Member Info for Shedulike

Not sure why it has been suggested that EUA shares could suffer on the LSE after dual listing with the MOEX. The prices should roughly balance as any outperformance or underperformance on one exchange should be corrected because of the arbitrage opportunity for international traders. I would imagine the correction won't be as seamless as with the main market but the equity populating each market will be interconnected.

Haha probably not a bad idea Bricks. I could be wrong but I don't think there is any value in terms of product in the quarries but if filling them is mutually beneficial for EUZ and the locals then that's all good. Tailings management is really important and I believe there is a possibility of grant money connected to the landscape restoration. I get your point about putting the cart in front of the horse but demonstrating what we plan to do with our waste will be a crucial element in getting a mining license and will also be part of a PFS as you say.

I think there are tailing dumps at Antonina but my understanding is that the quarries that we plan to fill were dug not for minerals but stone and also particularly supplying limestone to the local cement industry so I don't fink there's anything valuable in them - they're just a convenient storage facility.

Bricks, the tailings will be the waste rock after our ore has been crushed and the mineral bearing rock separated out. The tailings have to be stored somewhere so if the Junta want them to restore the landscape it is a boost to the economics. Sometimes historic tailings can be reprocessed but since ore sorting technology all the good stuff should be efficiently extracted out which is why the tailings we dump should be inert, it's a good thing.

Mm's, they have RNS'd some details about the quarry opportunities before but more as an op's footnote, it doesn't really matter if they are on our licence or not as interests are aligned, perhaps when there is an official agreement between the authorities and EUZ it would require an RNS but for now it appears to be an opportunity for a synergy between the economics of Toral and landscape restoration for the locals. "The geotechnical component will be designed to assess the suitability of ground conditions for plant site infrastructure as well as the suitability of local disused quarry sites, which in turn could form part of a reclamation strategy following consultation with local community groups, by way of filling in areas with inert waste material from crushing during future production activities and then landscaping the areas concerned."

CHRI5P I'm not so sure that it was bad communication but I hear your opinion, more the fact that the 2020 raise could only cover the notorious 'certain key components' of a PFS making another raise a virtual inevitability unless a deal could be done or another grant obtained. You mentioned a bigger explorer coming in and I often wonder if we haven't heard the last of Lundin here. I know MC once dismissed them saying Toral is too small (genius comment) for them but why were they looking at it in the first place? With their resources the chance to return to a highly de-risked project with a modest 12year LOM would seem an excellent prospect given that a handful of deep drills could not only radically extend the LOM but also prove up the copper which is detected throughout the currently modelled system but believed to be commercial below the 1,000 metre cut off.

Morning Bricks - just noticed that Zinc has crossed an interesting milestone - the spot price has now doubled since March 2020. Now officially a 'critical metal' in the EU and US I find it increasingly implausible that we can't get a partner onboard on favourable terms. We've long talked about a possible 'invisible hand' guiding our operations and now we know that there has been a specific request for the upcoming geotechnical drilling I think it's time for LR & MC to play hardball and say enough is enough, put your money where your mouth is in other words.

The "My buy is showing as a sell" has been explained conclusively so many times I can't quite believe it still comes up. I won't go over old ground but just look at the LSE (London Stock Exchange) and see what it says officially there about your trade and the rest should be apparent.

'Exploitation'.

I agree tsbs given that they have created less than zero value for shareholders I think straight pay cuts would have been more appropriate. Anyway I'm on the road soon so I'll leave the battle to be the most negative poster to the floor :)

No because you are negating the cash requirement. It also shows a degree of confidence that the shares will have a value to make up their wages in the future and as Numptypi says it does bring them into line with us to an extent. Don't get me wrong I'm not pleased with this RNS but you can't say that paying them in shares isn't saving cash even though there will eventually be a dilutive effect, the extent of which will depend on the performance of the company.

Bricks there is no way of knowing exactly now as it will be calculated on the future monthly VWAP.

Not the shake up I was hoping for but at least they must believe the shares will be worth something in 2023. The disappointment is that next to nothing is any clearer regarding the nuts and bolts of executing the strategy. Perhaps the only grain of information regarding other projects is that they are described as 'complimentary' which would make sense but even that's only because I am inferring that they might be related to the current project. It's a pretty thin RNS to be honest with more questions than answers again I'm afraid, no comment from the Chairman I notice.

