Member Info for Shedulike

I'm not sure whether they would have or not Mm's but I would certainly like to know if their rights passed from Goldquest Corp to Goldquest Iberia. We only know about the fixed payments and the smelter royalty which remain exactly as agreed between GC and Lundin. For all I know the back-in right expired but I'd like to know for certain if Lundin have retained a legal right to keep the door open as surely that would affect what we can do with other parties.

Surprised there's not been more interest in this. Don't we need to know if the Lundin 'back-in' rights were passed onto us at the same time as the other Lundin royalty rights when FCR or Goldquest Iberica acquired Toral from Goldquest Mining Corp in 2016? They could have been separated out but the RNS's don't make it clear as far as I can tell.

I know Lundin still hold some royalty rights but is this 'back-in' clause still active?
"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 (2) pay an amount in cash equal to 51% of the value of the shares issued by GoldQuest under the agreement. If Lundin elects to exercise the back-in right, the right of Lundin to receive the 1.5% NSR will be terminated.
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".

Back of a fag packet but I reckon 15-20p would need a mcap of around £25-30m I think, assuming half the asset goes with the JV. Ironically that can't be far off the total spend on Toral by Penarroya-Espana, Lundin and FCR/EUZ mentioned yesterday, so given the opportunity cost of the investment a complete waste of time :) Personally I think Toral is worth much more than that given the proven resources and advanced work streams generally but it will take some corporate agility by the Exec's, sorry Exec, to realise this for shareholders.

I still wonder why someone would want to know what has been spent on Toral by us and historically. Could it have a bearing on what might be considered a reasonable sum for a farm-in arrangement? Weighing up what has been spent against what will need to be spent could be a basis for agreeing what % we retain or a new party take?

The reason I was asking was that I remember LR mentioning that a certain group had asked for an estimate of all expenditure on Toral including by Portex Minerals and Lundin, I have a vague recollection of something in the region of $25m but this is very hazy but that would sound realistic. If I am remembering correctly it would seem somewhat inequitable to get over half the asset for say $5-10m when so much has been spent de-risking it to this point but I guess business isn't always fair and we're not in a very strong negotiating position.

So assuming £5-10m might be a realistic sum to fund this to BFS or DFS do you still think we might have to concede as much as 60% of the asset given what is proven in the ground?

CHRI5P I'm looking at funding as two separate issues - funding to build a mine and funding to reach a BFS or DFS. Certainly it would be a slam dunk if a partner came on board with the muscle to do both but that in my opinion would be an entity on the scale of a Lundin or Glencore for example and it might well be the case that they would just take full ownership. A more likely scenario IMO is that we want a partner that can provide funds to reach the BFS and while I wouldn't pretend to have an fully informed idea of exact costings we know that the 'key components' are almost complete so could we assume that a figure around £5-10m would do it? I think LR once said it doesn't have to be another miner and investment groups outside of the sector are looking at commodities, even more so now I would imagine. Okay we're taking LR at his word and others may have varying opinions on how wise it is to do that but he also told CJ that talks with banks have been positive assuming we can present a BFS. So all theoretical but just for fun if £5-10m delivers a BFS on an asset which I have estimated after the last JORC is approaching an in the ground value of $1.5B, perhaps $2B after the next high grade drills and rising metal prices what's not to like? Apply the same levers to the EBITDA and that is looking more like $1B, I would have thought it's not implausible that some sort of investment entity has an opportunity to get a significant slice of that for a relatively low initial capital outlay, not forgetting that the current block model is highly likely to be only the beginning of Toral. Before the doomsters dive in yes I've been thinking that for the best part of two years now and I guess we're all asking ourselves why it hasn't happened yet, just better opportunities elsewhere or something in the mine we don't know about?

Sure Mm's since inevitably settling below the placing price, EUZ must be one of the most resilient stocks throughout the Russia / Ukraine crisis - who'd have thought it? EUZ a safe haven! :) Seriously though with all the provisos about this tragedy hopefully not needing to be repeated our location has certainly never been a stronger suit.

Can't disagree with that Bricks, time isn't on our side as cash is short and we're only solvent for a max of 1yr best in my estimations, we need a deal asap. My point about the positive op's is that at least the limited funds we've had have been well deployed in de-risking Toral, increasing the resource, proving the economics etc and that should make Toral a realistic undertaking. In the field we've only really had two slight disappointments since the SS with the deviated drill and then over promising on 023 and to be fair they've learnt from those lessons putting deviation research rather cleverly at the heart of our op's and being cautious not to raise expectations, perhaps too cautious at times. Despite all the gloom Toral has been successfully advanced and there's hope, I do feel that these latest resource drills just have to hit their targets though.

Numptypi that was exactly the question I put to them during the 2020 Zoom AGM (what exactly we aren't funded for?) but Myles seemed to answer a different question and I didn't get back in. Whether he wanted to avoid it or it was the vagueries of Zoom lines and he misunderstood me I couldn't say.

Possible CHRI5P let's see what Myles can achieve, we need a deal that gets us valued on the quality of the asset rather than the expectation of another dilution and I'm sure that Bennelong know that cycle needs to be broken. Anyway I hope that we get some news soon that has everyone looking ahead rather than back at all the corp disappointments. I was even wondering if offtake is in play hence the Geotech drilling for a mine plan followed by a mining licence application? If pre-production concentrate marketing contracts were worth talking to Conrad about 18 months ago why not now?

