Member Info for ShipwreckSheep

TheCrackMan, it's been between 40-90m market cap for essentially all of 2022 and 2023, so if you mean short term before results, on an encouraging initial post-drilling outlook, maybe middle of that range would be realistic before full results? Which would be a little under 2p.

If results are great, a lot more than that, as previous market cap of that did not have a commercial find.

If results are horrible, a lot less than that.

But based on the info that's out there, I'd expect the skew to be towards a positive result

Was always clear that at 1p, given that it's a psychological level, a lot of people will take profit, and another decent amount of people will top slice for a free ride. The fact that it can't seem to drop below 1p for more than 2 minutes despite all of that...well, interpret it as you want, but I find it quite telling.

Back into HE1 on any dip

Why cross-ramp something on a downturn, drizzy? Instead of looking at momentum that is not based on spikes but based on gradual solid increases like this? EEE was massively hyped at several points last year, and it did have interesting updates, no doubt, but it was also very actively ramped on its board - and yet, there wasn't a single day when EEE's volume was even one fifth of the outstanding shares. The SP growth here is a gradual train based on massive massive volume, with 70% of shares outstanding traded each of the last 3 days. Nothing lasts forever, and neither will the 50% return days here, but who wants to jump in front of a relentless moving train that hasn't slowed down one bit?

You still seem early to be honest, even if you did miss out on quite a big move already.

Just before trolls jump on it and use it for their agendas: Clemdave, 10p doesn't value the company at £100m, it'd value it at £340m with 3.4bn shares outstanding.

As last time, Ken, nobody denies that uranium is a hot commodity right now. But be real, maybe it's time to be humble for once? Last year you said "You'll all eat crow, this company should drop what they have and get a lithium project asap". What would have happened if they had followed your advice? There'd be no Boland, no mineral resource, just a lithium very early exploration play, with - in that scenario - the SP following the one that other lithium explorers had since then. I'm glad they didn't just drop everything and went after a lithium-prospective tenement just because you decided it's what they "should do".

I'm glad you're doing well, securing lithium projects last year, securing iron ore now, that's awesome! But that's because in what you do now, always going after the "hot commodity of the month" is what's most profitable, pegging ground and flipping it, that requires short- to medium-term plans, so that approach works, a tactical one. For exploration companies themselves though, if they always just jump around following the hot commodity of the month, they'd switch projects every 6 months (which also shows from you first pushing tin here, then REE, then lithium, then uranium), and never get anywhere with their exploration efforts. It primarily takes a strategic approach rather than a tactical one to be a junior explorer surely. And in that sense, just like REE went hot in 2021 and cooled down since (although prices are still well over the pre 2021 levels for all but Praseodynium), just like lithium went hot in late 2021 and 2022 and cooled down since, it's likely to happen with every other resource too where supply is elastic to price.

Importantly, I'd like to point out once more that IF coincidentally historic samples point to a great uranium play in Cobra's new tenement, everybody surely would be over the moon, nobody is hating on uranium or denying that it is a hot commodity right now. The reservations I have to your posts sometimes are that you ALWAYS seem to be on the "they need to go after [insert any metal that they don't have]" hype train (which makes sense, as in your main role of pegging ground, that's what's making you all the money), rather than acknowledging what they have, a pretty exciting prospect in a commodity that as recently as 2 years ago was one of your 3 main focus metals, and the way that cycles go probably will be in your 3 main focus metals again in 2 years' time.

So you criticise him for quoting past broker findings, while saying "the new drill results are probably not worth anyone's time because the previous drill results weren't either"? How is that not "old hat"?

"We had those last time, better in fact", PJ?

Right, if you think "6x background helium shows and no hydrogen" was better than "20x background helium shows and hydrogen", then a lot of your posts make a lot more sense if they could be explained simply by confusion.

Lol okay PJ, amuse me please:

Give your elaborate reasoning why "fair" market cap should be 10m£ pre results when it was over 50m£ pre results after the initial post-drill announcement on 7th Nov when there were only 6x background helium levels in the mud and also clear that the company needs a new funding round for further drills?

Well yeah Neil, I mean, the "much lower market cap despite more positive first post-drill update compared to last time" storyline is why i'll probably end up averaging up a bit on Monday, I'd say it's still a rather constructive risk/reward setup. But it is two-way risk nonetheless, the SP should be much higher conditional on the drill results being as good as they seem from extrapolating from the last results (so e.g. if we say last time 6x background in the muds and then 0.8% in the downhole sample, if we get a similar conversion for the 20x background this time, and it's free gas, perfect).

Funny part is that PJ's posts make me wanna buy more on Monday because some parts like

"that exploration firm hasn't extracted any of the resource yet (...like any other exploration firm...), shame on them" and "it's all pump" despite market cap even after the "pump" is less than half vs first update after last drilling when it was also clear they'll need new funds for next drill campaign and when the update was less positive than this time

just seem a little desperate.

