Member Info for Shedulike

Props I agree he has the right to post an alternative view but where I think it is factually wrong I will say so. Grappa (see my previous post) I would urge you not to back off. Pointing out when someone is plain wrong is not shooting them down, I have never wanted to chase anybody off this board - imagine even if I wanted to it would be utterly futile! I think people mistake a disagreement for intolerance, perhaps its the nature of a bulletin board and an overspill from social media generally, find a post where I have told Highside for example to get lost. I just don't get why people feel under attack when they are challenged. Let's see what Laurence has to say this afternoon.

Highside do what you like but if you post inaccuracies about a company I am invested in then I will continue to point it out, sorry if that makes you feel under attack. I can't be held responsible for your sensitivities.

Roger I respect your right to post what you think about EUZ but the old LSE favourite 'lifestyle company' comment really is very lame. There is an awful lot going on and the Directors take salaries well under AIM averages plus have taken cuts in return for options, I still think their pay is generous given the SP performance, I would particularly like some evidence of what MC does for his 100K, however to say this is a sham is utterly ridiculous and reflects badly on your credibility.

Highside there is a pattern forming here - you post something inaccurate, I point it out and then you claim you didn't mean it and feel attacked, this is all starting to feel very familiar. Building a smelter and manufacturing facilities for our products would never be expected to be included in CAPEX, that must be obvious to everyone except you. I have never believed in reincarnation but now I'm starting to wonder........

Tilly I think it is simply that you are accusing a powerful institution with very expensive lawyers of skulduggery and that makes LSE nervous. IMO they are publishers and deep down they know it, eventually all these platforms whether Twitter or Facebook will have to accept they are not simply conduits of opinion. I think there will eventually be a legal test case to demonstrate this and they will have to take responsibility for their content. Of course that is going to be complex and expensive so they will resist as long as possible and muddle by as here deleting your observations to be on the safe side or in the more extreme example of Twitter retrospectively deleting ****** Tweets that they provided the soap box to become public in the first place. Discuss :)

Littleathena - funky theory but how can a single poster debate between "thesmelves" (sic)?

Lor I was only looking in on my phone for most of yesterday so perhaps missed your post, I don't disagree with your post this morning except I would be careful with the translation of 'alternative development of mining areas'. I just believe that if person A thinks person B's post or link is irrelevant say why or posit an alternative view. Pointless just saying it shouldn't be posted because someone doesn't like it or it irritates them, my message to posters who think that way is to grab the agenda, push their opinion and even if I disagree I won't resort to telling them to go away.

Grappa don't be silly three posters don't rule the board. If you feel your views are being 'shot down' explain why you think they are valid - it's a debate for goodness sake. This went on for years with Bobby, believe it or not I often agreed with him but the moment I pointed out where I thought he was wrong we had the bleating about being 'shouted down' rather than reasserting the argument. Here's an up to date example. Highside has criticised EUZ for not having a smelter - I've pointed out how ridiculous it is to expect EUZ to have their own smelter - is that shooting Highside down to try and 'rule' the board or just introducing some facts to the debate? Should I stand by and say oh yes EUZ don't have a smelter how awful we're stuffed or point out that the plan was always to use Glencore's? In any case if anyone was trying to control content yesterday it was HIghside telling Moneymakers to go over to ADVFN. What do you think about that?

"Without a smelter or production facilities". Good grief, Europa has never planned to have it's own smelter, they cost around $1B to build so smaller producers have to factor into their economic plan the royalties and possible impurity penalties of using a multi-nationals, the most likely candidate was always Glencore's smelter on the north coast but there have been mutterings about a state of the art smelter in the region but it wouldn't be dedicated to just Toral but probably Varsican, maybe Emerita as well to benefit. As for production facilities, are you expecting EUZ to be manufacturing products from our minerals???

Probably best not to choose a public bulletin board if you wanted a private conversation Highside. I think it is reasonable to interpret telling Mm's to 'take a week off', accusing him / her of 'brainwashing' and to open another account elsewhere as amounting to telling the poster to er... post elsewhere? I'd love to see your case argued in court :) Anyway that's my last as these things can get tit for tat, I offer you the floor for a comeback but I hope its better than the last one.

Really is little point trying to act as a gatekeeper on what should or shouldn't be posted. Say what you think of Mm's posts and explain why you think they aren't helpful as forcibly as is allowed Highside but I don't see what gives you the right to tell Mm's to post elsewhere. If you think they're breaking any rules why not report them and see if the site managers agree?

Morning all, while I don't mind a bit of speculation I think we should be wary about expecting too much before the presentation. I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be an announcement but we have been here before many times. Not for one minute saying don't speculate, we should all be big enough to mange our own expectations and deal with any possible disappointment without blaming more positive or enthusiastic posters but one obvious point is that there are three other companies presenting - Orosur, Cora and Ironridge, I wouldn't have thought LR has asked them to fit around his big announcement. Having said that we're obviously still awaiting VE Day, value event or Victory for Europa Day?? Alternatively perhaps some metallurgy or ore sorting results might drop or nowt, will be interesting if they're taking questions on a number of fronts.

Does appear that a picture is emerging of some kind of partnership with the authorities. Not sure it will be 'signed over' to the EU Mm's but just my best guess would be an arrangement with the Junta. I think I've mentioned this before but I believe in terms of independence from the state the Spanish regions rank second only to the political structure in Germany. Unique times but I still can't quite see how wholesale nationalisation would work or be palatable in a modern economy, more likely a public / private partnership is my stab in the dark for what it's worth.

I think it was simply that Vox announced it first as per Teaye's link, hopefully something new to explain all these governmental engagement Tweets but expectations that an event will mark a milestone tends not to materialise. Could be different this time?

I know this is a "If I had a pound for every time......" comment but combined with the earlier Tweet I wonder if an announcement is coming before the presentation. History would probably suggest not but I do think if the implications of the first Tweet have any relevance to EUZ there should be a clarification of the direction we're going in.

Mm's this is certainly intriguing - just reading through the questions on the second slide and I'm left wondering if this is a strong indication of a public / private partnership. Last week I was contemplating the scale of potential EU grants - could it be we see a small targeted environmental grant - for instance here's €?m to help restore the quarries. Seemed more likely than throwing say the CAPEX figure at us which might politically look reckless IMO, but perhaps it wouldn't if the nation state owned a share of the asset? We hear so much about commodity security and question 7 interpreted in the most extreme sense is suggestive of nationalisation. Personally I think some kind of integrated partnership is more likely but it looks like we're going into territory almost unimaginable pre-pandemic.

Has anyone emailed LR to fix that yet - as it could cause some embarrassment :)

Obviously we're in a period in which there are question marks over the funding to complete the PFS and prepare a BFS so really I wouldn't completely counter anyone who wants to raise doubts on this subject. I believe we do have suitors and nothing can be said to disprove that anymore than I can disprove the assertion that we don't, except to say we have an active data room with multiple NDA's signed. My thoughts at this moment are that there is an awful lot of EU cash available and really until they know the extent of the support we might receive why would you jump into bed with someone yielding a share of the asset only to find later that we could have gone it alone? Of course a grant may not be on the scale of the CAPEX but the further we can go alone the better IMO, bigger asset, lower risk, better deal for us should we go JV.

Top hole Brickz! - great that they chose to highlight us out of the whole of Castilla y León which by area is the largest autonomous region in Spain. Good indicator of our in-country profile.

Mm's are you reading it as EU lead rather than EU Pb? I think it's the latter or we've dropped a metal :) I do think it's interesting that he's describing it as a 'new' project, what is new about the project? Just sounds like a ring of confidence or perhaps an increased level of certainty?