01 / 10
Download PDF
InvestHouse Research
Research subjectALM.ASXALM:ASX
Report cycleQ2 CY26 UPDATEAs at 22 Oct 2026
Report01/ 10

Three Briggs assays confirm long intersections; mine-plan confidence remains unearned

Alma Metals develops the Briggs copper project, with 2026 infill drilling testing resource conversion and mine scheduling.

Briggs is the value engine

The market is pricing Alma Metals as a junior copper developer, while Briggs can become a materially more investable project if infill drilling and PFS work convert resource scale into mine-plan confidence. We maintain a watch stance, with conviction positive on the asset and capped by the absence of a published house valuation and first-cash evidence.

Continuity is encouraging, not commissioning proof

The 2026 results improve confidence in resource conversion, with 2,300m completed in seven holes and a further 34 infill holes, approximately 10,000m, planned for 2026. The 137Mt Indicated component gives Briggs an established starting base, while the 793Mt Inferred balance limits mine-plan certainty until additional drilling is incorporated into an interim MRE and PFS. The market's mistake is to treat a funded drilling programme as equivalent to construction progress.

Briggs value depends on the first-cash regime

  • Current market anchor: At A$34.3m, equity value reflects a small-cap development asset with a 51% Briggs interest. A publishable Investhouse target is not available in the supplied pack, so no numerical NAV uplift is underwritten today.
  • Next valuation lever: An interim MRE followed by PFS economics can replace broad resource scale with mine-plan, capex and operating assumptions. If those inputs support construction funding, the market can begin valuing future cash flow rather than only study-stage copper.
  • Ownership consequence: Alma is targeting 70% of Briggs by spending approximately A$4.1m by 30 June 2031. Greater ownership increases attributable value only if the funding package and development economics are accepted by investors.

What changes our view

  • We would become more bullish if commissioning, first production and early cash flow at Briggs are demonstrated, allowing producer-style earnings and funding flexibility to enter the valuation.
  • We would become more constructive if the 2026 infill programme supports the mine-plan case and the PFS reports recoveries, concentrate quality and capital requirements consistent with prior work.
  • We would reduce conviction if construction or commissioning readiness is materially deferred, or if the MRE and PFS weaken the geological continuity that the 4 August 2026 assays currently support.

General information only: This report is general in nature and has been prepared without taking into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. Consider whether it is appropriate for you and seek licensed advice where required.

This report has not been commissioned or paid for by the company and may be AI-assisted. See Important Disclosures for publisher, conflicts, research policy and distribution information.

© 2026 InvestHouse Financial Services Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Cover · Investment SummaryInvestHouse
ALM.ASXResearch ReportInvestHouse Research
ALM : ASXPAGE 02 / 10
Section Lens
02

Three Briggs holes support the 2026 infill plan

Quarterly snapshot
Last four reported quarters
CASH A$3.6M · BURN A$2.1M/QTRQ1Q2Q3Q4Q5Q6Q7Q8FUNDED · 2.1 QTRS INCL. FACILITIESQUARTERS OF RUNWAY AT LATEST BURNEXPLORATION A$1.5M · ADMIN A$0.2M
Sep 25Open
Dec 25Open
Mar 26Open
Jun 26Open
Cash
A$0.47m
A$2.63m
A$1.85m
A$3.56m
Receipts
A$0.00m
A$0.00m
A$0.00m
A$0.00m
Burn / OCF
A$0.92m
A$0.00m
A$0.77m
A$2.08m
Exploration
A$0.61m
A$0.79m
A$0.50m
A$1.52m
Admin
A$0.19m
A$0.20m
A$0.16m
A$0.16m
Funded qtrs (incl. facilities)
0.5q
Self-funded
2.4q
2.1q

Latest reported funding covers 2.1 quarters including undrawn facilities. Cash alone covers 1.7 quarters of total burn.