Folio, Russians with wealth and power don't need MoEx to invest in Russian located companies. I'm just speaking from experience of an established gold producer once on the brink of FTSE 100, admittedly with debt but a massive operation that has not benefited from a dual listing with Moscow to date. I'm just cautious about EUA being exposed to MoEx, that's all, just an opinion.

Just a word of caution, since listing on MoEx Petropavlovsk has done terribly and the then CEO is in jail. I know it might sound like a contradiction in terms but while operating in Russia it is probably best to keep Russia at arms length as much as is practically possible. Listing there just exposes us to more risk IMO.

Lets hope we hear about a major overhaul in the corporate structure soon Bricks. I noticed when I was checking the figures regarding TP bringing the resource value numbers up to date that UFO have had four broker coverage updates since our last one in July. I know there is a danger in reading too much into silence but I wonder why we have not had anything despite the JORC upgrade, big changes afoot maybe? Probably get hot news that they have tweaked a piezometer tomorrow now I've said that!

CHRI5P I have been trying to estimate what might be a ball park % of Toral to be yielded (if this does prove to be the funding solution). Worth considering that in the PEA we had metal in the ground valued at US$ 962m. Since then the total resource has increased from to 20Mt from 17Mt in the PEA. We should bear in mind that there has been a 55% increase in indicated and a smaller increase in inferred so the increase in value of the total resource should be greater than the 17.6% increase in total Mt's (indicated being more valuable than inferred). I have tried to work out what the metric for this is looking at slide 13 but my brain is aching. Anyway even if you just go on the 17.6% that makes an extra $169m giving total $1,131.3m. Then if you look at metal prices, the PEA used:
Zinc $2668/t
Lead $2009/t
Silver $16.5/oz
Interestingly when TP recalculated total revenue on spot prices rather than the conservative trailing average they upped us by 8.5%, worth noting that they used $2,943/t for zinc our biggest earner, Zinc is now $3,616/t, Lead also much higher, silver a little lower than the TP recalculation. So overall I think their 8.5% back in July is already looking very conservative particularly on Zinc now that it is considered a critical metal in the US as well as the EU. So even using this now outdated multiplier I think it is reasonable to assume we have metal in the ground well in excess of US$1,227.5m at today's prices. Of course this is an 'in the ground' figure but we know we are a low Capex, low Opex prospect, the big question is what % of our currently wholly owned resource needs to go in order to raise a realistic sum to fund this to a BFS?

Agreed Bricks but I think funding will come by way of signing over a share of the asset. After the last resource upgrade there is well over $1B of metal in the ground somebody must want a piece of that, it all comes down to the terms for me. Of course I'm bitterly disappointed that we couldn't get to a PFS independently but in retrospect the writing was on the wall from the moment we first heard the 'certain key components' line in 2020. My expectation, and I could of course be wrong, is that we won't have an equity raise next but unfortunately Toral will no longer be wholly owned by EUZ, how that will be structured I haven't a clue.

We do need a PFS but we're not funded as we all know - the information shared by CJ from the AGM makes it clear that the work completed and planned will still contribute to a PFS in the hope that advanced workflows satisfy interested parties sufficiently for them to get on board and help fund it's completion. If CJ is looking in he might like to clarify, I don't want mis-represent what he said but it isn't the case that we don't have the money so a PFS is therefore cancelled, everything that has been done is for the benefit of a PFS for Toral, that hasn't changed. The problem for me is that because we haven't been able to get there independently, just how bad will the terms be for a partner to come on board. Personally I think the road has finally run out for further equity dilution, I suspect we are soon to hear the terms of the inevitable asset dilution. Whether that proves to be more palatable for shareholders I guess we're going to find out near term, unless something appears completely left field I can't really see any other course of events.

Bricks, interesting point, I wonder if the WA (PFS Managers) announcement (June 2021) came before they knew the deal was biting the dust or after? I would also be interested to know whether WAI are paid to be retained as PFS Managers over and above specific commissioned work. If this arrangement has been cancelled given that we aren't funded to deliver a PFS as things stand, then really it should be RNS'd. Certainly many questions to be answered and I think we're going to hear about a comprehensive shake up soon. It's an unavoidable fact that successfully progressing the practical operations within the current corporate structure just isn't working. I'll be disappointed if the next news is purely operational - mets, drill strategy etc, without any significant changes on the corp front.