Member Info for Happyhaddock

@turbo - you might want to check your maths and whether you using a mix of UK£, US dollars and Aus dollars ?

With our own mkt cap currently being just under £9m that might equate to roughly US$11m or just over AUS$16m.

Fenix's mkt cap is currently about $257m which I presume to be quoted in AUS dollars not US dollars. If that's the case they are currently valued at about x16 times UFO's mkt cap, not the x35 you mention. If its actually US$257m then its about x23 times UFO's mkt cap.

Got to agree with you there smiller its one of the best interviews on UFO we have heard recently.

If we take it at face value then great, if we take it as a third party paid promotion then perhaps some cynicism is required? Either way time will tell but that interview certainly highlighted reasons to be optimistic.

@Sinter there are always loads of commentators making such statements and they have been doing so for many years ... you could almost pick a link at random and find excitable silver bugs making such claims....

It's bound to happen eventually but whether we hold our breath whilst we wait and how much older we'll all be when it does happen is the question.

Whilst I won't go so far as to say I am surprised by where we are today, this is a junior exploration company after-all, I had hoped that given all our potential we'd have made some more progress after more than four years of holding these shares.

Still I mustn't grumble as there are plenty here worse off then me; that is to say I only risked a small amount in the first place and the share price today is more or less around where I first bought in at ... it has how ever been quite a roller-coaster ride along the way in terms of profits not taken more than heavy losses sustained, whilst there is still no clear indication as to whether the next leg is up hill or down hill.

We all live in hope, but perhaps less of us in expectation?

@Max111 "Just been a waiting game for the mining bureaucracy/permitting etc which can be expected."

Strange to hear you say this given that since 2020 you've been attacking and belittling anybody who suggested that we should expect to wait years to deal with all the red-tape, bureaucracy and permitting.

So, if you yourself expected this why have you spent almost four years telling everyone else to expect production imminently?

Well it is that time again when I look back on my prior predictions and offer my half yearly thoughts on the months ahead.

Since 2020's price spike I've faced many insults for suggesting that in an uncertain sector noted for delays, losses and failures Hanc*ck probably wouldn't deliver revenue before 2024. I've always said that in focusing on unknowns I don't expect my predictions to be better than anyone else's, but as things usually take longer than expected 2025 was, and remains, my first date for appraising our progress. Similarly, as volatile ore prices can periodically jeopardise junior iron-ore miner's profitability, I have often said that I risk my small speculative position in UFO for the long term potential of our non-ferrous metals.

Early in 2023 Alien said that we would begin preliminary site work at Hanc*ck as soon as native title clearance was approved and before mining permits were issued. Native title cleared in late 2023, with mining permits then granted early in 2024. Yet having lost three CEOs over about 18months and so far been without one in 2024, we are yet to start work at Hanc*ck.

Our share price ended 2023 a little above 0.2p where I again challenged this bulletin board's near constant predictions of an imminent re-rate. There's been volatility since then, but six months on the broader down trend continues with our price now just above 0.1p. Over the years our management keep hinting at finance deals or partners for Hanc*ck yet we still have no final investment decision or cap-ex funding in place. So, how much longer will markets tolerate poor communication over missed targets, share dilution, a vacant CEO chair and lack of a definitive feasibility study before all this is taken as a definitive statement about a lack of feasibility?

As such I will repeat the same prediction that proved prescient when offered at the end of 2023; that is to say that whilst there is always talk of Hanc*ck's potential for imminent success, markets respond to the uncertainty of "no news" much as they do the certainty of "bad news". Consequently whilst the next six months will surely see more anticipation of work starting at Hanc*ck, it is probably safer to forecast more anxious waiting rather than predict trend breaking moves up in our share price.

At a broader level I have always encouraged patiently maintaining a defensive position to hedge against further macro-economic instability where it is hard to avoid headlines warning about current problems, future risks and the changing world order. Political leaders endeavour to assure us that all is under control whilst simultaneously trying to kick the can far enough down the road to make it their successor's problem. I don't pretend to know how or when this will all come to an end, but it is difficult to see a positive outcome for any who aren't prepared to survive increased trouble and volatility.

