Member Info for Shedulike

I suppose sticking with the three year trailing average adds this 'robustness' that we keep hearing about. It's not inconceivable that the spot price could be below the trailing average when it comes to the PFS so it works both ways. Interesting in your post Bricks does it really say that Canada NI 43-101 reported reserves can be included in a PFS? As you know we had a copper resource under those rules as per the historic Micon report.

Would US$3,795-00 / t represent a 42% increase on the metrics used in the PEA? Will be interesting to see what the three year trailing average works out in the PFS.

Sure Bricks - not surprising with lead and zinc prices surging again. At the start of the pandemic I had concerns that deflated metal prices could sink us, what has actually happened is beyond remarkable. I don't simply mean higher commodity prices putting a gloss on our robust conservative economics but supply chain policy being given the biggest wake up call since WWII. I was at an event last week and since I haven't invoiced yet let alone been paid plus I had to sign a NDA I won't disclose what it was :) but rest assured the message was ESG, supply chain security etc, so much echoed what EUZ are shooting for, time for LR to deliver, certainly no excuses in the current climate.

Thanks Mm's - yes I have researched Zinkgruvan before as an interesting example of producing copper alongside Zn, Pb-Ag. As regards Bricks and Mm's comments I also think LR is far too cautious when presenting the public face of EUZ. I don't want to be too critical as I really appreciate that the comms are there. I think a b*llocking might have been handed out by Strand Hanson when EUZ were shouting about excellent 'visual mineralisation' before the assays were returned in 2019. They subsequently had to RNS that certain cores returned lower grades than expected and since then I think there has been an excessive caution which comes across particularly badly in interviews IMO.

I have in the past mfm and I know what the official line is, it's also in the RNS. I just wondered if anyone had an opinion on how we get from a modest indicated and inferred copper resource based on the Canadian National Instrument 43-101 standard in 2016 to nothing five drilling campaigns later despite consistently hitting good grades while infilling the Peñarroya and Lundin drilling? Yes the JORC is a more stringent method of reporting but I would have thought the improved mapping would have mitigated that and given us something despite the intersections being of modest width. I just have a suspicion that there's more to this than meets the eye and might have something to do with considering the 'technical partner' but I guess until we hear otherwise as LR will tell us AMS didn't give us a copper resource and that's that.

Sure Bricks completely get that in terms of investing capital in say Cu metallurgy which would have been an additional expense over the years but having paid for and received the assays from ALS and having paid AMS for the JORC I'm just a bit bemused that they haven't announced an inferred Cu resource however small. The money has been spent on investigating copper as a resource (admittedly as a sideshow to the more prolific metals) if not the processes to subsequently extract it even though I agree we are obviously targeting our more important Zn, Pb and Ag. Also with primary copper deposits becoming scarcer, mines like Toral with copper as small part of the portfolio will become increasingly strategically important.

Yeah I saw that Bricks, reminds me of a question I had that wasn't answered. WAI have had metallurgical samples from this zone since April, are they really only now commencing this phase of metallurgy? Another thing I don't get is that in 2016 we had a small indicated and inferred copper resource in the Micon NI 43-101 Technical Report. Five years on we have had one soil sampling investigation and I think five drilling campaigns all recovering good grades of copper but while the JORC is more rigorous than the 'foreign estimate' I really can't fathom why we don't at least have an inferred Cu JORC resource under those higher standards. They have said "With the presence of copper in the system, the Company is now considering third party technical options to further understand the potential benefits to Toral", suggesting the intersections are significant enough to interest a third party. I've just always felt there is more to this copper than we're being told, could it be the key to unlocking some funding, some sort of technical partnership with an option on the copper perhaps?

Ha ha very good tsbs - now you've made me post to show I'm not offended, we'll probably crash - on your head be it!

Interesting that one of the two 'Funding Organisations' that have agreed to allocate national/regional budgets for the ERA-MIN Joint Call 2021 in Spain is the CDTI.

Interesting article though which I have now read and it does mention the 'halo effect' which I have heard in relation to Toral's copper, so I'm not sure why a porphyry was ruled out. I liked this though, "On the other hand, you might have a deposit with 0.3% and even 0.2% copper with positive economics if the deposit is close to the surface and in an area with access to good infrastructure such as electricity, gas, water, rail, and port". We have an intersection of 0.93% at 225m in TO-32 (1.5% in TO-24) and are close to infrastructure plus with all our other products proven as viable to mine, it's just a shame that these intersections are considered too limited to get Cu into the JORC. Strange thing is virtually every time we drill we seem to hit the stuff with high grades but I guess they're saying the widths of the intersections are insufficient.

DDHammer I don't have a complete understanding of the copper at Toral but I have been told that it isn't a porphyry deposit. I guess we can only conclude that there is a reason that they have always dampened the significance of Cu, most probably because the significant quantities are years away. That begs the question for me what do we do with the traces that we do mine in the early years? Is it just discarded as waste or will we conduct a metallurgical programme between now and production to work out how we extract it with the other products? Lot's of questions as ever.

