Member Info for Shedulike

If a credible entity has been following our progress under NDA and they are at last satisfied by our work streams I can't imagine them behaving that way partly on an industry reputational basis. They also wouldn't even be guaranteed to be awarded the licence. Obviously competition will help and at this stage there is no certainty we can achieve a positive transaction but I believe anyone with the financial muscle to develop Toral would favour an orderly transaction, assuming they want it. We're proving up a $B strategic asset, this isn't like a shady property development company waiting for yet another pub to fail.

I'm guessing the extraction processes will be different for the siliceous (early years) compared to the carbonate mineralisation but yes proof that our metallurgy stacks up across the resource. In terms of interested parties that's what I'm hoping Teaye, we can only pray that as shareholders who have shouldered the risk (along with DB and more recently Bennelong) that whoever gets let in post de-risking has to pay a pretty premium for their caution.

Hi Teaye I'm no geologist but I have endeavoured to get an understanding so hope this helps but not my area of expertise, do jump in anyone who is genuinely qualified! Basically at each phase of metallurgy they are testing the best way to extract the metal from the ore, getting the optimum recoveries while suppressing impurities. As I posted the other week if you look back at the previous phases they have progressed the recoveries (particularly zinc, the lead and silver were excellent from the outset) but it's been a long process with many samples because they need to demonstrate a level of representivity across the resource. 'Rougher tests' could be an odd translation but I think they're distinguishing between experimental tests and the locked cycle where you commit to a process repeated again and again to prove that the method of extraction is consistent. Once they have alighted on the optimum method they'll know the levels of by-products that come with it, I don't think we have any that can be monetised but that's something I asked long ago so things may have changed. There will be inevitably be impurities but they have always sounded confident that we're a relatively 'clean' resource. Still a bit nervous as I see this as the most significant de-risking announcement to date.

Yes bits and bobs Teaye, nothing gleaned on the big questions hanging over us but he's pretty good at getting back on most queries. To be honest I rarely email as he must be pretty stretched but if I don't understand something and curiosity gets the better of me he seems happy to communicate which is appreciated.

Luis Pérez is now the full time Project Director on the ground Highside, but how motivated he is at pushing forward for shareholders I don't know. LR always talked glowingly about him but I think we got are*d around by SPI with the initial two month delay on the resource drilling, particularly as they are innovation partners, the Covid thing was unfortunate, obviously stricter isolation rules in Spain then where we are now in the UK. So the project is clearly being progressed we can only guess if things could have moved quicker and smoother with LR still around.

I think that's the problem, almost five months on and we're no clearer. I've always believed in cutting them slack on identifying the precise type of transaction they would favour as it makes sense to keep options open but I think we deserve some clarity on the general direction of travel with 'new projects'. If there is a deal to be had with Toral being a geothermal prospect then that would make complete sense to me but talking about precious or battery metals anywhere in the world just doesn't as things stand. Delays and the sliding SP aren't improving my mood here but I'm confident we have a strong asset to deal with, just get on with it ffs!

Shades of Waiting for Godot living in expectation of an EUZ announcement but I think we can expect TD on the first drill this week unless there has been another Covid delay (that's assuming they announce it.......). To think it was supposed to start early in March we could have been waiting on campaign assays by now if things had gone smoothly. Then there is the final metallurgy, predicted end of May on 'Proyectotoral' but still proving elusive. Very frustrating seeing intriguing snippets on the EUZ Linkedin but having no idea if this has any relevance to our actual official strategy.

Bricks we began exploring Toral (as FCR) in Nov 2016 so that will be 7 years in 5 months time. I admit I massively underestimated how long this would take to make Toral a marketable package and I can only guess if the Junta are similarly frustrated.

Yes agreed, if they have unequivocally proved that Toral is an economic mine (I think we need the final metallurgy to be 100% certain) then the data gathered is a valuable asset in itself. Given that the current EBITDA is US$471 (calculated on low metal prices and before last JORC and impact of ore sorting) I reckon our exploration knowledge should be worth many multiples of the current market cap.

I don't believe the IP is an issue, if we're still here this time next year and want to drill they'll apply for another one just like last time and I can't see any evidence to suggest that the Junta regard the current one as our last. More pressing is funding and personally I don't think it is possible for EUZ to be the same entity in 12 months time. The timings of the other core PFS work streams suggest that this is the last set of resource drills, at the current rate I estimate a final JORC off the back of these drills around about November but expect that our corporate future will have to be resolved before that.

