Ann: Quarterly Cashflow Report, page-7

Quote - "Further out CZL would like to aim for a new treatment plant that has twice the capacity, but that will be dependent upon continued exploration success and the expansion of resources

So how will it fund this development given that it has less than $1m in the bank? A near term share issue is on the cards but it won’t fund the development alone. Trade finance will also be looked at with CZL believing it can raise 50% of the costs through prepayment of concentrates".

as previously stated the big consolidation did nothing but dilute SH's holdings and "wealth" at that time - but yes it may have had to be done.

but since that time there have been multiple CR's and the shares on issue creeping back up there and appears that the top SH's are the ones buying any share issues - thus preserving their "wealth" and the rest of SH's that don't participate are being slowly but surely having their holdings reduced to rubble.

it is obvious (IMO) that the share organisation you have mentioned in your post (and the link to the article doesn't appear to be working for me) have been approached in order to try and get traction happening. In fact I was a little bemused that the writer was aware of CZL but had never met management - until they had dropped in to see him (from what I can determine from the article) - what does that tell me??? as I would've have thought it may have been more expedient for the writer to have dropped into the company's offices as no doubt there would have been substantial information that could have been provided there (but I could have my thinking wrong on this aspect).

yes they have changed tact on a number of occasions regarding the issue of getting the mine up and running, spent dollars elsewhere, state that they are going big or going home and then backflip and look at getting the mine going and scaling up as funds permit - which should IMO have been followed through in the first instance as it made sense (unless there were other factors we were not made aware of).

look IMO this is reflective to some extent of the ANN's of newera and we SH's (IMO) at that time lost there because the ANN's (go back and read them) were vague and some may say misleading. Now this is a new management team on board but the direction ATM being provided is confusing the market as was the case with newera.

the situation with the Mexican "partners" did not help the situation IMO as again it was pretty vague as to what actually did happen BUT moreso a poster previously mentioned that the ownership in the project was a "moving" target - it was confusing to know exactly how much was owned due to apparent conflicting reports that were released over time.

anyhow long story short - it appears that there may be some "urgency" in getting funds sorted thus the approach to the Far East people - but am wondering why other high profile organisations were not contacted as well. Also they are hoping to get some funds (50% of costs) up front by getting "customers" to prepay for product - hmmm I know what I would be saying if I was a customer and was asked for a prepayment. and 50% of costs - that's high.

so in my opinion this could still go either way but the vague funding statements, the continual backflip as to how the project is to be developed and other issues create an uneasiness within me. Would obviously like to see this succeed.

all IMO so DYOR and form your own opinions.