Member Info for wasarunner

You got people like me (28m+ shares at the moment) who will hold for mine build production

you got people who had to sell for whatever reason already sold

then you'll have a lot of people who want to get out at breakeven

Breakeven for a lot of people is well north of here. When BKT get building there will be natural gravity for ACP to rise (I'm not expecting immediate news from ACP but give it until BKT well into their mine build maybe 6 months and we might see some action).

How that churn gets handled lets call it the 3p-4p area. There will be a lot of sellers. But I won't care, because for every share sold at 3p there will be a buyer at 3p at that stage new investors. Ultimately it may limit the price at which we can do equity but for a smaller mine build it should be possible to find other sources of funding to avoid excessive dilution.

I'm pretty confident here and if Horizonte hadn't been the car crash it has ended up being here, I had intended to add to my position early in the new year with new funds - but now for me cash is king and any funds already committed will not be committed but neither will I look to sell. Quietly confident on ACP and I know a lot on this board don't share that view ;)

Ditto that - has to be done by (latest) mid December IMO. At this stage you are burning a lot of cash. I expect the reason we can continue uninterrupted at this stage is because all parties have a very high % degree of certainty that a funding solution will arise, and that therefore the current cash burn is justified (as opposed to suspending operations for now, with the additional cost of restarting them again once a solution is found). You don't continue to burn cash as you approach a precipice unless you agree the precipice isn't a precipice IMO. The funding solution will be sooner, than later and I think Nov or early Dec.

I don't know how long the gap in time between the 'figure required' RNS and the 'funding' RNS especially as the figure is likely to be approximately known now, so plenty of time to thrash out a framework agreement ahead of its publication but I would expect 2-3 weeks might do it. So countdown starts when we know the number.

We were also promised an Araguaia 2 DFS at some point in Q4 (was it mid Q4?) so that may feature in the announcements but not sure at what point.

With respect to A, however there are a few things to consider:

- at this point Orion and La Mancha lose $200-250m they have already put in. So IMHO only, they don't sell for less than this unless it is them doing the buying (which has been highlighted as a risk). They don't own 100% of the shares so there is a base value somewhere where the company doesn't get sold below because existing shareholders will not vote it through (unless of course there is no alternative because their shareholding goes to 0 otherwise).

- in terms of who could bid, lots of suggestions majors would be interested, for example Vale, or Glencore. The best case if it gets sold is of course a bidding war.

I still think a funding solution involving the existing stakeholders is the most likely outcome and between the 3 of them (La Mancha, Orion, Glencore) they hold enough shares that a third party can't force a sale at a price which doesn't suit them (they own >50% of equity here).

Mv01 you don't sound like a rookie. Your questions make sense ;)

I have no expertise in question A. I assume shareholders get all of it distributed equally among all shareholdings and from pickedpeck's calculation it would be a lot more than $100m even in a distressed sale....and hence a lot more than 16p.

It really depends what price you got your 200k for. I got my 600k for >£1/sh (on average, probably, as been adding in the last year or two a lot) so a 50p sale price is not that great for me....

In terms of why the shareholder value destruction - you are right, if $200m could be found simply via debt, in the grand scheme of things over LOM and the revenues expected, it's not a biggie. We wouldn't be talking 50% or 33% of prior valuation.

The problem is, nobody wants to lend debt right now without equity. Even the second round finance here of $80m debt would have been much more desirable than a 40% dilution, which is nevertheless what we got. So the reason we're valued at 16p right now is the market is betting/pricing massive dilution (or equity wipeout) because if it could be financed by debt the shareprice wouldn't be 16p right now. If the deficit whatever it is can be funded via other means, likely bounce to a much higher level of course.

>>Then you have 80% of NPV at GBP valuation of $1.3bn

Sorry that should read £1.3bn mcap (GBP). Damn $ key is next to £ key on my keyboard.

Hi mv01 pickedpeck did a nice summary of what a (distressed) sale value might look like he might repost it or scroll back a day or two. I'm hoping that's worst case scenario in that - distressed sale sp is still < worst possible outcome dilution here.

My projections for £4.50 were for c. 2025/2026 where:

330m shares were in issue

Agaguaia 1 and Araguaia 2 were producing nameplate $29k/t with NPV north of $2bn.

