Member Info for Happyhaddock

@max - Over the years we've had several CEO's say things in interview that haven't panned out as announced, with many here suggesting our abnormally high turnover of CEO's may stem from that very fact.

In terms of the interview you refer to, this was from the interim period after Bill Brodie Good had formally stepped down from our BOD pending Rod taking over the reins as a new CEO... People will infer from what they will from the fact that our CEO's departure was announced shortly before accepting a deal with Windfield with more strings attached than the one that Bill had previously been negotiating for a year.

I tend to give very little weighting to things said in interview or over social media, sticking to the few facts we do get via RNS. Like so much to do with speculating in junior explorers, the issue of the uplift payment potentially due to Windfiled is yet another where we must all form out own opinions based upon incomplete information and an absence of all the facts. Though as others have said, there is no benefit in Windfield handicapping us to such an extant things don't get mined, only up to that limit so as to extract as much from us as they can without crippling the project.

None of us are privy to the small print of the contract detailing the "90% purchase" of the Hammersley tenements.

However, much as Alien's RNS on the subject seems to be interpreted differently by each who read it I'm sure that behind closed doors lawyers for both sides are quibbling over the small print of the actual purchase contract. However if you recall, at the time the purchase deal had been stalled for about a year, then our CEO stepped down after which new terms with more strings attached were announced. We then brought in a new CEO to sign off on this deal where his phased departure was announced soon afterwards.

None of us here know the full details of how the performance payment or up-lift payment will work, but you can bet that Windfield will have negotiated a sale looking to protect their own interests as best as they can and that we won't have got potentially valuable licenses for a relatively modest upfront payment without them looking to extract fair value later down the line.

We can but wait and see what happens in the future, but I'd rather be prepared for the worst and then pleasantly surprised than assume the best where things can then only work out worse than you hope for.

@DRB - "HH if The 10% Winfield own ends up to be worth 10's of millions, doesn't that value our 90% in the 100's of millions?"

I was not referring to the 10% Windfiled own which might lead to some sort of royalty for 10% of any profits each year, but the one off "performance" payment or "50% uplift" on a decision to mine.

Yesterdays study put an NPV of just under Aus$150m on Hanc*ck, We could debate what the value of Hanc*ck was at the time we acquired it, but the suggestion is that Aus$28m cap-ex. (£15m) would take it from where we are now (with a total mkt cap for all our projects of about £12m) to Hanc*ck alone being worth around £75m. Any up-lift payment of half of any gain in value may well be a few tens of millions of pounds.

@max - there have been plenty of times when we have clashed and plenty of times where I have called you out for being down right rude and abusive to those you disagree with, so in fairness I will acknowledge this occasion in which you have apologised for you mistake.

As for how much (if anything) we may have to pay for costs not covered in the OPEX-AISC figure quoted today, I readily accept I don't know. However, my instinct is to suggest more than the $1/t you mention ... Not too long ago, shortly after Fenix started up in business, their additional expenditure added over 60% to their FOB costs, plus I fear that we may end up owing Windfield a few tens of millions of dollars, but only time well tell what our total costs may actually be., We are all still guessing until we get a full set of data from Alien.

@max, you seem to be treating the figure of US$85/t as different to Aus$123.1. They are the same figure adjusted by the average exchange rate listed in today's study, yet you seem to be arriving at another value of US$79/t and implying they represent different costs. After all how could a figure excluding freight and royalties be higher than the one including them as you imply?

An AISC should, as the name suggests cover all costs. Describing something as an OPEX-AISC is ambiguous as many of a mining companies costs aren't direct operating costs from mining. We may incur financing costs for initial cap-ex, we may well end up having to pay Windfiled a large "uplift" or "performance" payment, we will likely incur various board salaries and legal/consultancy fees all of which could arguably be excluded from total Op-ex costs, but that doesn't mean we won't have to pay those bills out of any profits from operating a mining operation.

I'm not saying they aren't included in the $85/t OPEX-AISC mentioned in today's study, only that the wording is ambiguous enough for this not to be clear, where my instinct is to have expected slightly higher total costs.

I'd be curious to see what they think our C3 costs will be and how similar they may be to the $85/t OPEX-AISC figure today's study mentions

It is far from clear what financing costs may or may not get included within the "royalties" making up that $85/t , for in limiting the AISC to an OPEX AISC it does seem to give wiggle room to exclude some things that might otherwise get included in a C3 cost.

I've previously posted this across various junior exploration companies on LSE where even if appearing condescending, it warrants periodic repetition.

I'm always amazed at the importance small private investors place on their own opinions, priorities, targets and time frames - it is as if they haven't spent enough time around this loss making sector to realise they just don't matter to the markets.

Things typically move at a pace which is much slower than most can tolerate, with traders trying to make a few quid by buying and selling only adding to the unpredictable price volatility between news. If companies aren't generating revenue then it should be no surprise if they occasionally need to raise funds, something which is usually dilutive to existing shareholders. Delays are common yet progress can only be announced once there are new facts to inform the markets of, not simply because someone feels a falling share price needs a boost.

