Member Info for ShipwreckSheep

Something like it is likely, as

(a) it doesn't feel like they have any impact on the share price,

(b) for the third time (16Jan 9:16:51 & 9:17:19, 16Jan 10:14:28 & 10:14:42, today 9:06:13 & 9:06:32) the exact same amounts have traded in very short succession

(c) also for the third time (same trade prints) the later print was at a very slightly higher price than the earlier one, which would be very odd if it was all sells, because why would a broker show you a better price to sell another huge clip after a huge clip was sold, so that suggests it is a "sell a clip in an investment account, buy the same clip back in a tax-sheltered account" play

Not Bed and ISA given it's far larger than 20k£, but moving the shares into SIPP from a normal investment account appears very likely.

From Friday though, not today

Cobra got a shoutout in this broader context article by Crux Investor 🐍

https://www.cruxinvestor.com/posts/government-backed-advanced-public-development-projects-gaining-momentum

For the ones who aren't in the Telegram group yet (you should be!), flagging it here too:

Given that he came up several times with very useful views on the rare earths situation with China, worth flagging the Substack that Kevin Walmsley (Inside China/Business) has posted today, titled "Copper blows up: Speculators are hoarding metals that are needed by manufacturers, builders"

Not an awful time to have the drill campaign and very possibly give Havilah Resources some competition for "largest undeveloped open-pit copper resource in Australia" 🐍

Blog post: https://kdwalmsley.substack.com/p/copper-blows-up-speculators-are-hoarding

Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm2chhuLKJY

Title says it all & ...watch the video...5km from Blue Rose.

No, definitely no paid version needed Richy.

Try this invite link, but you'll need to replace the [dot] with actual dots, otherwise LSE would just remove the link altogether:

https://t[dot]me/+ftHnBv-baK80OGU8

Been a very stimulating discussion about it today in the Telegram group with over 80 comments, definitely worth joining for anybody actively invested or interested in Cobra (simply search for "cobrhelp_group" in Telegram)

"I was hoping 60p would be achieved sooner than 5 years if all goes to plan."

One doesn't negate the other, right? If ALL goes to plan, 60p could be achieved much sooner, say 2-3 years. But it'd be harsh to set the conditions for an incentive award in a "ALL needs to go to plan" way, it's more a "if MOST things go to plan, these awards are realistic for you to get" plan structure.

Looking at those details, Rupe is more than welcome to take those 30m shares if he gets SP to 60p in the next 5 years.

Decent vesting conditions tbh, especially for Year 4 and 5, to only grant those if we more than 7-bag within 4 years or 15-bag within 5 years. So should serve as an additional "be aligned with shareholders" incentive, as it's far from a free gift.

Yeah, I don't disagree, it'd be my preferred way too. My point was more that with the work program this year, in many ways there's likely decent flexibility with which items need to be treated as consecutive steps vs what can be overlapping/simultaneous, so I wouldn't get too hung up on any specific item in it - as long as we are kept up-to-date that is, that is the big deal to me...it's very easy to be confident in this investment IF management shoot straight from the hip on communication front, as the projects themselves are exciting and management do have the required skill set/experience & are aligned in their goals with shareholders by and large, which isn't a combo that is all too common among UK-listed juniors

Agreed, although of course that could take a week or 2 longer if we account for the situation that harvest in South Australia is just over and that likely due to that now there's a larger number of drilling campaigns, as it's just easier to do from stakeholder management, so labs could see a higher volume of assays to process than "usually".

But imo we gotta see the Blue Rose drilling in the context of the full program. These 15 holes now are Stage 1, they mainly look for (a) is that Northern fold (Neptune Rose) mineralized as the IP Survey results signal? (b) Is there depth extension and/or strike extension for the existing Blue Rose strike? (c) 2 holes trying to clip the porphyry ceiling.

For these, the assay results are definitely needed for Stage 3 drilling, the diamond drilling campaign going after the porphyry, because you need to know the exact results of (c) above, in order to target the porphyry with highest chance of success.

