Stephan Bernstein, CEO of GreenRoc, details the PFS results for the new graphite processing plant. Watch the video here.
Aside from the pre-requisite of the $50.9m debt package completion (as announced 1st Sept.... https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/aex_gold/news/rns_widget/story/wkjn9yr) which in itself is a VERY major piece of positive news, enabling them to bring the Nalunaq gold project into production in 2024, the even bigger news for the short-med term share price is the confirmation in the 7th Sept RNS of them expecting a listing on Iceland's Main Market (NASDAQ) in 3rd wk Sept 23....(https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/aex_gold/news/rns_widget/story/rgz9d7w).......One key point is that Icelandic Pension Funds collectively own c.50% of the stock of the 23 companies listed on the Icelandic NASDAQ main mkt! However, currently these pension funds own less than 3% of AMRQ's stock...The maths is simple....Even a move from say 3%, to 10%-20% (which is very typical and often quite a bit higher) means buying pressure must materialise over the coming weeks/months....The move up in indexes will also mean AMRQ is eligible for tracking index inclusion. OMX Iceland All-Share inclusion will happen immediately upon the move up, with possible inclusion in OMX Iceland 10 in due course, potentially increasing liquidity further. Imo these are major positive catalysts for the sp (not withstanding of course all other macro factors which can also move the sp up/down...)......Link to relevant presentation is here: https://wp-aexgold-2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2023/09/2023-09-07-Amrq-Transfer-Analysis_vf.pdf
Hello Stephen - if this is really you (you never know on these boards!) - may I ask why you haven't issued a formal TR1 given the size of your holding?
I accept all you say, as I can see you feel strongly about it. My final word is that I just don't understand (perhaps my mindset is too pragmatic) why you would remain a holder when that's how you feel? It seems to me to be a contradiction, but as I say that may be my pragmatism talking....
The end result is holding a larger % of UOG shares than before. In BL's case that's 2.5%. ...I'm not going to argue the other salary points as that is very subjective and there will be different opinions on this. I'm a great believer in focusing on what the BOD delivers to me as a shareholder over time, rather than what they get paid for doing so....Ultimately, if shareholders take umbrage then they can vote with their feet by selling and investing elsewhere. The bit that always confuses me is that people don't sell, but instead remain holders of the shares but then sit there moaning about the situation? If you feel that bad about why remain a shareholder?
Ha! What abuse? So, it seems to me that you are mainly sounding off about the sp, even though you feel the company itself is in a good position operationally. I get that, I just think that the collective sounding off just creates an echo chamber of moaning which permeates beyond to others. Not sure what the point is in generating that ongoing negativity, when ultimately it's the performance of the company's assets that will be the driver of value....?
Ok, let's try this from another angle....I get that you and others have taken the Warrant issue badly....But aside from that emotive point, what's your view of the fundamentals position here? To use an analogy, I may not like the salaries/pay pack of the footballers at the team I support, but ultimately I don't know it matters that much if they win trophies. My question to you, is do you believe the fundamentals of UOG's business are there to "win trophies"? Is there a reason that this weeks news affects that in a fundamental way?
Presumably 2 different handles so you can double up your comments? My belief is you are a very small holder (if any at all) here but with a very big voice/opinion.....I just wonder what your real motives are.?
Actually, yes I think it's relevant if you own none (or very little) especially if you spend your entire time ****ging the company off. Because in these circumstances it seems to me that there is some other reason why that person is doing so....And it becomes very biased and misleading...
The main epicentre of de-ramping and uncorroborated accusations about EUA seems to be Gary Newman (Share Prophets) and his cabal of mates (the usual names – Tim Kempster, Wshak, Jaknife, to name a few). For those who don’t know, and who might be inclined to listen to what he writes, please bear in mind the following. Gary Newman works for Guru and Korda as a TV production and Special Projects Manager. Look them up - tackleguru.com - Basically he produces shows for a fishing channel/web site! Surprised? He also writes for the Angling Times. As far as I can establish he is not an accountant. He’s not an economist. He’s not a qualified financial advisor. He’s not a stock broker. He has zero qualifications to be providing investment advice. Other than fish, I cannot see a single area of expertise that he is qualified in! Apparently he is a journalist (as far as I can tell in all matters angling), but I’m not clear if this is a self awarded title, or a formal qualification? Now, I ask you, would you rather read and take on board the official RNS’s of a regulated and listed company, whose every announcement is apparently being monitored closely by the AIM Regulator and by a lawyer at their NOMAD, WH Ireland, and who are audited by Grant Thornton, or a fishing expert?! I’m not claiming to be a qualified financial expert myself, but next time you sell shares based on his advice, I suggest you have a long hard look at yourself in the mirror!
Unfortunately the market is filled with numpties! When an RNS lands updating on the sale situation they will all be scrambling back in. What's the point in them messing around for a few quid elsewhere. The best return in short term is right here at EUA.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE LAST WEEK!! The assets are the same assets as last week. The base case valuation is the same as last week. See my earlier posts on the detailed analysis for the 7p base case even ignoring the flanks. This drop is pure market manipulation by a bunch of unscrupulous shorting scum bags. Same people who get away with it time and again. The difference here is the co. is being sold so there is an end game in sight. If you hold you can realise an exit.
This drop is a shorter scam and retail punters are falling for it. The usual culprit (we all know who) and his merry band take out short positions and then they work as a pack to post negative messages and articles to scare people into selling to make themselves a tidy profit. Not a single thing has changed here since last week! Yet they have mugged millions of shares off weak holders. It's a disgrace and the City of London police should be involved.
Tom111. No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Thought I was crystal clear. My point is that the conservative base case is 7p. The upside from there is huge if and when the flanks come in to play. I'm seeking to make the point that the shorters want to discredit the current sp as over valued due to the Directors hyping the flanks, but my point is that even ignoring the flanks the valuation is still 7p. ie big upside in any event.
Hi All. As the shorting brigade are trying every trick in the book to worry holders, I thought I should remind everyone of the base case position. The shorters will seek to discredit the news around the flanks/15m oz and the corporate sale, etc, as all being pie in the sky. In order to neutralise this, let's look at the valuation base case IGNORING both of those issues. Optiva's 31 page highly detailed DCF valuation of Oct 18 arrived at a RISKED NPV valuation figure for MT of £58m based on the 1.9m oz reserve/resource. The risk discount factor was 50% ie their un-risked figure was £116m. Since then the MT mining permit was received which was a major de-risking milestone. Being conservative we could reduce the discount rate to 35% instead of 50% to reflect this and the general progress over the last year. Next point. The valuation was also based on a Palladium price at the time, of $950 p/oz. This is now c.£1,800, an increase of c.89%. The effect on the valuation is more than 89% though as EBITDA increases exponentially given costs remain constant. It would not be out of line to increase the £116m un-risked figure to say £235m based on the Palladium price change alone. If we then apply the 35% risk discount mentioned above this would give a risked valuation of say £141m. On West Kytlim the Optiva risked NAV was £21m. BUT this was based on only having c.35% of revenue. Now that the co. has bought out the contractor this goes to 100%. It’s easy to see how WK could now be increased to at least say £40m. The combined total RISKED figure is then £181m. Based on the current shares in issue this all equates to a figure in the region of 7p. Remember that ignores completely any upside for the flanks and the 15m oz potential. This, if delivered, could increase these numbers very materially hence the excitement about a very large upside. In conclusion, I still see at least 100% (minimum) upside to the current share price based on the known base case position.