Whilst waiting for facts, lots of emotional folk on LSE try to read undue significance into the smallest or most peripheral of remarks or price moves. Furthermore, in this insular world of LSE bulletin boards some seem happy to dedicate much of every day to cheering on speculative equity purchases like punters at the horse racing, or jeering at those with contrasting opinions as if they were pantomime villains. This questionable use of time has no influence over, and tells us little about how, the wider markets that move share prices actually behave. Hence a failure to meet a bulletin board's predictions may say more about unrealistic expectation than a company's actual performance.

Insults and paranoid bickering about motive, honesty and opinion doesn't alter a lack of facts about which, if any, theory on future unknowns will eventually become reality. Nor does it move things along more quickly or increase the odds of a particular hope or fear being realised. Nevertheless, even when nobody has access to the relevant facts to objectively confirm subjective theories, it does seem as if many on these bulletin boards still think that strangers on the inter-net must always agree with their views.

The success and valuations of junior exploration companies depends upon future unknowns which are often out of their own control. This leaves them unsuited to "investing" in, and more suited for "speculating" with cash you can afford to lose. If folk here associate uncertainty and doubt with fear, then they should question if their temperament is suited to such a risky sector of the market. Much of what impatient folk focus their emotional energy on arguing about each day is, at best, short term noise of greater relevance to people's egos and self esteem than the company's progress. So, if we wait long enough we will get to know all those things we want to know as well as see how fallible human beings can be and how irrelevant our own beliefs and hopes are to how things turn out.

Perhaps a point of pedantry from me but I note the $85/t mentioned is for AISC-OPEX which includes "freight" and "royalties" above standard C1 costs... I'd be curious to know what if any additional expenses don't get included within those two terms and how closely that AISC-OPEX actually reflects total expenditure ... Normally all-in-sustaining- expenditure is what it says on the tin .... I can't help but wonder if limiting things to an Op-Ex AISC may be an attempt to discretely shuffle some costs to another column on another spreadsheet.

Finally a lot of data to actually judge but it seems AISC are going to be reasonable but the timeline to get started may be a little longer than many were hoping for.

The one thing I didn't pick up on a first skim read through was if/when/what/how much we may end up having to pay Windfield in term of the "uplift" or "performance " payment and if that has ben factored in to costs or not?

@yayay - except the statement "expected to commence in early January 2024" suggests it wasn't simply a typo and a missing letter "s" on the word week - but that somebody really thought that we could have a new management team in place within days... was that was just naivity or was there a deal in place that subsequently fell through, pitching them back to square one I don't know?

Nevertheless it doesn't benefit Alien's credibility.

This bulletin board is clearly frustrated by what many are describing as Alien's incompetency, poor shareholder communication and repeated failures to meet timescales they themselves choose to announce.

Recruiting a suitable CEO isn't as fast a process as some would imply, plus no new CEO worth hiring would join us without first seeking responses to the same questions we are all asking about the many prior resignations. Namely;

1)Have previous CEOs discovered fundamental problems with our flagship Hanc*ck project that means it can't be delivered within the costs or timescales markets have been lead to expect?

2)Is there some sort of policy within the company to deliberately bring in directors to fulfil a single task and then quickly force them out before they have a chance to benefit from any of the lucrative share options schemes they are promised?

3)Are major shareholders with their own agenda pulling the managerial strings from within the shadows and denying directors the autonomy to actually run the company as they think best?

I can't imagine any CEO joining a company without researching its history, prospects and existing corporate structure as they'd want to know in advance of any problems or bad news they'd have to announce. In truth nobody on this bulletin board knows what is going on behind the scenes; things may all be going to plan and there may be very legitimate reasons why so many of our directors keep resigning. However, you would imagine that if the company had positive explanations to address concerns and a falling share price, that they would have shared them with the markets by now.

@ yayay - or worse than that is when things are so bad that linguistic pedants opt to point out that it's not so much a mixed metaphor as simply two whole metaphors used in one sentence ...

"That would be the highest grade of silver ever found."

I hate to disappoint on that one, but there have been much higher finds elsewhere, just check out some of the bonanza silver grades from the small Elizabeth Hill mine in Australia... if I recall they had at least one drill result over 8,000g/t and another over 5,000g/t

Nevertheless 2,438g/t is still a great grade.

If we're getting distracted by the etymology of words I'd point out the Spanish word "plata" for silver derives from the latin "plattus" referring to the ability to beat it into thin sheet metal, which in a circular round about way is I believe, (but stand to be corrected), the origin of the word "plate" as used by the wealthy of the past to dine from as opposed to thicker cruder wooden trenchers once used by the poor.

I've often posted this across LSE, and yet it seems to remain relevant to so many junior exploration companies that it warrants posting again.

I'm always amazed at the importance small private investors place on their own opinions, priorities, targets and time frames - it is as if they haven't spent enough time around this loss making sector to realise they just don't matter to the markets.