However, the skarn is shallow, of course for exact grades you need the assay results, but I'd imagine that Rupert and Rob can say with rather high conviction from seeing the drill cores whether or not there's copper in those Northern fold drill holes, so it's not a certainty to me that in order to get the Stage 2 drilling under way (which is the stage that will underpin the Skarn MRE) you necessarily need the assay results from Stage 1 in already. It could well be a situation of "Alright, there's clear signs of mineralization from inspecting the drill cores in the Northern fold, so for the Stage 2 growth drilling, we go after that & infill the Southern strike where we have the historic results"

That's fair enough if it's about timing of liquidity. And if it's about buying an additional 50,000 or 100,000 shares.

To me it's more surprising that nobody seems to want to add an additional couple of million shares given the valuation we are at and the pre-MRE stage. At least I guess that's the case, as those positions would need to be built/added at quiet times like now where you can likely buy 500k shares or so a day without the price moving higher and increasing your cost for further clips. Those positions can't really be built below 4 when many people would jump in and buy more.

So seems the main challenge is that the existing LTHs are in "fine-tuning" stage like you (trying to add a few more here and there, but nothing substantial) and that the company needs to present the story better (the fundamentals are pretty stellar after all) to attract new LTHs.

I don't argue about technical analysis levels, although I don't think they really are all that relevant in small caps that have lots of fundamental news flow, but...my push-back is: At Boland/Head/Stokes/Gillespie rare earths & Blue Rose copper/gold valued combined at less than 35 million £, given you believe in the long-term story that Cobra provides, why would you need it to dip below 4p for it to be an "opportunity to add to the position"? Especially given that you are aware of the heavy load of upcoming news flow and state that "it also wouldn't take much buying activity to move it back up again"?

@KuroMaou "Granted I have forgotten when we can expect the next piece of news...."

Well, news that the drilling campaign at Blue Rose starts/started this week or next week, any progress on lanthanum reduction and/or alternative oxidants to hydrogen peroxide (both would be direct sources of improving profitability metrics per kg MREC, so very tangible) also almost certainly still in January, finished MREC product that gets sent to 4-5 prospective industrial offtakers also within the next weeks, then early March you have the drill results of Stage 1 at Blue Rose and Stage 2 drilling starting, by that time very likely also the infill/growth drilling for the rare earths project have kicked off. Inbetween, unless Stage 1 at Blue Rose hits no copper (which is very very unlikely given the historic drill holes and the overwhelmingly positive signals from the IP Survey), the option for owning 76% of Manna Hill will be executed, and then when we get the REE growth drilling results and Stage 2 drilling results from Blue Rose, it's time for both MREs and moving to Scoping Study time with the rare earths and to Stage 3 drilling for Blue Rose, which is the diamond drilling campaign to test for the porphyry. So it's not exactly a quarter with insignificant news flow.

Kind of doubt that, we saw a retreat of less than 10% now in total since 9 Dec, in a period without any news other than a very technical one (the IP survey) that didn't come with much non-technical explanation. So fair enough that there was little buying on the back of it.

But the next news will be further flow sheet optimisation (= cost reduction, that's obvious even if the update is technical), start of drilling campaign at Blue Rose & Neptune Rose, which in itself won't change much, but still should remind people that we get a copper MRE in the first half of 2026.

At 4.20, all of the rare earths projects and all of Manna Hill are valued at less than 34m£, the rest of mcap are the Barton Gold shares we have as strategic holding & cash. It's crazy low imo as it is, and fine, people might not be buying because they don't expect key news flow this week, but frankly anybody who wants to build a bigger stake in Cobra in anticipation of the REE MRE and Scoping Study this year and the copper/gold MRE also this year probably should make use of this period, once we get the drilling campaigns (which for both projects are the final campaigns before an MRE) Lassonde curve is very likely to kick in hard if you ask me.

My pleasure, I thought that if I interpreted the statements in the webinar as "those additionally interpreted 6km will be surveyed", probably several others thought the same.

