Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
They were entitled to these as soon as the MLA was in, the first performance condition (option agreement) was effectively already met when they were passed last year. The time to object to this award was in 2022 but I agree it's still a pretty deplorable look given the SP.
Rather muddled thinking on the PFS but putting that to one side I do agree that the voting was interesting. I suspect that the supportive shareholders who bought at 4.5p on the Denarius deal which was a 60.7 % premium to the SP at the time are far from happy about the Directors subsequently granting themselves options and performance rights exercisable largely below 4.5p It is also noteworthy that Bennelongs 1.5m Advisor Options at 5p shares expired yesterday so likely they have made their feelings clear.
Here's the link:
http://www.europametals.com/site/pdf/897eea81-efe1-4ae4-88e8-d61cdbd987c9/Europa-Metals-2023-AGM-Presentation.pdf
Lot's more detail on the mine plan.
Drill plan for 2024 is for 'combined' Toral and Antonina so appears they're confident of getting the permit for Antonina (expected later this year or early 2024). IP for Toral is encompassed by the MLA and will run until it is granted, before that comes up again!
I very much doubt I'll be able to go to the AGM but my thoughts on your points.
1) Awarded at 5p and they expire at the end of the month incidentally. Of course we don't know what part Bennelong played in the Denarius deal though of course that only added any value for about half an hour :)
2) Habib is difficult to gauge as he could have provided some useful services without delivering a slam dunk deal. My best guess is that he very likely left with the better part of the arrangement. I can't be bothered scouring the 2021 accounts to find out and I suspect it will be bundled up in 'consultancy services' anyway.
3) WA conducted the successful metallurgy of course which is still a critical part of the PFS, what the relationship is now I don't know.
4) Conrad list pre-production contracts amongst their services so I suspect we were investigating forward selling deals. I don't see it as a ploy to 'rope investors in'.
Depends on the motivation for the 'debates' raised here recently IMO Grappa. If they are genuine concerns then they can be answered swiftly with a simple email rather than repeatedly flagged on here. It really isn't difficult to find the answers so for me certain 'other views' look more like scaremongering rather than debate. Personally I'm satisfied about the status of our ability to continue exploration and the legitimacy of the MLA but if I'm certain of one thing that won't stop others who want to assert otherwise for reasons that only they truly know.
Sure, we have to remember that for roughly half the results period Denarius weren't shouldering the costs so looks steady. I have been disappointed that the enlarged mining area hasn't materialised in the last year but they have reiterated the intention "As part of the agreement the parties have also signalled the ambition to secure potential further concessions in the surrounding Northern Spain region therefore expanding the footprint around Toral", so I'm encouraged that the aspiration hasn't slipped off the radar which I always saw as a key upside of the deal but for market recognition we need something concrete.
Evening CHRI5P my only surprise is that Denarius want another campaign before the PFS, still it will only strengthen the metrics and after all they're paying for it! However nobody should be surprised at the ongoing exploration in general as that will continue as long as a resource exists to be defined. Exploration doesn't cease on most licenses even when production commences. We've had an economically viable resource for a while now but that doesn't mean you stop drilling, the more information we can extract the better the mine plan will be informed plus the more indicated and hopefully even measured the better the banking terms will be.
One of the questions I was left with after the EUZ MLA RNS was whether we'd get a new JORC prior to the 2024 drilling. According to the Denarius announcement we can look forward to a new JORC off the back of the 2023 drilling, "Next steps include the preparation of an updated Mineral Resource estimate incorporating the results of the 2023 drilling campaign and then, after some additional infill drilling in the first half of 2024, we will commence work on the preliminary economic assessment for the Toral Project." So with all the assays bar one hole in on 4th Aug I think we can reasonably expect that imminently, particularly as I believe Luis is qualified now to act as the competent person, maybe Addison still independently review the JORC, not sure.
Yes an interesting detail CHRI5P, suggests that the last round of confirmatory and infill drilling was to attain a MLA level of certainty in the current block model. Perhaps at long last they are ready to go deeper and to the east, as we know the licence itself is way bigger than the current indicated area.
