Member Info for Shedulike

I seem to remember that Lago was another Lead Zinc prospect but smaller than Toral, I'm pretty certain that we didn't ever do any work on it other than the due diligence. Interesting about WRES Mailgirl, it's making me wonder how much SPI's rates will have gone up with the energy crisis, hope that's not why we haven't heard about completion of geotechnical drilling or commencement of resource drilling.

I've always thought that any new project could only be viable following or as part of a transaction on Toral, we just don't have the cash of our own to buy a significant cash generating project that would be capable of in turn funding Toral. Unless I'm missing something I can't compute how that could add up. I can only think that they just don't want to RNS the strategy of seeking a JV, Farm in or some other kind of pre-production agreement until it's in the bag, particularly after the non-appearance of the value event. As for what's going on in the field is anyone's guess, have they finished the Geotechnical, have they started the resource drills but neglected to tell us? I know many on here criticised the Tweets but I liked to see what the crew were up to on the ground, just feels like a blackout now and with the SP creaking Myles needs to provide some reassurance asap.

As CJ said I don't think we'll know what Bennelong are doing until it's happened and they're ready to formerly announce it. That doesn't mean success is a certainty but I know that CJ and Numpty were impressed by the guy at the AGM (unless Myles and LR booked an out of work actor of course).

I also remember LR quite forcibly saying that there was no way Lundin could get Toral by the back door, hopefully not a case of "The Lady (apologies LR) doth protest too much" :)

Mm's they definitely still have rights to the one off payments and the smelter royalty, that is public and the payments are built into the economic calculations in the PEA. Where it gets a bit fuzzy is over the back-in rights, did we inherit them from Goldquest Corp or is that element of the Lundin agreement terminated? I have never been able to pin that down.

It is in the agreement between Lundin and Goldquest Corp when they acquired Lundin Mining Exploration in 2009 along with the other rights that they retained with Goldquest Iberia. What I don't know is if the back-in option expired when we acquired Toral from Goldquest. The other conditions like the smelter royalty are exactly the same but this element is unclear, good luck to anyone trying to find out.

Firstly I should say I have not been able to confirm or disaffirm whether this clause is still active but has the next step been staring us in the face all along? "To exercise the back-in right, Lundin must (1) spend an amount equal to 2.5 times the aggregate expenditures made by GoldQuest on the Toral Project and..... upon completion of the above, a Joint Venture will be formed pursuant to which Lundin will have 51% interest and GoldQuest will have a 49% interest in the Toral Project. Upon formation, each party will either fund their proportional share of the expenditures or Lundin may elect to increase its participating interest in the Joint Venture from 51% to 65% by completing a full feasibility study on the Toral Project".

Perhaps think of it like this - in March 19 we had the SS an early stage landmark, we then had our first indicated I think in Oct 19, preliminary metallurgy Dec 19, Initial Hydrogeological Study Completed Feb 2020 and further metallurgy throughout 2020 culminating in the Bara Preliminary Economic Study in Nov 2020. Had we not been able to complete the PEA it wouldn't have meant that all those work streams couldn't be considered de-risking but it was obviously better that we could complete the PEA with an independent recommendation to move to PFS. It's similar now, we continue to de-risk but as things stand we can't complete the PFS independently which is a blow but the work is still relevant. Since the PEA we've had another JORC upgrade, completed hydrology and really good ore sorting results, that doesn't get torn up because we aren't funded to complete the PFS but we would be in a much better position if we were able to get there retaining 100% ownership. My best guess is that we have no choice but to yield a share of the asset and it is that transaction that will enable us to broaden our horizons.

Highside if I'm reading that correctly you don't see how current work streams will further de-risk Toral - "More work doesn't necessarily de-risk" - well yes that scenario could unfold but only if the work is completely unsuccessful and we've done well in the field recently. The geotechnical de-risks because you can come up with a mine plan with plant location but unless you know the ground conditions are suitable it doesn't mean much, same with the tailings element of the geotech. The upcoming resource drilling should also de-risk not just by increasing the resource booked but the certainty of finding what we have proved is there so far - the more successful holes in the mineable area the more we know that our cores our representative of what will actually be mined. The same with metallurgical samples, the more we have from more areas the higher the levels of spatial representivity are banked - the more certain we or other parties can be that the recovery processes we have demonstrated will work across the resource, that applies to certainty about the good core and certainty about the stuff we don't want so all moving the de-risking ball forward, put simply think of LR's favourite phrase about "Filling in the gaps". I suspect you'll come back with something about it not being a PFS and yes that is a disappointment but it doesn't delegitimise the work currently being undertaken. I also take issue with your point about the price of Zinc, it is relevant to our hopes of success - yes we're not producing now but it will affect potential pre-production deals. You also need to think about not just the actual spot price but the forces that are causing it to spiral - commodity security fears, energy prices meaning that some smelters have cut back, also anticipated demand as the green energy push will mean a huge amount of wind farm construction, battery applications, Zinc declared a critical metal on both sides of the pond and so on. All this will sharpen minds for players wanting to secure supply and IMO improves our chances of getting some kind of deal. No guarantee that this means Myles can pull this off but undoubtedly for the above reasons I don't think you can dismiss the relevance of de-risking work streams or the significance of current metal markets. Hope that helps?