Well much as Brad had plenty of positives to talk about, the thing that struck me through much of the interview was Rick Rule's facial expression...

Rick talks endlessly about how nearly all the money in this sector is made by serially successful individuals whose prior successes have been in very similar endeavours specifically relevant to the task in hand... then we had Brad admitting he'd been involved in various geological roles all over the place, failed in commodities finance and only got the the job here through luck and because he was cheap and was already friends with those running OMI...

I think Rick Rule's facial expression during those comments was a master class in diplomatically trying not to give away what he really thought about what was being said.

Still lots of reasons to be hopeful about OMI but I sense that interview didn't convince Rick Rule to become one of our investors.

@cj ... Futures contracts rely on long term commodity forecasts and are updated throughout each business day and are very easy to look up for those that can be bothered. There's usually minor discrepancies between different listings but only to the minor extent often witnessed between brokers listing bid and ask prices for equities.

Whether or not you believe that this is where prices will end up in the future is not so relevant as these are the prices you can hedge at now if trying to mitigate the risk of future unknowns; we all know that much of the junior mining sector is all about mitigating the risk of future unknowns if not relying on blind hope and good luck, where most producers hedge a proportion of their future production.

The web site I tend to check as basic reference data is as below but their are other web sites out there.

https://www.investing.com/commodities/iron-ore-62-cfr-contracts

@cj ... if by holding steady you mean iron ore has dropped to $106/t from around $145/t at the start of 2024, where futures prices for 2025 are now below $100/t, and for the end of 2026 are currently approaching $85/t then yes this is holding very steady.

Seems ages since this bulletin board's more enthusiastic members have been giving us daily updates on iron ore prices ... Might that be because future's prices and several forecasts for iron ore in 2025 are currently at a level where any profit Hanc*ck may make could be marginal? Where future's prices and some forecasts risk Hanc*ck not being profitable at all by the end of 2026?

Commodities prices are very volatile with very conflicting forecasts, but getting Hanc*ck over the finishing line only helps us and motivates others to help/fund us if it then makes profits. Might management's current vagueness and ambiguity about Hanc*ck and their focus on our other metals relate to concerns about Hanc*ck's viability at lower iron ore prices?

"Well, boys, I hope you’re ready because we’re nearly there"

The thing is we are always nearly "somewhere" but news from UFO seems increasingly vague and changeable in terms of where the "there" we are going is.

I'm oddly reminded of a story my father told of a work colleague who went to a large international conference in Germany that ended with a "mystery coach tour" to important European businesses in the sector and which brought him back to his own town in the north of England to visit his own place of employment!

I can't help but wonder if Iron ore will prove to be nothing but a detour on the path back to us being a precious metals exploration company.

Well, there's always something positive to hint about for the future but essentially this seems to be another RNS that fails to confirm the facts people want now and which this bulletin board has been repeatedly telling us are imminent for a very long time.

@Steviom - That minimum of two years mentioned below was what I suggested back in early 2021, though I implied that I expected longer. Here we are well past early 2023 and potentially looking to 2025 or later for first production...

I don't know when we may begin production but have a half formed niggling fear that we may be trying to avoid acknowledging that we are waiting out the five year "productivity uplift payment period" we have with Windfield. If we do intend sitting it out to avoid paying them lots of cash we may still have a few years of waiting as it was late 2022 when we finally signed off the "90% purchase agreement".

Strange how aspirations change, where in early 2021 I was derided for spreading "negative garbage" for posting the following.

Many here are making very bold forecasts about how high our iron ore will propel our share price this year. I'd hope all agree that the numbers you get out of calculations are wholly dependent upon those fed in.

