Member Info for Happyhaddock

"industry experts forecast $138'000.00 by year end"

They may be correct but industry experts also built the Titanic, I'll simply say the good ship Bitcoin is not one I'll be sailing on but good luck to all who do.

An upbeat CEO with lots of positives to talk about ... a big change from a downbeat CEO being forced to address difficult subjects.

thanks max, smiller I'd forgotten that at the time this note was put out we were working at 51% ownership so that does bring their Feb figures back in line with what they calculate.

@smiller - ore grades vary from site to site so in my mind it make sense to calculate back to a pure metal equivalent

admittedly if you take 74mt ore at 50% purity to get 37mt of pure Fe and then attribute an inground value of £8/t with an aggressive 80% discount for early stage risk, by my maths that still comes to about £60m not the £30m they quote so I do agree that something is amiss in the way they have explained how they get to £30m, but as I say until we get more clarity I'll err on the side of caution and assume the fault is in the way they have explained their calculations ... I'd rather be pleasantly surprised by an upward revaluation than assume a higher value and later be disappointed.

Copy and past of the relevant passage from the Feb valuation

Our downside valuation of the Hammersley Iron Ore Project is based on an assumption that a 74mt iron ore deposit at a grade of 50% Fe is discovered at the project (37mt contained Fe), similar to lower end of the exploration target for the project.

Several junior companies that own iron projects in Western Australia currently trade on an average market capitalisation per
attributable tonne of iron of £8/t. To this we apply an 80% discount to reflect the early development stage nature of the project.

This gives a downside valuation for the project of £30.2m

Not to put a downer on this conversation but my reading of turner pope's calculations is that they express things as the price per ton of iron , not iron ore, hence their modification for an estimated grade/purity of iron within the ore.

Doesn't explain not using the full 240mt for an upside valuation but brokers are cautious, and so to err on the side of caution until we get a more detailed explanation I'd view the mistake in the way they explain/justify their calculations as much as the calculations themselves. Given that markets tend to make up their own minds about prices based upon news flow from the company I wouldn't worry to much about what a brokers says we might be worth in the future... we all have our own ideas about that which will either be right or wrong.

@napthman1 I've been interested/investing in precious metals for over a decade and taking a casual interest in the Basel recommendations for quite some time, over the last 6months I've been taking much greater interest in numerous articles, interviews and accounts about this as deadlines get closer.

About the only consistent factor common to all opinions is that there is no consistency as they ebb and flow on an almost daily basis such that I'm now taking the opinion that whilst the ideas offer much support to proper precious metal pricing I'm simply going to watch this play out with no preconceived ideas about if/how/when it will actually come in to effect.

I think various countries have agreed different times but I do believe the EU is likely to be the first to implement it, possibly on account of the huge EU debt and Germany's large gold reserves.

at the risk of seeming unduly cynical -part of the manipulation is the endless petitioning and lobbying to defer implementation of Basel III ... whether they succeed in delaying things is a different matter but there are some mighty powerful forces with a lot to lose or gain fighting on both sides.

I am sure Starbright doesn't need me or anybody else to defend him, but if somebody raises a valid question and does it it politely then I will defend their right do so... Heck if Chris2 did so (however unlikely their past posting history suggests that may be) I'd defend their right.

I don't believe anybody has suggested there is any wrong doing on behalf of our board who have so far proved very knowledgeable and capable, there is however enough uncertainty about Wombat's owners for the questions asked to be valid and part of what I would consider any investors due diligence.

People may or may not have others reasons' for doubting Starbright's motives but I for one consider this a legitimate question to have asked.

I once had a teacher who had large notice on his desk that read "insanity is hereditary - you get it from your kids"

I learnt a lot from him... I also spent much of my time at Uni being stopped by folk wanting to read my lab coat onto which I had inscribed the following...

"... if the prophecies of a mad man be a window on another world then join me in my spaceship and I will show you the Universe!"

As you say sanity is overrated

@ GTMUFO I don't know what you are taking but if it were free on the NHS the world would be a happier place -keep doing what you are doing for "Sanity is the prison in which the unimaginative hide from life"

@pickuzawinnah what a company is worth and what it is priced at always differ, people have been stung before with Alien jumping up on good sentiment and spiking the price only to drop back again because the supporting facts didn't arrive quickly enough.

Undoubtedly there is already much good sentiment here and the prospect of much good news to come but until we actually get hard facts I would say UFO remains fairly priced, and that unlike some other juniors people here are no longer pricing UFO as heavily on sentiment as was once the case.

We all expect to be getting more definite facts over the coming months so we just have to stick with being patient, far better a justified rise than a heavy "expectation" driven surge that can't sustain itself.

@ PaulQ - I think starbright has a right to ask a legitimate question - to imply any wrong doing without evidence is unacceptable but at this point I don't think anybody is doing so.

As an investor in UFO I like to know as much as I can about who is managing the company and if members of our BOD are also representing those we are negotiating against I think for the avoidance of suspicion this needs to be made clear. It may well make things easier to reach mutually agreeable deals but I'm still interested to know if the others side of the negotiating table is merely a mirror.

Well Daniel Smith certainly seems to be well connected as listed in this old pdf in which he is stated as director at (or at least was in 2018) more than a dozen companies including Wombat and Sorrento and where we know he is also now with Alien.

https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20180116/pdf/43qvcwj3xms99x.pdf

@Starbright - As you say if this is true then it is "interesting" - doesn't have to be anything untoward and could play to our advantage where I am sure all legal practices and requirements will be met- however I think for the purposes of avoiding any doubt a little more transparency from the BOD would go along way to reassure folk of exactly who is negotiating with who and exactly who benefits from any deal agreed.

I think this is one space to watch with interest.

My assumption was that we'd either pay a fixed fee to a third party contractor or incur upfront cap-ex to set up simple processing equipment for ourselves and that we would have to broker a deal as to how much of the profit we keep and how much goes to the owner of the tailings. Of course it is possible we do a three way split and pay a processor with a percentage of profits.

However without knowing how much it might costs to process and what short of profit share we might come to it is easy to imagine that the few million quid of silver may dilute down to closer to to one million quid profit for us, but even if it is a modest amount of profit we are left with from the tailings that is still more drilling paid for elsewhere.

Anybody have any good/comparative data for likely costs of processing tailings... The BOD imply this could be a useful source of revenue but presumably initial CapEx plus daily processing costs along with a profit share with the owners would all cut into the actual value of the raw silver as in the tailings to UFO.

@napthman1 - that's how I read it - doing due diligence but not rushing into anything until sure it is worth the effort.

Well not yet an actual "step forward" upon which we can revalue UFO but the sentiment boosting news keeps on rolling suggesting that this is yet another aspect of UFO that could deliver a nice little boost to the share price at some point sooner rather than later. Here's hoping a deal can be done on the tailings

Patience should reward us all eventually.