Adrian Hargrave, CEO of SEEEN, explains how the new funds will accelerate customer growth Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
For a couple of months now, a small group of us have been preparing a resolution to be put to shareholders to vote on at the upcoming AGM to be held most likely in June or July. The resolution we would like to vote on is aimed at ending the current period of stagnation during which we are neither developing Monchetundra or making any tangible progress in the asset sale.
The resolution reads as follows:
“To commit the Company to continued development of its Monchetundra license area and end the current ‘care and maintenance’ approach, notwithstanding a binding or non-binding offer to purchase this asset having been announced to the market within the next 6 months.”
In order to add this resolution to be voted on at the AGM, investors holding a collective total of 144 million shares (representing 5% of the issued share capital of the Company) need to request this resolution be added to the meeting agenda.
If you support the idea of this resolution being put to shareholders for a vote, please copy and paste the email which will follow in the next message to info@eurasiamining.co.uk and copy in the Company’s solicitor (Simmons & Simmons) at the following email address: felix.zimmermann@simmons-simmons.com
There is no guarantee that we will generate the numbers required to succeed in adding this resolution to the agenda, but given the support we have received so far we believe it is possible. Some feedback we have had is that people would prefer to wait until the 8th May Kosvinsky Kamen EGM has been and gone before taking any action. This is understandable, but please bear in mind in order to add the resolution to the AGM it must be received by the Company at least 6 weeks prior to the date of the meeting, so if you support the idea of shareholders being able to vote on this proposal, you will need to send the email before 12th May. We believe there is no harm in sending the email now; if the KK AGM does yield anything tangible, there is still no harm in adding a resolution to the AGM to be voted on at the end of June or in July.
PLEASE NOTE that in the email there are two sections (those in bold and Caps Lock) which you will need to edit and personalise before hitting send, to add your total shareholding and the name of broker(s) through which you hold your shares.
We realise there is no way to copy the email from this group. It will also be posted in the EUA Daily Digest group, in the smaller Eurasia Mining chat group, and also on LSE for people to copy from. Alternatively just DM me and I’m happy to forward it on to you privately. The wording of the email will follow in the next message. The wording of the resolution must be exactly the same in each email for it to count towards the 5% threshold.
To whom it may concern
As a Shareholder in Eurasia Mining holding TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND shares through the broker HARGREAVES LANSDOWN, I am writing to notify you that I would like to exercise my right under the Companies Act 2006 to request a resolution be added to this year’s upcoming Annual General Meeting. The proposed resolution reads as follows:
“To commit the Company to continued development of its Monchetundra license area and end the current ‘care and maintenance’ approach, notwithstanding a binding or non-binding offer to purchase this asset having been announced to market within the next 6 months"
Although I do not own the 5% of the issued share capital to force this action as an individual member, I would like my shareholding to be added to the tally of other requisition requests for the same resolution, assuming these collectively reach the 5% threshold.
Whilst I appreciate the sentiment behind this, would it not be a foolish thing to do if the company is unable to sell the already mined resources due to increased cash burn?
Pwlx, we had funding to the end of Q1, the tax refunds (staged payments) funds us to the end of the year. We still haven’t had any updates on a buyer assets or concentrates and you want to commit the bod to spending the money we need to survive. So if we commit to this spent how do you address the money running out at the end of the year?
Having looked at the KK accounts we believe the company has since sold some of the PGM stockpile from 2022. Satellite imagery shows the company clearly preparing to mine again at WK this year. Ongoing revenues from that will more than sustain additional exploration and resource expansion at Monchetundra.
Alternatively, if the company were to proceed with mining at West Nittis and Loipishnune, the EPCF agreement covers expenditure through to production.
Pwlx If you need further shares to support you cause, I hold over 300K shares. I will vote for your case.
Sorry you are suggesting we spend money we may need based on “you believe” and there has been no confirmation of mining at WK.
Yes I am suggesting that Offler. The accounts for KK are publicly available, you can see how much money they have for yourself, and compare that with how much they had last year. This tells you enough.
