Member Info for Shedulike

Okay a bore hole is not going to set the world alight in the market but getting water management right will be a key to getting a mining licence. There's a World Heritage Site just downstream so we have to prove their environment is in safe hands.

Does seem to be a concerted effort around the world to find alternatives to lithium so let's hope a zinc or lead battery technology does emerge as a contender. Only trouble is doing a quick search on the internet just about the only material that isn't being researched as far as I can tell is wood but it's probably only a matter of time :) In case you were wondering urine and sand is.

....... is probably our least discussed metal but has been quietly gaining all year, recently touched a three year high at $2,424.00/t, hopefully a long term trend and interesting when you think just $2099/t was used in the PEA. Easy to overlook that lead is currently 38.5% of projected revenue.

Cheers Sammy glad it helped - not advice obviously, just my thoughts.

Sammy lot's of progress. Successful Preliminary Economic Study, securing of CDTI grant / loan, IP renewal application rubber stamped, early indications from drilling campaign suggest a positive impact on early years economics. I'm also very encouraged by the engagement locally with government and education. Not everyone's cup of tea but critical if this is to become a reality. As you allude to the problem is the value event (four month anniversary today!), unless we get some positive funding news I can see yet another round of good ops failing to progress the mcap sadly. In the recent TP event LR did emphasise the 100 % ownership as well as highlighting the EU regeneration fund, I wonder if they see that as a way of ring fencing our asset at least until after a full FS. In other words why cough up a chunk of Toral if EU funds can take us further? That's the optimist in me speaking, a negative view would be that they're weighing up the merits of taking asset dilution now or considering another placing which could take us to point where JV terms would be more favourable. I think there are options but very difficult to call which way they will go, going to be interesting I think.

XRF analysis used by EUZ seen on BBC's 'Fake or Fortune' tonight - perhaps an allegory for Europa investors prospects :) Jedster bad luck you would probably have got a A*** if doing GCSE's - by the way I don't believe you are yet a failed investor as far as EUZ is concerned.

Disclaimer - I only got a C in my 'O'-level maths, can anyone with a brain for numbers confirm that 45 kilometres of drilling at a cost of 11m Euros does equate to €244.44 per metre?

Mm's not sure what you mean, or rather perhaps you misunderstood what I meant, one or the other :) I was just saying because they estimated that the 45k's of historic drilling by previous operators would have cost €11m in today's money we can perhaps simplistically equate that to a cost of €244.44 per m drilling in today's money which is considerably more that the €80 per m quoted in the 2017 RNS. That would also tally more closely with Myles comment that a deep drill to the bottom of our current resource boundary could cost $0.5m. It's academic anyway as we don't know how many metres we have drilled in this campaign to date though I have a rough idea on the first phase based on the cross-sections of drills.

The only thing is this figure doesn't square with the estimate of the acquired historical drilling (45, 000 meters+) working out today's prices as costing around €11M. That's much more expensive so perhaps €80m in 2017 didn't cover everything.

Wonder if we've been overestimating drilling costs. Stumbled on this from 2017 while looking for something else - "Access to all of the drill platforms is via existing roads and tracks. The diamond drilling contract is for a
minimum of 1,400m and a maximum of 2,100m and is expected to take up to three months to complete. The
drill cost is EUR80 per metre". This is SPI's contract with FCR at Toral.

Props I have it as a known unknown as I think we can take heart from the fact that WAI want to be associated with the resource as PFS Managers. If there was any chance that impurities could torpedo the economics I just don't think they'd be interested in being associated with the project at that level. Yes they'll be paid but I read somewhere that mining service providers have never been in more demand so they're certainly not kicking their heels waiting for a gig :) Could the 'value event' be an unknown unknown as we don't even know what it really purports to mean or in Rumsfeld speak something "we don't know we don't know"??? Hang on this is getting confusing!

This isn't just about the size of the resource. Tonnage on any scale is useless unless you have the metallurgy to prove the stuff is economically mineable. To date the grades and recovery results have been excellent and with the ore sorting we're well on the way to bringing in areas previously thought to be uneconomic. There is however one glaring omission and IMO that is full transparency on deleterious elements and by-products. I'm encouraged that WAI wanted to be PFS Manager as they know everything we will have to deal with at smelter but to paraphrase the late Donald Rumsfeld the resource is a 'known known' whereas potential smelter penalties are as yet a 'known unknown' but at least with WAI on board I think it is fair to assume they are not an 'unknown unknown' :) However this issue remains an unhelpful uncertainty and is a negative in the risk column.

Highside's dining habits laid bare.

Hot off the press - more grist to the mill of the growing picture of zinc as a practical alternative over lithium in energy storage. Nobody has to read this so please no agitated related links haters :)
https://wskg.org/news/researchers-identify-battery-alternative-to-slow-climate-change/

There you go antharry a 100 code, race you to a club in Oxford Street?

Wonder why they haven't taken it off the 'Corporate Structure'? Maybe just an oversight. Personally I think the ore in situ at Antonina could be a more attractive possibility given its proximity to our potential plant. Is there a clue in the latest video - 'Proposed Plant Site & Infrastructure'.

Good point that Bricks I was about to post the link 'Group Structure'.
http://www.europametals.com/site/corporate-information/group-structure
... when I noticed they still list Lago as a 100% owned project, didn't we rescind the licence or is my memory failing me?

Being AUS registered, UK listed didn't prevent us from getting the CDTI regional grant / loan, in the RNS they also mention the importance of the terms not making us ineligible for further grants - "Europa Metals anticipates that the Grant will enable the Company to apply for reductions in taxes payable relating mainly to labour costs and is satisfied that the terms of the Grant will not prevent the Company from participating in other grant application processes save where there is a specific technological overlap". I think just about every presentation mentions EU/Regional grants and LR talked about the EU Next Generation fund in the last webinar. I'm confident that this is evidence that we are eligible but of course I can't promise that we will be successful in our applications or that there won't be another placing. I would point out that avoiding another placing isn't only dependent on securing EU cash but we have AH and Conrad working on other options.

The only desperate thing I see is the hackneyed phrase 'lifestyle company' try and think of something original Roger. Also if you want to be taken seriously the suggestion that nothing is going on is just so ludicrous you're just making yourself look daft. Off the top of my head I can think of six respected service providers who would have to be complicit in a deception for that to have an ounce of truth in it. Stop and think before you post this rubbish.

No you're right milnrow I didn't but I think everyone knows what I think is possible here. I have always tried to address the reasons why the mcap is miserable and also stare the remaining risks in the face but remain positive nonetheless.