..... looking set to break all time records soon. At this rate it will soon represent the total mine revenues in the PEA metrics on its own.

Sure I understand Grappa though a gong bath is dry :) I don't know how acquisitions would work but with the cash position as it is I can only assume it would have to involve some kind of pre-production deal on Toral. The only inkling of a hint about their plans that I ever got was that it doesn't necessarily have to be another mine, so whether we could be planning to partner in an energy project for instance who knows?

Grappa have a look at this.... https://zh.mindat.org/loc-46509.html and then have a look at Glastonbury High Street, and then go for a gong bath and try to forget about EUZ.

Well there's something positive to talk about at last.....

I understand your despair Highside but I think you go way too far. The SP is undeniably miserable but it doesn't tell the whole story. Firstly my comment about selling if there was no hope isn't some sort of glib cliche, I've done it before and it makes complete sense if you don't foresee a turnaround. What makes less sense to me is to leave any remains of an investment in a stock which you fully expect to fail completely. I think there is a path to a good outcome but regularly review the risks in my own mind and in my posts, I'm not duping myself, there is a worst case scenario which, in the event of further corporate mismanagement EUZ ceases to be a going concern. More likely for me is that with the help of Bennelong Toral will survive as a project but we lose a significant lump of the asset in return for a meaningful cash injection. I am pragmatically basing that thinking on the assumption that there is nothing being withheld that makes Toral a less attractive proposition than it appears at face value, another risk admittedly as there have been no shortage of fairytales on AIM over the years, EUZ doesn't look like one of those to me, see independent reporting on three fronts - assay, JORC, metallurgy. Finally I assume you're joking about the odds being 1M/1 but if you're judging our COS by the number of posts on ADVFN then almost any forecasts are possible.

Not sure how suspension will stop operating cash burn cash did you mean liquidation? Anyway Toral is an asset and you only have to look at the pre-SS Micon report that I posted the other day to appreciate the immense amount of work required to get where we are today. It's a blow that we couldn't get to a PFS independently but there are positives namely a proven indicated resource, high quality grade and recovery results from the metallurgy, all the other de-risking work streams plus an almost unprecedented urgent focus on commodity security. What that translates into in terms of a deal we can only guess as it's obvious that we are not negotiating from a position of strength unless of course there is competition. DB increased and some new investors came on board knowing that we aren't financed for a PFS so IMO they must have confidence that there is a mechanism that can move Toral forward. I believe Toral has the qualities to survive as a project the question is what a deal, say farm in for instance would mean for shareholders, as CHRI5P said the other day it could well be over 50% of the mine going but I could see that as leaving a new partnership comfortably funded to a BFS, just limping on wouldn't benefit either party. As I've said many times this type of risky investment has the potential to go to zero very suddenly (and I still get accused of ramping lol!) so I'm not saying there are definitely sunlit uplands ahead just that I can still see potential for a positive scenario unfolding, if I didn't I'd be out, wouldn't we all?

Sure that's how they have been playing it so far with WA handling the processing of the ore and AMS reporting the resource estimates. Couldn't tell you why WA don't just do both workstreams. As for why it's getting on for a year since we took those wedges for ore-sorting testwork and other metallurgical studies and we're yet to hear any results is an absolute farce.

Evening chief I think we're up to date on JORC pending the upcoming drills (even though they haven't been ar*ed to update the latest presentation!). As far as I know WA are still only doing the metallurgy with Addison on the resource updates though I could have missed something, WAI do undertake JORC reports after all.

Not pointless at all, I think there is a reasonable chance that in any of the last six years since we acquired Toral somebody might already have noticed the 'back-in' clause, asked the question and been able to bring me up to speed, you think that pointless, fine up to you. In any case Bricks gave an interesting informed reply about the MT's, though it seems to be contradicted by the Goldquest / Portex comments.

Just a thought if anyone is interested there is a bewildering amount of information in the report, they provide an amazing amount of detail on the drilling pre-FCR. Really puts in perspective what is required to get a project to the stage we are at. Remember this is from 2012 before the Scoping Survey:
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/51786613/toral-ni-43-101-technical-report-resource-estimate

Thanks Bricks I agree with your point but the strange thing is if you look in the Micon report Portex apparently acquired the rights to Toral from Golquest Corp in 2012, there was 4MT (NI 43-101 compliant) at that time but they continue to detail the rights of Lundin (Par 4.3, p15 'Agreement With Lundin').