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.
And furthermore..... any by-product...should end up in tailings....this is my understanding anyway...as you are not actually mining for it...or worried about it.... Other metal companies exist where they take your tailings and process it and will pay you for it....but its not part of your core mining business...This is my understanding anyway...
@ Oils....Yep..it is rather a strange choice of words. My previous understanding was a product in mining terms was a "concentrate" of whatever it is one is mining for. CB quoted the following in the Annual report whereby he also refers to a "product" as a concentrate.
"The forthcoming metallurgical results will provide us with: (i) a better defined production flow sheet, and assist the team in optimisation work and the identification of efficiencies versus the initial scoping study findings; and (ii) an initial indication of the kind of future saleable products that can be produced. In all likelihood, potential future products will comprise a zinc concentrate and a lead-silver concentrate, and by determining the separation characteristics and make-up of the products available from Toral the Company can assess the most likely sales channels in a market that is currently seeing strong performances in zinc, lead and silver pricing."
It's an interesting use of words '"And identification of any by-products from future production"'. The only by-product in the JORC at the moment is Silver. To get products other than zinc lead and silver from a smelter would presumably require the smelter to have the capability to do it. Not sure why those words were used TBH.
Thanks DJi - I must caution this is complete guesswork but they mentioned 'by-products' in the RNS so I'm hopeful these co-elements could add value. Great stuff from Shatner & Oil, this must be the most well researched board going. Ironically when we get popular again it will be an absolute debacle!
It's a thought that I and I am sure most on here had not considered. If these trace elements gets thrown into the data room mix then who knows how much it may add. Hat off to you Shed, like your thinking.
Hopefully not complete Bs Dave :) - while my speculation on specific elements could be awry they have RNS'd "By-products" so there could be something completely new in the mix when the mets land.
I will be enjoying a nice red wine from the Lebanon later. Had it several times now - a real treat :-) There is also an Israeli wine from relatively nearby which I also like. I also love English wines - Chapel Down is a particular favourite.
Market Cap - It's all about changing perspectives. IMO there are two key forces at play - those in favour of driving a change in sentiment to become positive, and those in favour of countering that change - resisting. Trying to force equilibrium if you will, between the two opposing forces is causing us to be in a rut. People hate change.
Recently there have been multiple RNS's which have contained good and very news but in of themselves have later been subject to a pullback. Forces in favour of improving market sentiment e.g. :
1. Independent reports that have cost an arm and a leg but are necessary if third parties are to get involved with the asset.
2. Messages that come from social media - bulletin boards, twitter, blogs etc
3. Actions taken by execs when being 'interviewed' by Vox, Proactive etc
4. Actions taken by execs when putting out messages on other platforms e.g. linkedin
Forces that are resisting the move to positive sentiment:
A. Messages that come from social media - bulletin boards, twitter, blogs etc
B. History of EUZ (FCR) still exists even though the Spanish team are new, the key Geo is new (MC), the Co Sec is new - even the brokers are new.
1. IMO this is the most important 'brick in the wall' if share rises are to eventually be sustainable - and the management and guys doing the work in the field - employed by the company, and independent of the company now have their act sorted on this. No more deviated drills. No more reports without key information missing.
2. Twitter etc is relatively quiet and mostly positive these days - albeit there are some odd tweets occasionally from individuals who may have not seen the turnaround available by researching 1. EUZ do not use their twitter account which is a missed trick imo. They must have taken a conscious decision not to use it.
3. This is much better than it used to be. The Spanish guys are getting a say which is good to see and also helps with stakeholder engagement in Spain. MC is almost invisible on the shareholder communications front which is a missed opportunity as he is apparently well thought of in the City and shareholders used to enjoy listening to him talk and giving a different perspective. He is a geo and a financial guy so is worth listening to. As a combined communications 'act' - LR and MC are a force for being positive. 2+2=5.
B has caused issues but diminishes with age and as new people come on board.
Be positive - the asset is great - and third parties will be interested - that's the message the exec seem to be sending wrt 'real mine' etc Hopefully they will deliver what us shareholders want. So reinforcing 'positive change' drivers, and reducing negative change resistors
What the chemical symbol for that: Bs? :-)
Warning this could all be b*&^*cks.
Bi - Bismuth - phew! can end on a high apparently it alloys with tin or cadmium for low melting points, useful in fire detectors and extinguishers, electric fuses and solders, also used in cosmetics and paints.
As - Arsenic - another one to skate over though growing market in espionage.
Co - Cobalt - magnets.
Cd - Cadmium - okay let's gloss over this, apparently it kills you.
In - Indium is used to make indium tin oxide (ITO), which is an important part of touch screens, flatscreen TVs and solar panels.
Ge - Germanium has uses in optics, electronics and health.
Ga - Gallium arsenide is used in semiconductor production mainly for laser diodes, light-emitting diodes and solar panels. It is also used to create brilliant mirrors.