2,082.6m completed

Six Briggs infill holes totalling 2,082.6m were completed in the June quarter. By 4 August, approximately 2,300m had been drilled across seven holes, expanding the dataset for resource conversion and mine scheduling.

Modelled grades broadly confirmed

The first three assays reported on 4 August returned 322.3m at 0.17% Cu, 388.4m at 0.15% Cu and 400.5m at 0.13% Cu, broadly consistent with predicted grades. Higher-grade intervals included 86.9m at 0.23% Cu, 21.4m at 0.22% Cu and 139.1m at 0.17% Cu. The results support the 2026 infill objective, but do not establish commissioning or cash flow.

Second-rig capacity comes with execution demands

A 16-person camp was acquired for a second rig, with August commissioning outstanding. Current funding supports the programme underway, but not the requirements beyond it.

  1. 01A further 34 infill holes and four exploration holes were planned for 2026.
  2. 02Alma plans approximately 17,500m across 35 holes in 2027 for PFS engineering, mining and scheduling.
  3. 03Consistent assays improve the technical dataset; second-rig delivery, completion of the drilling programme and funding beyond the current phase remain execution tests.
Three Briggs holes support the 2026 infill plan · Section LensInvestHouse
ALM.ASXResearch ReportInvestHouse Research
ALM : ASXPAGE 03 / 10
Section Lens
03

Briggs scale is established; confidence is not

Lead asset
Explorer underwriting anchor
Company stageExplorer
Current gateGeological continuity and resource-definition proof
Study anchorSCOPINGBriggs

932Mt at 0.21% Cu

Briggs has the scale to support a mine-plan-relevant copper operation. The April 2025 MRE contains 932Mt at 0.21% Cu, including 137Mt Indicated and 793Mt Inferred, with approximately 2.0Mt copper, 73Mlb molybdenum and 16.5Moz silver at a referenced 0.15% Cu cut-off. August drilling returned continuous mineralisation over 322.3m at 0.17% Cu, 388.4m at 0.15% Cu and 400.5m at 0.13% Cu, supporting continuity rather than isolated discovery.

The East Kimberley venture profit-share remains bounded optionality because no numeric evidence supports standalone value. Briggs is consequently the only recognised interest with a quantified development base.

Indicated conversion matters more than headline tonnes

At 0.21% Cu, contained metal alone does not establish economic value. Throughput, recovery, strip ratio, power, water and logistics will determine how much of the resource can become payable production. The 2026 infill results support the existing grade model, but 793Mt remains Inferred and requires conversion into a mine-plan-relevant study base.

  1. 01Rougher recoveries of 93-96% and locked-cycle recoveries of 93-95% support a conventional crush-grind-flotation route.
  2. 02Scale-up and variability work remain necessary before those results can carry PFS-level engineering confidence.
  3. 03Molybdenum and silver could improve payable revenue, but no standalone value is assigned without recoveries and payable terms.

PFS engineering remains the technical test

PFS work covers recovery optimisation, coarse particle flotation, possible molybdenum processing, environmental baselines and waste/tailings characterisation. The 30Mtpa reference is aspirational, not a production target or reserve-based plan; reserve expansion and any build beyond the approved project remain unproven. Briggs therefore supports development-stage assessment, but should not carry full producer economics until PFS engineering confidence supports commissioning and first cash. The unresolved step is converting the resource and testwork into an operating plan.

Briggs scale is established; confidence is not · Section LensInvestHouse
ALM.ASXResearch ReportInvestHouse Research
ALM : ASXPAGE 04 / 10
Section Lens
04

Selective capital markets raise the value of execution

Selective capital, not a shut market

The funding window is open but selective: the Federal Reserve funds target range was 3.50%-3.75% on 18 March 2026 and the US 10-year Treasury yield was 4.31% on 14 April 2026. Higher yields and periodic volatility limit indiscriminate junior-mining capital. We think this affects financing timing, not standalone project value.

