Hi Emma, If the T/H included "use of facilities agreement" as...

Hi Emma,

If the T/H included "use of facilities agreement" as well as the "off-take" agreement then it would be absolutely fantastic but I think that's not realistic at this stage.

Going on what was announced and what was said at the AGM, these two agreements are very separate and IMO it's in BMB's best interest to keep them separate.
Please also keep in mind that no one will sign a fully binding off-take agreement until they know exactly what they are buying. At this stage the Co has not announced the coal parameters to us and washability tests the way they did for Nowa Ruda. Therefore, I doubt that we will see an off-take agreement in the forthcoming announcement.
I hope you are right and I'm wrong but at least IMO it's unlikely to get a binding off-take agreement (unless it's just an MoU).

As I've said it in my previous posts, I believe that the "Use of facilities agreement" (UFA) is of major significance to us. Not only will it substantially decrease our CAPEX, it will also put our foot in the Tauron's door.

Look at it this way; if Tauron signes the UFA and then doesn't take our coal, how will they manage their own coal deliveries and unloading?
It would be a logistical and costly nightmare to differentiate between theirs and our coal and to deal with transport issues. In fact I don't think that their facilities are big enough to accommodate our 3Mt export and their nearly 2Mt import.

This is why I see the UFA as a major step towards in getting Mariola into production.

Just like you I hope that the increased JORC and hopefully the UFA will help to underpin the value of Mariola and increase the SP support level but I'm certainly not expecting the SP at the levels you've mentioned until the "off-take_ and the PFS are completed (which supposedly should be finalised in the next couple of months).