We don't know what it may cost us to mine this, our ore grades/tonnages or future ore prices. Conflicting forecasts suggest both higher and lower future ore prices where I am assuming it will take UFO a minimum of two years to start producing, probably much longer. Most expect energy costs and hence extraction/shipping is going higher.

If we use this board's most bullish ore prediction of $300/t and estimate total future costs of no more than $150/t this gives a profit of at least $150/t. For a bearish case say ore prices fall below small producer's rising costs making it uneconomic to mine. Current prices would value our ore at almost $180/t with the smallest producer's total costs approaching $100/t giving a profit of at least $80/t.

Beyond the half owned by Windfield, we don't know what we may have to relinquish if we need extra partners to fund production. However, assume this could leave us up to $75/t profit in a bullish case, no profit in our bearish case or $20/t in a prudent example.

In-ground reserves are not irrelevant, but what counts most to a share price is the tons/year being extracted and sold. If we price an asset upon in-ground ore we must use much lower valuations per ton. If for our bullish case we assume an eventual extraction rate of 10mt/y at a profit to us of $75/t that is $750m/year. Our bearish case still generates no profit. A more prudent extraction rate of 2mt/year at $20/t profit equates to $40m/year profit.

Many will debate what constitutes a sensible P/E ratio for a miner. If for our most bullish case we say we sustain a strong P/E ratio of 20 on a profit of $750m/y this arrives at a $15bn contribution to our mkt cap. Our bearish case still contributes nothing. For our prudent example let's use a less ambitious future P/E ratio of no more than 10 on a $40m/y profit to arrive at up to a $400m contribution to our mkt cap.

We don't know future $:£ exchange rates, nor how many more than the current 3bn shares we will have issued once mining. However, for our bullish case assume $15bn equates to £10bn spread over 5bn shares, eventually adding £2 to our share price once fully in production. Our bearish case adds nothing to the share price. For our prudent example assume $400m equates to about £250m spread over 5bn shares contributing up to 5p to the share price.

The point of the above is to suggest there are too many unknowns to make reliable forecasts. It is also highly unlikely that either of our iron projects will advance to full production this year, diluting growth over many years. Yet we can make cautious estimates and hope, over time, to exceed them.

Well I'll admit to being surprised... Experience had suggested the knee jerk reaction to any announcement mentioning a large placement would be a big sell off to the placement price before wiser and more considered minds judged the news on its actual merits and hoovered up a few bargains...

Seems I was wrong to assume I'd be able to grab a few more of these cheaply at about 2.4p somewhere around 08-30 to 09-00hrs.

Looking like I was wrong to reject a quote to buy at 2.9p at on the bell when the markets opened this morning.

Whilst more or less doubling the number of shares in issue is never a good thing, there is at least a small comfort in the fact the placement was carried out a discount which was relatively minor compared to the number of extra shares issued, and at a price above where we were just a few months ago...

think of it as punch on the nose rather than a knife in the guts

... well like all good PR interviews it went out of its way to highlight the positives and steadfastly refused to go anywhere near the negatives which address the questions people actually want answers to...

So as has been said many times before and as we all know ... we have amazing potential but need, ever more desperately, some sort of sign or proof we will actually realise even a fraction of that potential so as to turn it into a revenues stream.

In the absence of news about actual activity at Hanc*ck, this bulletin board has again descended to bickering about unrealistic expectations, share dilution and dwindling faith in management's endlessly missed targets...

Since 2020's price spike I've been highlighting the risky nature of an exploration sector noted for uncertainty, share dilution, loss and delay. I often said that our share price may struggle for a while as Hanc*ck probably wouldn't deliver revenue before 2024; that as things usually take longer than expected 2025 was, and remains, my first date for appraising UFO's progress.

Expressing these views lead to years of repeated insults from those here who first argued we'd be mining Hanc*ck in 2021, and then 2022, and then again in 2023. We finally received permits to mine earlier this year but are yet to start any physical preparations, whilst our share price is over 95% down on its 2020 high.

