Wentworth CEO sees both capital and dividend growth opportunities in Tanzania's Mnazi gas field Watch Now
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 and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
Sorry , that was a disaster. I'll try again .
Great idea Nige. How about this ?
291 pages done by AMS..... the complete unabridged Rolls Royce of Scoping Studies.....which does read like a PFS ...IMO
The SS was published eventually with Opex and Capex after the ASX debacle.
Chris, we can always do it on Facebook! EUZ page
Cjen, That would be an interesting widget to have :-)
I see partial sale, JV, Equity issue etc as forma of dilution - direct and indirect - so am interpreting LR’s comments about non-dilution accordingly. Comments by execs are important - e.g MC stating we would have Capex, Opex and an NPV in the Scoping study which did not happen - so hopefully, LR has learned that lesson when talking about non-dilutive options.
Oil tap, it's a shame that the LSE forum does not have the ability to run a straw poll to establish the wider view of share holder on the forum, to see whether they favour a JV or outright sale.
The one in a 1000 projects become a mine is more like this:
1000 geological anomalies identified
100 exploration projects identified From those 1000
10 feasibility projects identified from those 100
1 mine from those 10 feasibility projects
We have a ‘rolls Royce’ scoping study that is not quite a pre-feasibility study and therefore not a feasibility study that can be presented to the financiers as a banking feasibility (no such thing really).
We have a lot of elements however that will be a strong foundation for a pre feasibility study and onwards to a feasibility study etc. At this point you would normally expect the asset value to re-rate accordingly. This will likely be down to sentiment. Pick your reasons for that.
In addition at this point it’s usually about 10%-20% of the cost to get it to mine. In other words a lot of money is still required to get it to where it needs to be at. That is why - with no dilutive options (if LR is correct) the only option remaining is to sell the asset on in full. There might be some inducements thrown in - fine -that would be for the exec to negotiate to the benefit of shareholders. Can LR negotiate well enough?hope so.
Thanks Bobby. I agree and thanks for correcting me with Andrea’s gender. I especially agree with your following two statements....”Thus the reported traded often makes no sense and should be ignored “..... Mud sticks.
Andrea was a guy who posted regularly on ADVFN who simply became disillusioned with the way LR was running the show and the continued collapse of the SP much like myself. He was not an MM but was in the trade and visited the Toral site on one occasion . He knew his way around mining and knew some of the people referenced by FCR/EUZ.
You have to bear in mind that the ADVFN forum for FCR was the busiest of the lot, There was some large sophisticated investors who were propping up the placings on what turned out to be false promises. As far as i am aware and they,certainly the two i knew personally, have all sold out at a large loss. The ADVFN BB is now dead it doesnt even get the odd post anymore.
Yes there are problems with the AIM but they dont involve companies like this, people dont short these fractional penny companies, MM's dont risk reputations on £1k trades with commission of a 5% spread. MM's do not report trades as a buy or sell, they simply register the traded price and that is automatically lodged as a buy or sell based on the mid price. The problem is actually the NEX platform that has a different spread for its MM's but the auto function often works out if a NEX trade is a buy or sell based on the LSE mid price. Thus the reported traded often make no sense and should be ignored.
Only when people have exhausted all the conspiracy theories will they then start to look at the real reason the SP is where it is..or you could ask the guys who were on ADVFN that have funded this company that was worth £3m, to the tune of £6m and still have a company worth £3m ? Mud sticks.
And my last observation....I firmly believe Reasonable is a MM and works for LSE. I checked the URL he posted a few days ago to remind us of FCR days....I have tried to find it again as there was a lady Andrea that posted the value of the share once mined....strangely enough the link has been deleted from his posts ....and one can’t recall it as a normal LSE user which he was.so how else did he post it without being on the inside? If anyone can repost it I would appreciate it and also let me know how you found it please. IMO
So in summary...if you guys believe that no manipulation took place with EUZ stocks you are entitled to your opinion. This is certainly not mine though. GLA.
The tricks are well documented.
Lol...you guys seem to have had a lapse of memory...go back in the history and you will find reversed transaction of over 100 million shares on numerous occasions. MM’s can buy and sell without having a ready buyer or seller. This practice by its very nature is antiquated and leads to manipulation. IMO the AIM needs a complete overhaul to reinstall investors faith in trading whilst human intervention by its very nature leads to collusion and manipulation. IMO
I agree with you Bobby. I have investigated shorting angles on this and cannot find any evidence of it. Even spread-betting a dummy short or going dummy short via a CFD I have concluded is not possible - but that was a while back. I never go short but it is always worth checking the possibility.
There has been some odd price actions in the past for sure - enough to do the SP significant damage and the company a disservice. All those warrants cashed in , and DB shares sold out for one seemed to be preceded by, at best, interesting price action.
LR and MC have been in charge long enough to have made a difference so now it's on both of them and the rest of the board (e.g. Dr. Evan Kirby the 'invisible' metallurgist?) to resolve the poor SP performance - which is often down to sentiment on aim.
