Member Info for Happyhaddock

@steviom - I think some EH drill results came out around April this year, but since then it's been iron-ore focused

@DGR1980 I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment that if/when we sign a funding deal with Anglo we may get a SP rise, what I'm suggesting is the possibility that that deal may not get signed until the SP has risen enough to secure the 90% ownership deal with Windfield for the Hanc*ck iron ore.

I declined to post the following a few weeks ago fearing how it may be received... yet it seems to fit the current mood.

Whilst positive, the news we get on Hanc*ck keeps reaffirming that permitting and financing a project to start mining is a slow process, repeatedly crushing expectations of imminent profits.

Long ago our CEO said that, whilst it may be wise to allow for delays, they were aiming to be shovel ready for the end of Q1-2023 and they hoped that the first year of production would cover cap-ex. Putting aside the impact of volatile energy and ore prices on profitability, how we interpret "shovel ready", and how we "allow for delays", governs when we each expect to finalise the last of the paper work needed for physical work to start and how soon after that we hope to begin mining.

In 2015 McKinsey Research put out a study showing that almost all large mines take longer and cost more to bring to production than forecast. A 2017 study of the broader sector by the same firm found that more than 80% of mining projects come in late and are over budget by an average of 43%. A 2019 article by the Canadian Mining Journal studied 35 mine development projects showing that 27 saw significant delays and 30 were over budget. Whilst statistics tell us about the past performance of sample groups they guarantee nothing about the future of individual cases, so we can hope that UFO's Hanc*ck project is sufficiently simple as to fare better than average. Nevertheless, has anything specific been mentioned that could hint of set-backs?

Alien never stated why, after a year, we did not complete on the original proposal to acquire 90% ownership of the Hammersley iron tenements. Folk here theorised that it was because our share price fell below the level the deal was proposed at, suggesting that the new 18month option to now pay Windfield more shares of a lower price supports this view.

Whilst awaiting permits to mine Hanc*ck, it has also been suggested that our share price is being held back by markets pending confirmation of financing to bring our iron-ore to production. We are awaiting the outcome of off-take and funding talks with Anglo American, where folk here have emphasised comments by our CEO that we will be more attractive to funding partners once we have secured the 90% ownership. However, our share price has fallen below the amended deal price now proposed to Windfield.

The validity of the above reasoning was not questioned when previously used by others to defend their arguments. Yet it implies that our iron ore's ability to raise our share price may rely upon first securing funding, securing funding may rely upon first securing increased ownership, and securing increased ownership may rely upon first raising our share price. So, to play Devil's advocate; are others suggesting we need an external factor to break this vicious circle? Might it be news on our precious metals that moves our iron ore forward?

"I’m not going to go hungry if it all goes wrong"

That to me is the most important point when dealing with high risk speculative punts.

I know that if UFO does well over time that many here will make more money than me from it in absolute terms (though maybe not % ROI). Some as a consequence of just being richer than me and far having more to speculate with in the first place, others through being far more bold (reckless?) and risking a much greater percentage of their wealth.

Even excluding the value of my home (which I don't consider an investment as I need somewhere to live) my equities portfolio is only a modest percentage of my savings and that is a fairly diversified portfolio. UFO is my most valuable equity position, but it was much less than 1% of my savings that I first risked on UFO... so if it does fail to the extent it takes not just the large paper profits it is currently showing me, but the original capital as well, it still won't change my lifestyle. However, if it does as well over time as the potential hints it might, then it could make that lifestyle a little more comfortable.

UFO remains a high risk gamble, but I am still here as I still like the odds.

@silverhorse - the current situation changes nothing for me.

I'm invested here for the long-term potential of our precious metals not iron. In terms of timing my expectation was that we'd likely start mining Hanc*ck before the end of 2023 but not generating meaningful revenue from it until 2024. As I've said before whilst I expect that our iron ore may average out to modest profits, I don't think the margins will be large enough to fully protect us from volatile prices and ensure that revenue always equates to profits.

In terms of a 1p/share offer as this isn't on offer right now it's a rather artificial question, but no I wouldn't take that. For the last few years I've been saying that 2025 is my fist date for evaluating UFO's success and that still stands.

A while ago I stated that this was a company with great assets in the ground that was bound to make a lot of money for somebody in the future... the big question, given our debts, was whether it would be us that made the money, or somebody else buying us out at fire-sale prices. That when prices drop a lot the brave gamblers step in and the pragmatic take loss on the chin by selling out.

For those that thought that 20p or 10 p was bargain then 2p must be even more of bargain... this must now count as about as risky a gamble as AIM has to offer, but on the remote off-chance it pays off then that pay-off could be huge.

I'm trying to tell myself I'm not so reckless as to throw more money at this but...

I think the only real surprise is how many people expect the junior mining sector to progress quickly and the faith they place in forecasts.

When even our CEO said that "whilst it may be wise to allow for delays they were aiming to be shovel ready for the end of Q1 2023" it seemed surprising that folk here didn't allow for delays and very optimistic to assume we'd be producing as quickly as some here forecast.

