We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
And I guess in addition WA cannot be happy at all……after aligning themselves with these cowboys.
Well something has to happen soon Sheds as imo both DB and Bennelong and surely the Nomad cannot be happy with the non event of a value event which was RNSd not once but twice.:-)
Lets hope we hear about a major overhaul in the corporate structure soon Bricks. I noticed when I was checking the figures regarding TP bringing the resource value numbers up to date that UFO have had four broker coverage updates since our last one in July. I know there is a danger in reading too much into silence but I wonder why we have not had anything despite the JORC upgrade, big changes afoot maybe? Probably get hot news that they have tweaked a piezometer tomorrow now I've said that!
The problem is …. LR only tells us what he wants to…..not what we need to know….and it’s been like this from day 1. Look at PANRs latest webinar …. Puts our BOD into perspective after viewing this.
I think these questions should be answered in the strategic review, whether they will be remains to be seen however its hard to see how you can have a strategic review that covers the question of BOD remuneration and the possibility of new project (s) without explaining the reasons and method of funding....
My worry is if the BOD feel they must cut back then they obviously dont have a JV or sale anywhere in the offing so maybe the fact we haven't had the results of the SR so far is a good thing :-).
CHRI5P I have been trying to estimate what might be a ball park % of Toral to be yielded (if this does prove to be the funding solution). Worth considering that in the PEA we had metal in the ground valued at US$ 962m. Since then the total resource has increased from to 20Mt from 17Mt in the PEA. We should bear in mind that there has been a 55% increase in indicated and a smaller increase in inferred so the increase in value of the total resource should be greater than the 17.6% increase in total Mt's (indicated being more valuable than inferred). I have tried to work out what the metric for this is looking at slide 13 but my brain is aching. Anyway even if you just go on the 17.6% that makes an extra $169m giving total $1,131.3m. Then if you look at metal prices, the PEA used:
Zinc $2668/t
Lead $2009/t
Silver $16.5/oz
Interestingly when TP recalculated total revenue on spot prices rather than the conservative trailing average they upped us by 8.5%, worth noting that they used $2,943/t for zinc our biggest earner, Zinc is now $3,616/t, Lead also much higher, silver a little lower than the TP recalculation. So overall I think their 8.5% back in July is already looking very conservative particularly on Zinc now that it is considered a critical metal in the US as well as the EU. So even using this now outdated multiplier I think it is reasonable to assume we have metal in the ground well in excess of US$1,227.5m at today's prices. Of course this is an 'in the ground' figure but we know we are a low Capex, low Opex prospect, the big question is what % of our currently wholly owned resource needs to go in order to raise a realistic sum to fund this to a BFS?
Yes, a sale of part of the asset will be required. Zinc is at a 7 year high and we keep increasing the knowledge of the exploration which is all good news. A prospective partner will look at the asset and the price they pay will be determined by that and not the SP. The SP is important when you need a quick placement but this is different if the asset is good and the market is completely undervaluing it. GGP multi-bagged 20 times when they sold out 75% (yes 75% of their main exploration) to fund it to a DFS. I am not saying this will happen to EUZ because there are multiple prospective mines out there and we have to show that we can become a productive and profitable mine. Again I am not saying we will but the higher Zinc can rise and the more essential data we can show then the more likely we will get a good deal. Again I am not saying this will happen.
So the chances of the SP moving up during the current climate is about zero then.
I expect this to drop even further now…..this is the nature of this beast of a BOD we are dealing with. …until such time as they give clarity. I expect they want to but it won’t be the news that shareholders were expecting. Hence the silence….guess they trying to work out how what and when is the best time to update the market. Time will tell.
Agreed Bricks but I think funding will come by way of signing over a share of the asset. After the last resource upgrade there is well over $1B of metal in the ground somebody must want a piece of that, it all comes down to the terms for me. Of course I'm bitterly disappointed that we couldn't get to a PFS independently but in retrospect the writing was on the wall from the moment we first heard the 'certain key components' line in 2020. My expectation, and I could of course be wrong, is that we won't have an equity raise next but unfortunately Toral will no longer be wholly owned by EUZ, how that will be structured I haven't a clue.
You have the nail on the head Sheds….” in the hope that advanced workflows satisfy interested parties sufficiently for them to get on board and help fund it's completion. ”
I don’t think WA would have accepted being appointed PFS manager with the clause you stated above.
So dilution WILL imo happen again….and perhaps a lot sooner than we originally thought as the current funding does not cover PFS or the acquisition of another asset. Only current Ops by all accounts.