Then you have 80% of NPV at GBP valuation of $1.3bn which is around £4/sh, then obviously this is sensitive to nickel price, % of NPV valuation, and also Vermelho was the second project with upside.

SImply put, I'm hoping now worst case we end up with 1bn shares, better would be 660m shares fully diluted. This would give me £4.50/2 or £4.50/3 at the equivalent stage, and the equivalent stage has gone back 6 months or so so maybe late 2026 - one concern I do have is that whatever financing solution lands makes Araguaia 2 much longer to realise (and indeed, its own capex may have increased) in which case the £4.50 point in old money may take a lot longer to reach.

I had around £3/sh down for Araguaia 1 at full production so by the same metrics £3/2 at nameplate production or £3/3 post finance deal still gets you £1-1.50/sh but that only gets us back to where we were pre disaster RNS and the timescale on that would be by mid 2025 at nameplate production.

If it's worse than those numbers then its bad for me as my average now is probably north of £1, but obviously can still be a very good outcome for people buying 16p/20p etc.

....and I maintain, still: if the amount needed to raise was < $100m this could have been done in a very short period of time using a mechanism similar to last time (which raised $80m). So it is likely to be bigger than this number. That said, upside from 16p, definitely.

I agree with the article that 16p is cheap

I agree with the article that Horizonte will (likely) find finance (as the key stakeholders haven't sold and the banks haven't walked away)

The 'gap' (pun intended) in the article is that from commencement of production to nameplate production was expected to take up to a year. During this time, unless you know the precise trajectory of production, you have to finance your ongoing opex. Horizonte _had_ to have raised this money as you can not assume that during this period opex can be met by production/sales. So if the cost overrun is due to additional cost (and we don't know the split between additional cost, and the schedule delay, of the 35%) I find it safer to assume that you need the additional capex cost of 35% but you need to retain the original amount of funding raised for the ramp up intact.

A lot of people are ignoring the period between 1st metal and nameplate production. There is a metric shedload of cost during that period which has to be financed. The period is scheduled to take up to a year.

So - we have Theorist 30p-50p in a few years....nothing guaranteed..... and billyr 30p-50p in the next few minutes take your bets ladies and gents etc.etc. the horses have left the gates and HZM is frontrunner.

My view is something inbetween. The first news and next news isn't going to be good, it's going to be a shedload of dosh needed with perhaps hints at options to finance it, perhaps not at that stage. So I definitely don't expect 'good news imminently'.

Then we need the management team to earn their bread and having had 4-6-8 weeks from when they were already no doubt talking to the senior stakeholders as the bombshell landed, deliver us something that (fingers crossed) keeps us with existing shareholdings in the game.

I expect the latter announcements relatively shortly after the funding needed, maybe 2-3 weeks. And probably all to happen in November. It is simply unsustainable for the company to continue building the mine longer term with a large funding shortfall which isn't understood, documented, and resolved - anything else and you can't have 1000s of contractors on site working with no clarity of when or if that suddenly stops. So for my money this all gets wrapped up in November or failing that first couple of weeks in December. It's exciting, but sadly for all the wrong reasons.....unless you're a new punter at the races and like billy's odds he's offering.

Bebeto, this might be true but here we aren't talking about about firat tranche financing on a go/no go decision to build a mine. If we were, Horizonte might today struggle to raise the $630m or $700m required to get the project off the ground (the amount they already raised).

No we are talking about Orion and La Mancha saving their existing $200-250m invedtment to date, and completing a mine which might already be c. 75% built. I would say the odds of Horizonte not being able to finance the rest are minimal, however, the million dollar question remains what does that do to (our) existing equity.....

It is a disadvantage at the moment that Horizonte have to solve this problem and only have Araguaia to play with. The obvious solution here would be to sell something of Vermelho to help get this funding sorted but it isn't worth anything yet, or rather, it isn't worth anything like it could be worth so that makes no economic sense right now. It's always the big risk with a junior developing its first mine that the options are very limited if it runs into cost issue and it has to be solved with current shareholders.

Hi Strow - maybe 40% of my shares are in SIPP and I turn 50 will be able to access the money in around 7 years. That is my timeframe (from now) on that portion of the investment and like you, I envisaged dividends, further mine development (Vermelho) etc.etc. It was always my intention to hold some of these stocks through the energy transition because, in time, we obviously hope nickel $25k/t and $30k/t and not the current pricing.

