Member Info for EIE01

The only Rosgeo numbers ever included in any reserves and resources figures released by EUA are for NYUD alone.

My opinion unless someone knows differently

Don’t disagree, but I explained the calculation.

SJM - For context 5% would equate to a share price of 23p

But it must be envisioned that these figures are based purely on reserves and exclude WK, Tipil and flanks.

SJM - The 7% is a figure applied that is not to bullish nor bearish.

Obviously it’s very subjective and definitely debatable

Del - The RNS dated 8 Feb 22 states the following:

“ The table above includes the Nyud deposit for which Eurasia's subsidiary already has paid Rosgeo (as announced via RNS on 26 March 2021) and the license transfer thereof will be separately announced. In the meantime, Wardell Armstrong International has presented a draft CPR under the JORC Code and the NPV model to Eurasia for review. Nyud is a nickel dominant relaunch project, similar to NKT”

So NYUD reserves definitely included

Del - My personal opinion is the figures quoted only included NYUD as that was the only licence any payment was made.

I agree it does mention Rosgeo, but I believe only NYUD figures are included in reserves/ resources numbers.

Del - The figures stated in the RNS dated 8 Feb 22 I believe included MT, NKT area and the NYUD licence.

The NYUD licence it was stated EUA have legal entitlement to, or wording similar to that.

The reserves quoted in the RNS excluded WK, Tipil and flanks and I believe these hold potentially 22 tons of proved PGM resources, of which EUA entitlement is 68%.

Just based on the reserves figures quoted in the RNS dated the 8 Feb 22 and using a recovery rate of 7% I calculate a share price of 32p

EUA have stated the case has no bearing on the asset sales.

Proceeds in relation to the disputed ownership of the shares will simply be deposited in an Escrow account until ownership issue resolved, at which point funds are then released to confirmed owner of the shares.

Some posters have commented on the sale being delayed due to this issue as one potential owner is a Russian bank, and perhaps state haircut/tax would be reduced as Russian bank. I simply don’t accept this argument, no basis to this.

The biggest shareholder in Eua is Russian and if the Russian bank is granted ownership of the shares, then I’m sure both can apply to the state for a refund of any haircut/tax applied to asset sales.

GLG2 - You make zero sense.

One post stating “CS given the green light to drop the big one”

Next post criticising him.

Complete nonsense.

Like Wolfe gives a balanced view lol

That’s a great one !!!

I’m unclear the exact financial structure of the 50B loan to Ukraine

I have read a number of sources stating that frozen Russian assets are to be used as collateral in respect of the loan.

Which to me implies they are not used to finance the loan, unless default occurs.

LB - The legal dispute is not company related.

The dispute is between two parties both claiming ownership of share certificates. EUA are not party to this dispute.

BOD have continually stated the legal case does not impact the sale of assets, and I see zero reason that it would.

The dispute is over share certificates, EUA don’t own the certificates, this is a dispute between two shareholders.

Officecat - So the BOD are lying, that is what you are implying.

Your example of purchasing a home analogy is not comparable to EUA selling assets.

Ownership of the assets is not in dispute, ownership of the share certificates is in dispute.

The buyer doesn’t care who own the shares, none of their business and has no relevance. All they care about is that EUA own the title to the assets.

Del - You and some others stating that sale will not proceed until court case resolved, but why would this effect Russian federation approving?

I haven’t actually heard a reason why they wouldn’t approve.

Sale proceeds sit in Escrow until court case resolved, and then paid out once case resolved.

Won’t comment on this anymore.

Officecat - Why would a potential buyer of the assets have any interest in the court case, it has zero relevance to a buyer.

The buyer is purchasing assets, not the company.

The BOD has stated the court case has no bearing on the sale of assets.

Funds from disputed shares placed in an Escrow account until dispute resolved, then funds released to the owner of shares.

Saint raised the point that because potentially Russian bank is a beneficial owner of the disputed shares, then perhaps any state haircut/tax applied to assets sold will be reduced, so holding up sale.

I simply don’t see this being the case, tax applied to sale proceeds to ALL shareholders. Russian shareholders will possibly have the right to claim back any deductions based on there shareholding, and claim back from the state, just my opinion.

The BOD have continually stated court case has no impact on sale, and that is my believe also.

Buy on news lol

So BOD release RNS stating offer accept of xx for assets, and your plan is to buy on news……..good luck with that.

PK - Agree entirely the wording of the RNS could had been so much better for long term holders, extremely frustrating.

Very brief and to the point, but I guess CS isn’t to concerned about ordinary pi now, he would not be involved with another listed company as retirement beckons.

I fail to understand why the RNS wasn’t issued last week, as there was significant movement in the share price.

Jarv - Exactly today’s RNS doesn’t inform the market of anything that wasn’t known previously.

My opinion is the price was being driven by the fact the DFS report was located, although unable to access, and that the market thought that perhaps the report being ‘out there’ that this may indicate both publication ‘soon’ and facilitate a deal being concluded for the sale of assets.

Bill - You never thought any different?

I’m sure when I bought 2m shares recently at 1.55 you said “…a fool and his money”

Pretty sure was you