Convince the market and you can convince the shareholders to dilute at much high levels than we saw. They have yet to convince the market in a convincing stable way. Plenty of yeah but no but yeah but no from the exec do not cut the mustard with me.
However, the market gets it wrong all the time, and the asset is solid (thanks to the work the exec commissioned) but the missing secret sauce to turn sentiment positive seems elusive . Will LR and MC turn this around? You would hope so as the disparity between the asset potential and the market cap is so huge that even a very modest % of that asset value would be a significant multi bagger from here.
Fair enough Bobby. You clearly know a lot more about EUZ than I do. Good luck to you.
I have never seen a micro cap with a fractional penny SP shorted ? I can see no evidence either on the FSA or independent sites to suggest EUZ is being shorted in fact quite the opposite given the sensitivity of the SP to volume either way. I think you need to justify that claim or put it to one side, there are a dozen candidates as to why the Mkt cap has been static for 3 years but shorting ? not so sure. A lot has been made of market manipulation here with the wrong reporting of buy /sells , shorting and the like but apart from a fixing of a placing price a while back that struck me as odd i have seen nothing to cause concern. I am quite sure if potential investors (like me now) had confidence in LR the SP would be multiples of its current position. Unfortunately LR has to carry the can now for Ed needham, justin tooth and Bird and a very large wage drawn by MC with people wondering what he actually does on a daily basis for EUZ ?
Thanks Bobby for your reply.
LR mentioned a sale price of £ 70 million a long time ago, long before the drill results from 023 , 024 and 025.
I believe that the current SP is disconnected from the true value of Toral and is controlled by shorters, there is nothing to be done about that I'm afraid, lack of volume allows shorters to suppress the SP with trades of little more than £100 or so.
If the chosen route forward is to sell then our rewards will be capped, but a JV will deliver much larger gains in the long run. I will be very happy for you if .40 is your target and you sell at that point.
If this had even the remotest possibility of reaching 6p and as Oil says non dilutive funding must mean a sell then why is the sp 0.02 ? given that this non dilutive funding must be imminent ?
I have always said 0.4p would be a great result and even that is a 20 bagger on today's price and dependant on dozens of "what ifs" and other problems falling exactly into place. LR said £70m and i have seen nothing to think that was unreasonable ?..
As investors we need to consider that not all the ore will be mined. This is not an open pit mine and hence the costs are considerably more hence why they are going for the high grade ore in the conceptual block model and mining plan. The approach is set out in the scoping study along with associated NPV. You also would need to consider the up-front capex costs for getting the mine up and running - again shown in the SS. This would be borne by a JV partner - they would be taking the lions share of the risk and no doubt would want the lions share of the reward. The life of mine is currently set at 15 years. Maybe EUZ cansee additional profitabiliy in the mine (the SS said there was an opportunity to reduce capex.
Hi Milnrow. I agree with you in the greater part of your post. No shareholder wants to see their investment diluted, but let me explore the idea of a JV in a little more detail and I know that many on here will despute my figures but I am exploring an investment principle.
Take the current NPV at $110m with no additional funding but a superb asset. Whats holding the value of the asset back ? funding to develop a mine. Along comes a credible and experienced mining company with cash on the hip and we agree a JV deal on a 50/50 basis for example. The ability to develop Toral into a working mine with the new partners capital allows us to access the treasure in the ground and begin to sell the product ( $4 Billion over 20 years ) .
At a revised NPV of $220 million we remain unchanged as we still hold 50%, at $440 million we have doubled our investment value.
I read a prior post a few weeks ago that speculated an SP of 6p a share based on a productive mine at Toral exploiting the asset and although operational costs and taxes must be factored in the poster was fairly accurate if we take this course and have patience.
The last point perhaps distinguishes an investor from a trader.
Good luck all, DYOR
That outcome would not be a surprise, only surprise would be that it was delayed so long. But if you consider proving of resource value, and depression due to C19, maybe that's no surprise either.
The comments by LR about non dilutive finance do not make much sense to me.
We either have :
1. Debt finance - we cannot afford to pay debt unless there is one big payment holiday (accruing interest)
2. Equity finance - more shares - dilution.
Streaming - is basically debt secured against forward sales of silver credit - whilst we are mining the zinc/lead ore
The only option that would satisfy LR's statement about non dilutive finance would be a full sale or partial sale of the underlying asset i.e Toral.
A partial sales of Toral is dilution by the back door. It does not dilute the (bloated) capital structure we have in place at present but it dilutes the return we get from the asset (eventually). On the other side of the coin it could provided further acknowledgement of the asset potential (but remember DB - buy then top slice - not the cornerstone investor most of us were expecting when ResearchAnalyst1 coincidentally came on the scene then suddenly disappeared).
So for me it all comes down to a full sale of the asset if LR is to be understood correctly. Unless he has got his glossary confused. To do anything else could break the remaining trust between shareholders and the exec.
Over to LR for for a Sale soon and an update via RNS.