Member Info for Shedulike

One thing cleared up today at least - just noticed on the list of requirements for the MLA - (p8/13)
‘Year 1 to include an MLA’ - at the bottom - “Capex and Opex with a level of detail close to a PFS”. So it seems we don't need the full PFS for the MLA by July 23.

Maybe I was right and Myles did head to Le Gavroche after the meeting. We normally have 'Results of AGM' by now!

Also forgot to mention the 14% increase in overall grade - same cost to mine but more revenue.

At the time we delivered our PEA we had roughly half the amount of indicated resource we now have proven so Denarius' PEA should be a lot more impressive. Also worth noting when we announced the PEA in Nov 2020 our Mcap was double what it is now, we hadn't completed the metallurgy, hydrology or geotechnical, really makes no sense.

This is when you need MC to finish the AGM and head to the Proactive Studio not Le Gavroche (joking I have no evidence of such indulgence). Bang the drum for the resource and the upside of the deal, try and cement these gains rather than see it fizzle out.

***** = world wide web .research-tree.com 11p reiterated.

https://*********************/companies/uk/industrial-metals-nonferrous/europa-metals-limited/research/whireland/wh-ireland-europa-metals-euz-significant-increase-in-the-toral-zinc-lead-silver-resource/41_2022113003040566934/27e14793-086e-4df9-927a-0aaff19c5735

Bricks it was a small reduction in inferred in the NE corner of the licence that was probably too close to the River Sil anyway, nowhere near the high grade corridor which has just given us an uplift in indicated. However a coordinates error was not a good look I agree. Comments I read on Brexit completely delusional it's a disaster unless the aim was to break up the UK and shrink the economy, perhaps Highside should apply to be the Minister for Brexit Opportunities? Is that even still a thing? lol

I wasn't in that long before Tooth left but I think LR progressed the work streams extremely well save for the SS issues in the early days, I often wonder what CB was up to at the time as with his experience he must have known that Aus rules meant that inferred resources couldn't go into economic reports but that's water under the bridge. The fact is the SP just couldn't recover that hit and to be fair to LR he did make an effort with the media, unfortunately he was never a natural performer on camera and the excessive caution was painful to watch at times meaning even good news never seemed to get banked. It's difficult to see what's going to change that as MC is hardly a bundle of energy in interviews, that's not a personal criticism we can't all be super slick performers, I know I'd be hopeless at that stuff but MC needs to realise he needs help in that department for the sake of shareholders. Surprised DB can't offer some Corp Communications guidance, it would be in their interests too. Maybe some glorious presentation is just around the corner and we'll all be eating our words.

Get that CJ, since LR left virtually all the PR has been Spanish facing but the shares are traded here. If you apply the old 'Cui Bono' test it's difficult to work out who the half hearted comms do serve, certainly not DB. I suppose you could come up with some funky theory that MC & EK are pulling in a lot of cheap shares with their wage packets but that would be so at odds with their fiduciary duties that it would be fanciful to say the least. I certainly don't think that is the motivation, more likely a geologists faith that the good work on the ground will eventually be rewarded by the market. Fact is that hasn't happened yet so there is a problem to be addressed.

It's a balance I believe - no amount of PR would have got us a deal if we'd screwed up the fieldwork. However I have also always wanted better promotion of EUZ and it could be achieved so easily. Failing to sell the upside of the enlarged mining district is a good example IMO. It's a central tenet of deal (though skimming back quickly I think they have wisely reigned back on it being a condition) so Denarius must really like it. Someone once told me that CB was very keen on Antonina so I'm certain there must be more that they can say about it. I think there's more flesh on the bones due soon so hopefully it will all be better presented. Not suggesting pretty pictures will save us but graphics really help massively with communicating this stuff, hopefully a decent presentation will support the shareholder circular.

I don't have anything against a bit of speculation but the fact is apart from the 20% exposure to the Toral and Antonina licences we don't know exactly how EUZ will function in a practical sense with Toral in the future. As I read it we don't yet know how the Management of Toral will be structured in phase II of the JV.
"On exercise of the First Option, the parties shall also enter into a joint venture agreement (the "JV Agreement") and a shareholders' agreement (the "Shareholders' Agreement"). The JV Agreement sets out the terms of the appointment of the management committee to be established (the "Management Committee") to determine the overall policies, objectives, procedures and actions in respect of the joint venture as regards its business including the Toral Project (the "Joint Venture"). The Management Committee shall initially consist of three representatives appointed by Denarius and one representative appointed by the Company. The board of directors of EMI shall reflect the decisions of the Management Committee in all respects".

Little rise on JSE I notice CHRI5P. Now that we have the definitive agreement I really hope they inject some energy into the proposal. Can't see the vote not going through but it would be good to see some more comprehensive media to bring this deal to life in conjunction with the circular.

At least it seems nobody bought any of the back of my error :)

Sorry CHRI5P, slip of the keyboard! I meant the US$2m which is earmarked for the 'growth strategy'.

Re. Highside 10:15 - from the US$6m farm in payments, which can now be dedicated to new projects.

See 10:14, just a thought and I don't know if we have an accountant in our midst but it appears too me that the 'Definitive Agreement' is better for EUZ than the 'Letter of Intent'. Could the stunning results from 042 given us some extra leverage during the finalisation period?

Highside your quote is correct but it is from the 5th Oct RNS, I am going on what is in the 'Definitive Agreement' not the 'Letter of Intent', as Bricks highlighted yesterday there have been changes made during the finalisation period.

Bricks not saying you're being alarmist but just in case anyone is concerned by what you posted, EUZ will remain the ultimate holding company of the Spanish subsidiary so as EUZ shareholders we retain 20% exposure to Toral and the enlarged mining district while looking for further projects. It is a JV however and I'm sure there will be some cross fertilisation as Denarius take the reigns.

Denarius aren't paying EUZ to produce a PFS they are paying EUZ for the right to farm into the asset.
"The Second Option may be exercised by Denarius conditional on:
· the exercise of the First Option;
· completion of the PFS at the cost of Denarius".