Just occurred to me that we're approaching the anniversary of 'that' comment in the HYR. Since the 'value event' was attributed to MC I wonder if he'll reiterate it as Interim CEO? I remember at the time saying that they had two months to deliver on it and keep face so 12 months would be a bad look for me unless he has something to announce or a better way to express the strategy. Anyway got me thinking about what we can expect in the near term:
- Ore sorting results - if positive we'll see an improvement to early year economics, break even reduced, possible impact on CAPEX etc.
- Other metallurgy - when the samples were procured last spring we were told they were for the ore sorting testwork and other metallurgical elements in the PFS, I guess the recovery processes are different for the siliceous zone over the Cambrian so maybe that's what they're after from this round of metallurgy but I'm not certain. Deleterious elements? Will we ever get the complete picture?
- Geotech drilling results for plant location - not going to set the world alight but essential to a mine plan.
- Commencement of limited resource drilling - possible confirmation of a return to the high grade zone for max return from dwindling bucks.
- Which brings me to the final point - we have become consistently successful at the practical workflows but as we all know we've never raised sufficient funds through equity to have anything like a healthy cash position. I don't mind putting my hand up and saying I've learnt the hard way that £1m here and £2m there just doesn't keep the wolf from the door in the exploration business. The time has surely come to raise more significant funds by sharing the asset in some form. I believe they didn't want to do this prior to a PFS but as I see it we just don't have any choice, my challenge to MC would be - you said in Dec 2019 that the metallurgy would give us "Non-dilutive optionality", time to show us what that looks like. Thoughts welcome, constructive preferred.

Flippin heck CHRI5P that's 21 years if we have to do three like Bricks said this morning :) Only joking Bricks I'd imagine that would be for much more complex projects.... I hope.

CHRI5P that was pretty much as I recalled the comment, unless I missed something nobody was ever saying that the PFS wasn't needed. Anybody that has been here since the PEA knows that if they have been reading the RNS's. As I said though my sights wouldn't be terribly high on a complete sale without one.

Oh for heavens sake Highside try not to take everything so personally. If you read my post without prejudice you'll realise I was agreeing on the importance of the PFS, I was just amused at you claiming exclusivity to this knowledge. On any claim that a PFS might be 'not necessary' I would disagree like you. It's the conventional process in mining exploration (SS-PEA-PFS-DFS-FID) and I wouldn't agree with anyone saying that we didn't need one. If I'm thinking about the same conversation as you I recall the point being made that while a PFS is obviously desirable and it's a blow that it appears we can't get there independently it doesn't necessarily mean that Toral cannot be sold without one. Developers are on the look out for assets and not having a PFS doesn't mean they will automatically ignore Toral it just means we are in a weak position to sell and I'm certainly not particularly optimistic as to what we'd get but all the data gathered and de-risking since we bought it does not become irrelevant just because we haven't reached the PFS landmark.

I'd be amazed if there is a single investor on here who has ever been in doubt about the importance of the PFS Highside but thanks for the revelation. The issue for me today is the same as in 2020, if we aren't funded to complete all the components of a PFS, what aren't we funded for, what do we need and how are we to get it? I asked a question to that end at the 2020 AGM and from memory Myles took it and the answer was less than clear so my own concerns about funding are nothing new. That doesn't mean Toral cannot be funded and I find it highly unlikely that the predicament is that black and white, much more likely that the issue is the terms and without a PFS make no mistake we are in a poor bargaining position particularly as further equity raises look unsustainable. I suspect that Bennelong and DB know that the worst case scenario if a complete transaction took place would likely be a modest improvement on their latest tranche but that is little comfort to LTH's. Understandably the recent debate here has been dominated by speculation about LR's departure, what Bennelong pitching up means to the situation etc and perhaps we're forgetting that significant milestones have been made and current work streams are still designed to form a PFS, the dilemma for me as how we bridge the funding gap and how potentially pernicious a deal might be given that we have fallen short of the PFS independently.

We've known since Aug 2020 that we were only funded to deliver "certain key components" of a PFS so 18 months after RNS'ing this fact I don't think LR suddenly had an epiphany and left because of that. I think Bennelong must be here for a reason rather than invest and then watch this wither on the vine, so it's more likely that a difference in opinion on strategy or possibly LR knew that in a forthcoming restructure he wouldn't be the main man. Like everyone else I don't know and won't feel optimistic again until we have concrete news on how we're going to move the ball forward.

Crikey Bricks I even had to look 'iterative' up. Great so they think several PFS's are normally necessary, we can't even afford one! Sobs...

Sure, I see it as two issues, funding to get to a PFS and then BFS (not a huge leap between the two Myles said at one AGM) and funding for the mine or CAPEX to production (big bucks, $79m at last count). At this stage I'm assuming the priority is on finding a means to fund a BFS without giving too much of our wholly owned asset away, it is valuable and it means there's hope. CJ reported from the AGM that they have had positive discussions with lenders with regards to raising the CAPEX but we need to demonstrate definitive feasibility to action that. I understand the grant process is complex but particularly in the current climate in which commodity security is at the top of the agenda you would have thought a few million from the EU regeneration fund to get this project privately financeable wouldn't be too much to ask :)