Meanwhile Neil's posts make me rethink if i really should buy more, as at least parts of it are maybe too optimistic.

Funny world, when both posters have the opposite effect of what they try to do.

What's your point with the entire "not one cubic ft helium ever being extracted" in each post? Which exploration firm has ever had mine production before turning from explorer into developer and then producer? Fair enough if you say the results haven't been in yet and there's 2-way risk, undoubtedly true, but bashing an exploration firm that it hasn't mined any resource yet, very odd agenda, sir

Agreed 2reincarnated, 20p a long shot, but 20p isn't what the majority of posts are talking about and most likely not what the majority of people are seeing as target, at the very least not an immediate one. However, seeing where market cap was the day after the previous initial drill announcement (which was 7th Nov), that was 57.4m£. That initial announcement looked potentially interesting, but much worse than this time around (more than 3-fold concentration of helium in the diluted muds vs the Tai drill, hydrogen also encountered, no drill issues, basement reached), and it was also clear that soon the company will need a new round of funds (that was already spoken about by Lorna in the InvestorMeetsCompany presentation in July that after the Tai drill, for the next drills, new funds will be needed).

So 7th Nov: Decent first signal after drill, funding soon needed for further drills, market cap of 57.4m£ the day after

vs 25th Jan: Better first signal after drill, funding also soon needed for further drills, market cap of 21.1m£ the day after

True, we're still waiting for results undoubtedly and part of the discounted market cap now is ofc due to trust issues that the company - at least to an extent - brought on itself, but it's a better initial signal after drill with less than half the market cap, and similar situation around funding needs as then (i.e. the next drill will need new funds).

On that basis, playing for 2x or 3x the share price here (and potentially quite a bit more IF the full results are positive), isn't simply looking into a crystal ball without any foundation.

Does anybody else consider averaging up and buying more next week of the people who got in within the last month?

I've taken a stake (after briefly being invested here in 2021) last month, but feel rather positive about the initial results and am considering bringing up my average by buying more on Monday. Granted, the CEO also seemed quite positive in the Proactive interview on 7th Nov after the Tai drill, but it was known then already that some things went badly with the drill, while this time the initial readings from the muds are higher, there's hydrogen, basement has been reached, and no problems with the drill/rig seem to have occurred.

Anybody in the same shoes? It seems a bit crazy to average up after a 200% rise, but looking at market cap, it still seems to make sense to me, or maybe I'm going insane.

But the two groups "LTH" and "people who bought at 0.25p" aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, Scott? Which can make the maths a bit different, cause if someone bought at 10p, and then bought 10x the number of shares at 0.25p (which for instance means for somebody who had invested 1000£ at 10p to invest another 250£ at 0.25p), then that'd bring their average to 1.14p and "only" require that the share goes up 83% to get back to even. Or 20x the number of shares at 0.25p (for somebody who had invested 1000£ at 10p -> invest another 500£ at 0.25p), which would bring their average to 0.71p, so they'd already have been breaking even at some point during today's trading day. The maths only become problematic without averaging down - which is fair enough if somebody says "i don't want to buy more, i don't have high conviction on this rising", but saying that the only thing LTHs could do was sit and wait for the stock to rise 4000% is not really accurate.

I'll do the maths for you, as you don't seem to bother, here, just for you:

8320ppm undiluted downhole sample of the PVT analysis in the Nov results = 1664x background

So you're seriously thinking 1664x background isn't commercial? Or will you just keep spouting the diluted concentrations around randomly? I think I can guess which one it is

Again, last drill: Diluted initial screen 6x background -> 8000ppm+ undiluted sample

This time diluted initial screen 20x background -> ?

What are you talking about with 100x background, you know full well that the undiluted sample is almost certainly much much higher, and most likely higher than the 0.8% helium concentration of the undiluted sample in the November results (i.e. a commercial level of concentration)

So you just ignore the fact that in the last drill, the initial (diluted!) screenings showed 6x above background and then ended up as 0.8% in the samples they managed to collect through the lab analysis? And just imply that this time 20x above background in the diluted muds will end up as only 20x background in the downhole samples too? Cool dude...

Alright Pusstule, probably I shouldn't, but I'll bite:

So if you look at the RNS from 7 Nov and 20 Nov respectively, you see that the initial observation was elevated Helium shows up to 6x background in the 7 Nov one, and the log results showed up to 8320 ppm in the downhole samples, right?

So pretty safe to say that with 20x background in the new drill in the diluted muds, the downhole samples will show at the very least 8320 ppm as well, but potentially quite a lot higher concentration, don't you agree? with 0.3% being considered economically sound, what makes you bash a likely result of > 0.8%? Unless you have some kind of agenda...