The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Iknownuffin, assume you chatting about my previous post on other subject.
A lot of what you may consider as 'unknowns' are actually known to a reasonable level if review the numbers and information within the report. The CPR for NKT provided enough information to identify metal production at full mine production.
It also stated a value of 1.7b$ NPV at 8.33% discount - which may be good for some on here - however for some investors using a 8.33% discount for a Russian asset risk is not realistic - and I suggest the current conflict can be considered as justification for higher discount on NPV calculations.
Mr Parttimer32, your JORC figure you have stated (2.2M oz) is a total for that field MT (WN & Lo). Originally EUA planned a 130koz/year production (for WN & Lo).
Mr Beast, The 1000koz (Pd eq) is is the total for ALL of the assets.
1000koz made up as follows for each field at full production : MT & Lo = 130 koz Pd (eq) - based on EUA RNS ; NKT = 500koz Pd (eq) - calculated - based on numbers provided in CPR for 10Mt/pa processing ; WK = 64 koz Pt - based on EUA RNS = approx 45koz Pd (eq) ; OTHERS = 306 koz Pd (eq) - generous allowance if Nyud or Poaz or other areas are developed.
TOTAL = 1000koz
Please note - I considered max 1000koz Pd equivalent. Copper and platinum have devalued over the last few years whilst nickel has held better.
Mr DATTABASE1 ,
You stated earlier that your opinion is that (EUA assets) will be sold for somewhere between 65p and £1.15 and would have been a lot more before the WAR.
Don't feel obliged, but may I ask if you like to consider sharing your reasoning to your suggested sales price - both pre-war and current price - I for one would be interested in your logic.
Just to let you know - my pre-war valuation (optimistic and within a competitive market) was about 1.8B£ for all assets. This was based on palladium price above 2kUSD/oz and max production up to 1000koz/year - scaling up to max production after approx 5 years; I equated this at the time to about 64p share. This included applying approx 25% discount on annual free-cash-flows and with the palladium price increasing by a few % each year.
I would consider reducing this by 75% now (as optimistic) and 85% (practical) - so, based on my views and numbers - I therefore would expect any discussions (for all assets) are ranging between 270M£ to 450M£ (equating to 10p-16p).
I have not stated my pessimistic values or taken into account inflation on expected capital expenditure (both of which would considerably lower the numbers) as it is the weekend.
Also - if others have higher or lower valuations and would like to share openly - I and others would gladly consider the reason and logic.
Please note - I understand EUA have also mentioned asset devaluation during the AGM - I assume mainly as direct consequence of the Russian geopolitical climate together with changes in the metal prices.
Mr Nuffin,
Just let you know the question was in earlier post - asking others opinion on the AGM RNS wording.
Again - I ask to others - if the wording from the AGM RNS can be consider as EUA stating sanctions are affecting EUA conducting planned business.
Mr Nuffin - I ask this as the COMPANY has always stated that sanctions are not stopping then wording changed to not prohibiting them from conducting their business activities. My take on the wording in the RNS is that the COMPANY are now stating that the sanctions are impacting them conducting these activities.
Thank you,
My question towards others is - whether the statement from EUA is considered acknowledgement from EUA that the sanctions are affecting EUA conducting planned business.
From the wording - it appears so to me.
Sorry - I shall appear lazy at moment,
The statement from the AGM RNS, ". . . . due to uncertainty of any near-term development in that regard due to limitations enforced by current sanctions legislation (ii) a loss on an investment. . . . . ".
I take the above as EUA stating sanctions are affecting EUA conducting planned business.
May I ask for others to comment - as I review as well.
Mr Kammy18,
You posted
"Potential buyer BRICS - FACT"
Suggest your wording would be better as follows:
Potential buyer BRICS - EUA Board opinion
?
Looks like this interesting thread has been removed - but I had some responses to the questions asked of me - so I am happy to still provide:
Mr Cat, It is good for the COMPANY to confirm the creditable party is still at the table. I think it has been 12 months since they last informed shareholders of this. Maybe the votes for the two resolutions would have been positive if they provided this information when they issued the AGM RNS.
Mr Beast, the transcript from the AGM does not indicate the BOARD are confident of an asset sale this year - otherwise they would have stated this. So I suspect there is a likely chance things may continue into next year and possibly next AGM. So, yes, I think a wake-up call. Maybe if they provide information on the state of the company's progress in all aspects (asset sales, mining progress, maybe even quarterly mining progress) to allow investors to vote accordingly in 12 months time in favour of their resolutions. Other small mining companies can.
Mr Bill, I think the word CRITICAL used by EUA in describing this year may be an indication of a time-limit on this sale process or creditable party or other factor we on here can only speculate.
I am sure the EUA Board are very careful with wording used in RNSs and AGMs.
Just for the record, I am very hopeful Luton Town will win the Premier League next year. It be fantastic to see a load of mad hatters in the Champions League the following season, I am confident they wont - but doesn't stop me from being very hopeful.
As I stated earlier - it appears overall view taken from the AGM is that shareholders on here are relatively satisfied - especially compared to last year's AGM.
Parttimer32, suggest a good manifestation of the level of value realization reduced can be visualised in the change of share price between beginning Feb 2022 and today.
Thank you Mr Saint.
From what I read on here today - it does sound like overall the feeling response from the BOARD at the AGM has satisfied shareholders and relevant questions answered.