In any case, the beauty of the resolution is it’s left open to the company to decide what ‘continued development’ entails. I would obviously never ask them to spend money they don’t have.
@Amers - thanks for your support - at present this is just an effort to get the resolution included in the AGM vote, so you’ll need to email the company in order to add your support for that. When the AGM comes around we’d then have the chance to actually vote on the resolution.
Pwlx, interesting idea for sure although I also understand the concerns that Offler has highlighted.
How much concentrate from WK do you believe we have sold in monetary terms? If we start to mine in earnest at WK I’m still not sure we generate enough to make progress with MT, especially considering how long it has taken to (potentially have) sold some or all of the stores concentrate.
We could drawdown the Sinosteel facility as you say but this to me appears like it’s the boards last & unwanted route to take. CS has told us he wants to retire now, I can’t see him wanting to mine in any shape or form
@cryptochump - good questions. Taking them one by one:
Looks like at least £1m worth was sold by the end of 2023. Impossible to say beyond that as accounts only cover to end of last calendar year. The point is if they’ve sold £1m worth, they can sell the rest. I should point out the line in the accounts that shows this is ‘the sale of products, goods, works, and services’ so they could’ve sold something that isn’t metal, but the most logical explanation is some of the PGM stockpile.
Mining at WK can generate significant revenue, millions of pounds per year. Exploration in Russia is cheap. That revenue could keep WK running nicely and upgrade reserves at MT too.
If they have sold some PT, then it stands to reason that the difficulty in selling PT has now been overcome and while selling the 2022 stockpile has taken an age, this should mean selling future mine product in the current environment should be easier. Appreciate this is an assumption.
As I said though, right now this is just about getting the matter on the agenda for the AGM, it isn’t about voting yes or no to it. Once we see the annual report the company will address the resolution and (presumably) explain why they think we shouldn’t vote for it. At that point we’ll be able to decide with all the information the company are prepared or able to give us, whether to support it or not.
It costs ‘em more to dig the stuff up and process it than they can sell it for - if they restart mining there, just means the company would run out of money even sooner.
@spikeyj, this is simply incorrect.
Pwlx, Thanks for the response, I’ll give the idea some thought but it’s time the bod were prodded
Pell - Do you have a ballpark figure of what you think the concentrate sold for as per your in KK’s accounts comment
@Wolfe, no I don’t know what it was sold for per ounce - as there’s no way of knowing the quantity that was sold until and unless the company tells us.
Pwlx, have you looked at the 22 accounts, £7.2 mil loss including one off costs, concentrate mined gross value £3.5 mil, that’s without processing costs.
@Offler - yes I have. And how much do you think was spent on power lines, electric dragline, and mine infrastructure which is now operational at WK and doesn’t need to be spent again? Which also vastly increases the annual extraction rate…
… great, so they can lose money even faster : )
@spikeyj - utter nonsense. Shown I’m happy to answer sensible questions about the resolution proposition but not going to respond to people clearly just trying to be disruptive.
? do you actually have any public domain, independently verifiable figures to show how much the annual extraction rate has been increased, and similarly evidenced figures to show what the economics of production & sale are now? - or are you just whistling in the wind, by any chance?
Pwlx, that’s the point we don’t know how much is left what the one off costs were, it there a plan to survive past end of year based on what has been disclosed so far, the one off costs would have to have been £3.7 mil for us to break even on the value of the extraction, and there has to be transport and processing costs still to be added in.
& it remains to be seen how much those [supposedly] one-off costs have actually made a significant & positive difference to EUA’s mining economics. …. those developments fit with EUA as a story stock, but the real numbers are MIA.
Paul, why even waste your time responding to someone so far gone in his own head? Guy is a full on loser, always has been. Just ignore it.
Pwlx, if we have sold some or all of the WK concentrate surely the bod should have updated us on that. They know we’re starved of information and this would have provided a bit of relief to shareholders in knowing that we are able to sell it as it’s been sat around costing us storage costs, never mind price fluctuations