Member Info for ShipwreckSheep

As just told you, that is a generic tracker index, with very generic standardisation, to track how rare earth prices move, there is no exchange traded rare earth composite, and MREC sells for the weighted rare earths prices contained in the MREC - a payability discount given it requires processing downstream, so it's 70% standard payability of the total value. So thanks for adding the link for the generic index tracker (where obviously it is necessary to fix total REO content and composition to be able to track it over time), but that's all it is, a generic tracker, actual product accounts for the different total REO content and composition of rare earths in the composite.

And undoubtedly you know that as well, as the tracker even states "Rare earth oxide content 42.0-45.0%". That's what it tracks. So either you are really trying to say for instance that composites with 70% REO content should sell for the same price as 42% REO content and that in an extreme case where 100% of that REO content is Tb or Dy, which is 10x the price of NdPr should sell for the same price as one with 100% of that REO content being NdPr, in that case please rename to DumbPunter. Or you are actively trying to spread misinformation to de-ramp. You won't be shocked to find that my guess is that it's the latter.

Okay, thanks for confirming that you talk complete nonsense and have an agenda. Because stating 5.5k per ton, you take nothing else than a standardised index that is supposed to track a very generic mix of MREC, which is a good tracker for total rare earth prices, but nothing else, as the actual sale price of MREC in offtake agreements depends on the weighted prices of the REOs that are in the MREC. But thanks for making it clear so early that you act with a clear de-ramping agenda, saves time on trying to point you to material that could actually help you evaluate the projects in a genuine way.

Yep SmartPunter, Chinese ISR operations are/were environmentally UN-friendly, exactly. But how about you actually look into the project instead of spouting half-truths without having looked at a single presentation clearly? Because exactly those differences to the Chinese deposit styles that made ISR problematic have been addressed at length by Cobra, most recently in the presentation earlier this month, have a look at Slide 10: https://res.cloudinary.com/investorhub/raw/upload/v1756907227/leaf-prod/234/documents/Cobra_Resources_Webinar_Update_030925_b56glm.pdf

And have a look at the rest also maybe. And at the profit margins in all-in cost vs value at spot prices indicated on slides 18 and 19 here that refer directly to produced MREC (admittedly a bit out-dated as it's from February, the margin has improved further since from the further decrease in acid consumption needs): https://res.cloudinary.com/investorhub/raw/upload/v1740479854/leaf-prod/234/documents/Feb-25_Cobra_Resources_Presentation_FULL_xghtcz.pdf

It's easy with any given rare earths project to just s*** all over it and point out elements that are worse than other projects, the same is true for your beloved RBW and PRE (which make me think that you likely only come over here to subtly disrupt and then say "Have a look at those others", shocking lol). But how about you do some actual research by going through RNS and presentations instead of taking a single RNS, call it drilling results when there was no drilling by Cobra on that area (it's re-analysis results from previous uranium-focused campaign by a different company), act like it's the main project (this is a different area from Boland that is the main project), complain about the grades when the RNS and the video that came with it state that "Favourable grades reanalysed from historical undesirable drilling methods" (as drilling methods that work well for clay-hosted are aircore or sonic, not rotary drill), it's hard to take it seriously when you haven't done any research and instead of doing so, or asking questions to people who know a lot about the projects, simply state some de-ramping stuff like the above, that takes 2 seconds to verify that it's not the way you stated it.

Really seems like you couldn't be any more clueless about the project. NdPr isn't the focus, heavy rare earths are. And the thin intercepts over district-sized areas is exactly one of the factors that makes it great for ISR. But yeah, I do agree that rare earths deposits are tricky to analyse, feel free to actually look into it and see why it likely is the only non-China deposit that is suited for ISR, which has vastly lower capex and opex than hard rock mining and also than heap or VAT leaching.

Did you read the RNS, SmartPunter? That it's re-analysis from historic rotary drill samples that were uranium-focused (by a different company) and that there's lots of grade upside. It has better re-analysis grades than Boland had and Boland has realised the grade upside with consistently > 1000 ppm in the drill campaigns after that.

