Member Info for Fr.Jack.Hackett

Mr Del,

Thank you for that.

Maybe he is part of a creditable party sat at a certain (in)famous table

Mr Del929,

Item 3 on your list - is there notification anywhere stating at what price these options were offered at?

As you have quantified your expectations in a list from an interim update - I would consider an additional item 9 - Mining production update (normally expect on quarterly or half-year - and is normally provided by most - but as you made a list maybe add).

Mr WBAFC,

Before I can agree with your statement, can you please arrange for the SP to get over the 80p mark first.

:)

Mr Beast & Mr Aubery,

I think you wish to post on this link for WK production figures.

I agree with you all - it should not be guesswork - the guys in the mines know what they produced - the guys in the smelter plants know what was produced (if any) - the guys on the trucks know how many are driven - the guys with the binoculars spying for investment companies know all this - by not giving operational updates means the ONLY relevant parties that do not know are the shareholders.

Most other junior minors do provide such.

Mr Seamus12,

I have not said it is happening - I said it could be happening - like all discussion on this board.

PLEASE treat posters with the same consideration you would like others to treat you.

As you stated ". . . its all conjecture and therefore fictional. . . " - why are you here - if not to discuss and give your opinions.

postscript note - "why are you here" is 100% rhetorical - I do not need, want or expect an answer.

BondDivi,

what you state about third party sale - I nearly agree with.

I do think Dimitry would be in a position to obtain the required investment (as a Russian AND significant shareholder AND significant contributor to the state of assets) - and for the funding - as mainly I think it shall be coming from similar/same sources (Russian/Chinese investment banks) independent of whoever buys it.

Shareholder approval : the lower the shareprice the easier the threshold for approval - its 3p today - where will it be in the future.

One point - The Sinosteel contract (which I assume is still 100% valid even through a global pandemic and an international conflict) is vital - it allows a 130koz facility to be built and repayments only start after commissioning production achieving the target of 130koz - all for $176m (can be paid from future revenues). With the inflation issues worldwide plus the increase awkwardness of procuring activities associated nowadays with Russia - I would say the Sinosteel contract would be multiple times higher if being negotiated today. I think whoever/whatever finally buy the assets - this Sinosteel contract will be triggered. Very little capital needs to be raised to take ownership of a spanking new 130koz facility apart from the original asset purchase (which could be anything from a few peanuts to $hundreds of millions - based on different varied agued viewpoints).

Mr Seamus12,

Please note - it is happening with Petroneft - so I suggest you take it off the fiction shelf - however there are still plenty of shelves you can assign it to if you still like to ignore what is happening with other companies in Russia.

Following on from the Petroneft, worth over £30m before the conflict started, it looks like all the assets will be sold off to their Russian CEO Pavel Tetyakov (who conveniently took the CEO position in October 2022). The assets being sold to him for peanuts (as expected) - and the peanuts then used to payback bank loans (partially) after which FINALLY I assume the UK listed company shall then declare itself bankrupt and fold (its CEO won’t care much cause he be too busy collecting oil revenues).

So - could the same occur for EUA? I assume there is no legislation for it not to happen - does anyone here know?

I assume Dmitry Suschov is probably somewhat still a little miffed that his EUA shares once worth nearly £200m are now struggling to pay for a wet weekend in a bug-bedded bedsit in boring Bognar, breakfast buffet extra.

I am sure Mr Suschov is not taking all this lying down (not on the bug-bed anyway). I assume his only realistic way back would be to be to take the company back (from unfriendly foreign ownership) as it is the foreign ownership that decimated his assets and Russian ownership would allow recuperation of value (I am sure parent company shall still be in such jurisdiction as Cyprus or Cayman Islands). Assume Dmitry has relevant connections to make all this happen.

And as soon as ownership is received - activation of the Sinosteel contract for 130koz production facility to show pathway to revenue. As Big Chris stated, “the opportunity was there, in my experience you’re supposed to take that opportunity - if its there”

In a few years maybe Dmitry will emerge out of Russia with his billions$ (assume NKT online and Dmitry producing the 1000koz/year as EUA promised). Maybe then Dmitry fancy buying a premier league footy team – maybe Luton Town - if so then I will still be VERY HOPEFUL that they win the league in future - but more importantly, I will also have greater CONFIDENCE that they win the league.

As for shareholders - some of whom may contribute here, I don’t think it matters who buys the assets - the buyers will still get the assets for as low as possible either through boardroom secret negotiations or through the Russian Federations way of ‘authorising’ sales by companies from unfriendly countries. RF appears to be extremely efficient to ensure minimum monies leave the Russian territory from asset sales.

Mr Mac,

You stated ". . . One asset is in full operation. . . ", If you are referring to West Kytlim then the Target Production at full capacity stated by EUA in RNS (1 July 2020) was 64koz.

I don't think EUA have reached such capacity. I don't think EUA have reached 1/2 of that capacity. I don't think EUA have reached 1/4 of that capacity. I don't think EUA have reached 1/8 of that capacity. I don't think EUA have reached 1/16 of that capacity.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Mr Surfer,

I would not consider GRL lack of response disappointing - as I am sure most BOD members of any listed company would consider replying to such a request on an email before publication via RNS a possible break of LSE guidelines for issuing sensitive information - even if it is an acknowledgement of receipt - but lets hope they can supply the mandatory accounts sooner rather than later.

What information I think (or hope) they are still able to provide shareholders with is this years quarterly updates to exploration and mining progress - this is the benchmark that they have lowered constantly over the last 2 years - lets see if they can finally start raising production - and I think an update is due.

