Member Info for Shedulike

Sorry CHRI5P hadn't seen that when making my last post which was replying to 08:32. I agree that it could do with being cleared up along with whether we need an extension to the MLA deadline, I don't think they can let it pass without a statement of some sort. If we do it won't be a great look as in the spring it was announced as being on course but I guess a lot of the archaeology and environmental reports require third party experts so we could be waiting on something. Of course like everyone else I don't know but I would expect the Junta to react supportively if we do miss it.

Not sure what the point of that is but I have absolutely no problem standing by the post from June - everything I stated as fact is in B&W in the announcements. The matter of whether the PEA will be included the MLA was speculative hence the use of 'suspect we will' (suspect: "to imagine to exist or be true, likely, or probable") and the conditional tense 'could be'. As we have more recently discussed it now looks more likely the PEA will include current drilling so cannot be in the PEA, just the other day I concluded that any PEA issued now would have to be based on our own Nov 22 Jorc in June I was leaning the other way, I also remember saying before the confirmatory drilling began that it was difficult to see how they could complete 7000m of drilling get it assayed and JORC'd in time for the MLA. News of two drills and 24hr drilling suggested they were in a hurry and partly lead to what I said in June. Anyway if the purpose of reposting what I said was to reflect badly on me then I think it has completely failed for all the reasons above.

To be honest CHRI5P my opinion is that if the new PEA is a requirement of the MLA it would be based on the last EUZ Nov 22 JORC as a JORC on the current drilling is some way off, so I genuinely don't know. If by 'extension to the area' you mean enlarging the block model I'm certain that's not happening for now, certainly all Option 1 drilling will be within the current block model. On the MLA I don't know if the 31st July deadline was imposed by EUZ on Denarius as a condition of Option 1 or by the Junta on EUZ as 100% owners until the JV is triggered. Either way if the deadline is not met I can't see EUZ claiming the $4m loan off Denarius for $1 anymore than the Junta chucking us off the licence later this year. Not in anyone's interests, much more likely an extension of the deadline.

CHRI5P I'm not sure if the PEA has to be part of the MLA or not but it does say in the presentation that it requires CAPEX and OPEX calculations close to a PFS level of detail. Other requirements listed look like components of a PEA to me so who knows?

Well I couldn't help having a bit of fun with Highside's 23:28 meltdown - I mean have you read it? But to be fair this little volley of posts started with some scaremongering based on inaccurate information which needed to be put straight. I'm not going to apologise for that.

Ha ha what a gem! How dare you point out a glaring inaccuracy CHRI5P, only the entitled liberal elite would have the audacity to apply such logic, sickening.

Maybe there was an adequate existing pad from when the well was originally drilled? Difficult to see in the pictures though it looks like they just scraped off what was minimal topsoil and use natural firm rocky footings as a base. Bit worried there is only one Portaloo.

Yes well done bitsa & Heps, research vindicated. Not well done BLOE, parallel op's kicked down the road again. I guess we all knew it.

Furthermore EUZ own EMI 100%, EUZ can't be sidelined by a EMI / Denarius JV. In any case the JV doesn't happen until Denarius fulfil their commitments.

I'm really saddened to see the chicanery of certain ex-holders here - the last exploration permit was acquired in Nov 2020 and runs for three years:

"The Investigation Permit has been renewed, following, inter alia, a consultation process conducted by the relevant bodies of the Junta of Castilla y León, for a further three years until 15 November 2023". (Nov 2020)

As for the MLA it is a condition of Option 1 which until completed as CHRI5P says we own 100% of Toral, if Denarius fail to complete Option 1 we keep the loan (or what remains of the $4m) which covers Option 1 works:

"In the event that the First Option is not exercised, Denarius shall be required to assign the loan to Europa Metals for US$1".

No, because the money wouldn't have been procured without the innovation programme, it had to be specifically demonstrated that it was directed at gathering the drilling data. You could have argued that much of it went on the wages of the graduates involved in the CTDI project but that would have taken a little mental agility. As it happens I also think remuneration is too high, of course I would given the SP performance and yes my investment is doing badly. Unfortunately AIM wages are scandalous and we're operating in that market. You might have forgotten that the remaining Directors now take half salary with the remainder made up in shares in the deferral scheme, if EUZ is ultimately successful they will do very well out of that arrangement also so trust me I'm aware they know how to feather their own nests. Anyway the programme created some positive local engagement which should help our relations with the Junta and we could also have a marketable product if the correctional algorithm is of value to other explorers. Time will tell on that one.

You are probably right Heps I just noticed in the CPR that KRT-45 is outside of the enhanced fracture density area and another graph shows water at 1600m. To be honest I don't have the expertise to know if these are insurmountable problems, I would assume not or surely our experts would have dismissed KRT-45 as a target from the outset. The fact that it wasn't put into production would also suggest a negative to me. After WR-34ST we'll have two pads ready for new wells, I know ground works are a fraction of the overall costs of a well but wouldn't the temptation be to deploy the latest technology on brand new wells? As things stand I'm probably putting the cart in front of the horse anyway.

Anyone wanting to take a serious look at what the grant was for here's the original RNS:

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/EUZ/grant-awarded-to-europa-metals-t9zsgztnjk7q5hx.html

Note the loan element is fixed at 0% and 30% is not repayable, so I would describe it as a soft loan / grant.

Not sure why but I'm starting to get the feeling that KRT-45 might be bypassed completely. If WR34-ST is a success might it not be tempting to go straight for the two new wells with the potential production boost from multi-lateral drilling? Anyway first things first so fingers crossed for a spud at 34 this week.

Yianna you can see on Google Earth (non live) that there was no pad at WR-34 prior to recent work highlighted by Bitsa. There has apparently been no evidence of work at KRT-45 which is close to 39 but difficult to pin down as it didn't go into production, there is no nodding donkey like at 39. When we come to drill the new wells there will be a pad at WR-34 because we've just built it for the ST. That's how I see it, I think the fog is clearing, no thanks to official channels though.

Yes I think the evidence is overwhelming now, with the slight caveat that I don't have live pictures so am relying on bits who I have no reason to doubt I should add. As Heps originally drew our attention to, the location matches the original plan in the CPR even though more recently KRT-45 has been mentioned. Here's the key passage from the CPR:

"The First Phase of the development plan requires five new wells in best estimate (2P) case as follows:

• The first three wells will be drilled as sidetracks from existing wellbores: Wells WR- B01a (a donor well currently on production), WR-34 and KRT-45; and

• Two new wells will be drilled from existing pads of Wells JKT-01Z and WR-34 respectively".

Blimey at this rate I will finally learn how to spell satellite without having to check. Heps what do you put the extra costs of the last two side-tracks down to? In the Q2 Ops update it seems to suggest that any multi-lateral technology won't be deployed until the new well is drilled.

It's the well known 'Announcement' trade code 12 ("one two, one two") :)

Geowiz this represents progress, before bitsas's satellite images I was using Tarot Cards.

Yeah really disappointing trading so far today. I would have thought that the choice of new well location is a testament to the success of WR-B01Za. If they can execute it without the wellbore instability issues we could likely have a better producer around the corner. WR-B01Za TD ended up 300m short of what I assume would have been the optimum depth so using complete layman's logic there must be scope for improvement on 269 boepd though of course nothing is certain.