Member Info for Tangodog1024

@MetalDetector - current profit margins suggest $50million could be in the bank 6 months after production starts. It would seem better to wait those few months and still retain an asset that is going to give the company millions of profit each year.

@wolfy81 - my understanding is that to be able to buy something, someone has to be prepared to sell it. today's volumes are twice as many buys as sells - 27880964 to 13776997. demand is driving some to sell which is their entitlement. what is your evidence for next week's meeting? i have read the agenda and accompanying notes and it clearly states the committee is being recommended to accept the resolution "proposed han**** iron ore project mining agreement with iron ore company of australia (ioca) and mallina exploration pty ltd; and state deed with iron ore company of australia, windfield metals pty ltd and the state of western australia for grant of mining lease m47/1633

(right to negotiate)". if one of the big shareholders is looking to get out because something has changed about next week, they had better pull their finger out because selling less than 14 million a day is not going to make much of a dent in their holdings before next wednesday.

@napthman1 - you predict SP down on day likely NTA RNS is published (30/11)? Mind you, the SP history of UFO, nothing would surprise me!

3 recent events that bode very well for the SP - consultant takes shares rather than cash (already seen 20%+ increase in value); NTA approval is being recommended on 29th of this month; and now a director is buying on the open market. The ducks are lining up.

Why would they sell after a week? Just take the cash. This consultant is seeing what’s happening and he’s decided he wants a piece of it

An external consultant that has spent 2023 on exploration of two of UFO's projects opts to take shares rather than cash. If that consultant believes UFO shares are a better bet than cash in the bank - it's speaking volumes. In addition, he will undoubtedly have had conversations with TW about the rest of UFO's prospects. It's probably the definition of legal insider trading.

18 RNS announcements since the beginning of August. The 18 prior to that would take you back to December last year - so yes, improved communications.

Thank you @Chris2 but the speed at which those individuals actually left the company suggests they were pushed and resignations were just for 'saving face'. Failure to deliver would be the the primary reason for those individuals leaving. Since then there has been progress and improved communications which further reinforces my belief those individuals did not resign in the truest sense.

@stevomining - can I ask why did you buy in at 1.2-1.3 pence? What did you see that made you think UFO was worth an investment? I have followed UFO for several years, bought and sold on occasions when the level of profit has been acceptable but never really took seriously until earlier this year. I've seen progress, albeit slow but in the right direction. I now have an eight figure holding with a good average price per share. I know it's an absolute gamble but I can live with whatever the final outcome is. If I get burnt it will hurt but I knew the potential risks when I decided to commit serious funds. I'm curious to understand why, with access to the same information, you believe it's beyond hope whereas I see opportunity. I am not critcising your view - just curious to understand. I do hope that at the end of the day we both come out of our UFO investment experience with smiles on our faces

I have a question and an observation. Why was IOCA necessary? Reading UFO's MoA, the BoD has carte blanche to do with subsidaries as it sees fit - no need to refer to shareholders. On the other hand, anything affecting UFO, such as a takeover, sale, etc. needs shareholder approval. I am not suggesting anything untoward is planned but I am interested to understand why the BoD felt it necessary to establish IOCA.

Does the outcome of yesterday's referendum (whether it's yes or no) have any benefits or negative consequences for UFO?

I was very skeptical of AA's involvement, and, yes, I have referred to SXX in previous posts. However, in recent weeks with the increase in communication from TW and, in particular, the recent two RNS announcements for the construction and operation contractor and the crushing and screening operator, that skepticism has receded. I now believe that UFO is determined to go into production in its own right and become a mining producer.

My apologies to you all.

if i am reading the rns correctly, ufo only has a little over 4 months in which to exercise the option:

"alien has an 18-month period to exercise the option, although the company intends to action earlier. such exercise is conditional on alien receiving approval to issue the consideration shares and the parties entering into a deed of assignment and assumption in relation to the han**** project native title heritage agreement."

it's going to be cutting it fine if the nta is not achieved by end of this year.

That poster is a contrarian - spent the last few days talking of a pump and dump company, a rotten business and then announces today he's bought 10million shares. A clear case of FOMO.

Hi @funkinmonks - the first you refer to is the Native Title Agreement (NTA) and the latter is the mining licence. Once the first is achieved, my understanding is that the second follows fairly quickly. One has to assume after today's RNS, it is now only a matter of time before the NTA arrives. It's not another hoop as such as it has always been necessary and drawn into the Gantt chart of UFO's most recent presentation. With TW stating in today's RNS that the NTA negotiations should be concluded by end of 2023, I imagine the timescales on the presentation may be able to be pulled forward by a quarter but you never know.

Let's just say, my job requires that I remain in one of the most sanctioned countries in the world.

I'm not attending because I do not live in the U.K. and have no chance to visit due to current events going on in the world. Nonetheless, I've registered my votes on the resolutions and presented questions to the BOD through other forums. I agree with your questions but would add one other - if Hanc**k has the potential that has been reported for so long, why need AA, why not go it alone - $20-30million is chicken feed in the corporate world or are there ulterior motives like what happened with Sirius Minerals?

@tacet - they were the fees quoted for 2022 plus a company has to have running costs for 12 months - link here:

https://resourcehub.bakermckenzie.com/en/resources/cross-border-listings-handbook/europe-middle-east--africa/london-stock-exchange-aim/topics/quick-summary

A company with a market capitalization of up to £250 million (approximately US$336.93 million) would pay an annual fee of £9,000 (approximately US$12,130)