Member Info for Shedulike

Haven't they got to complete the spending comittments to formally close Option 1? Must admit I'm not sure if the 51% is legally exercised before they do this or not. I remember reading somewhere what happens if they don't fulfil the agreed expenditure and payments to us but can't find it now. One things for sure a lots got to happen before we go down to 20%.

In a sense Bricks but of course EMI is the 100% owned subsidiary of EUZ so effectively it's one and the same thing. I had meant to ask MC if Denarius will consult Luis on their two due diligence drills, it's critical for us that their expenditure in the build up to the MLA is successful.

Bit more info - Iris could be one of the 'standby guarantors' which basically means that the RI can't fail.
The RNS also confirms that Denarius paid the finders fee to Querlec Gestion S.L in respect of the Toral transaction.
Also that Denarius have made the initial US$100,000 payment to EMI on the 6th Jan.

Denarius RI in part to meet spending obligations at Toral:
"The Rights Offering is not subject to any minimum subscription level. If the Rights Offering is fully subscribed, the Company will issue up to 20,762,188 common shares and Warrants to purchase up to an additional 20,762,188 common shares, for total gross proceeds of approximately CA$8,304,875. The Company intends to use the net proceeds raised from the Rights Offering (i) to complete the second phase of its exploration drilling campaign at its flagship Lomero Project followed by an updated Mineral Resource estimate, scoping study and a preliminary economic assessment, (ii) to meet its obligations under the Definitive Option Agreement executed on November 22, 2022 related to the Toral Project in Northern Spain, (iii) to prepare a Mineral Resource estimate and metallurgical testing at its Zancudo Project in Colombia and (iv) for working capital and general corporate purposes".
I'll be looking with interest to see if Iris Mining take up their allowance.

Great that we're at the landing point but I wonder if a few potential buyers have kept their powder dry today as the 500m horizontal section could take a while yet. Seems this well is going to take longer than the similar JKT-01Z. Really strong COS though IMO with what they learnt a year ago.

I think there's a decent COS with this well, particularly with it being analogous in design to JKT-01Z. Seemed to be a lot of wilful misunderstanding being spread around about the previous appraisal well but this being a development well it should have much more obvious appeal to the market if successful. Of course the social media can't be banked on but there does seem to be bullish vibes, don't think they'd be so noisy if the data coming back from the hole wasn't what they were hoping for.

Started at 11am Teaye. I guess it will go through smoothly, not sure why DB and others would have bought at a premium (yes I hesitated before using that word) if they didn't want it. Once it's confirmed I really want them to get busy on the Antonina licence and ffs explain what they expect it to deliver. It would also help to know more about Denarius' work program in the build up to MLA. Then we have other projects, personally I think we need something on a small scale but with near term income potential, perhaps tailings reprocessing or an energy project, I can't see how we're funded even after option 2 to try and prove another mine. I suppose if we discovered a hidden gem then some kind of IPO might be possible but I'd favour something less ambitious but with the prospect of real cash flow.

Mm's I think the market wants more evidence of Denarius' funding. Probably why EUZ emphasised their due diligence on Denarius in the Explanatory Statement. It's one thing Myles pointing to Aris' backing but it would be helpful to see it in action. Certainly if you look at the history they have been steadily increasing their stake (previously as GCM) now as Aris (who sell a lot of gold) and currently have 32% of Denarius. I think our SP would be a lot healthier if Aris had farmed in directly but I suppose Denarius have the in-country synergy with Aris being solely S. American based but Denarius already being in NE Spain. Who knows could Aris eventually swallow up Denarius and then make us an offer for our 49% of Toral with a mining licence or further on 20% with ML and PFS?

Grappa take a look at Aris Mining (Denarius' backer). Myles mentions them in this interview:
https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/1000012/europa-metals-looking-ahead-to-2023-after-busy-few-months-1000
If they do issue more funds to Denarius by way of equity it will be interesting to see how supportive they are.

