Member Info for HarChris

Completely agree. I'd now look at the investment in three parts:

(i) Uis - this is the bread and butter revenue engine. Key is the mine life, it's essentially endless. AV said in the most recent interview that once the ore sorter programme is complete we're looking at 60% greater scale for 100+ years. That sort of mine life is almost unheard of and means we should be looking at a much higher P/E reflecting that. Let's say contained tin production with both jig and ore sorters is 2000t and AISC is $24k, there is a case for a valuation of $450m from the tin operation at Uis alone. If average tin price ends up being a lot lower then maybe half that but with 100 year mine life once costs are down and long term profit is secured the current mcap is certainly easily spoken for.

Now everything else is an upside bonus. We have the lithium to be integrated into the Uis circuit. Maybe not everyone's favourite move because there will be a hefty upfront capex cost but the amount of extra revenue generated with barely any additional cost would be enormous. So if this goes ahead next year that's upside bonus number 1.

Lithium Ridge is the next. Everything about the project so far screams top tier asset. The grades coming back from the surface sampling results are exceptional and they have the world's biggest lithium producer taking it from here. How much of a bonus upside is this potentially? At least a good few multiples of the current market cap and we aren't a long way off from further evidence that that may be the case as we are now informed assay results will be released in stages through H1 ie the coming months.

And finally Brandberg West. This deal on the surface doesn't look quite as good as the SQM one but there's clearly eons of potential here with arguably no better trio of metals in tungsten, tin and copper. I wouldn't be surprised if drilling info ends up not being too far away here either.

Put all that together and you see that once tin at Uis more than justifies the market cap investors can sit back knowing there are multiple shots on goal each of which would provide a genuine rerate.

The last time I pointed out your losing trade you responded by saying you barely had anything on it… so nah, don’t bother if you can just twist it how you want. And it clogs up the bb even more!

How about not sharing any and trying not to care what an anonymous group of people think about your trading prowess?! That would be healthier!

There’s a cycle of Thorn repeating the same points over and over again, the numerous posters who flood us with messages telling him to F off, begging others not to reply or to warn the bb of his dishonesty and then Wyn writing paragraphs of philosophy and psychology on the meaning of it all.

That plays out at least four or five times a week! Almost identically. The odd post on Avacta gets a reply or two before the cycle kickstarts again.

What a waste of time this BB is in quiet periods like this!

It’ll be mentioned at least, there’s not much else to go in the interims!

It's also worth noting that this is the fifth warrants RNS and every.single.one has caused an immediate sell off only for the share price to quickly recover and push on each and every time.

There's obviously a chance some warrant holders are playing it safe, executing their 1p warrants and immediately selling to lock in profit but most are probably just executing now so they have them available to sell at a much higher price when positive news lands.

The extra cash is useful for JAN.

Here’s to all of us making a killing here, fortune favours the brave…

…I’m lying, I never bought back in - congrats to the holders!

They are now fully funded for the near term work that needs to go on first, let that happen over the coming months and then expect detail on the major funding plans to get the mine back into production.

One step at a time.

Close to taking out the three year high.

The point is Jangada have the terms built in so can increase stake to majority for £500k.

I am saying beyond that the build will require 50/50 investment - MTGold will have to cover their end and if not (as if often the case) they will potentially put their share up for sale. £2.5m was a stab in the dark, maybe double that but there’s a reasonable chance they’ll take a big payday and be free of the responsibility.

You’re wrong, they are due Friday because Neo is main market.

Going back to the trial design I thought this overview could be useful:

Key Comparisons

Accuracy in MTD Selection: BOIN generally outperforms 3+3 by more accurately identifying the true MTD. In simulations across various scenarios BOIN achieves a 12-16% higher percentage of correct selection (PCS) of the MTD, and in cases where the MTD is at higher doses, it can nearly triple the PCS compared to 3+3.

Efficiency and Patient Allocation: BOIN is more efficient, often resulting in shorter trial durations and lower costs by adapting in real-time and allocating more patients to the MTD (especially at higher doses or with higher target DLT rates). The 3+3 design can prolong trials due to its conservative escalation and fixed cohort requirements, leading to fewer patients treated at effective doses.

Safety and Risk Management: While 3+3 minimizes overdose risk by being overly cautious (e.g., lower chance of assigning >60% of patients above the MTD), it increases under-dosing, where many patients receive suboptimal doses. BOIN balances this better with built-in overdose controls and dynamic adjustments, reducing under-dosing without significantly raising overdose risks, thus improving ethical standards by minimising patient exposure to ineffective or overly toxic doses.

Simplicity and Flexibility: Both are relatively easy to implement—BOIN requires no complex programming or simulations beyond basic setup, making it accessible like 3+3. However, BOIN offers more flexibility, such as variable cohort sizes (e.g., 4 patients) and adjustable target toxicity rates, whereas 3+3 is fixed to cohorts of 3 (or 3+3) and standard targets.

In summary, BOIN represents an evolution over 3+3, providing better performance across most metrics while maintaining ease of use. The 3+3 design is still widely used for its familiarity and safety focus in conservative settings but is increasingly seen as outdated for not fully utilising trial data.

Looking at the initial deal it's highly unlikely MTgold will cover their 50% of capex for the build and so all being well it's reasonable to assume Jangada will buy out the entire project, perhaps for something like £2.5m more.

It's what happened to STS and might now happen with TNBC, might not of course, but if it did then it'll all fall to SGC to carry the load until FAP-EXD starts to produce meaningful data.

__________________

In other words IF TNBC data doesn't deliver then SGC might have to carry the load until H2 2026? That's not bad as a worst case and it's very short term as it gets for biotech. And with the less risk averse and far more efficient BOIN design for 6103 we should start receiving compelling data rapidly if all is going well.

It's close!

It's amazing this didn't move sooner, if the RNS lands as we expect there's no knowing how high this could go.

Exciting few weeks ahead!

That’s what large scale project finance gets you, alongside an equity component that justifies such a valuation.

All the ingredients are here for the same thing but we want more talk of project finance vs raises to cover fees and working capital.

Once that language changes this should rerate.

Whilst ECR should be a comparatively low cost miner that would make profit even in a bear market what with Raglan & BM being alluvial (certainly sub $1000/oz aisc when converted) the higher gold price particularly benefits ECR as it buys eons of time for a slower start/ teething problems which are always possible for a project like this.

For me it’s now highly unlikely with gold over $5000/oz and £1.5m in the bank that there will be any further discounted AIM placings and that makes it worth holding firm no matter what share price appreciation we see throughout this year, whether that’s 0.5p, 1p or even higher.

I wonder if those solely focused on Avacta and thinking history always repeats are missing the fact that the AIM backdrop plays a major role here. And in that regard liquidity has returned to UK small caps with a vengeance, raises are happening without the sort of discounts seen in 2022/23/24/25, companies are seeing major share price appreciation actually hold rather than the wild swings of post Covid.

It’s a far healthier backdrop right now than at any point since I’ve held Avacta shares.

They raise £2.5m via CLN giving them £2.325m after the financiers take their cut. You then buy bitcoin and gold at what has to be near the peak and yet you owe the whole £2.5m + interest to be repaid in cash or shares at 2.4p if Yorkville choose that? It doesn't feel like a fullproof strategy to me.

There isn’t another poster that has repeated their very specific take on the state of play like you, none that come close. Others might repeat themselves in other ways but they aren’t so consciously trying to drive a narrative home in the specific way you are through reposting numerous times a day.