There is absolutely nothing confusing about 100% ownership of a subsidiary, nothing whatsoever. If it helps the wilfully confused (which I doubt) look at Denarius' announcements which state that their definitive agreement is with EUROPA METALS not EMI, why? Because EUZ is the ultimate holding company which owns their Spanish subsidiary. In addition this has not been ignored by investors. On the 'agreement' investors came in at a premium to the SP at 4.5p less than 12 months ago with 57% of the uptake being new blood. I'm clearly not arguing that everything is fab, the SP is dire, I really thought MC's performance today was on the wrong side of lacklustre and I hadn't anticipated more drilling before the new PEA but let's argue the odds around the facts of the situation not blatant obscurification of the 'Agreement'.
Big milestone today indeed. The group structure is incredibly simple so I don't really see the need for confusion. EUZ is the ultimate holding company which owns 100% of EMI which 100% owns Toral. Looking to the future it is for each individual investor to consider what owning 49% of Toral with a MLA, new PEA and enlarged resource will be worth and if Denarius take Option 2 what 20% of Toral will be worth with a PFS. A starting point might be considering that Bara attributed a US$156m NPV to the project in 2020 with a smaller resource, no metallurgy, unfinished geo and incomplete hydrology. It is also hardly unusual for any exploration project to have uncertain future valuations, what drilling operation can ever be certain of the grade and scale of what it is going to find? If you knew you wouldn't need to do it, obviously.
I have to agree re. timelines. As it was previously planned that KRT-45 would be drilled before WR34 it must have been a margin call to alter the order. If we now face the usual interminable wait to hear that civil works have started on he next PI well I will be hugely deflated, that's before we even mention the long awaited 'parallel op's', that concept is proving more elusive than Tantalus' fruit.
Feels a bit like everyone who is prepared to take a chance on results not being good has taken a position / topped up. Any more cautious watchers perhaps only have to look at the mcap and think they can sit back and wait. Really it's so low that in the event of good results would paying 1.75-3p be bad value when the top end still values us around only £20m with untapped assets making this a hugely scaleable business? Still, I admit I don't think good results alone will help us breach this range (unless something unprecedented occurs), BLOE need to effectively communicate how they will launch off WR34 (assuming success). If we simply get a good well and news that civil works are underway elsewhere with nothing or even vague nods to the wider strategy then they risk a good RNS falling flat IMO. TMS Reach comments seem to suggest something better, let's see.
No probs Burnbank completely respect your opinion on that I just think (assuming we have a good source) Rustavi's brother is actually being quite discreet saying nothing is known about the result. I'm sure the mood music gets round the site. You're right to be sceptical but I don't see anything in the posts designed to be price moving so just take it as a bit of (hopefully genuine) local colour. As Chesh said we know it's green - hopefully green for gusher! If it turns out to beige I'm blocking Rustavi.
I don't think so Burnbank just a little example of observational citizen journalism that you can choose to believe or not. To be honest I have read stuff on here (not today) which comes perilously close to libelling PH. I think that would more likely pique the interest of the CEO rather than a local commenting on a Christmas Tree installation that is almost certainly visible from a public road. Like I said judging the veracity of the information is a personal choice.
Possibly, but I think the 'bury bad news' on negative Friday is generally thing of the past. Think of brokers not leaving the pub after lunch and retired colonels spluttering cornflakes over their Sat morning FT having missed Friday's bad news on Ceefax. Okay perhaps not everything changes :) but the best you could do is issue an after hours RNS and defer the carnage to Monday.
Ah nearer the top than expected............
General disclosure of price sensitive information
11. An AIM company must issue notification without delay of any new developments which are not public knowledge which, if made public, would be likely to lead to a significant movement in the price of its AIM securities. By way of example, this may include matters concerning a change in:
— its financial condition;
— its sphere of activity;
— the performance of its business; or
— its expectation of its performance.