Still a good company with interesting projects - it is simply moving at the speed the sector would lead you to expect rather than the speed some here hoped it would advance.

If it is of any interest here's some statistics of the type that normally lead to me being accused of deramping;

In 2015 McKinsey Research put out a study showing that almost all large mines fail to meet development plans with an average delay of 20months and average cap-ex overspend of 80%. A 2017 study of the broader sector by the same firm found that more than 80% of mining projects come in late and are over budget by an average of 43%. A 2019 article by the Canadian Mining Journal studied 35 mine development projects showing that 27 saw significant delays and 30 were over budget. So, whilst statistics tell us about the past performance of sample groups they guarantee nothing about the future of individual cases, but we can still hope that UFO's Hanc*ck project is sufficiently simple as to fare better than average.

If the Tories are looking for a popular character that's been around Downing Street for years whilst avoiding any association with controversial scandals, a candidate that's loved by the public and can be taken more seriously than any of the big names currently being proposed by the media, then there's probably only one name that should make the list...

Larry the cat

@ yayay funnily enough I've just been reading a 2018 report by the Fraser institute comparing jurisdictions in terms of speed of processing paperwork and delays in terms of mine permitting.

The general conclusion was that all around the world it was taking much longer to process paperwork than used to be the case. However, although Western Australia didn't come out as one of the fastest, it was regarded as one of the more realistic and reliable in terms of actually processing paperwork within its own established timeframes. That said this report was pre-covid and I've not been able to find any recent data actually quoting how long they currently say they expect to need.

Back in 2020, there was some sort of simplification of the legislation in Aus announced which was aimed at speeding things up and bringing the average time down from, if I remember rightly (don't quote me), about 20months. Just a few months ago there were further announcements made about putting before parliament a "Mining amendments Bill" to further simplify Western Australia's application process and deal with the "substantial backlog of mining and exploration applications awaiting assessment and approval, which is delaying activities and related investment"

...perhaps a long-winded way of saying, that like everybody else here I don't know.

we're getting close to the point that our mkt cap is soon going to be close to our modest cash reserves ... normally a sign of a bargain and getting the company's other assets for free... however, much depends upon how quickly we are burning through those modest cash reserves.

The money they've raised today is more or less equal to what they declared as their last six months administrative expenses so will any go towards exploration?

Oh the joys of speculating in the smallest of junior explorers!

well one RNS does not make a mine, but after such a rough period in the markets it is good to finally have some positive news... here's hoping we can get back to more regularly reporting something positive to interest the markets.

@normbeef - so often we seem to be talking a similar line to one another.

I've often faced insults and accusations of "deramping" for being more cautious than others here, yet if I have any "negativity" it is towards some of the seemingly unrealistic short term expectations continually voiced here, not towards Alien Metals as a company. Like you I've been invested here for a few years and my investment is still showing me a good profit. I have never sold a single share and also like you I remain more than a couple of years away from my first date for assessing UFO's success.

This is a sector known for disappointments where most companies fail and where successful projects can typically take decades to move from discovery to production and are almost universally characterised by delays and overspends. Viewed in that context UFO has done remarkably well to grow its mkt cap from £2m to over £20m in little more than two years of global economic chaos. There is huge potential to grow this further but such things don't happen overnight and don't come with risk free guarantees of smooth stable price progressions. For those that bought at the top of the price spike, the last two years haven't been great, but two years is nothing in the life of an exploration company. Look back again in another few years and I'd hope the picture may be very different, even twelve months may be enough to make a big difference if Hanc*ck advances to profitable production as quickly as has been implied

I'm not sure I have any secret tips for better investing but, if interested in the junior exploration sector I would encourage folks not to get caught up the immediate fast paced "here and now" of the inter-net. Not to let the emotional exuberance of bulletin boards encourage you to speculate with more than you can afford to lose or to expect quick gains. The markets don't care what I, or anybody else here thinks or says, companies move at their own pace in their own direction. Sometimes a lot of important changes can occur in a short period, more often as not there are long periods in which nothing noteworthy happens. If folks can't accept that they just end up frustrated which in turn leads them to make impatient decisions they later regret. I've learned to view the endless periods of stagnation as the opportunity cost of ensuring I am invested during those few brief periods something exciting does occur.

@Bishop - CFD's fall in to the category of spread betting and are often viewed as the most extreme form of gambling, get things right and you can make a fortune, get things wrong and even without leverage the losses can be huge. With conventional betting you can lose no more than the initial stake, with spread betting the more wrong you are the more you lose, there is no limit to how much you can lose unless you cover yourself with hedges and counter-bets

As a subject for academic study CFD's are fascinating but not something anybody should consider lightly. If you do like number crunching and can throw a lot of time at such things researching the spreads offered by different companies on obscure subjects, then once in a blue moon you can find occasions when two companies spreads are so far from one another there is small gap in the middle that can be exploited by simultaneously betting with both, knowing that the regardless of the outcome the more profitable bet will cover all the loses on the losing bet and still leave a sliver of guaranteed profit. However, such situations are as rare as the proverbial hen's teeth so it is probably not a worthwhile enterprise dedicating time to finding them...