Out of all the companies that I follow - this is the one which appears in most need of guidance at both boardroom and production strategies - it be nice to hear they have taken (non exec) personnel on to advise in such tasks.

Carrying on an interesting discussion point from Mr. Rickstars, and its a point not recorded in the AGM transcript banded around here (unfortunately) - but a hindsight-ed question to the BOD could be whether they are LEGALLY in a position to raise funds and transfer such them over to Russia.

I suggest if YES - then not too much to worry about for the future of EUA (except shareholder dilution) - If NO then lets all be VERY HOPEFUL the mining product from WK can be sold and the revenues loaned out to other companies within EUA organisation.

Mr Spikey,

You stated, ". . . i don’t believe that the underlying assets are worth anything like the kind of values that have been touted around this board etc. for years. . . ", I know an awful lot of touting has been had in last four years however I will not look at that in this post but I would like to present opinion on the MCAP (share price to many) over the years.

I think the MCAP had a foundation based on the feasibility of the company actually creating future revenues by investing and developing the mines in stages (triggering already negotiated contracts and future contracts) up to the RNS stated production of approx of 1000kozPd/year with an ever increasing metal price. Speculation on asset sale added extra fluctuations in the MCAP - but I do think the share price range between 15p - 21p was very much based on the feasibility of future revenues and the foundation of the value. The spikes above this range I think was based on speculation and I think the knowledgeable would have take these spikes as good time to reduce risk and take profits before re-purchasing at around the foundation price range.

The price today (I think we all agree) can only be based on the probable single reason; few organisations are interested in investing in Russia. For those wanting to invest will also be taking measures to minimise capital investment (even for any interested Russian organisations) and they have the backing of the RF to achieve this. The value and future revenues are probably still there albeit reduced in line with the reduction in metal price and the reduction of off-takers, for those who still consider the investment risk.

Two points (amongst many others) which I am sure any investor of capital is reviewing ; 1) can we develop the asset within CAPEX and timescales under current sanctions, 2) Will future metal prices be favourable with minimise discount demanded by the off-takers.

Icarus69

I assume you talking about the asset sale process, when you stated earlier, ". . . Theres a suggestion that the BoD are confident that they can get this sorted this year . . ".

I also believe that there is a suggestion (by posters on this board) that the EUA BOARD are confident that the sale process will be sorted this year however, I am not one of the people on this board that believes the BOARD are "confident", as I am one of the ones that believe what the BOARD informs shareholders - and they use the words ". . very hopeful. . " in the recent AGM.

As additional information, they have also recently stated in RNS that with regards to the sales process, they have "low visibility' of being in a position to update shareholders of the process.

I am sure if any little bit of the above is in error - others will correct my input.

General comment to attendees of AGM - the statement banding around, "SALE CONFIDENCE – VERY HOPEFUL IT WILL BE COMPLETED THIS YEAR", did the BOARD actually use the words "SALE CONFIDENCE" or has it been added by persons unknow?

Mr Seamus12,

". . that is basically a direct competitor to one of Russia's major exports . .", but also BP was in partnership with Rosneft - they had two directors on the board of Rosneft - how much more friendly can it get. As far as it appears, I cannot see any working relationship between western companies and Russian companies (as the RF rule). I think most will end similar to Johnny Depp and Amber Heard or (for the older ones) Paul McCartney and Heather Mills.

I suspect there aren't gonna be many John Lennon and Yoko Ono moments from all this. I may be totally wrong - but, I say again - the recent past is a good indication for the near future.

Mr Summit,

". . . they could set set off the write down against tax on future income so actually quite useful. . ", very true - but I am sure the shareholders would wish they were never in a position to make the loss to start with - or probably never even put a foot (or a penny) in Russia.

I think the second point - never put a foot in Russia - is echoing around every investment house in the world (outside Russia) - even all BRICS. I expect most future investment in Russia will have to be funded through Russian banks loaning to foreigner organisations. Which company would want to put (their own) money in such a country anymore. This will result in even cheaper oil/gas for the likes of those countries.

One point worth considering for the adventurous - if any SA, Brazil, Indian, Chinese, Kazakhstan companies are buying on the cheap the Russian assets - then there may be value in those companies if you into a quick buck.

Don't think starbucks gave any indication of financial impact - but Russia was less than 1% of their revenue - and as Starbucks business practise probably ensures they not make any profits anyway in any location apart from some offshore account somewhere.

Mr Summit,

One important fact the RF are trying to ensure that happens when western organisations pull out of Russia there's no tangible impact to the Russian people (jobs, access to goods, factories still open etc).

As for the impact - well I won't say anything - let them state as they are in the best position:

BP stated the impact as ". . a result of our decisions we had to take a charge of over $24 billion in our accounts – the largest such financial impact on any company. . . . reducing our reported earnings by c $2 billion a year"

Do we need to look further ?

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/news-and-insights/press-releases/statement-on-media-reports-regarding-bps-exit-from-russia.html

Mr Seamas12,

Thank you - I not aware of this - will look into it later on - but surprised I not noticed something over £1b - I am sure this would have been discussed here.

Mr Summit,

I agree 100%, as I kindly requested, ". . could you provide details of any company that has sold THEIR STAKE in Russia . . "

Mr Summit,

If you "don't expect eua will be sold out of desperation", could you provide details of any company that has sold their stake in Russia that have not been (as the phrase from Life of Brian goes) taken to the cleaners.