Delays are common where progress can only be announced once there are actually new facts to inform the markets of, not simply because someone feels a falling share price needs a boost. If companies aren't generating revenue then it should be no surprise if they need to raise funds from time to time, something which is usually dilutive to existing shareholders. Things typically move at a pace which is much slower than many like, with traders trying to make a quid or two by buying and selling only adding to the unpredictable volatility between news. During any wait for facts lots of emotional folk on bulletin boards fill their time trying to read undue significance into the smallest or most peripheral of remarks or price moves.

Insults and petty bickering about who is right doesn't alter a lack of facts about which (if any) opinion on future unknowns will eventually become reality. Nor does it move things along more quickly or increase the odds of a particular hope or fear being realised. Nevertheless, even if reassurance comes from strangers on the inter-net without access to the relevant facts to objectively confirm anything, it does seem as if it is important to the egos of, or at least the peace of mind of, many on these bulletin boards for others to agree with their subjective opinions.

The success and valuations of junior exploration companies depends upon future unknowns which are often out of their own control. This leaves them unsuited to "investing" in, and more suited for "speculating" with sums you can afford to lose. If folk here associate uncertainty and doubt with fear, then they should question if their temperament is suited to such a risky sector of the market. In the insular world of LSE bulletin boards, cheering on speculative equity purchases like punters at the horse racing, or jeering at those with contrasting opinions as if they were pantomime villains, may be common. However, it has no influence over, and is rarely representative of how, the wider markets that move share prices behave.

Folk here would do well to recognise that much of what they focus their emotional energy on arguing about is, at best, short term noise of little bearing to the bigger picture. A failure to meet a bulletin board's forecasts may say more about unrealistic expectation than a company's actual performance. If we wait long enough we will both get to know all those things we want to know as well as see how fallible impatient human beings can be and how irrelevant our own beliefs and hopes are to how things turn out.

Well we've waited a long time for news that we can finally start operating the plant we've been building and have recently completed ... for the time being we are still waiting but recent market activity over the last week or two suggest many are assuming that the permits we are still waiting on can't be far away.

If those permits are incoming hopefully we can retain the gains in SP and add to them, if not the current gains might dissipate as quickly as they arrived pending the next wave of excited expectation.

@sinter - you say only amateurs would price in the mining license before it is given - typically speaking junior explorers attract much less interest from "professional" investors than blue chips to the extent I'd say a large proportion of trying to predict how little AIM listed companies may perform in the future is trying to figure out all the possible irrational ways amateurs may and can get things wrong when deploying their own capital.

The more time you spend following this bulletin board the more you'll come to realise how different various people's version of "sensible" can be.

@Dip - I suppose we all know there is no "one size fits all" approach we all have our own strategies which affect whether we consider ourselves investors, speculators or traders.

Perhaps the most important aspect of any and all strategies is having the emotional discipline to not get distracted and carried away with other people's craziness so as to avoid buying or selling at prices you'd otherwise have thought to be dis-advantageous. I joined this bulletin board after the wild spike of 2020 because I felt I needed to learn more about the kind of reckless and reason resistant mentalities that can trigger such activity. I'm not sure that these bulletin boards represent the thinking or behaviour of the silent majority that usually move markets. However, they certainly span the full spectrum of attitudes and have offered an insight into beliefs and behaviours, that, to me at least, seem counter intuitive and potentially unprofitable.... but at the end of the day when you speculator in such a volatile market, sensible decisions can still lose you money whilst lucky idiots can still make a fortune, so it's probably wise not to assume that skill is the only factor that shapes outcomes.

@Dip - in some respect I work on a similar approach - try get in very early when things are very cheap and then don't allow myself to get caught up in short term volatility either averaging up or down with each bit of news - just allow a minimum of five years which is usually enough to see if a company has what it takes - get it right and there's usually decent gains, but you've got to allow for a lot of failures as well.

As for our management's communication - sure it could be better but I'm less interested in what they have to say as what they do... It would be wonderful if we were told everything going on behind the scenes and why we have a merry-go-round of ever changing management but I don't think we can doubt that somebody somewhere has a plan they are executing otherwise things would drift in a more static fashion.... I do think we have decent assets that will progress, the gamble is who is it that is enacting their plan, what that plan is and will I benefit from it?

If it all goes belly up I can live with a modest loss on a small speculative punt but I remain hopeful that won't be the case.

I'm wondering how many people here consider the current performance as "bad" because their only prior experience of the junior exploration sector has been the craziness when the good, the bad and the ugly all went up during the pandemic, and how many here consider the current performance as more of a return to normal as they are far more familiar with the typical behaviour of the junior exploration sector?

Missed deadlines, delays and falling share prices are what typify this slow moving sector, but we all speculate hoping to catch one of the rare good news stories that shoots to the moon. I've no idea if UFO will be that good news story but I'm happy to sit back and wait a while longer to find out.