Here's a new thought before the usual Sunday evening wine overdose beffudles me completely. Anyone interested in this from the last RNS metallurgy comment; "And identification of any by-products from future production". Had a quick internet search on this and apparently co-elements other than the silver that we know about associated with Lead - Zinc sulphide ores are Ga, Ge, In, Cd, Co, As and Bi. The research paper I was looking at describes these as "Mostly highly valuable, high-tech metals essential in electronics". I could be way off the mark here so caution they may be insignificant in quantity or uneconomic to separate so just a bit of speculation for now but let's see what they do....
I do understand your pessimism Numpty but if you look at Adriatic who have a similar value of metal in the ground as us but are something like 29X our value, what do they have that we don't? Well apart from a wider range of minerals, not a lot except for a nice juicy metallurgical report delivered in Sep 19 from WA. Slingshot City anyone?
The independently assessed updates, scoping study, financials etc etc have not re rated the sp, and for this reason I personally would not be surprised if good mets are similarly received.
Everything I have seen however seems to be indicative of this being one of the few to make it to a working mine, but more than that, it’s not hampered by the usual issues of unstable politics, geographical isolation, total lack of services like power road and rail etc.
The facts are eventually going to be recognised, we simply don’t yet know what will start the re-rate, it’s certainly going to be interesting!
Totally agree Bricks & Oil but I'm a believer, converted to the faith - I was just trying to work out why we're still down here and had 17 trades on Friday (NEX & LSE). That Rubiales comment by AMS is hugely significant Oil, when Lundin released a press release announcing their acquisition of Toral they said this about the comparability; "Rubiales produced extraordinarily high-quality zinc concentrate (life-of-mine average of 61% Zn with 95% zinc recovery); the lead concentrate contained 70% Pb and 450-550 gpt Ag with an 85% lead recovery", when the wider market start looking more closely at EUZ they're going to wish they'd done it earlier, mets could be the catalyst for that.
Or in other words, What oiltap said!
My technical knowledge is not great, but I have also had the same thoughts, ie why should the sp be so unloved.
I approached this slightly differently...
CB and MC picked up 183 million and 85 million shares respectively in the placing, done in the full knowledge of the results at that point.
Whilst the met results are still outstanding, management must have had a significant amount of confidence of the expected results to have remained personally involved, it’s not like they have earned vast fortunes.
There’s a significant amount of background preparation for a mining project to begin, no point in pursuing permits if you didn’t intend to start.
The management looks set up to explore and prepare rather than mine. I personally believe Jesus is the only one with any real desire to take this much further, ie to actually mine.
The setting up of a data room points towards timescales shortening and moving the project towards a sale.
There is history of avoidable mistakes, and no one can deny that shareholders have had a significantly awful journey so far, but in my opinion, the balance of probabilities makes a compelling case for sticking with it. Dyor wdik
Shed, on page 29 (of 291) of the SS report it says
'It has been well documented that the geology of Toral and Rubiales is analogous and a review at microscopic level has confirmed this link further,'
'Given the current level of information and understanding of the Toral deposit AMS are satisfied with the use of Rubiales as a close analogy to Toral and use of modified recoveries for the purpose of this scoping study. '
To support AMS conclusion above, Page 99 also states "samples were sent to British Geological Survey sectioning laboratories for cutting (http://www.bgs.ac.uk/sciencefacilities/laboratories/mpb/sections.html), with descriptions being undertaken by University of Leicester Geoscience Department Commercial Services (https://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/geology/analytical).
The comparisons between Rubiales and Toral is shown in the following section, and the University of Leicester mineralogical report is presented as Appendix"
So, the Metallurgical studies from Wardell Armstrong should hopefully prove that assumption / prediction to be correct.
@ Shed...whilst I agree the publication of the Metalurgical report is massive and will further reduce risk for potential buyers...I am very relaxed and so should you be. Confirmation that the data room is open by application means a lot to me.
Someone asked the question on Linkedin to LR....
Great progress being made, will we get official confirmation that the Data Room is open? thanks.
LR replied...It is open by application.
So I am very upbeat that the METS should be exactly what they should be... very positive otherwise the data room would not be open at this stage.
I had a bit of an epiphany about the SP yesterday, rather than thinking as an invested PI wondering why nobody loves us I was looking at EUZ from the outside in and put starkly if the met testwork returns terrible results then we've probably had it. Right nobody is expecting that to happen but if our proven resource isn't economically recoverable then it's not worth anything to a buyer. The 2018 SS was positive and suggested a mine is feasible but even then they referenced the "necessary metallurgical testwork". This tells me two things - firstly that if you had a pile of cash to invest in EUZ might you not wait until after the mets, as I've said before the SP being on the floor gives people the opportunity to likely still get in at farcical levels 0.05 - 0.1 -0.15 even after positive mets. If the 2018 mistakes hadn't driven us down to 0.01 we would likely still be around 0.1 particularly with all the excellent operational progress, this waiting opportunity simply wouldn't exist. Secondly it leads me to believe good metallurgy will indeed move the SP, how much I don't know but surely to a level that more fairly values are proven resource which would then be exploitable. These mets are absolutely massive.