Member Info for Shedulike

Not sure Sammy - from what Iittle I've gleaned all the core from this campaign will go for assay at the end of all drilling in one go. So although they're shallow I think they said 3-5 drills plus they plan to wedge off, it could be a long time before results. Something could come left field I suppose, I hear that AH has a meeting lined up with the Branch Manager of Santander in Toral de Los Vados, so that's exciting.

Oh thanks 10BT I suppose being dammed with faint praise is better than nothing :) I don't read BB's stuff because it was just the same stuff again and and again and if you disagreed or challenged anything he took it personally and would accuse me of trying to censor the board. If someone disagrees with you it isn't because they're trying to shut you up but it's a debate. Anyway I agree with you to an extent about the filter I avoided it for years and it is something of a blunt tool as it's fairly obvious what is being said from replies in the threads. As such I have sensed that BB has broadened his analysis somewhat which represents progress of sort. Tell you what I'll unfilter BB for the sake of this board if you speak to LR, I think it was pretty decent for him to offer to chat to you when he saw that someone was complaining they were getting ignored on email. I think you'll find it an encouraging experience, you won't get anything price sensitive out of him but I find you do get a strong sense of his determination plus snippets that won't give away anything confidential but just add colour, make it real, bring it alive really. What do you think, deal?

Mailgirl I think the retail AIM investing community is so used to 'hypey' Execs that the low key style of LR rattles them. It's noticeable that all the de-ramping is targeted at him rather than MC but as I said yesterday most of the bashing is highly superficial so they target him personally rather than digging deeper. For all I know we don't have Cadmium but I do know they have always refused to rule it out, it is very unlikely to be terminal but if it's there it will impact the economics at the smelter. It's my best guess that they believe that there are further metallurgical solutions to mitigate the impact of impurities so don't want to spook the market now when they are yet to fully optimise the processes. Talking about digging deep this is buried somewhere in the first SS "· No deleterious elements have been identified at this stage. However, the zinc concentrate produced at Rubiales was noted to contain 0.12% cadmium and 0.16% mercury so is likely to need appropriate blending at smelters". As we're analogous to Rubiales this is relevant but as I said very, very unlikely to unhinge the project. Everyone has deleterious elements it's just a case of how you can deal with them and what it's going to cost you, currently the economics are not on a knife edge but thorough and robust so I'm sure we'll be okay I'm just annoyed that we're still guessing about by-products after multiple phases of metallurgy.

Haha Mailgirl - just trying to broaden the discussion here. I sometimes feel like the discussion / debate / slanging match is completely dislocated from the physical asset. That is what we are going to live or die by in the end yet so many posters don't really seem interested in talking about it, quick review of today's posts and I don't think anyone used the word 'Toral' all day. I find that really interesting, look at the chat today - we have critical drills in the ground and nobody wants to talk about it. I'm absolutely intrigued by this campaign, it's the last we can afford on current funds so almost certainly informs us where the most bang for our buck lies. I suspect some LTH's are so battle weary that their enthusiasm for operations has waned (trust me I understand) but what is happening on the ground is the reality of the future for our investments.

As usual Gam throws in a hand grenade and then refuses to debate the facts. It amazes me that in recent days I've fronted up to some real risks facing this project but the bashers want to de-ramp in a parallel universe, I can only conclude that they don't understand the actual risks and prefer to populate this fantasy land of evil Exec's conjuring up devilish schemes to kick out small investors, total transparency, put to bed, no issue. Where there isn't transparency is the critical subject of impurities, there is no way in the world that AH or Conrad are going into negotiations saying these are the delet's we don't have but we can't discuss the ones that have been detected, which is the story being sold to PI's. Now as I said yesterday the risk / reward is still very much in our favour particularly from these levels, but the issue of the impact of negative by-products has been put as early as a 2018 presentation, by me privately and I would assume many others, myself at the AGM and more recently by a contributor to the analysts webinar, to my dismay it has been dodged every time. Raising this on here might appear odd from someone who expects to make good return from EUZ but frankly I'm PO'd with this being batted away time and time again, they need to grasp the nettle and bring us up to speed. When DB agreed to fund us again at 12.75p I am certain that their analysts would have been made fully aware of our impurities and they will have calculated the impact on our economics, nobody increases their position by £400,000 without knowing all the facts. That gives me confidence but it also irritates me they won't tell us publicly which deleterious elements are lurking in our concentrate, there is even a case that this constitutes withholding price sensitive information.