Like so many things to do with gambling ... the house always wins in the end.

I personally wouldn't touch CFD's with a barge pole, but I'm more cautious than most and it's not my place to tell others what to do with their money.

pure speculation ... but a large sale preceding a director buy of roughly similar magnitude - might it simply be the family restructuring their holdings and moving money around in terms of who owns what and where and doing so at a low price to maximise some sort of tax or other allowance?

thinking of it as a sixty day exclusivity period doesn't reflect the fact that, it seems that if both parties are happy to keep talking, it can be extended indefinitely ... the sixty days is better thought of as a clause should it be felt necessary to push for a decision one way or the other.

No doubt we'll hear something when there is something to tell us.

I think talk of a £1 share price being fantasy is largely down to timescale ... yes it is fantasy to assume it is going to happen within most folk's typical timescales and it is not something you can clearly chart a clear progression towards based upon achieving X, Y and then Z.

However if you look at the potential all UFO's different projects have, and the direction folks expect commodities and currencies to head over the next twenty years or so, then I don't see anything too fantastical about saying alien COULD become a multi-billion dollar company... That is however different from saying it WILL, where over the next year or so simply regaining the 2020 high of 3p would be quite an achievement.

I'm usually the first to encourage folk to be somewhat dismissive of the importance of daily price fluctuations for any stock or commodity, considering long term trends far more important. However even I will concede that such a large daily jump up (nearly 8% as I type) is not common even for silver.

That said silver spent ages range bound between about $20/oz and $28/oz and although a big percentage move up, today's move has only brought us back up into the bottom of that range, not moved us out of the top.

The following may warrant posting again given how my comments were previously received when referenced by others across various LSE boards.

I've long been sceptical about claims of "bullish rampers" driving up share prices, or of "de-ramping trolls" driving them down. Nevertheless when prices don't behave as expected, some will throw accusations at others before admitting their own expectations were unrealistic. So let us look at a few facts.

Statistics show that active investors typically underperform passive market trackers, and that roughly three quarters lose money trading on line. A related statistic shows that with the growth of web-based share dealing, the average time an equity is held as an investment steadily fell from over a decade to just a few months. It seems logical to assume that those who chose to invest in a company will think more favourably about its prospects than those who chose not to. The narratives of LSE bulletin boards tend to be dominated by a minority of a company's most opinionated shareholders who constantly post about their hopes to the upside whilst fiercely contesting talk of downside risk or short term volatility. Yet if prices actually adhered to their endless narratives predicting imminent growth, how do so many lose money?

Based upon the numbers who do post on this board, we presumably have a far greater number of silent shareholders who don't. Our share price moves up or down with minimal correlation to the often polarised comments written here. This suggests that this board has little influence on that silent majority's beliefs or actions; that most either don't read it or that they give little credibility to things written by strangers on the internet.

Our management continue to strive to make progress in a risky sector known to advance slowly yet erratically, one where fickle investor sentiment is strongly influenced by broader macro-economic factors beyond our control. I remain a patient long term share holder here, but the above gives no clues about how our volatile share price may behave over the coming days or weeks.

So does any of the above matter? No single investor can move a share's price but we can moderate our own expectations by basing them upon facts released by the company rather than the hopes of strangers. If an investment outperforms your expectations you should have no complaints. If an investment repeatedly fails to meet your expectations at what point do you question if your own expectations have been realistic? Or at least ask yourself if you have allowed enough time to fulfil a realistic expectation?

I don't dispute that there may be one or two who naively think that by dominating the narrative with their barrage of propaganda they can actually move a share's price up or down. However, if there are complaints, I'd suggest they are mostly that prices do not move to meet the wild short term forecasts some make here, not complaints that prices do.

@Chadster - "Can someone update regarding future revenue/sales once in production."

Simply put "no" - there are all manner of factors that remain uncertain where at present all we can do is estimate based upon a series of others estimates for various future costs and prices; Hence the endless arguments, though the majority on this bulletin board do seem to feel that the optimistic predictions are more valid than pessimistic ones. Though as it seems logical to assume that those who have chosen to invest in a company will have a more positive outlook on its prospects than those who have chosen not to invest, the dominant narrative here may be no surprise.

For what it is worth, and I've previously stated that I don't expect my own predictions to be any more reliable than other people's, I expect that over time our iron ore may average out to modest profits, but that the margins won't be so high as to always protect us from the more extreme market fluctuations. As most here know, my greater interest is the Elizabeth Hill and Munni Munni complex but that is a much longer term play before we may even get early-stage forecasts on which to start estimating future revenues.

GWMO is one of those companies I've been invested in for a few years, and which is showing me a modest paper profit. However, whilst our news releases always include enough to keep me interested and invested, they never seem to include that WOW moment that excites ... so today's RNS just seem like more business as usual.