Yeah, I hear you on the impatient part, not even about the SP in itself, but crossing that 50m£ mcap line could have made it easier already to attract additional institutions to take a stake (and then suddenly you have an insti buying 40m shares or however much, that'd be fun to watch in this share), but in the end it doesn't make that much difference, the mcap and the institutions will come if the metallurgy and scale continues to come in the way it has over the past year, the offtakers just as well.

So all in all, unless you were anywhere close to your target exit (and I doubt you were given you also have been here for a long time and probably want to see full value getting unlocked), it doesn't matter that much & gives you cheaper additional shares if you plan to add.

Also, join COBRHelp Telegram channel/group if you're not in there yet

Why would you prefer that if you don't mind sharing?

Because warrant execution in itself is no drag for the share price, it's the selling of shares before the execution that creates it. The warrant holders are *now* selling shares in the amount of the warrants they hold, which find new owners now, most likely stickier hands than the warrant holders have. At the time of execution of the warrants, the warrant holders simply fill up their shareholding to the number of shares they had held before they were selling for locking in the profit from the warrants.

And we might not be done fully yet with that warrant-related selling flow, but as GGPThru mentioned, look at the volumes that trade daily at the moment, and compare it to "usual" volumes in Cobra, and yes, no doubt some of the volume will be sellers for other reasons than warrants, but the vast bulk of it is without any doubt explained by locking in profit from warrant holders.

So if you ask me:

(a) If we are done or almost done with the warrants-related selling, I'd be more than happy to see substantial progress RNS already now.

or

(b) If we are not that close to done with the warrants-related selling, I'd also be happy to see substantial progress RNS already now, as it will increase liquidity (more buyers), making it easier for market makers to wash out the rest of the warrant-related selling and return to price dynamics that are driven by long-term company/project fundamentals and not by short-term mechanical flow story.

But you don't have any over 3% holders, there's only the 3 I mentioned with > 3% and Ausum (the institutional who stepped in for Andromeda's stake after we got 100% of Wudinna, so almost surely wouldn't have participated in the 2022 raise): https://res.cloudinary.com/investorhub/raw/upload/v1751462309/leaf-prod/234/documents/Cobra_Share_Capital_Information_-_Investor_Hub_020725_cpeeuh.pdf

The only other TR-1 of anybody increasing their stake to > 3% was mine some years ago, and I don't hold any warrants, so also have no reason to sell any shares (and honestly if I was holding any warrants, I wouldn't sell shares either and would rather maintain my % in the company by only executing the warrants, as I don't think 30m£ mcap aligns at all with the value of Boland & Manna Hill & the cash and shares from the Barton deal)

So yeah, really unlikely any TR-1 from it, more likely the next TR-1 will be BCB crossing 3% from the other side haha

Fully agree with you on the warrants of directors and management getting extended, that's a given if you ask me. To answer your question how many of the 3p warrants are held by significant shareholders & directors/management, it's a bit over 5 million of them.

As for number of warrants executed, definitely that needs to be disclosed. But keep in mind that no warrant holder has incentive to exercise their warrants yet, only just before maturity. Until then, holding on to the warrants increases optionality, even if they already sold the amount of shares they have warrants for.

Richy, who would you expect TR-1 from though?

The only warrant holders who are > 3% significant investors are the 3 main shareholders (David Clarke, Bruce Parncutt, Craig & Suzanne Ball) who have never sold any of their Cobra shares in the past and would be very unlikely to do so now. Any other warrant holders wouldn't trigger a TR-1 given they weren't > 3% significant investors.

Good luck Rookie, but that's cutting it very close and risks missing entry altogether? For you to be able to buy at 3p, that's require Bid around 2.6p at current spread, and any Bid below 3p would instantly stop the 3p warrant-related selling flow (locking in warrant profit), as at that price the warrants would be out of the money and wouldn't get executed, therefore also not triggering the warrant-related selling of shares.