Sorry about that 10bT, onwards and upwards (hopefully). I think Gam is guilty of a little wilful misunderstanding here or just doesn't want to read the 'Explanatory Statement'. They clearly explained the reasons for it plus anybody not wanting to go above £1000 would have been reimbursed with no fees to pay and the bottom line is that nobody was being forced to sell anyway. I remember the fuore at the time lead by the usual suspects, when the truth was pointed out they were still trying to read something sinister into it despite all the facts.

Oh dear indeed, this was put to bed at the time. I remember the hysteria from posters who didn't bother to read the 'Explanatory Statement'. Holders under £1000 could have sold without fees, were given plenty of warning if they wished to bring the holding above £1000 or you could request for them not to be sold at all - I doubt you'll bother to read it now but here goes: "Unmarketable Parcels (new clause 24)
The Company's current Constitution does not provide for the sale of unmarketable parcels of securities. An 'unmarketable parcel' is a shareholding that, for a holder, may be difficult and/or expensive to sell (due to its small and uneconomic value). The administrative costs associated with shareholdings of this size can also be burdensome for a company, particularly of Europa's size. The Proposed Constitution provides that the relevant threshold for an unmarketable parcel is an amount determined from time to time by Shareholders by ordinary resolution at a general meeting. Following feedback from brokers and the Company's advisers, it is proposed that this amount will be £1,000 (see Resolution 4).
In order to reduce such administrative inefficiencies, clause 24 of the Proposed Constitution allows the Company to direct the sale of unmarketable parcels of securities, with the proceeds of any sale to be paid to that selling Shareholder and with no brokerage to be paid by that individual. Shareholders holding unmarketable parcels can object to the sale by, after the Company has given notice that unmarketable parcels will be sold, advising the Company in writing that they do not want their Shares to be sold". I guess that advising the company in writing could have been a bit of a hurdle for some folk.

So what can be said to challenge the possibility of a placing? Well we have the weight of history on the side of the de-rampers and recent moves by the company to find alternatives to give investors hope. Conrad have yet to produce anything in six months which isn't that long to be fair and we've opened up a new funding front with AH which appears to be targeting investment banks. Certainly I would favour a good non (equity) dilutive deal over a placing but we can't assume any deal that isn't a placing is therefore a good deal. I would be much happier if we had a big hitter on the Board negotiating this for us rather than an agent who's primary incentive is to get signatures on a transaction. I trust LR & MC to protect our interests as best they can with cash as ever less than plentiful, but AH will be looking to bring two parties together for mutual benefit and likely a success based fee for himself. That's my only concern - the extent to which it matters more to AH who gets the better part of the deal or that a deal is forthcoming. I'm not entirely happy about the arrangement but support the principle of exploring new funding avenues so am reserving judgement until we see what he produces, obviously I wish him well but remember it's way too simplistic to think that any deal is a result as long as it isn't a placing.

Quite trade " Zinc-copper-lead-silver at surface to shallow depths" in Emerita mines in northern Spain, bit like wot we're doin innit?

