 2022, I highlighted how drops below $100/t in iron ore's volatile price were rendering several smaller Australian producers unprofitable. Hanc*ck's 2024 development study predicted op-ex costs of $85/t where, for four of the last ten years, the average annual iron ore price was below this level. Long term forecasts remain conflicted, spanning from below $55/t to over $100/t.

We don't know how close to projected op-ex costs our total expenses will be, nor how any rumoured partnerships may affect expenses or income. Regardless of the quantity or quality of ore in the ground, we still don't know when (some now say if) Hanc*ck may start mining or hit target production volumes. Nor do we know how any revenue generated may compare to monthly sustaining expenditure, initial capital costs, or any "performance uplift payment" that may have to be paid to Windfield Metals.

Alien's journey may have awoken many speculators to the risks of a sector defined by uncertainty. I have always said that the long term potential of UFO's non-ferrous metals is why I chanced a small speculative position here. I remain content to patiently maintain this modest share holding, where the swing from unbridled optimism to angry pessimism now apparent on LSE has not changed my cautious views about the relative risks, potential rewards or probable timescales of the gamble I took.

Whilst their reasons for cancelling may or may not be genuine, from an optics or PR point of view this looks like an own-goal.

...this doesn't look good when the primary reason for announcing the webinar in the first place was to address concerns and accusations that our management were unwilling to honestly communicate with shareholders or answer the difficult questions it appeared they were trying to avoid.

Well, as I said before I think what will be telling is the questions that investor-meet actually allow to reach Alien, and those they chose to answer.

If there is genuine intent to engage with private investors and reassure them then our management will take to the time to honestly address the difficult questions.

What I am expecting is that they will allocate most of the time to a presentation that merely repeats a lot of stuff we have already heard many times before since they won't be able to tell us anything new without first releasing an appropriate RNS. I expect this presentation to slightly over-run the time allocated to it, thereby eating in to the time for questions and answers at the end . I don't think they will be able to get away with not leaving any time at the end to answer direct questions but I do suspect that most will come away without feeling that their questions have been addressed by the answers given.

Or if I can be cruelly cynical and misquote a line from, of all things, Sesame Street ... "Thursday's presentation will be brought to you by the phrase strategic ambiguity."