Unless of course your take is that other flow unrelated to warrants would cause that price action, but by far the primary driver we've seen over the past week was that warrant-related supply overhang.

Great, you trade around it, after writing only positive comments here for 1y+, go for it, there's no need to write nonsense though? Have some self-respect at least and don't comment, eh? Cause your agenda is very obvious when reading through your past posts on this share.

You are no doubt aware that the expiring warrants have a strike price of 3p and that none of those warrant holders who want to take profit by selling shares and then exercising the warrants would have any incentive whatsoever to sell at any price below 3p as then they'd simply not exercise the warrants, so the "stagnation price" you talk about is entirely disingenuous.

I wouldn't say so, Howard

The main variables are

Grade (in particular ppm MREO / t of ore), we can have a pretty good idea of that from all the drilling results, MRE won't be miles out from there

Recoverability % (multiple metallurgical optimisations by now, we have values as recently as the 11 Sep RNS)

$ All-in Cost / kg MREC (company also gave an estimate for that)

$ Value / kg MREC (we have that in presentations & Rupert outright said in the webinar that currently at spot prices it's 18$/kg and optimisation around removing Cerium/Lanthanum would push it above 30$/kg)

Payability % (70% is industry standard, we know that they want to push it to 80-90% through the refining process around Ce/La)

So really the only assumptions where there hasn't been guidance/estimates directly by the company, are total resource size and how much they'd process per year, so it is worth using conservative values there and/or using estimates that other clay REE companies have in PFS/DFS, like the 6Mt/year by MEI. It's hardly "finger in the air" if it's based on estimates by Cobra directly, of course it's clear that it is just that, estimates, not a guarantee, and that it requires further de-risking. If it didn't, Boland would already be valued at similar EV, not at 30m£.

Okay, I see, so you took the route of calculating it for 100% of MREC being NdPrDyTb and adjusting kg produced per year accordingly using the roughly 250ppm MREO in a ton of ore at 1000ppm TREO. Makes sense that it should end up at similar total project and profit levels.

Seems more complicated though than just taking the numbers the presentations have already directly given us ;)

Just small sells today also, Trombone, definitely not warrants if biggest sell is less than 10,000 shares. Very different from the 100,000 shares after 100,000 shares after 100,000 shares from Friday. Does it mean all warrant profit-taking is done? Not sure, maybe just a pause, but today so far all the bigger trades are on the Ask side.

I'd personally also push back on your CAPEX assumption, the "150m$ raised at 10p". 150m$ is closer to the CAPEX needed for heap leach operations, ISR indicated as far lower by Rupert in the Feb presentation, looks closer to 75m$ in the slide (Slide 20). And imo unlikely that the CAPEX is stemmed by equity, compared to project finance, or debt lines with the offtakers

Hm, how do you get to that, particularly the value per ton of ore and the value per kg MREC?

Because latest from presentations was value per kg MREC around 18$ in the Feb presentation. And given that these results were based on 2.1kg MREC per ton of ore, I'd have thought value per ton of ore that way = 2.1* 18$ -> 37.8$.

I don't think the 10-11$ profit per kg MREC from that presentation is too far out as an estimate, that could go much higher (around 20$ profit per kg) if they manage to reduce cerium and lanthanum in the product. Agreed on 120Mt to be reasonable to use for now as an assumption of where the resource might be by PFS stage, but imo far more likely that's a 20y mine life of 6Mt/year rather than 10y mine life of 12Mt/year.

Using 10$/kg MREC profit, and Zone 3 Boland grades, that gets us to 252m$ profit per year at 12Mt/year and 10y mine life, or 126m$ profit per year at 6Mt/year and 20y mine life.

Using 10$/kg MREC profit, and lower grade assumption than Zone 3, say 1000 ppm, that gets us to 120m$ profit per year at 12Mt/year and 10y mine life, or 60m$ profit per year at 6Mt/year and 20y mine life.