I actually think that's a fair point Highside with regards to the Supplementary Statement, although I don't think there was anything sinister in it's timing, it just shouldn't have been necessary. I noticed at the time that although it didn't alter anything in the Agreement it seemed to cause a degree of confusion on here. The fact is they should have got all the required detail in the statements at the outset. My guess is that it was a response to questions they were receiving and perhaps the hand of the Nomad looked evident in that comment about potential future fundraising ie. If you're going to emphasise that the deal is non-dilutive it's only reasonable to point out that it doesn't eliminate the chance of equity dilution forever. Finally your comment about DB may not be far off the truth, if they (or any holder) did indeed seek clarification on any of the aspects of The Agreement then I'm certain that the advice of the Nomad would have been for the Company to have made any additional information given to them available to everybody via RNS.

I would say you're asking a lot of the phrase "Pretty much" to bridge the gap between 20 and +50% but yes I agree the practical likelihood of enough PI's being ****d to contact their broker makes it arguable that 20% of the votes will, in all likelihood, prove conclusive. However I really don't understand why you think "those with nominee accounts who would need to instruct their banks to vote on their behalf in the middle of 7 days of bank holidays". It was clearly stated on 7th Dec "To be effective, the CREST Voting Instruction must be transmitted so as to be received by the Company's agent (identification number: 3RA50) by no later than 11.00 a.m. (UK time) on 22 December 2022". So PI's were given two weeks to act, holiday season not a factor.... if you read all of the RNS's in their entirety of course.

A controlling vote would be +50%. The last holdings RNS (before recent raise) put DB at 15.19%, that will have gone up as they bought just over half the recently issued shares (12,888,888). Our share capital rose from 80,036,914 to 92,925,802 of which DB took an extra 7,333,333. Who wants to work out what DB's % is now :) ? I reckon it's still under 20% which is some way off controlling the majority of the votes. Still, with the Directors and large shareholders who I guess are supportive (though we have no way of knowing obviously), throw in a large table spoon of PI apathy and I would also assume that there is no way the vote won't go through. After that I'm hoping Denarius demonstrate to the market that they can fund this, technically I think they have have the cash reserve but logically much of that must be committed to their other ops. Perhaps a big raise at a premium from their backer Aris Mining would help show that they're supportive of the Toral Farm In?

No not at all I'm just reiterating what they said in yesterday's RNS - that it is just a bit more flesh on the bones on certain points and "Should be read in conjunction" with the Explanatory Statement issued with the signed Agreement. Nothing has changed though I would like more clarity on the enlarged area. Myles refers to it in the Agreement RNS but it isn't in the Explanatory Statement so I guess it is an aspiration of the Agreement rather than a condition. My assumption is that as neither party actually holds the licence it would have been unwise to make it a legal undertaking of the Agreement ie. Why risk the whole Farm-in Arrangement over one element which is still largely out of either party's control. Look folks I need to get away from this board for a bit so I implore everyone with questions to read the info or ask the Company even if it makes you sell up this afternoon, please please please don't be swayed by some of drivel I read yesterday.

CHRI5P - The 'Supplementary Statement' isn't meant to be a summary but to provide more detail in certain areas, I suspect in response to certain shareholders questions since the Agreement:
"This Supplementary Explanatory Statement should be read in conjunction with the Notice of Meeting and Explanatory Statement announced and sent to Shareholders on 7 December 2022".

"I am glad to say that I have never seen a spade. It is obvious that our social spheres have been widely different" (O Wilde). Seriously though Highside (I'm rarely far from a spade) it doesn't appear to me that anyone is hiding from the facts or failing to assess shareholder value despite your hilariously hubristic claim that only you have the courage to say it out loud. Most people are posting with direct reference to the RNS's which are the only facts that matter and certainly not hiding from the fact that (I assume) most of us had hoped for a better deal. Since you like to occupy the ground of greatest negativity I suspect this accounts for your posts getting progressively wilder as the day progressed.