Agreed that it sounds very promising in that it validates their model of interpreted skarn mineralization.

No guarantee of course, chargeability highs aren't always caused by copper-gold mineralization in such surveys, and can for instance also be caused by pyrite (fool's gold), but given that we know from the historical drill holes that the southern strip does coincide with very economical grades of copper and gold, the base case expectation is undoubtedly that the chargeability signals in this Northern fold extension are caused by the same structure.

Still a bit annoyed with the (lack of) communication, as the RNS yesterday could have mentioned all of these things (and explained what caused a delay) and seemed hastily worded even though there was close to a month to try and draft it optimally.

But at least the actual geophysical results are super encouraging after this clarification. And mentioning Big Gossan skarn as a comparable geological structure shows their confidence in this asset, they're not hype guys, which everybody who has been invested in Cobra for some years knows, and yet so far in the context of Blue Rose, so far Cadia and Havieron have been mentioned as comparable geological setups, and now Big Gossan as comparable for the skarn - which, if the validation of the interpreted skarn holds for the entire additional 6km of strike, actually is not unrealistic. And Big Gossan is > 1Mt of copper, close to 2 million oz gold. If that is the prize that we pursue even before looking at any deeper porphyry deposit, which of course will have to be confirmed by the drilling campaign now through actual copper/gold hits in this Northern fold, then it's going to be fun, so very much looking forward to this drill operation.

I held off on commenting in detail on the IP survey result themselves yesterday. Here's why...in the end of November webinar Rupert replied in the Q&A:

"We believe we can define a further 6 km of that potential mineralization through the interpretation and ground truthing that we've done for that skarn unit at Blue Rose alone. [...] So we currently have that IP survey underway to validate this interpretation."

So to me, that meant "Alright, in a success case, the IP Survey should mention 6km of additional skarn strike", assuming that the entire wider area was surveyed, and seeing "only" 1.2km additional strike (Neptune Rose) mentioned in the RNS seemed like a mixed outcome - even though 2.8km of strike in total (including the 1.6km of already tested mineralization) would still have been a very big skarn deposit, so mixed only vs the 6km of additional interpreted strike that Rupert had mentioned in the webinar.

Therefore I sent a question on Investor Hub for clarification to know if all 6km were tested for or not. The reply: "The IP survey only covered the fold limb west of the mag intrusion and the porphyry zone. It was a big survey, taking over 4 weeks to complete but only covered a margin of the skarn target area." & also providing an image as clarification of which areas were surveyed and which weren't (which I've shared in the Telegram group, but impossible to add images here).

In that light, the results - another 1.2km of signalled skarn strike - are actually a fantastic outcome and validates the entirety of the interpreted skarn in the tested area indeed flagged up on the IP survey. Rupert further mentioned that "surface channel sampling and mapping over the regional skarn areas" will be done in addition to the drilling and that this is expected to be sufficient to confirm further drill targets rather than requiring an additional IP survey, explaining why not the entire area was surveyed this time (which would of course have been more costly as well).

Agree in general Carribs, but:

1) It was marked for November, then early Dec, only then "after Christmas", so while the "after Christmas" rig mobilization likely isn't easy, it wasn't necessary to push it back to that difficult-to-mobilize period. It was optioned out in late August, the EPEPR was submitted by Hamelin Gully anyway rather than by Cobra given that they are still owners, so access was not an issue in this case from all we know, and it's an asset that the same team held in Hamelin Gully for over a year, so one that they know well, so what cause it to be pushed back from Nov that far in the first place?

2) If for some reason after Christmas was impossible, (a) "We hopefully will have that rig on site just after the Christmas period, well, we certainly will have it after the Christmas period. We'd love to get a few holes in before Christmas if it's possible" wasn't a good thing to say, and (b) to instill confidence it should have been re-scheduled for the absolute earliest in January, why mid-January?