Mailgirl I think we're a short way off allowing ourselves to feel safe in EUZ. We're still in the high risk / high reward zone but edging towards the better end of it, our investments are certainly a lot safer than they were pre-indicated and pre-metallurgy so that's a big comfort. It does amaze me how little the real risks are discussed on here, de-rampers consistently target LR's communication skills and the history of placings which while not positives simply aren't the factors that could torpedo us once and for all. You might have seen this presentation https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/video/laurence-read-executive-director-europa-metals-euz, during the questions at the end someone asks about Cadmium, Laurence dodges the question and frankly I've never had a straight answer about Cadmium. Cadmium used to be a component in batteries but now has to be safely stored underground, it could really hit the economics as we will incur smelter penalties. They had Cadmium at Rubiales and I'm expecting it to be a problem for us. I don't expect it to be an insurmountable problem but smelter penalties for Cadmium and Mercury for that matter are not factored into the Bara report. For me the upside is so monumental based on our current mcap that this risk is very much worth taking but at some point the Exec's are going to have to front up on our deleterious elements.

....... we have the drill bit nosing around the early years zone. Primarily I take this at face value to up the proven metrics of the RoM and bring forward the break even point. Is it a coincidence that this area also contains some of the most intriguing copper traces? Well it's anyone's guess because we have a history of reporting significant copper finds but then not investigating if it is a realisable product. The only explanation I've ever had for this is funds but with such a significant move in the copper price and the expectation that it will be increasingly critical to the electrification of Europe I think as shareholders we deserve to know what the value of this metal is to our asset. From 2018, "To date, copper traces have historically been encountered in the deposit, but the significance was unknown. This level of copper was not anticipated within the deposit so near to surface and follow up work is required to identify controls and extent of copper mineralisation". Well we never do seem to follow it up, personally it's annoying me now and I think after this set of drills we need to be told straight if the copper is an ace up our sleeve or just an insignificant by-product.

Fair enough mfm you sound like a genuine fella so if you're making a living from charting then (assuming it's standing up over the test of time) there must be something in it. Given your impeccable taste in long legs and denim shorts I don't want to argue with you anyway. Seem to remember hearing that Catherine Bach was a surprisingly ripe age when they made the series, just looked it up and I think she started age 25 in the series in 1975 so perhaps one of those urban myths? From charting to The Dukes of Hazzard perhaps the only way to keep going as an EUZ investor :) Interesting debate about the Confederate Flag I think though, Bubba Watson painted over his but I think there's a museum that is refusing to on their General Lee.

Apologies to under 40's.

Okay mfm no worries, I'm sure Zak Mir is a lot more successful than me in the markets but my guess would be that's by being in the 'Square Mile' and in the loop as it were. Not suggesting anything underhand but I'd imagine he is privy to more genuine rumours than we get on here. By the way did you know that on Monday AH is presenting to a US consortium lead by Donald Trump, Elon Musk and Boss Hogg?

I wasn't entirely dismissing it, just having a little joke. However I'm sure he knows if his coverage is positive he'll get more traffic to his charting podcasts. Most PI's are investing for success rather than shorting. I do think he tries to be responsible in his advice and hence the caveats about it not soaring up if it doesn't close above this point. Having said that (while not wanting to rile his believers on here) I do think there is an element of having it both ways when saying I predict a glorious rise unless it doesn't go up in which case I don't.

Glad it got a couple of smiles - if you didn't laugh you'd.... etc etc.

Just had a message from Zak Mir, he's awfully sorry and would like to apologise for any confusion caused but he's just realised he had his EUZ chart upside down.

Should add that we're not hanging at the mercy of a metals bull market. As LR always emphasises the economics are based on cautious metal prices for full robustness but the expected strong market certainly wouldn't do us any harm!

Little bit of positivity to talk about on the EUZ Twitter, I like the "Much longer structural bull market” comment, that's what we need so that we're still in a sweet spot when this is developed.

Yes Goingto the LSE bulletin board 'Buddyometer' soon swings from red to green. "Good Call Buddy", "Gap up in the morning Buddy", "Can't buy but can sell my entire holding Buddy", thinking about it now I'll probably miss the old days, haha. Probably shouldn't worry though I'm sure there will always be opportunities to return to the perpetual cage fight that is the EUZ board:) Perhaps we could try talking about op's, hopes for the PFS and new innovative funding prospects today rather than past disappointments, we're on the brink of something incredibly rare is this sector - a minnow getting a prospect recommended to have a mine built on it.