Bricks, the below might help - the IP which we were granted on two occasions for three year periods, the latest expiring Nov 23, is senior to an exploration permit. Note that they make the point that 'Exploration' and 'Investigation' are similar meaning words but are different permits, we have the correct permit for our current drilling work.
1. Exploration permit1. Provides the right to carry out studies and preliminary reconnaissance works of regional scope, using all type of techniques except those which might alter the surface of the land. The objective of this type of studies is to establish the possibilities of finding a mineral resource in a certain area. The surfaces which can be permitted go from 8700 to 93,000 Ha for a period of 1 year which can be extended one more.
1 The Spanish mining law uses the terms "exploración" (exploration) and "Investigación" (investigation) for the different type of permits disregarding the real meaning of the words as they are synonyms.
67 MINLEX-FinalReport May 2017
Study – Legal framework for mineral extraction and permitting procedures for exploration and exploitation in the EU
2. Investigation permit. Provides the right to carry out all type of research in order to define the existence of resources of the section C so that later a mining concession can be obtained. The permitted surface can extend from 30 to 9000 Ha, and the permit can last for 3 years that can be extended for another 3 and exceptionally for additional periods.
3. Extraction concession. Provides the right to exploit resources of the section C, except those which have been previously reserved by the State, and applying all mining techniques available. The concession can have from 30 to 9000 Ha, and the concession is granted for 30 years which can be extended two times up to a maximum of 752 years. The law established two type of mining concessions.
- Hopefully that clarifies the matter for good.

Thanks Bricks, do you think this is something in translation? As I said yesterday both of the two extensions we have applied for have been issued in three year periods and the term 'exceptional' isn't in the IP RNS. Here's what Jesús says about Toral on his website:
https://mining-sense.com/en/portfolio-item/toral/
I think we use him on a consultancy basis.

CHRI5P as I understand it there is no exact requisite level of resource required for a PFS but I guess it is common sense that the more the better. Looking at how they have timed the work streams I believe that it is fair to assume that this current set of drills will be the last before a PFS - hydrology done (with ongoing monitoring), geotech done, final metallurgy imminent. The PEA proves the economic case for Toral at a 'preliminary' level and Bara recommended moving to a PFS, since then we've had good results from areas previously thought to be uneconomic, positive ore sorting etc so I believe we're well placed to pass the more strenuous tests of a PFS, we just need a partner with the muscle to make development financing realistic.

This from 2017:
22 November 2017
Ferrum Crescent Limited
("FCR", the "Company" or the "Group")(ASX, AIM, JSE: FCR)
Toral Lead-Zinc Project's Exploration licence renewed for a further 3 years
FCR, the European lead-zinc explorer, is pleased to announce that, following a formal application to the Director General of Mines of the Province of Le?n (the "Director General"), the exploration licence in respect of the group's Toral lead-zinc project (the "Toral Project" or "Toral") has been renewed for a further 3 year term to November 2020.
Under Spanish national and provincial mining law, exploration licences are subject to renewal to the existing owners following satisfaction of a proposed exploration plan or, alternatively, can be converted in to a development licence.
- (For anybody new we were once FCR) So they seem to work in three year periods, as the latest IP renewal grants another three years just like its predecessor:
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/EUZ/renewal-of-investigation-permit-for-toral-project-r8tlvaok43d0oku.html

Hi Bricks - just had a gander at the IP renewal RNS and I can't see anything about the granting being 'exceptional'. Did this term come out in some subsequent media?

Just for the record I was trying to say that Toral as a potential mine is substantially lower risk than it was when we were marked up much higher by the market, so the irony for me is that as a prospect our asset has never looked more viable and yet we can't attract any volume. As ever though the question of funding hangs over us and although there is infinitely more certainty about what is in the ground there is unsurprisingly little faith that we're going to get a positive financing solution this time round. Personally I reckon if the final metallurgy is good it would beggar belief if there wasn't a non equity dilutive deal to be had.

Numpty the odd thing is that for me this is all about risk and we have never been more de-risked. The mcap was way higher before we had any metallurgy, indicated resource, hydrology or geotechnical work. Toral was just a bunch of historical inferred resources with no economic plan and yet the market was substantially more excited about it. We all know that the cycle of field work followed by equity raises has drained enthusiasm from investors but I don't think we should lose sight of what we do have, it just needs the right deal to be implemented to advance the project and I think we should be rewarded for our patience. As you say geo-political matters surely make the case for developing Toral more compelling than ever.

Fair play Bricks, difficult call to make particularly after such a long journey. I still think we have something significant to negotiate with here so am hanging in. As ever events seem to be moving desperately slowly, firstly a two month delay getting the resource drilling started and now two weeks lost due to Covid in the crew accounting for the glacial progress with the drill bit. I want to see this final metallurgy before making any big decisions as it should be the key to where this is going, the resource drilling I see as much less make or break but expect it to advance logged resources in line with expectations.

TO-22 was drilled 11th June - 11th July 2019 to a depth of 760m so that was a rate of 24.5m a day. Maybe Myles is a royalist and he insisted the Spanish crew downed tools for the Jubilee, in a dreadful faux pas his memo insisted they pay their respects to 'Elizabeth I', they are now on strike and threatening to build an armada.

270m? That's less than 8m a day! I did a back of a fag packet calculation on previous drills and they are around 22m/day. At this rate one drill to the 700-750m zone is going to take three months. Either a mistake on Linkedin or the geotech daughter holes have been time consuming.