Jed I think as we all know the SP just can't progress until funding is put to bed, the recent surge and fall back on the JORC is enough evidence. As we stand total revenue is $962m on signed off independent analysis, not profit. So we have to be realistic until a new economic report comes with the PFS. The numbers will improve particularly with the critical break even point. With the potential of Toral and genuine evidence of in country support I think the risk / reward play here is extraordinary, not a recommendation for anyone to put hard earned at risk but just my thoughts as an investor happy with a position that could grow significantly but as I hope everyone knows could go to zilch in a heartbeat. By the way I've never taken the popular line that this has anything to do with the AIM, this market is not responsible for the merits of outfits who launch IPO's most of which whither into dust particularly in this sector. I think this is a battered stock that will reward the faithful but am positioned for an outcome that I don't expect, wouldn't blame anyone going all out balls on the line.

'Statler and Waldorf'? Didn't recognise the reference so I Googled it and I think we have the cultural credentials of Highside laid bare - Muppet reference by a Muppet poster, outdated, low brow and lame.

Cheer up Pete, in the near term I wouldn't rule out the equivalent of going from a 5p compostable Co-op bag to a 10p reusable Tesco bag. Maybe after the PFS we can start dreaming of a Waitrose bag for life.

Valueit I think you're way off the mark on 'semantics', what on earth has this to do with the subtle interpretations of words???, this is pretty much the antithesis of semantics - it's facts, duplicity and credibility but I guess in this age when a born liar who had to be sacked for making up stories while working for The European now runs the country then who gives a t*ss. If somebody wants to pour scorn on the investment case for EUZ when they have previously stated they recently bought in and topped up then I will point it out, that has absolutely nothing to do with semantics. I have said since the initial refusal to give timelines on the drilling campaign that Coronavirus was a convenient excuse not to commit, or even provide guidance. Now that most of the op's are in I think it's inexcusable not to guide on the PFS delivery with caveats for unexpected winter flare ups of the pandemic so nobody can accuse me of being a cheerleader for the company. I regularly address the risks here and they're not all down to funding but it's a case of risk / reward and personally while always being prepared to lose everything in high risk junior explorer I think the potential in the success case is off the graph from where our mcap stands today. In the meantime I stand by my right to point out the duplicitousness of the liars that lurk on this board, if only because it amuses me while we wait to find out if our Exec's move the ball forward with a more creative funding mechanism than the usual.

Madness or a bad memory? "Oh and by the way i now hold a small amount". Highside, 21 Jul 2021.

Interesting Mm's, I couldn't tell you when I last looked at Jesús' website but I distinctly remember that whenever it was, Toral wasn't featured, so good to see his company Mining Sense regarding it as a feather in their cap. On just under 10 mins into the 'Fireside Chat' LR mentions that Jesús contacted him to say that 4 environmental impact licences have recently been granted for mining projects in CyL. Yes that's not us yet but I'm reassured that we have top class locals representing us in-country and when this is definitively proved to be a feasible project we'll have the best possible team to get it licensed.

Interesting video presentation - they anticipated finding mineralised widths of 2-3m off the decline and hit 20+ , sounds like the early years will be revolutionised. Also interesting that MAGMA consultants have completed an independent study to demonstrate the employment and economic value of Toral to the region, they were originally commissioned in 2019 for a change in land use application before I believe the processes changed. Anyway surely useful work when it comes to the mining licence but also grant applications I would have thought.

Of course you have options ziquarat - if you still believe EUZ will be a success it would make sense to hold or if you are confident then buy more at these levels well below DB's last investment, if you don't then rescue the 25% of your capital that remains and run. I notice after the JORC you were bemoaning the fact that we're just seeing more numbers and no production, well here's a bombshell - we still haven't definitively proven that we have a mine, production is years away. Nobody is trapped, take the loss if you don't think it will come good, 75% down could be 100% down, no logic in leaving your reduced capital at risk if you don't foresee a positive outcome.

With the right funding news I don't think it is unrealistic for this to 5 bag in a heartbeat, then I would expect continuing op's to at long last progress the SP incrementally. It does look like the model is to deliver a Pb Zn Ag mine that will break even very early but fascinatingly with the potential to evolve into a Cu project. I admit I don't fully understand what copper will mean in years 1-12 as it does sound like they see the real potential for Cu at depth, how often have we heard about the thrusting shoots that are unexplored and TP refer to copper 'feeders'? I'm imaging the ' separate thermal event' to be some kind of magmatic eruption leaving copper traces all the way to the surface, the 'halo effect' mentioned maybe, but the richer deposit being deep. The intriguing thing is we have almost delivered a de-risked 12 year mine but nothing is closed off beyond that.