European Metals Share Discussion Threads

[luisfrg] 25/4/2017 12:28

Surely this has to bounce !and I mean upwards....

[runthejoules] 25/4/2017 08:43

If management are reading, please do talk to BCN about how to work with them to bring down production costs across Cinovec/Zinnwald!

[luisfrg] 25/4/2017 08:13

Recovery on it's way!

[vegabaja] 24/4/2017 11:42

Think you mean daytraders out?

[runthejoules] 24/4/2017 10:39

*Head in hands* why didn't I take some weight off at 61p?? Far too high too fast! Institution in, PIs out?

[luisfrg] 24/4/2017 08:49

Up she goes! Very volatile up 8% now up 1% wth

[runthejoules] 24/4/2017 08:21

Only read half of it, but seems good to me (apart from a couple of typos!) Do not understand why the share price is down again this morning. Hopefully when a few more brokers have actually had chance to read it...

[5chipper] 24/4/2017 07:47

Very kind of them to do such thorough research and make it available free of charge

[luisfrg] 24/4/2017 07:11

RN at 7am




So what...what's new here?????

[james_jones] 24/4/2017 07:02

Research report released: www.europeanmet.com

[diesel] 21/4/2017 16:00

Was that spike when the US markets opened?

[luisfrg] 21/4/2017 15:55

Strong finish 💪🏼

[rafboy] 21/4/2017 15:29

Next week should see us back in the 60s with luck.

[bountyhunter] 21/4/2017 15:15

yes couldn't be kept down for ever :)

[myst1] 21/4/2017 14:47

Here we go. Big buys coming in now!

[bountyhunter] 21/4/2017 14:36

yes absolutely, I'm just going to ignore short term volatility as the fundamental story remains the same here and the demand for lithium is likely to increase significantly - the longer term chart trend here still looks intact and rising

[rafboy] 21/4/2017 14:31

Yes, agree myst1, the market has got this wrong and hopefully other PIs will see this soon. You cannot alter the fact that we have significant lithium in situ and car manufacterers nearby. There has to be some sinergy there at the very least. Anyway demand for lithium is only on the increase so ours will be needed.

[dvsfm] 21/4/2017 14:22

Totally agree MYST1

[myst1] 21/4/2017 14:12

Disagree robert.

IMO his only negative is that he plays down things a little too much. This PFS is too conservative and at the moment the market has got it wrong. I think the share price will be a lot higher after the Proactive Investor session next week, which will clarify the issues in the PFS.

[bookwormrobert] 21/4/2017 13:54

Well, Keith Coughlan does seem to realise that he has made several horrible mistakes in the last few weeks. But I think this self-knowledge has come too late. I believe that he needs to be replaced with a more experienced professional who has experience of taking a mine through funding and into production. It will be no easy task given only a 21% IRR and a very high capex. If Keith Coughlan is left in place, I'd give the mine only a 30% chance of making it into production.

[myst1] 21/4/2017 13:35

Post by Simon Said on the LSE below. This answers my question regarding the increased production costs due to less tin credit. Very interesting. I think the market has over reacted and not understood the PFS and the expansion study will prove that. This is a great buying opportunity!..............

I got a fast and detailed response to my email to KC this morning:

'Thank you for your mail.

I too am a little distressed by the share price reaction to the PFS.

Let me explain the 2 issues you highlight –

The cost of production in the PFS is higher than the scoping study for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, all costs have risen dramatically across the boards. Attached is a chart that was used around the time of the scoping study showing ORE and SQM with a cost of $ 2,000/tonne. Compare that with today and SQM is showing $ 3,000 and ORE around $ 3,500. What is more important is our cost of production relative to the others. At this level we will be the lowest cost hard rock producer and comparable with the brines. That is certainly significant.

Secondly, and relevant to your tin comment – the scoping study was based on mining the Cinovec South part of the deposit. That was because of the then relative metal prices – tin @ 22,500 and LCE @ 6,500. The South has not been mined of tin at all, so more tin and therefore a higher contribution to the bottom line. When the decision was made re the PFS, tin was 14,000 and LCE 8,500 and heading up. It was therefore decided to base the PFS on the higher grade, shallower lithium zones in Cinovec Main (the north). The tin has been mined here so less tin credit and lower contribution to the bottom line. The positive is we produce more lithium per tonne of rock mined…. Trade off.

We didn’t set out at the beginning of the PFS to limit the study to a percentage of the resource

That's not the way it works. You set parameters on mining and production target based upon what seems reasonable at that time which ultimately translates into a percentage of your resource. Don't forget we had 2 significant resource upgrades during the PFS.

We will do an expansion study as part of the next phase which will indicate the economics of a greater production target, Certainly it would seem that the market will take a lot more end product!

I am planning on another Proactive Investor session next week to clarify these issues.'

[rafboy] 21/4/2017 13:12

Well, at least it looks like we have found the bottom!

[myst1] 21/4/2017 11:40

HP,

I have emailed Keith this morning.

IR? It won't harm if you contact them too?