Member Info for Metalhead25

I can’t work out whether this means that another announcement is imminent (and if so what that could be) or whether it just means that the company has belated decided that there should be no trading until the next announcement, whenever that may be. Anyone have a view?

This transaction was always going to happen so for me the question really is “why now?” I can’t get out of my head the thought that the main thing this does is increase the voting power of the insiders. I’m not so much thinking of a possible takeover or delisting as somebody else suggested, but I am concerned about a questionable insider-led financing to raise money to co-invest with Hy24 in Villeta. Hoping it’s something much more prosaic

It’s an outstanding set of results, showing an EV/PAT multiple of just 2, to be contrasted with superb reserve replacement and long life assets. The hedging is pitched where it is because AET has a low cash flow breakeven. Only those with an agenda will contrive to find negatives in this

The ask has moved up a bit now. The bigger picture is that I think we all agree (even Legalwolf, if you take him at face value ha ha) that this should be worth multiples more in 6 months’ time. Logically, then, there has to come a point where the bottom is in and we start that move up. Yesterday’s raise has pushed the price down as raises always do, but has potentially brought forward that inflection point where the looming re-rate more than balances the pre-DFS finance risk. We’ll see.

You don’t like being seen for what you are, do you?

I don’t recall anyone saying there couldn’t or wouldn’t be a placing and I recall several people (myself included) accepting there could be. Like I said, you could hang around the BB of practically any pre-rev microcap predicting placings and get to feel clever from time to time.

It seems to me that the amount they have raised is the amount they think they need to complete the DFS. Speculating about needing more is just the same malicious fare Legalwolf peddles constantly, and was always going to peddle following any raise. If it had been £2m he’d have said “it’s very surprising and alarming that they need so much money and you’ve got to wonder what other surprises are in store and how much more they need”.

He’s not giving “advice”, he’s running a months-long (or years-long?) campaign to drive the share price down. Anyone spending months or years trolling the BB of a pre-revenue company with warnings that there may be a placing has a fair old chance of being right eventually. That doesn’t mean there’s any great wisdom to it, and certainly doesn’t mean it’s advice.

Well, I can’t say I’m not a little disappointed but I suppose the reality is that if the DFC is not paying up then that money has to be replaced from elsewhere. Neither the company nor anybody else can do anything about Trump sabotaging the DFC.

I don’t share the concern about still not being fully funded for the DFS. We were previously fully funded including the DFC money and this (a) pretty well exactly replaces the DFC money and (b) must logically be the amount we need, otherwise they would have raised a bit more. I think the reason for not saying expressly that they are fully funded is that they have been burned before saying that (by Trump pulling the plug on the DFC).

The timing of the raise is actually quite good. If this had been done two weeks ago the price would have been much lower. They’ve taken advantage of the recent price strength to get it away at 3p, which is not good but not a disaster given what’s coming.

Q1 update not showing on LSE for some reason:

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/ATYM/q1-2025-operations-update/16990659

Excellent performance!

We already have an ML, it was just conditional on getting the ECC

For anyone interested: https://x.com/metalhead2525/status/1911315123299397713?s=46&t=Jne_cUYLxmaxpafySDDQ2A

Don’t worry Zingerz, long term investors here have barely noticed you exist. You turned up barely a couple of weeks ago, spouting off. You’ve said nothing of interest at any point. Personally I now just skip over your posts, saves time

I expect the changes to production volume scheduling arise out of discussions with AFC, who as we know want to fund it

Aaargh, please ignore my 21:01 post - wrong board!

I don’t mind different/balanced/negative views at all. In fact, I don’t think anybody does. What annoys people is a very small number of non-shareholders relentlessly and deliberately poisoning the BB with the same stuff over an extended period of time, self-evidently with the agenda of trying to move the SP down.

It is, in fact, absolutely obvious to real holders when this is the game being played. Attempts are made to cover it by throwing in mixed positives from time to time (“I agree it has great potential but…”), but it’s still very easy to see for what it is. The other classic bit of misdirection is calling everyone else a ramper who is unwilling to hear another view. There are a very small number of people like that on these BBs but really not many and none who are regulars here. Notice that PaulFG’s negative comment earlier today was not in any way jumped upon or objected to. That’s because people see that it is genuine, not part of an ends-driven campaign.

To be clear, it makes no difference to any of the above if the concerns raised by these malignant individuals turn out to be correct. Again, it’s not the points themselves. Is there a risk of delay? Yes, it’s a pre-DFS miner. Is there a risk of a raise? Yes, it’s a pre-DFS miner. The problems are the repetition, the resulting poisoning effect, and the malign motive.

I don’t mind different/balanced/negative views at all. In fact, I don’t think anybody does. What annoys people is a very small number of non-shareholders relentlessly and deliberately poisoning the BB with the same stuff over an extended period of time, self-evidently with the agenda of trying to move the SP down.

It is, in fact, absolutely obvious to real holders when this is the game being played. Attempts are made to cover it by throwing in mixed positives from time to time (“I agree it has great potential but…”), but it’s still very easy to see for what it is. The other classic bit of misdirection is calling everyone else a ramper who is unwilling to hear another view. There are a very small number of people like that on these BBs but really not many and none who are regulars here. Notice that PaulFG’s negative comment earlier today was not in any way jumped upon or objected to. That’s because people see that it is genuine, not part of an ends-driven campaign.

To be clear, it makes no difference to any of the above if the concerns raised by these malignant individuals turn out to be correct. Again, it’s not the points themselves. Is there a risk of delay? Yes, it’s a pre-DFS miner. Is there a risk of a raise? Yes, it’s a pre-DFS miner. The problems are the repetition, the resulting poisoning effect, and the malign motive.

Legal, as to the supposed conditionality of your 16:42 post… I believe the transcript begs to differ. Good thing you’re a lawyer rather than a witness!

Incredible levels of negativity, following such a positive announcement.

“Yet more drilling” - no, the interview says precisely the opposite

“Small mine in Namibia” - how small is small? The model is 7kt copper per annum, plus gold and silver by-products worth around half as much again. That’s c. 10kt copper equivalent per annum, not far off what CAML are producing (Mcap £274m). Yes CAML also have a zinc mine, but on the other hand they have a much shorter mine life. I’ll take a $100m revenue per annum operation at Ongombo!

“pump and dump” - I genuinely didn’t notice a pump. Clearly some people went for a trade having noticed that the award of the ECC was published on a Namibian website prior to being RNSd.

Now legal. You can’t really say “with the drilling not yet complete they’ll be struggling to get the results and factor them in by the end of Q2, so I think the DFS will be a bit delayed” (a fair point) but then also say, when exactly such a delay is confirmed “the worrying thing is there’s no apparent reason for the delay; it’s suspicious”.

We can’t say both of those things on the same day, can we? It’s not honest and straightforward is it?

I note the preso says “mid 2025” so presumably a minor delay into July/August - no big deal

The financing proposal will either arrive today (which would be on time) or it will be very soon. The wording has been “targeting” end of March for a while. If it’s another few days, so be it.

There’s no point poring over the fine detail of the wording of the results - they will have been written over a period of weeks