In the last RNS, the COMPANY informed shareholders that there was low visibility of any updates with regards the Asset Sale, today they are predicting completion by end of year. A lot can happen in 23 days.
I understand - if the resolution 8 is accepted in the AGM today - the company has reduced the minimum time limit for calling an extra-ordinary general meeting to 14 days. I assume an EGM shall need to be called if asset sale expected before end of year (as cannot wait for AGM in 12 months time).
Mr Saint68
I have a point of clarity from your wording - if you have time to clarify the following statement:
SALE CONFIDENCE – VERY HOPEFUL IT WILL BE COMPLETED THIS YEAR
When EUA made this statement - was it in the context of the sale of mining products from WK or referring to the ongoing Asset Sale?
Thank you for your help in advanced.
Mr Reacts,
I may be incorrect - as not lucky to be present at AGM, but from reports on here - new NDA’S have been signed in June - these may not necessarily be with the buyer (unless they stated so in AGM) - I suspect all other auxiliary parties/companies bought into the mix by all parties shall also need to sign NDA. I suspect the buyer has been under NDA since the day they indicated interest.
Wording used in earlier posts today . ." . NDA’S – VARIABLE AND NEW ONES SIGNED IN JUNE. 1 TO 3 YEAR TIME LINE. ." .
copyright Oriens1 & Saint68
Mr Del, I have a few questions I like to ask at the AGM but only 1 which I would ask if I attend !! - anyway, I probably not believe their response based on previous timing of information they have provided to shareholders in the past.
For the curious out there, the question is:
Is it the intention of the BOARD to promptly inform shareholders when, in the opinion of the BOARD, the visibility of the sales process of the Russian Assets change from the currently stated low visibility?
On a different AGM subject - I do think there may be possibly some truth in what Mr Pighead stated about what may happen at the AGM tomorrow. I suspect it shall not be shareholders internet connection which may terminate the meeting. If the meeting does not conclude to the satisfaction of shareholders then I would think it's an indication of the overall confidence of the BOARD (and will be reflected in a step-change in SP). Will tune in later today to see what this discussion board think of the on-line meeting - it would be nice to read of satisfied shareholders.
Good morning,
I think the COMPANY has also stated they currently cannot see a sale occurring at the present time.
"We acknowledge shareholder frustration regarding the duration of the sale process, however, we also note recent precedent transactions which have successfully completed despite the geopolitical situation. Further updates will be made as appropriate although there is currently low visibility as to when this might be."
The wording is taken from the latest RNS.
Mr Nuffin,
I think my wording is exactly in line with your statement "lawyers and NOMAD has determined the wording of ALL RNSs".
If you read what I stated - I think you will totally agree with Point 1. Point 2, I stated my interpretation (and probably many others) of the wording used.
For the final point - I used the wording from the RNS of low visibility - again - I agree lawyers and NOMAD has determined this wording.
Mr Roger,
1) Your statement ". . .Clearly the BODs have been lying repeatedly about DD etc. . .", I am sure is totally incorrect -and the RNS was true to the wording AT TIME OF ISSUE. Things change and don't need to be announced.
2) Your statement ". . . as there is still no buyer lined up. Not even any negotiations.. . ", I suspect the 1st half is true and the 2nd half is probably true (unfortunately for many on here), and this opinion can easily be aligned with latest RNS wording.
For those in doubt - I draw attention to the wording used in latest RNS such as ". . remains of the view that any buyer is likely to be found. . .", and ". . . Further updates will be made as appropriate although there is currently low visibility as to when this might be. . ."
- what else does Shareholders require as conformation from the Board, I suggest the words ". .currently low visibility. . " is a statement indicating no route to sale at present - and low visibility will be maintained until there is an organisation at least showing interest.
Others may hold a varying opinion on the above - and be nice to be presented with them.
Its a working environment subject to potential huge seasonal weather swings - any extremes then become an issue and difficult to mine.
I am sure all on here are wishing the workers all the encouragement to succeed safely in their tasks.
I just look back here - and it appears there is discussions which encourage the thought of EUA joining a JV with others using the Russian assets.
From my viewpoint - I read from the RNS posted on the 3rd of July as the COMPANY has ALREADY decided to exit Russia.
". . .In terms of the future development of Eurasia Mining PLC, we continue to look at expanding the business in various ways, including the development of hydrogen projects outside of Russia coupled with new mining opportunities in investment friendly jurisdictions. The Company remains committed to the continued sale of its assets in Russia . . "
and
" . . The Company has demonstrated a consistent approach to creating value by bringing quality projects from exploration through to mining, as well as marketing for its proposed strategic sale following the Board's decision to exit from Russia. . ."
For many including myself, the wording, " . . following the Board's decision to exit from Russia. . . " means the Board's decision is to exit from Russia.
Good morning,
All looking good in the batteries market and BRICS.
Strange to think one major BRICS leader cannot go to another major BRICS country for fear of being arrested. Also strange if companies take so long to make a sale of a booming product in a booming market.
Things may be looking good - in a risky environment.
"If you think Eurasia will struggle to find customers or an arena to thrive, think again!" - I think this statement will be correct if Mr Credible Party is still at the table, otherwise, yes, I think they are struggling. I am sure we all find out on Wednesday next week.
I would have expected EUA to included wording indicating "Credible Party" are still at this magical table (if they still are) to avoid such questions at AGM. Without this wording - it is highly suspicious to think if anybody is now sat there.