We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
certainly good to know Queeld aren't selling off, TW already on a new angle i see- anyone read his article and know what he's referring to this morning when insinuating "another rule breach" from EUA?
good to see all major holdings not selling
https://www.eurasiamining.co.uk/investors/share-capital
Agree, the best thing to come out of yesterdays RNS was that Mt could be undershot by 40%+
The 21,600kg is in the wider district eg includes all applications just for exploration (including flanks!!!). To be clear I objected to the below false statement and I’ll continue to call this poster out on their lies on this BB whether his band of shameless followers like it or not.
“Converting the KG mentioned in RNS will get you to just under 1Moz, flank expansions will realistically take us past that!.”
Opto- if you think the flanks will be licensed then proven up to 1m ounce before the FSP concludes then I give up
Meaningless atm RMR, not licensed
could be a subtle hint that monchetundra is likely to be bigger than (conservatively) estimated
It's good news regarding queeld, if there was any foul play that would be the suspected route (given they failed to file the 8.5). I believe this has been TW's point of attack recently so he'll have to try something else (again)
Keep rowing you salty sea rats!!! anddd HEAVEEE!!!
think it's just another bounce off the 200DMA but seems to have a lot more steam this time
SP had more than doubled in a week when they released that @ 37p.
fantastic scenes...this move has some legs on it
you really need a friend/job/hobby....something
perhaps everyone is panic selling because we've reached the end of MAC's (imaginary) 4-8 weeks timescale without a deal being announced!!
Wow you're clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed are you...... truly pathetic
that was clearly a typo MAC- well done on being pedantic because someone is calling you out on your make believe
is it law that FSP's adhere to the format/timescale of this "third party source" (that YOU have posted!)........thought not. AND for the final time MAC- YOU are suggesting that a final non-binding offer was received on the 14th Jan, nobody else, it does not say in that RNS that that was the case does it- you constantly spread false information on this BB.
The delays are IMO from exactly what was written in the RNS, and as i like to stick to what was written in the RNS, binding offers were received BEFORE the update RNS and discussions RE moving to binding were taking place BEFORE the RNS
YOU are suggesting they waited for someone, no one else is suggesting it. I've defended your posts in the past but If you didn't post such rampy garbage all the time people wouldn't call you out on occasion.
MAC - your post below is suggesting the BOD were waiting until the final non-binding offer was in before they released the update RNS on the 14th Jan and move to binding discussions. You are completely contradicting what was actually written in the update RNS "discussions regarding proceeding to binding proposals are continuing" ipso facto THEY WERE ALREADY TALKING TO PARTIES RE MOVING TO BINDING. it's blatantly obvious the update was pushed on them by the NOMAD/takeover panel as it had passed 6 months without an update.
"All non-binding offers were in by then (14th Jan), that's why it was RNS'd. Some will have been in sooner, but you have to allow the suggested time frame to take place for all interested parties, even if their non-0binding offer landed later than others. It's how a fair FSP is ran, please do explain how it would be done differently?"
Complete rubbish MAC. So you’re suggesting the BOD were discussing converting non binding to binding with one party before the non binding offer was in from another (final) company. Yes....sounds fair. Lol