3) The delay itself isn't an issue at all, I'm sure there are reasons for it. The lack of communication about it (repeatedly) is a bit of an issue, it's not reasonable to act like "all is proceeding according to plan" when Stage 1 drilling has been pushed back at least twice, but more likely 3 times, and delay is close to 2 months vs published expected timeline. (Again, expected timeline != real world timeline, but being open about delays and the reasons would be better).

4) All of the above, and being very careful about not displaying nonchalance about timeline slippage, is much more important in the light of the fact that we had "REE scoping study" indicated for Q4 2023 in the May 2023 presentation (yes, that would have been for Wudinna, but still it was in there), then for Q4 2024 in the Dec 2023 presentation (that was a timeline for Boland already), which was repeated in the May 2024 presentation, then for Q4 2025 in the Dec 2024 presentation, now obviously as we know from the Sep 2025 presentation it's indicated for end of Q1 2026, which is very obvious that it won't hold...so no communication on delays and the reasons behind them would be fine if it was the first time or second time, but not when in the second project we are around 1.5 years behind with a scoping study that was initially planned for end of 2024 (ignoring the 2023 one that would have been for Wudinna). I believe in the project quality we have and I mostly believe in management too, as you probably know anyway, but it is time to deliver, it is time for a no-nonsense approach, stick to what was signaled and if there are delays, be very open about them and the causes.

I'm not sure it is that, I mean it is very clear to see that the administrative/regulatory process in South Australia is a headache often and that delays happen due to that sometimes. So that's just part of the game and imo fine & I do think it's helpful that they release timelines in slides.

But personally, as a large shareholder, I'd prefer a short "Drilling commences in a week's time, the rig that we thought we'd have access to right after Christmas got delayed a bit" or "Drilling commences in a week's time, we needed a bit more time to interpret and model these IP survey results" to a situation where it's JUST "Drilling commences in a week's time" and acting like that's all as was always planned. And I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one who'd prefer that.

And it's the same with the rare earth drilling - nobody who's an investor who likes the fundamentals of the project(s) will sell if he says "The rare earths drilling is pushed back a month or 2 vs initial schedule as the regulators are a bit slower than expected with the necessary tenure transfer on the new tenements". But if it's radio silence without updates where we stand and why the drills are delayed and whether Boland (where the tenure transfers aren't needed as it's already our tenure) will be drilled right away and the others later etc, that doesn't build trust, especially after statements like "We're in a race with other developers" in the Crux interview.

So I'm similar to you Trombone...while I don't agree it's "over-promise", as in the end having the timelines is useful despite there being a lot of elements to them that are simply not under Cobra management's control (regulatory timelines, ANSTO timelines, rig mobilisation constraints, assay turnaround times), I am rather critical about the fact that there is "under-communication" when it comes to such delays.

It's good stuff in the RNS, the additional skarn mineralization assumption being confirmed by the IP Survey is very encouraging actually.

And if it had been released 3 weeks ago, I have no doubt we'd see a SP reaction on this exact RNS.

The trouble is, if you said "We hopefully will have that rig on site just after the Christmas period, well, we certainly will have it after the Christmas period. We'd love to get a few holes in before Christmas if it's possible" in the end of Nov webinar (already after initially in the Sep presentation slides the timeline indicated Stage 1 drilling for November), you can't really expect anybody to be a huge fan of reading "Drilling of a minimum of 15 drillholes to commence in mid-January and last for two weeks with results expected by early March" in today's RNS without any explanation why the previously stated (and already delayed) schedule was impossible to stick to and delayed another 2-3 weeks.

It's not a huge issue, delays happen with drill campaigns, but after saying verbatim "we certainly will have it after the Christmas period", it'd just be a lot better for confidence/trust in management if he could just mention "We start drilling in a weeks time, slight delay from the post-Christmas plan for [Reason A] and [Reason B]" rather than shutting the previously released timelines out and acting like all is on schedule when the Manna Hill schedule is at least 6 weeks delayed vs the mid-Sep presentation slide on the timelines and rare earths closer to 2 months delayed from what it looks like.