Sure no problem CJ I was just pointing out the logic in dropping the PFS from Option 1 as it is now not required for the MLA plus that the change puts the onus on Denarius to commit to all Option 1 spending whereas before our US$650,000 would have been eroded. I certainly understand your disappointment, I had also also hoped for much better, whether they should have or could have done better as you put it we'll probably never know as details of the negotiations and or potential alternatives will likely never surface. As shareholders I don't see their motivation for not fighting for the best possible deal but similar to your thoughts my biggest disappointment is with the levels of cash to us. Exploration expenditure doesn't in itself afford us divine entitlement to anything but the fact that it has been successfully deployed in derisking Toral tells me that Denarius have got a very good deal, particularly if you factor in the 20m odd spent before we even set foot on the licence.

CJ you are right to say that the original proposal was for a PFS in Option 1 with the requirement now being a PEA. Personally I believe that given the timeframes and deadline for the MLA it was more realistic for Denarius to complete their two due diligence drills and bundle up a PEA by 31st July 2023, I note that the Junta will accept that done to a near PFS standard (see presentation: "CAPEX and OPEX with a level of detail close to a PFS") as part of a MLA which could have been a special concession from the Junta. What you may have missed is that the original proposal had us paying for the PFS in Option 1 with a further PFS delivered by Denarius in Option 2, from The 'Proposal':
o US$650,000 in two tranches to be utilised by Europa Metals to fund completion of a pre-feasibility study and mining licence application for the Toral Project; and.....
So EUZ would have paid for the PFS and MLA it appears out of our US$650,000 only for Denarius to provide another in Option 2 (for Toral and the enlarged area).
It is my opinion that the tweaks evident in the 'Agreement' provide better synergy in working the JV to PFS level, plus our funds are protected. Although I'm not doing cartwheels about this deal I do think the details in the Agreement are better for EUZ shareholders than in the Proposal with respect to Toral at least. Finally that brings me to the issue of Antonina and the enlarged mining district, I have mixed feelings here as on one hand we never knew what that might be worth and why risk the whole deal on making the securing of the licence a condition when for all the positive noises about having first dibs, it is ultimately out of our control? On the other hand it could be significant upside and in the Proposal Denarius were to spend part of the $3.35m on "Securing and exploring" Antonina. As I said earlier I understand that the potential at Antonina is ring fenced by the JV ie. Denarius can't get it without us but there is nothing explicit in the explanatory statement about the IP or how spending commitments would be structured which has disappointed me.

CJ they are funding a PEA (higher standard than a SS) in Option 1, a PFS in Option 2, Antonina hasn't been a condition since 'The Agreement' on 23rd Nov though Myles did say this: " In subsequent years we will seek to expand the current footprint of the project to encompass the nearby historic third-party Antonina mine", I have been told that Denarius can't get it without us though I'd obviously like to know where this is formally enshrined in the agreement.

No it's not that simple, if only Option 1 was executed we would have sold 49% for the $US650,00 and more significantly exposure to the benefit of Denarius' £4m expenditure on Toral. I meant the new PEA will reflect the larger resource, not sure if D's due diligence drilling will build on it but would make sense. Plus we have the enlarged mining area "The proposed transaction involves the formation of a joint venture via EMI between Denarius and Europa Metals for the development of Toral, which covers both the project's existing and any expanded investigation permit area and potentially the adjacent historic Antonina Mine area, the former licence for which is currently terminated by the Junta de Castilla y León (the "Junta"). Yes I didn't miss 'potentially' but it would make sense for both parties and the Junta for that to go ahead.

Because Denarius have to spend the US$3.35m on the advancement of the Toral project and give us US$650,000. We then have 49% of a bigger asset at the point of Option 1. By the way payback was year 4 in the old PEA but I expect it to drop in Denarius' new PEA with the impact of ore sorting and discovery of better grades in early years ROM, neither of which impacted the first PEA.