We do need a PFS but we're not funded as we all know - the information shared by CJ from the AGM makes it clear that the work completed and planned will still contribute to a PFS in the hope that advanced workflows satisfy interested parties sufficiently for them to get on board and help fund it's completion. If CJ is looking in he might like to clarify, I don't want mis-represent what he said but it isn't the case that we don't have the money so a PFS is therefore cancelled, everything that has been done is for the benefit of a PFS for Toral, that hasn't changed. The problem for me is that because we haven't been able to get there independently, just how bad will the terms be for a partner to come on board. Personally I think the road has finally run out for further equity dilution, I suspect we are soon to hear the terms of the inevitable asset dilution. Whether that proves to be more palatable for shareholders I guess we're going to find out near term, unless something appears completely left field I can't really see any other course of events.
Yes Sheds and Highside…..raises many questions and this deathly silence from our BOD does not bode well imo. Something definitely amiss here. Looks like a bit more than a value event fell through…..maybe the PFS as well !!
Thats what i said 11/1 two weeks ago
In June 2021, Wardell Armstrong International appointed as PFS Manager. I wonder why we needed a PFS in June but not 4 months later ?
Bricks, interesting point, I wonder if the WA (PFS Managers) announcement (June 2021) came before they knew the deal was biting the dust or after? I would also be interested to know whether WAI are paid to be retained as PFS Managers over and above specific commissioned work. If this arrangement has been cancelled given that we aren't funded to deliver a PFS as things stand, then really it should be RNS'd. Certainly many questions to be answered and I think we're going to hear about a comprehensive shake up soon. It's an unavoidable fact that successfully progressing the practical operations within the current corporate structure just isn't working. I'll be disappointed if the next news is purely operational - mets, drill strategy etc, without any significant changes on the corp front.
Actually when i say get a grip on the PR i realise i have been saying that for 4 years and i might be flogging a dead horse there :-)
It raises other questions for me as well Highside. How do WA take on the job of PFS manager with no guarantees of it being funded or their payment for that matter……?? Does not somehow fit in any business model in todays terms. Unless of course guarantees have been signed by DBA and another fund raiser looms….Time will tell.
I know its a daft question but you have to wonder if LR really understands that if you hold back the metallurgy , delay the PFS and start a new strategic direction that means you are actively looking for another project...it sends out the sort of message that means your SP might fall from 9p to 4p ? :) Time to stop doing his Boris Johnson impersonation and get a grip on his PR ;-)
I think if you have some that say shut up and get back to us via an RNS when you have something to say and others that try and follow him daily via social media he is damned if he does and bla bla bla.... :-)
It makes no sense LR hasn’t posted a tweet in nearly 6 weeks it’s a record for LR not to be on social media.
Well we agree on something then, I think it's pretty obvious that LR carries the bulk of the work. I've always wondered if EK comes anywhere near paying his way but I see that the UK Corporate Governance Code recommends at least two NED's for small PLC's so I assume it's unavoidable unless we went private. Certainly updates on multiple fronts well overdue, I agree with Bricks that it makes no sense that we haven't heard about the metallurgy - the last metallurgical samples were recovered last April ffs!
I agree you cant hire an fire according to the work load but thats the point of a project manager, he basically sub contracts core analysing, drilling , hydro and so on. that way you employ who you need when you need. Staff and payrolls are a luxury afforded to companies with an income.
I dont think a project manager would be over worked, i think thats basically what LR is and notice i have not criticized his work load today but i suspect he does 75% of the work here for 20% of the wage bill.
The real problem is that the rules require a BOD and we probably dont need one at this stage..Lets see what the expenses review turns up if we ever get to see it.
You honestly think the work not undertaken by outsourcing to contractors could be done by one individual and a PA? Don't get me wrong I think as far as the Board goes MC, EK and DS get extremely good deals for the time I suspect goes in. Just from comms about what is going on generally (non price sens etc....) I have more evidence that LR is grafting but obviously that's anecdotal and I can't prove it. As for the boots on the ground I think the core team number about 10 and Jesús is contracted as and when needed, there will obviously be quiet periods but certainly when the drilling starts it will be all hands to the pump processing and logging cores for instance. In an ideal world from a purely business point of view these staff numbers would seamlessly expand and contract to meet EUZ's demands but you can't retain good people on this basis so sure we won't be wringing every last drop of value out of them all the time, for all I know they're not all FT anyway. Whether 10 people in Spain is a luxury I can't be absolutely certain - for instance could Elena & Emma's roles be combined (not picking on them because they're female it's just perhaps the most obvious case looking at Proy 'Who Are We') but I can't see a motive for LR to over staff the Spanish Op. Basically I think the suggestion that one individual and a PA could do everything is a long way off credible.
I expect a good project manager and a half decent PA could pretty much handle anything that needs doing but I am sure you know better :) Hey lets run up 4-£500k per annum in wages instead. Never mind that we have no income :)
Well as it happens I didn't, I simply rebutted your comment that they have "Nothing to do" which is obviously incorrect, and I note has since become "They have very little to do". Perhaps you think they just ring up SPI and ask them to drill some holes of their choosing in the rough vicinity of Toral?
Well dont list a load of out sourced work and tell me "they" are busy then :-).