Copper structure helps the asset, not the balance sheet

Electrification, power-network and construction demand support the long-term copper case, but no dated benchmark, inventory series or quantified deficit is supplied to support a price forecast. Copper sentiment can improve strategic, JV or offtake interest, but cannot replace project economics, construction capital or permitting. The commodity backdrop therefore improves access only when company-specific execution supports it.

Funded milestones matter more than beta

Current funding supports the technical programme rather than construction, commissioning or first production. Access to project debt, strategic or JV equity, or offtake prepayment remains conditional on the resulting study evidence.

  1. 01Stronger company-specific evidence should increase the probability of external project capital and reduce reliance on ordinary equity.
  2. 02Weaker markets would raise dilution risk, while stronger copper alone would not justify producer-style credit.
  3. 03Macro conditions can improve financing timing; commissioning, first production and early cash flow remain the events that change valuation probability.
Selective capital markets raise the value of execution · Section LensInvestHouse
ALM.ASXResearch ReportInvestHouse Research
ALM : ASXPAGE 05 / 10
Section Lens
05

From infill assays to a financeable Briggs case

Next proof
Stage-native catalyst
Current gateGeological continuity and resource-definition proof
Next proofThe next drill, continuity or resource milestone

Assays must translate into Indicated tonnes

Remaining 2026 assays and completion of the 34-hole, approximately 10,000m Briggs infill programme are the immediate valuation events. An interim MRE with materially greater Indicated content would increase risked NAV credit by making mine scheduling more credible, while weaker conversion would keep Briggs largely outside the economic valuation universe.

PFS must improve cash-flow confidence

The 2026-27 PFS must connect resource conversion with recoveries, comminution, mine scheduling, environmental baselines and waste/tailings design. The programme then extends into approximately 17,500m of drilling in 2027, making funding terms for that work a further valuation-relevant watch item.

First production remains the next proof point

Commissioning, first production and early cash flow are the final gates to producer credit. Delays would reduce the probability-weighted credit assigned to Briggs rather than merely defer a headline milestone.

The valuation path is therefore sequential: Indicated conversion, an integrated PFS, and then funded commissioning and first cash flow.

From infill assays to a financeable Briggs case · Section LensInvestHouse
ALM.ASXResearch ReportInvestHouse Research
ALM : ASXPAGE 06 / 10
06Decision Variables

Valuation & funding

Can construction and commissioning convert the DFS into first gold and cash flow without eroding the value already implied by the study?

Market Cap
A$21m
Last Price
A$0.008
Cash
A$3.56m
Net Cash
A$3.56m
Valuation decisionThe discount in plain English
Question
Answer
House read
House value depends on proof, not headline study value.
Why we stop at that credit
The equity model haircuts the full project case because the next technical, permitting or operating proof point has not yet landed.
Why the discount exists
the next technical, permitting or operating proof point has not yet landed
Market read
Market is paying for confirmed evidence, not the full project case yet.
Most valuable proof
The next valuation test is whether the next milestone changes model risk, not just the news count.
What breaks it
Weak technical evidence or a delayed proof point keeps the discount in place.
Target disciplineWhy we only recognise that share of value today
Question
Answer
Market metric
target value construction is the anchor; producer multiples are only relevant after production or cash flow evidence.
Comparator basis
No like-for-like resource peer denominator is available. The resource line is an implied-target reconciliation, not peer validation; it neither proves nor disproves the accepted valuation.
Why not the top case
Target is the base evidence case, not a full-success case. We stop here because the next technical, permitting or operating proof point has not yet landed. Higher credit needs the next technical, permitting or operating proof point.
Binding constraints
the next technical, permitting or operating proof point has not yet landed
Market discountWhy the market discounts it
  • Funding — High severity
  • Commodity — Medium severity
  • Jurisdiction — Medium severity
  • Resource confidence — High severity
Valuation decisionThe discount in plain English
Question
Answer
House read
House value depends on proof, not headline study value.
Why we stop at that credit
The equity model haircuts the full project case because the next technical, permitting or operating proof point has not yet landed.
Why the discount exists
the next technical, permitting or operating proof point has not yet landed
Market read
Market is paying for confirmed evidence, not the full project case yet.
Most valuable proof
The next valuation test is whether the next milestone changes model risk, not just the news count.
What breaks it
Weak technical evidence or a delayed proof point keeps the discount in place.
Target disciplineWhy we only recognise that share of value today
Question
Answer
Market metric
target value construction is the anchor; producer multiples are only relevant after production or cash flow evidence.
Comparator basis
No like-for-like resource peer denominator is available. The resource line is an implied-target reconciliation, not peer validation; it neither proves nor disproves the accepted valuation.
Why not the top case
Target is the base evidence case, not a full-success case. We stop here because the next technical, permitting or operating proof point has not yet landed. Higher credit needs the next technical, permitting or operating proof point.
Binding constraints
the next technical, permitting or operating proof point has not yet landed
Market discountWhy the market discounts it
  • Funding — High severity
  • Commodity — Medium severity
  • Jurisdiction — Medium severity
  • Resource confidence — High severity
Online modelOpen the full valuation detail online