So 5x EV/EBITDA (likely should be higher given it's a strategic resource and one of the only ones in Tier 1 jurisdiction) -> anywhere between 300m and 1.26bn USD market cap indicated by those values...eventually...if and when things get de-risked fine.

Don't know if any of you has expertise on the metallurgy side (I certainly don't), if so, would be interesting to hear your take, but that's a starting point for debate from AI that has been fed every single COBR RNS and presentation about what the potential cost savings could be from the lower acid need and improvements also on the molarity side of things that have been mentioned in the RNS from 11 September:

What Feb presentation showed: AISC around $8/kg MREC, with roughly $2/kg attributed to “acid/reagents.”

What 11 Sept added:

Very low make-up acid (as low as 1.95 kg/t of ore) because pyrite oxidation generates sulphuric acid in-situ → less purchased acid.

Good recoveries at lower lixiviant molarity (0.3–0.5M, and even signal at 0.1M) → less ammonium sulphate needed per tonne.

Higher-pH front end (>~4.5) for early liquors → pushes external acid need down further.

Those three levers mostly hit the same bucket the slide simplified as “acid” ($2/kg). Even if we split that $2/kg as, say, $0.4–$0.6 for sulphuric acid + $1.4–$1.6 for ammonium sulphate, the new data implies:

H₂SO₄ make-up down materially → save ~$0.1–$0.3/kg MREC.

AMSUL molarity down 30–60% while holding recoveries → save ~$0.4–$0.8/kg MREC.

Add them: ~$0.5–$1.0/kg less on reagents.

Agreed, but honestly I'd be happier if the RNS announcements drop when the warrant-related profit taking flow is exhausted, as it's hard for the ones during warrant flow to really spark interest to the extent they should.

Take the RNS from Thursday, that lower acid consumption need was really encouraging given that from the previous tests target all-in costs for a kg of MREC showed as around 8$ (Slide 19, https://res.cloudinary.com/investorhub/raw/upload/v1740479854/leaf-prod/234/documents/Feb-25_Cobra_Resources_Presentation_FULL_xghtcz.pdf )

That's around 3$ for Wellfield & Processing, around 2$ for Acid & Reagents, 1.5$ for Sustaining CAPEX, 0.5$ for Rehabilitation, 1$ for Royalties. So acid was projected to account for 25% of the all-in cost.

And sure, people read that RNS and think "Meh, just metallurgy, not looking into the details, moving on". But if the cost for Acid & Reagents can be cut to 1$ instead of 2$, what does that mean? Well, at full production 5Mt/year is a base case (take Meteoric Resources as comparable, they have 6Mt in their PFS), Zone 3 Boland = 2.1kg MREC per ton of ore -> 10.2 million kg MREC / year, so yeah, if acid cost can be cut by 1$, that means around 10m$ more profit per year with Boland Zone 3 ore, it would still mean around 5m$ more profit per year if you assume lower-grade ore with 1000 ppm TREO.

I hope that Edison soon release one that also cover the Manna Hill project. Even though the ones of us who have followed the project and company for a long time probably agree that Boland is the prize asset (and Manna Hill is a nice bonus that over not even too much time could become a second prize asset), let's face it, copper and gold is still far easier to understand than rare earths deposits, so it will open up a new group of investors.

And the nice thing about it also if you ask me is that Manna Hill (or specifically Blue Rose to start with) will serve as a nice anchor. I think that right now, many potential investors look at the company, decide "I have no clue about rare earths and I have no clue how much this could be worth, so yeah, looks interesting, but no thanks for now". With Manna Hill, and an Edison research note covering it, that could quickly turn into "Wait a second, they have a copper target with strong copper grades already with the highest sample at 2.2% Cu? And they don't focus on that primarily, but instead on this rare earths project? I have no clue about rare earths, but it must be worth a lot if that's the primary asset".