SHP Chart Only, page-362

Hey mate, very welcome here, and I appreciate your perspective (and repeated attempts at posting... HC can be a real pain sometimes!). Also, good to see you pop up, having been in the forums in MNS and FFX with you in the past (although I've left both nowadays)

To give my view on your points / the risks

• Power - this is an essential need. I wouldn't expect the scoping study to cover a huge level of detail here, for the reasons you stated - it's not a DFS. However, at this point they have to assume that they will get access to power. Germany today said it aims to have Russia supplying only 15% of its gas and it's started turning off heatings / hot showers in public buildings in Hanover... gas access will be a challenge but my assumption is that if this gets the go ahead, best case production in 2024, you have to assume that Germany has largely addressed it's supply chain issues then. Also... food is more important than powering high gas usage industry, or even warmth... therefore depends on the government priority of local fertiliser production
• Delays - I must admit I don't remember the Q1 mention, perhaps it was after I came onboard 12 months ago, but that was never my understanding. Since then, yes, delays in assays have cost us, and comms around that could have been enhanced. Chris G is no longer with us, perhaps it was a part of the reason (although tiny if so)
• As for the investor presentations, you're referring to Chris G again who's been moved on. Yes, no clear detail as to why. It could have been conflict of interest, could have been a conflict of strategic direction with the board, we don't know. I believe in the team now in place, but we need an MD with the right skillset for what comes next... before we can get that, we need a clear strategy (JV, acquisition, go it alone, etc)
• HFR now sub $350m (was higher 2 weeks ago). I believe there is upside there but to be honest, you rarely see commodity producers at their NPV unless they're developed and running for a couple of years with dividends coming through. I don't believe HFR will get anywhere near that in the next couple of years, and carries the interest rate funding risk you mention. Still, definitely more progressed than SHP, and therefore with respect to becoming a producer, also far lower risk....
• But I'm investing not necessarily to back a producer, but to make money. I think the downside risk here is far smaller than what it could be with HFR. As I mentioned in another post, Alana resources in 2015 sold for 4x SHPs value with only 40% the resource ($200m AUD), however they had a DFS but only $10m in the bank and massive dilution to produce. The reason I pick SHP over HFR is that any major funding hiccup in HFR could see considerable downside to their market cap... they're at a similar point to HFR, although they were Africa based but had 2-3x HFRs resource, yet HFR is currently 2x that sales value.
• Dilution - big risk here, but as per above, it depends on strategy and I believe we're on or very close to a valuation floor at this point.
• Timing - I think 3 years is a little unfair. With changes in management and also in-country roles and vocal government support, not to mention a change in the macro economics, it's my assumption (and therefore investment decision) that they will be able to accelerate. Again, pending strategy and the right MD

My post also turned out much longer than intended! We should really move these to the right threads but I wanted to reply in here.

For me personally, I see SHP has higher risk to progress but far lower risk to lose a chunk of my investment. I like chasing multi bags (don't we all) and I see this as a reasonable chance for that. I see HFR as a chance to potentially 50-100% gain but also potentially lose half my money

Very happy to hear counters to my points - I'll admit they're mainly assumptions but I must get to my working day