The print page keeps the decision table readable. The portal carries the full stage stack, assumptions, sensitivity, funding mechanics and peer context.

View valuation detail ↗
Valuation & fundingInvestHouse
ALM.ASXResearch ReportInvestHouse Research
ALM : ASXPAGE 07 / 10
07What Backs The Number

Evidence & execution

Evidence strengthWhat is proven versus still speculative in the house target
Thesis leg
Evidence status
Value
Weight
Known drilled inventory
Proven intercept geometry
Not yet modelled
Evidence case
Potential inventory
Continuity / width still open
Growth envelope
Speculative until wider envelopes close
Blue sky
System-scale case
Success case
Not in evidence case
Proof pointsVisible proof and the next valuation test
Balance sheetA$3.56m cash context Known
Next prooffunding terms if work accelerates
Evidence statusWhat is established, supported by current evidence, and still needs proof
Area
Evidence status
Read-through
Lead asset quality
SUPPORTED
Useful asset, proof still matters
Funding path
SUPPORTED
Main valuation discount
Valuation evidence
SUPPORTED
Upside depends on proof
Technical and contract proof
SUPPORTED
Needs next technical proof
Logistics and infrastructure
SUPPORTED
Acceptable, with permitting work
Study-to-funding delivery
SUPPORTED
Needs milestone delivery
FID and catalyst timing
SUPPORTED
Timing is visible but not immediate
Evidence & executionInvestHouse
ALM.ASXResearch ReportInvestHouse Research
ALM : ASXPAGE 08 / 10
08Institutional Cross-Check

Model & peer context

Market Cap
A$21m
Last Price
A$0.008
Cash
A$3.56m
Net Cash
A$3.56m
Model & peer contextInvestHouse
ALM.ASXResearch ReportInvestHouse Research
ALM : ASXPAGE 09 / 10
09

Leadership & Register

Registeras at 18 Sept 2026Boardas at 03 Oct 2026Valuation04 Sept 2026
Board & Key PersonnelComposition
01
Alasdair CookeExecutive Director
Executive Chairman; the 2025 annual report says he has chaired the Board since the Company’s incorporation and describes his resource exploration and mine-development experience.
02
Charles (Frazer) TabeartManaging Director
Managing Director and geologist; the 2025 annual report notes more than 30 years’ experience in international exploration and mining and expertise in porphyry copper mineralisation.
03
John DeanNon-Executive Director
Non-executive director with mining operations and project-development experience at First Quantum Minerals.
04
Valentine ChitaluNon-Executive Director
Non-executive director; an accountant and finance professional with experience in private equity, corporate finance and business development.
Top 20 ShareholdersOrdinary shares • ALM
as at 18 Sept 2026 · board 03 Oct 2026
Bottom line
Top 20 holders account for 46.3% of disclosed ordinary shares.
Leadership & RegisterInvestHouse
ALM.ASXResearch ReportInvestHouse Research
ALM : ASXPAGE 10 / 10
Important Disclosures & Disclaimer

Important disclosures
and disclaimer

General information only. Not personal advice. Readers should assess suitability and seek licensed advice where appropriate.