Worryingly we have had an excessively high turnover of directors and have now been without a CEO for almost half a year. Various prior CEOs each claimed they could not offer exact dates for when Hanc*ck would begin production, yet before leaving each offered estimates that proved overly optimistic. Similarly, year after year, our management keep hinting at possible financing deals or partners for Hanc*ck, but now we are borrowing cash just to "meet short-term capital requirements" they need to promptly deliver something more certain than hints.

The volatile DSO price is currently around $110/t but I've previously highlighted how drops below $100/t in iron ore's price, both in 2021 and again in 2022, temporarily rendered several smaller Australian producers unprofitable. Long term forecasts remain conflicted, spanning from below $55/t to over $100/t. At the time of writing hedging one year ahead on the futures market to mid 2025 secures about $100/t, whist for mid 2026 that figure is just under $95/t.

Beyond erratic ore prices, energy costs are also volatile, where Hanc*ck's last development study announced op-ex costs of $85/t. We don't know how close to this our total outgoings may be, nor how any finance deals or partnerships being discussed may impact upon our total expenses and income. Regardless of the quantity or quality of ore in the ground, we still have no certainty over when 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 agreed with Windfield Metals.

Hopefully this bulletin board's constant predictions of Hanc*ck's imminent success will one day be proved correct. However, the only certainty is that things are still not certain. So, whilst most people's focus has been on our iron ore, I have always said that the long term potential of our non-ferrous metals is why I continue to risk a small speculative position here.

Lots more news about the great future potential of our assets, but what folk really want is to hear news of funding to progress some of that potential into a revenue stream... after all I doubt that any shareholder here would claim to be surprised to be told that we have great potential, we've been hearing about that potential for many years now.

Not bad news, just not the news I suspect the markets are waiting on.

I'd just like to repost something I first shared in 2021.

Many silver investors (of which I have been one for over a decade) are noted for being, ermmm, shall we say "passionate about their metal". On a daily basis so called expert media commentators whip silver bugs in to a frenzy. They excitably report any and all price changes which are usually nothing more than daily trading noise, rather than anything fundamental to the wider economy or the metal's long term supply or demand.

Statistics tell us about the past not the future. However, for those that follow daily price moves the following gives us something to think about in terms of future prices. Equally it may enable us to judge the scale of current or future moves and if they may be deemed to be "extraordinary" in terms of frequency, duration or magnitude.

Precious metals bull markets are rare but long lasting, there only having been two in the last fifty years where both lasted just over a decade. Many hesitantly suggest 2018 might be the start of a possible third bull market for precious metals.

The price of silver is volatile and may easily be 3% up in the morning yet down 3% at close of business. To be of note you need to hold daily moves of over 5% without them reversing the next day. Ignoring this short term volatility, silver has previously followed, yet outperformed, gold in the later stages of a bull market. However the more industrial use for silver grows, the more its price may disconnect from investment demand for gold.

Silver prices tend to drift for long periods before spiking erratically. Over the last fifty years it is easy to identify at least a dozen events that could arguably be deemed spikes. These have occurred both within bull markets and also within bear markets.

The largest of these spikes moved the price of silver up by over 400% over a 12month period on the back of a period of excessive inflation.

On average (mean) these spikes lifted prices by over 150% though this is skewed by the one extreme spike mentioned above. The median gain on these spikes was about 100%.

The average duration of such a spike is about half a year, occurring on average every four years. Unsurprisingly they tend to be more common in bull markets and less frequent in bear markets. The average gap between spikes in a bull market is only about two and half years, which suggests a typical bull market will probably experience three significant silver spikes before coming to an end.

Silver spiked notably between March 2020 and August 2020 where the price jumped from about $13/oz to $28/oz. In other words the price roughly doubled in roughly half a year, making this a "statistically ordinary" spike.

Silver miners offer leverage to price moves in the metal, and even non-producing silver explorers can show some correlation. Whilst the extent of this leverage varies, the gains or losses on related equities tend to be far greater than that of the metal.