Right now this is a big setback but we should (and I say should as I don't know the $ needed or the precise options available to get them) get through it and the investment will still be worth, hopefully, a lot more than we paid for it. When the news broke I decided I can absolutely live with 50% of my envisaged return, and if it is 33% then so be it. For reference my goals were around £4.50 with Araguaia 2 producing which for me was my first planned exit point. Of course, if Horizonte delivers vermelho that should all add to the eventual valuation. Now for me 50% looks like ~£2+ and 33% looks like £1.50. For the SIPP and if we stay independent I hope for more but still feel a T/O somewhere around A1 producing is more likely.

My estimates may be pessimistic or optimistic we don't know until we see the finance package. But I do think this latest setback could have halved the eventual value of this investment, which is a shame, but it happens.

If I'm even remotely right though 16p is the bargain of the century to be buying though. GLA

Strow yes.I expect it impacts debt payback. But - they will be talking to the banks and negotiating that part for sure. It isn't lost from the npv but it does impact medium term cashflow.

Fwiw I think it will get financed at some dilution - exactly what remains to be seen but 16p is ridiculous imo and will not be the sp for long after finance.

Strow welcome! These are my 2 reasons for believing the funding required is > $100m:

1. If it was less than $100m, it could have been funded in 1-2 weeks using a similar mechanism to the extra $80m raised in round 2 financing and nobody would have batted an eyelid - short term drop in SP to something like 80p from 120p then a recovery as we neared production.

2. The 6 month schedule delay at nameplate production is worth c. $130m (14.5kt x $18k/t / 2). Reaching nameplate production 6 months later, having built the mine and hired all the crew whilst it won't necessarily cost that much, it costs that much in lost revenue which was assumed in the model. I think this is a really significant cost and so the schedule delay cost could easily be 50% of the total extra funding required (on top of extra materials et al).

Just my 2 pence, I could be wrong, but I am expecting a figure ~$200m. As is the market or we wouldn't be at 17p.

Your logic is correct but incomplete.

>>access to rail infrastructure...would give the company a competitive advantage

so it will, over say, a a graphite miner in Uzbekistan, who doesn't have access to rail infrastructure. Nowhere does it say a competitive advantage over other graphite miners in the same region.

>>which is expected to provide sufficient power for the entire project's needs.

Heysham2 provides all my electricity needs. But it also provides the electricity needs of others. One does not proclude the other.

You make the interpretations you make because you want the shareprice lower. Wonder why.

Where I disagree with pickedpeck is - I don't think the banks will lend unless the total financing picture is clear and all money is available. I don't think they would put up $50m - $100m or whatever and say 'yeah just find the equity around March time' not going to happen. The debt needs to see the equity and the equity needs to see the debt - and the other financing options like CLNs et al may bridge the gap but here my knowledge ends so I don't know what mechanisms exist. Obviously royalty type deals would be one of the most desirable outcomes for a significant % of what's needed.

The shareprice won't go up before the next RNS because there isn't enough info in the public domain a. What precisely the deficit is and b. What are the options for financing. In the absence of this info and with the credibility of mgt shot with many former investors who have sold, I don't see where the buying presuure will come from unless the news on the deal or likely deal leaks, which I suspect it can't and won't.

That means the shareprice will stay at around this (IMO mispriced) value and it's actually the rns' thrmselves which will need to shift it. Quantifying thr ampunt won't help much if the $ value is large UNLESS that rns also hints or provides info on what the likely financing mix is, that it isn't all equity at current price, and hints at how cerrain the finance deal is. So I am not seeing that as a price catalyst.

The best price catalyst would be an rns with a tranche of financing secured which isn't equity, like pickedpeck has said many times a staged approach, each stage reducing total $ required by equity and each stage making it much more likely finance will be complete. Whether we get that or a big bang finance complete rns in due course time will tell. I really do 't expect price to rise much until there is good news here, in the absence of good news in this market the shareprice action imo is understandable, if not justified.

Just 'based on my research' means something you plucked out of your ****. Just saying. You inflated opex by $3k/t. Why. Over lifetime of debt aggresively calling that 6yrs that's $261m. Where did that money go? What's your agenda? Yo me evrything you said is bull**** so - what do you want?

Just nothing you say make any sense....