Member Info for Shedulike

Does this suggest we no longer have to pay AMS to convert the recent assays into a new JORC?
"An intensive information day with Ed Sides (president of #PERC), @Edmundo Tolcazana and @LuisdelaTorre. Our Toral Project Director, Luis Javier Perez Rodriguez, #eurogeólogo and recognized by the Australian Mining Society #mineralscouncilofaustralia, attended the session held at the ETSIME-UPM last week. Luis Javier Perez Rodriguez has the international training that allows Europa Metals Ltd to report mineral resources under codes #JORC #43-101 and #PERC. Toral Project is synonymous with international excellence".

Also as far as I am aware the mechanism of no votes going for the resolution applies when a shareholder has applied for a proxy to be appointed to vote at the meeting on their behalf but the proxy has failed to direct the vote on the day. I don't believe that every shareholder who doesn't vote ends up with their holding voting for the motion.
- Sections 250BB and 250BC of the Corporations Act apply to voting by proxy and Shareholders and their proxies should be aware of these provisions which generally provide that:
(a) if proxy holders vote, they must cast all directed proxies as directed; and
(b) any directed proxies which are not voted will automatically default to the Chairman, who must vote the proxies as directed.
If you can show me where it says that all no votes including institutional & CREST holders go for the resolution I'd be interested.

piffle (see 17:51)

Evening CHRI5P - "The Proposed Transaction is subject, inter alia, to confirmatory due diligence by Denarius, the finalisation and entering into of definitive documentation (the "Definitive Agreement") and all requisite shareholder and regulatory approvals as appropriate". I'd have thought it is necessary on the 'Significant Transactions' rule, I also think they have to issue a circular with more detail before a vote. Could be wrong I don't claim to be an expert on these things but it definitely says "Shareholder approvals". Perhaps an EGM will be set after Denarius' DD, otherwise it might be putting the cart in front of the horse, therefore the AGM has come too soon for it to be a resolution.

They can't sell the upside as they would look silly if it wasn't signed, am I reading that right??? It requires shareholder approval!

Mfm that is also infuriating me. They have failed to communicate the implications of these drill results IMO in simple PI friendly terms. We'll get the JORC upgrade probably early Dec but in the meantime it's the inevitable drift. I also agree that they have been dreadful at selling the upside of the deal, apart from progressing Toral there is the exposure to an enlarged mining area but without some flesh on the bones it isn't promoting the deal. There must be more that they can say about Antonina, why else would Denarius have the "Antonina Condition Precedent". Surely they haven't insisted on that on some vague whim that there could be something down there, for certain there will be data on the ore being mined at the time it was mothballed, also if it is analogous to Toral which would seem likely it should be highest grade at depth. To be honest I don't think the market likes the fact that Denarius aren't a producer yet and will likely need to go to the market to fund their commitments.

Also a pity that a superb technical achievement is getting overlooked. Sure the gloss comes off when the SP falls back, I get that, but we've completed our deepest drill and returned the highest grade results importantly supporting this concept of a high grade mineralised corridor increasing in width and quality dipping east. We can look forward to an indicated resource upgrade probably early Dec. In the meantime I really wish the company would put some flesh on the bones of our potential exposure to an enlarged mining district starting with what Antonina could offer.

I'm of the opinion that unless a new project provides a clear revenue stream it would be better to put this objective on the back burner. Surely anything that would be a near term earner would have likely been snapped up by someone with free cash anyway. I'd rather they were selling the Antonina prospect to the market, the strategy of developing the old mine has obvious economies of scale being next door. It's also intriguing that Denarius have set their stall out on it so there must be something pretty tempting down there or an opportunity to reprocess the tailings with the new technology we've tested on Toral samples perhaps? Anyway whatever has rocked Denarius' boat about it the prospect has clear synergy with Toral and would promote the upside of us going ahead with exposure to a greatly enlarged project much better than having his uncertainty about new projects hanging around. Still, I keep an open mind so if they do unearth a humdinger I could be won over but for sure it's not helping us now.

Grappa I think it was TP who had the valuation of 34.5p and that was before the Oct 2021 dilution. Next news should be the 3rd CDTI tranche and I'd like to know if we can afford a new JORC independently of the potential Denarius deal. Certainly an increased indicated or perhaps first measured would strengthen our position if we need a plan B.

