Member Info for Billions

Yes GH, you are partly correct. If MT is sold, the gain over cost will be recognised as profit and taxed. The cash received will be recorded as the asset and MT disappear. They is no way for MT to be recognised at 2bn on the balance sheet.

But sale of substantially all the assets as it stands could just be WK.

To be clear. The asset value on the balance sheet are as follows, this is what AIM rule 15 would be based on:

WK. 3.5m
MT. 0.8m.

The sale of WK only is a very likely outcome.

For once it would be nice for someone to acknowledge the facts and truth. Pg 52 of the 2019 FS breaks down the asset split. ACF have updated their price. Instead poster keep pulling numbers outa their a$$.

For those who don't understand miners don't recognize licences at fair value unless paid for. They are recognised and capitalised costs. So on the balance sheet MT is only 0.8m.

Not sure about the numbers but what the OP says makes a lot of sense.

Has anyone even bothered to check the last financial statements?

Wk assets on balance sheet is 3.6m. Mt is 0.8m. The sale of wk will be substantially all of the companies assets.

MT and the JV will then continue to production maybe with a farm in partner. This also explains the placement now, if 100s of millions were incoming immenintly why raise 14m now?

What about deductions for tax, purchase the remaining JV licences, prove up and bring the JV to development.

Even if the sale is 60p, net dividend will be a third of that imo.

Give us something constructive for once. Tell us the value of all all the Rh produced by wk to date at current prices.

Would love to see it making a significant difference.

Rosgeo jv has NO value until triggered, proved up and paid for.

Well compare the revenue to last year reports for 20/21. These are predictions not fact, they will fluctuate could be up or down.

I mean sino steel contract has been in place since 2016 but never triggered. WK has been ramping up since 17/18 but still way off name plate.

The only think guaranteed with mining is that the future is unpredictable.

I've previously criticized the low ball offers too and think 60-70ish for MT flanks is fair and could get takers.

ACF are not being conservative. Commodity deals like this don't take into account spot prices. Long term average over LOM price forecasts are used. Recent DFSs use 2k for PD.

Spot prices only are important for producing mines, eua will only mine meaningful numbering 24/25, this is where the risk discount comes in.

It's verging on insanity that now that the new ACF report is out, that people are still are peddling lies of a multi pound dividends.

Before the go to for the outrageous prices was that the ACF report is old and doesn't include game changing developments. Eventhough they have been consistently proven wrong, they are still spouting fictional nonsense.

If anything, any potential buyer will aim to buy for around the ACF price or realistically look for a discount for risk.

Mac the "F" is not mentioned because it is separately included in the sentance... this is scraping the barrel really.

"focus primarily on advancing certain Rosgeo JV projects to production via EPC and FINANCING contracts"

As always it's not exactly clear..... it's only "certain" areas not all... we don't know exactly how much has been purchased.

Tbh, the eua rns's are the most cryptic, confusing, badly worded and vague pieces of information ever seen.

It's easy to see where the frustration and disputes comes in.

For instance in Jan they said:
"Since launching the Formal Sale Process on 1 July 2020, Eurasia and its advisers have engaged with a wide range of parties, and have to date received non-binding offers in respect of both a possible acquisition of the Company as well as other transaction structures"

"Notwithstanding these factors, discussions regarding proceeding to binding proposals are continuing."

In the latest RNS now they don't mention the previous non binding offers and instead suggest proposals were only received after the Rosgeo JV in March. Note proposals not offers now. It's like a completely different version of events.

"As announced via RNS on 14 January 2021, Eurasia and its advisers have engaged with a wide range of parties interested in acquiring either the assets and/or the Company. The Company has more recently focused its attention, including providing due diligence access, on a limited number of potential bidders who had shown consistent interest in Eurasia and its high-quality asset base"

I think that should be credible buyer not "credible offer" if it was the latter I think it would be over and many can get on with their lives again.

Where is the contradiction? FSP was company or asset sale discussion. NOT a company sale like many suggest.

Non-binding offers were mentioned in Jan for both assets and company. The contradiction is exiting now without any sort of done deal, bidding war or consortium to carry on discussions with a single buyer... after nearly 12months in an FSP and longer since initial discussions with buyers.

The FSP was never a full company sale. See RNS extract the argument does not stand that they exited the FSP to do an asset sale, this was in the original scope.

"The Board has therefore decided to appoint UBS Investment Bank in London ("UBS") as its leading financial adviser to assist in a review of its strategic options including asset sales or a sale of the company"

But the point is Russia will want a cut. Avoiding paying Mr Putin whether legal or not is not gonna work out too great in the long run I think.

Jambo. Yes, Dividends are paid post corp tax. So essentially they are taxed twice when personal income tax is taken into account.

The gain on disposal of asset will be subject to corporation tax. This will be a disposal by the Russian entity holding the licences. Corp tax will therefore be paid on Russia. Then the EUA group entity will paid the remainder as dividend after holding back cash requirements.

The licences and the assets are owned by the local Russian company. I believe the disposal will be taxed at source in Russia, this makes sense for the state. The dividend tax to individuals is on top be it in Russia or UK.

The alternative of selling the whole company would only cost stamp duty on the shares acquired in the UK. It's fair Russia wants a slice of the pie.

A few points re the recent RNS:
1. I believe the Russian state has dictated who the buyer should be here.
2. The change from company sale to asset sale is also probably a state suggestion. This way they actually receive tax proceeds.
3. The Rosgeo JV will likely stay with EUA. I believe the state again will use the licence auction to get a cut of the sale proceeds.

The dividend suggestions here are widely outrageous.

Thanks chartsreach and jiffy. Insightful info.

This does explain the delay and the risk baked into the current sp. Also goes a long way to explain recent Russian takeout of uk listed miners..... KAZ, HGM, TSG and all the problems with POG.