Publisher and Regulatory Status
This research has been prepared and published by InvestHouse Financial Services Pty Ltd (ACN 669 520 174). InvestHouse Financial Services Pty Ltd is a Corporate Authorised Representative (No. 001304496) of Point Capital Group Pty Ltd (ABN 41 625 931 900), holder of Australian Financial Services Licence No. 518031. The views, opinions, recommendations, valuations, and price targets expressed in this research are those of InvestHouse and the identified author(s).
General Information Only
This document is supplied solely for information. Any financial advice contained in it is general only and has been prepared without reference to any person's objectives, financial situation or needs. Investors should assess the appropriateness of the information in light of their own circumstances and, where appropriate, seek advice from a licensed financial adviser before acting on it.
Nature of the Research
The views expressed in this report reflect the opinions of the author(s) as at the date of publication and are based on publicly available information believed to be reliable at the time of writing. Forecasts, estimates, valuations, price targets, and forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain and subject to change without notice. This report does not constitute an offer or invitation to purchase securities and should not be relied upon in connection with any contract or commitment.
Conflicts of Interest
InvestHouse Financial Services Pty Ltd, its related entities, directors, officers, employees, or associates may have provided, may currently provide, or may in the future provide corporate advisory, capital markets, investor relations, media, consulting, or other commercial services to companies mentioned in this report. They may also trade in securities that are the subject of this report and may earn brokerage, commissions, fees, or other benefits in connection with recommendations or dealings by clients in those securities. Some representatives may be remunerated wholly or partly by commission.
Analyst Certification
Each analyst or author responsible for this report certifies that the final published views, opinions, valuations, and price targets accurately reflect their personal, independent, and objective assessment of the securities or issuers discussed. No part of their compensation was, is, or will be directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendations, opinions, valuations, or price targets expressed in this report.
Research Policy and FSG
InvestHouse Financial Services Pty Ltd maintains internal arrangements designed to manage research independence, conflicts of interest, and separation between research, advisory, corporate, and capital markets activities. For further information, refer to the current Financial Services Guide and Research Independence Policy.
No Warranty or Liability
While this report is based on sources considered reliable, InvestHouse Financial Services Pty Ltd has not independently verified all information contained in this document and does not represent, warrant, or guarantee, expressly or impliedly, that it is complete or accurate. InvestHouse Financial Services Pty Ltd accepts no responsibility to update any advice, views, opinions, or recommendations or to correct any error or omission that becomes apparent after publication.
Jurisdiction and Distribution
This document is not directed to, or intended for distribution to or use by, any person or entity in any locality, state, country, or jurisdiction where distribution, publication, availability, or use would be contrary to law or regulation, or would subject InvestHouse Financial Services Pty Ltd to any registration or licensing requirement. Specific jurisdictional restrictions may apply outside Australia.
Copyright and Use
© 2026 InvestHouse Financial Services Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. All material presented in this document, unless specifically indicated otherwise, is under copyright to InvestHouse Financial Services Pty Ltd. This document is a private communication disseminated by InvestHouse Financial Services Pty Ltd and must not be altered, transmitted, copied, distributed, or used by any other party without its prior written consent.
AI-Assisted Research and Analyst Review
InvestHouse Research uses a combined AI and analyst-review pathway. AI tools may assist with data extraction, summarisation, drafting, modelling support, editing, and report structuring. The final report is reviewed by an analyst or author before publication, but AI-assisted workflows and source data may still contain errors, omissions, or inaccuracies. Readers should independently verify all material information.
By accessing this report, you acknowledge these disclosures · For distribution only where lawful · InvestHouse Research