This is fabulous - I mentioned the other day that it is essential that 042 builds on the evidence that the resource increases in grade and thickness at depth. Haven't got time to look at it closely but solid important news.

Same resolution last year, there has to be fall back position however unpalatable. We've just spent the last 12 months operating with this facility in place so a bombshell 365 days in the making :)

Obviously nobody can be 100% confident of Denarius being able to raise the funds which is partly why I emphasised the importance of the 042 drill results yesterday. If it comes in as a success with all the positive implications that has on the block model then Denarius will have had a no risk result having already negotiated terms with us. Great for them if the JV does go ahead but also strengthens the EUZ story if we have to look for a Plan B, I truly hope that MC is planning for a scenario in which Denarius either change their mind or fail to raise the necessary funds. Who knows what might happen - an eye catching result may prompt other parties to improve their offers just as a bad result could see Denarius backing out.

Unfortunately I expect the 'additional projects' to remain vague for the foreseeable. It does seem a strange distraction to keep introducing it though if nothing is feasible. However for now I agree with Highside's point that while it remains uncosted as a strategy it is causing more harm than good. The Antonina clause as part of the Denarius deal makes complete sense to me so even more disappointing that they keep putting this additional foggy ambition out there which as things stand doesn't add up for me. So for now I'm looking for two important things that are really needed and they have to tell us soon. First that the CDTI third tranche has arrived (and hopefully if the algorithm is a marketable product). Second that our deepest drill backs up the evidence to date that the resource grades continue to increase at depth. I believe assays are imminent.

Don't get me wrong I don't think diversity is a bad aspiration, particularly if there is a practical way to enter the energy markets IMO. The problem with delivering it is funding, I don't see Denarius writing a blank check, they still aren't selling ore from their other op's as yet as far as I can tell. From what they've said to date their interest is in Toral & Antonina plus other opportunities on that license though that is where it gets a bit fuzzy. I wonder if we should make a concerted effort for a Q&A with Myles on the basis that it is difficult to vote on the proposal with so many questions?

I just don't see what mechanism there could be to pay for a decent licence CHRI5P, certainly not before the Denarius deal is confirmed or not. They say they have looked into 18 prospects and are further evaluating four but of course we don't know what they are. Even if the Junta gave us Lago back for next to nothing how would we finance the exploration? Perhaps it won't be mining, personally I'd favour energy projects and I'd hoped that something might be possible on the Toral licence, there is geothermal potential but that's one for the future, we surely need something with a prospect of near term income.

Note 2: Summary of significant accounting policies
(a) Basis of preparation
All amounts are presented in Australian dollars, unless otherwise stated.

I was hoping the 'other projects' conundrum was put to bed with the intention to move on Antonina and other opportunities on the licence but I see in the CH's statement that he talks about Antonina and then moves onto this strategy of seeking other projects, "In addition, we have continued to persue (spellcheck please boss) our stated business development strategy and identify promising complimentary opportunities for portfolio expansion. I just hope that by 'complimentary' they mean something that could run in coordination with ramping up Toral, perhaps the green energy initiatives hinted at on Linkedin. One rare thing that we all seem to agree on is that acquiring another mining licence independently seems completely unrealistic at this stage.

Interesting CHRI5P I genuinely thought we'd ceased drilling with 042 (assays imminent) but you're right the RNS describes the campaign as ongoing so I'm now not certain where we are with the drill bit. As I understand it I don't believe we had to pay off LR as he resigned but happy to be steered towards contrary information.

The cash position is actually better than it was at the same time in 2022 probably as they spent a lot less on exploration. Hopefully when the last CDTI tranche comes in MC will make it clear if we have working capital to bridge the period to the planned JV. If it does go ahead we only have to tick over in this period as the large expensive work streams are completed, we have already trimmed down the geological team.

I wouldn't call 4 months and a day 'nearly six months' but more importantly it's not a hugely unusual period. We normally get them out a bit quicker but I guess MC is doing them on his own or with the help of DS and I assume the auditors. Without doing any detailed empirical research I would estimate the average is about three months - however having had a quick look for the last AIM resource company to announce an AP and I see PAT declared for the year to 31st March on 30th Sep - now that really is six months!