Member Info for Shedulike

Just looked it up - E.S.B. (good quiz question).

I don't disagree that this is high risk Grappa but really whether you describe the capital you have at risk being exposed as a 'punt' or a 'high risk investment' doesn't really make much difference. IMO the truth behind our situation is more nuanced. As a project the fact is we are massively much less risky than we were before the SS. Think about it - no indicated resource, no metallurgy, no hydrology, no Geotech, no PEA so nil evidence that Toral could actually be economically mined - so operationally to use your analogy Grappa I believe we have successfully cleared many obstacles in the Grand National, in fact with flying colours. On this basis alone project Toral is much less of a risk / punt than it once was - the big problem and the failure of management is that we are now running on empty, we've cleared the practical obstacles but we're labouring towards the 'Elbow' with next to nothing in the tank and we don't know if there is any prospect of any oats in the nosebag later. I know any positivity isn't proving terribly popular at the moment but I do think there is a danger of losing sight of what has been achieved. Having said that I acknowledge that mismanagement of the corporate side has put us in danger of doing a Devon Loch and for all the practical obstacles we have overcome there is a risk of fluffing it on the run in and leaving the prize to a competitor.

No need to wonder if Toral is a 'goer' as you put it Highside. Yes they have failed to close a deal but don't blur that with its viability as an ongoing project. Just refer to the latest RNS ""Our work relating to hydrogeology and the local environment is ongoing, but this study supports our decision to press ahead with the planned 2022 drilling campaign. This campaign will commence in the New Year and involve both resource drilling and a series of shallow geotechnical drilling". So I think you go too far in saying that "Everything about the future of Toral and EUZ is pure speculation". I do agree though that as we we wait for clarity on the new corporate strategy that this element of the business needs to be communicated swiftly and clearly. The bottom line for me is that if Toral didn't have a future it would be madness for DB to have put more cash in, as for other projects the only means we have to diversify is the value we hold in Toral as an increasingly de-risked resource. If Toral didn't have the potential to be a viable mine DB would be gone and the new investors wouldn't be wasting their time with us, in other words we'd already be dead. There's no way professional investors are thinking what the hell let's just chuck in another bunch of our clients money on the off-chance of a miracle. I'm not saying these facts prove that we are guaranteed to have a successful outcome, obviously there are still risks for all of us even if the COS is much brighter for the new 5p investors than beleaguered LT PI's.

Have to agree that the mets are a bit of a mystery Bricks, not least that in Dec 19 over two years ago we were told that the second phase metallurgy would include "Full testing for deleterious elements and by-products", where did that get to? I believe CJ received some reassurances on the subject at the AGM though. It's also disappointing that we haven't yet incorporated the latest JORC into a presentation but I wonder if an updated presentation, when it comes, will look very different. Certainly we need some flesh on the bones of the new strategy asap.

Perhaps it is Schrödinger’s cat in that until we know the value of the distribution the dividend should be considered both alive and dead simultaneously :)

My best guess is that following the announcement of the ambitious Hydrogen strategy some influential investors have become concerned that funding it could swallow up the proceeds from the assets to be sold. This statement is a positive signal for me that a relatively small portion of net sale proceeds will be required to supplement existing cash to advance EUA2. What that means in terms of a distribution after the advisors have been paid is anyone's guess but nothing would surprise me between 25-125p per share, any lower I will be both surprised and disappointed, higher and I will be amazed and ecstatic! Just my honest thoughts, not trying to vex anyone with the low end of my expectations :)

Props I understand the cynicism over this I just don't believe they dreamt it up, partly for the reasons I have already outlined but also because I don't think it's realistic to believe that the Nomad would be complicit in it, particularly as they have subsequently reiterated the policy. Strand Hanson don't depend on EUZ and I think it's highly unlikely that they'd risk their reputation over a company that must contribute a tiny % to their coffers. My personal concerns are not that there is a lack of interest in Toral but converting that into fair value for shareholders, hopefully beefing up the corp side will help with this.

Hi Bricks I guess they would say it was a statement of strategy which they have of course reiterated. For the record I agree that it shouldn't have been RNS'd which was my conclusion as soon at it was evident that a 'value event' wasn't going to swiftly follow the original statement. I do believe a deal was on the table, Toral is an attractive asset and it is logical to believe there is interest in it. My concern is that the other party could have pushed their luck playing hardball and given our precipitous cash position how is that going to change in 2022?

Hi CJ & Brikz - let's hope for better in 2022. With regards to the deal that fell through they're simply not going to disclose the details so that's a bit of a blind alley IMO. If we did know exactly what unfolded would it reveal whether we were unfortunate, badly served by an advisor or simply incompetent? Who knows but the other party will have been under an NDA so as an agreement wasn't reached we're never going to be privy to the machinations of what happened. I read that you have reduced Brikz which is probably pragmatic given events, I haven't and am hoping to increase below 5p but that depends on events elsewhere. Going into 2022 I remain positive that we have a valuable asset that LR and MC have competently advanced as a proven and increasingly de-risked resource. Sadly nobody needs reminding that they have monumentally failed to convert that into shareholder value, I think we'll get early indications this year if they've at last got the right people around them to help in these shortcomings.

What I find perplexing is that when we hit a SP in high in Oct 2020 there was a generally accepted wisdom that vaccines would knock testing stone dead. Even a spokesman from our own Nomad was openly conceding that NCYT was operating in a 'window' that would be closed off with a successful vaccine. We now know that not to be the case and although our first mover advantage has long gone the outlook for Covid diagnostics seems to be changing from when will it end to will it ever end? For that reason I just don't get why we seem to be valued on the basis that earnings could go into freefall at a moments notice. Guess the market is and always will be imperfect in valuing companies otherwise there wouldn't be trading opportunities, the mcap here looks ridiculously low to me but for whatever reason I don't think regulated news flow from management is helping.

Might be one for Dan Smith, though I think it's 4-30am in Perth :) Just looking at the numbers I can't believe only 765,000 votes were cast in favour of LR in addition to DB (assuming they voted in favour). Regardless of his unpopularity on this forum he was complicit in giving large investors millions of shares at 5p so it just isn't realistic that none of them backed him IMO. So my theory is that they counted the votes against but only had to count perhaps the two largest blocks in favour in order to carry the motion. On that basis there would have been 14 proxies that voted net against which doesn't sound much but remember many of us that returned voting forms would have been represented by the same broker. Have to admit I'm no expert on this which I'm sure is blindingly obvious to everyone, I'm just going on layman's logic. I'm sure Dan Smith will be able to clear it up if anyone is troubled by it.

No probably not a coincidence as I suspect they only count a small number of the largest blocks of votes sufficient to carry the motion. In the case of the re-electing of LR there are only 765K votes in addition to DB's holding counted. Look at the next motion" Approval to issue the Second Fundraising Shares", there are exactly the same number of votes for as in the LR re-election. It's extremely unlikely that every single shareholder who voted would have casted their votes in this way though I accept that the vast majority of shareholders who voted for LR would have supported the second motion. Also consider the latest fundraising - "The Fundraising has raised, in aggregate, gross proceeds of £1.5 million through the placing of 19,527,920 Placing Shares to certain institutional and other investors and a subscription by certain other investors directly with the Company of a further 10,472,080 Subscription Shares in each case at a price of 5 pence per share". Thirteen million of the first placing shares admitted to trading 1 Nov weren't DB so did only 765 thousand vote for LR or 3m vote against. With these figures I'm assuming that the placing shares that were admitted from 1 Nov are eligible for voting but even if I'm wrong about that the numbers suggest that they only count the first few blocks of supportive votes to carry the motion. The only other explanation is that DB didn't vote for or against but I find that very unlikely.

This has come as a bit of a shock - can some one post a link to the announcement that we have closed the roofing and exteriors business plus the the fit-out elements of the interiors other than insulation? Perhaps they'll RNS it in the morning :)

Ha ha Saintsmith, not sure if you're joking but just in case the brochure is for DNA extraction products with amongst other things veterinary applications.

Thanks Highside - straight answer. I don't think all is lost but am naturally extremely disappointed that a value event was floated only to wither on the vine. I'm on record last spring as saying they had approx two months to deliver following the RNS before serious questions would be asked and as we all know the answer came eventually in the form of another equity raise RNS. So my respect for LR and MC has taken a dent but given the op's success I couldn't see the point in shaking up management with another drill programme round the corner and I voted for the status quo on the understanding that they have faced up to the corporate shortcomings and are taking the right advice. I'm hoping that will be formalised with an impressive Board appointment rather than another advisor. I don't want anyone to make the mistake that I'm not highly critical of how things have panned out to date but having decided that there is still potential for a positive outcome I don't see the point of relentlessly wringing my hands on here but fully understand if others want to - there is no shortage of justifiable gripes after all. Just one last point for balance - it does seem to have become the accepted wisdom on here that we were told that we were funded for the "Major parts" of the PFS but if you refer to the Aug 2020 RNS they actually said "The net proceeds from the Fundraising will primarily be utilised towards completion of certain key components of a Pre-Feasibility Study". Yep "Certain key components", they didn't even commit to most key components so really the funding gap was always there and to be fair it was regularly discussed throughout the year. Having said that I find it very deflating that yet another raise will still not get us over the line.

Just out of interest Highside does 'a while ago' mean you that you kissed your cash goodbye while still posting as BB? If so I'd be interested to know why you re-invented yourself as Highside and then declared that you had taken a position, quickly followed by news of a top-up? As you are criticising so called rampers can you explain what motivated you to increase your position relatively recently, was it simply down to "Morbid curiosity"?

Merry Christmas Mailgirl and all genuine posters. LR tells me your Christmas card arrived this morning Bricks :)

Calamari with respect to the dead, if they are all indeed deceased I believe that their participation to be more than 'unlikely'.

Interesting Temuchin - did something similar when we all had positive PCR's in October. My wife had all the symptoms so slam dunk Covid - out of interest we did a LFT the same day (I'll just say from a German multinational as I'm sure they have expensive layers :)), returned a firm negative. Bit of a concern when so many events are asking for LFT's as 'proof' of non infection.

I wonder if the retrace was partly down to de-risking given the Ukraine situation? On a positive note I see VanEck have taken a substantial stake in Petropavlovsk, that wouldn't have happened without some serious risk assessing so encouraging that their analysts aren't afraid of exposure to Russia.