Member Info for Fr.Jack.Hackett

I left out one or two others - sorry, but they did ask a question which requires a response.

Mr Stetch101, I am sure you can contribute more to such discussions and with that thought, please can you inform users of this platform how anyone with an opinion suggesting a possible share price increase of up to 260% from existing price is considered negative ??

I have justified reason for every little bit of date presented (you may not agree with it) - and answered all questions (some hostile) presented towards me. It may be your prerogative to disagree, but I am sure you can add value to your position if you back up with any justification. Just asking me to reproduce somewhere else I am not sure presents any further insight to EUA activities and possible future sale of assets. If you wish, please also direct me to any fraudulent posts I have made.

Also nearly missed Mr Icarus69 but I don't think you actually asked me a question - you just discussing and agreeing with Mr Stretch101. If it was a question - could you rephrase if you can still read - as maybe filtered. Thank you

Mr Summit,

Why are my observations pointless, yet YOU have just confirmed that one of them actually happened to Amur :

"In my view amur was given away and dumped in desperation"

How can an observation be pointless - if it has happened - that is what an observation is.

Mr Mizman, you correct - I suppose that's what happens when alarm wakes you up on Monday bank holiday.

It would have been nice to be discussing other viewpoints - however I think the last 48 hours indicate most posters on here (with the exception of Seamus12, Jarv55 & Mr Bingo) do not have any contribution to show EUA are worth more than Net-Asset in the LSE Fundamentals tag (£22.41m) - pity (even I stated think they worth much more than that - but I still have the hounding hyenas after me - but I am sure they all nice soft and cuddly after they've had a big breakfast - just feel sorry for the defensive impala).

Anyway, I think I have answered all questions raised to me over last 2 days.

Mr Jarv55,

When looking at the T&C of the Amur sale - it was apparent the risk of waiting over a 4 year period for payment AND the transfer of $30m debt which would only start happening in 2027 and spread over 10 years was significant risk under existing climate - the company was being "forced" to sell urgently under sanctions - yet the receipt of monies was still totally tied up in Russia (long enough to build the mine and start generating revenues) - therefore there was no tangible benefit to shareholders who could still lose the lot under possible future unforeseen sanctions. So the alternative was to receive 1/3 of the original off.

Please note the MCAP during the whole period: MCAP was £49m when the original indictive offer (pre-war) of $100m was made. MCAP was £18.2m when the formal $105m offer (excluding future loan payment) was made - and Directors were DELIGHTED, this offer rejected (I suggest for reasons I mentioned above and what you stated). MCAP of £12.6m when feasibility study issued (showing NPV of $333m). Final MCAP of £17.8m when the $35m offer was announced. if you put the dates and draw a line - it looks like a reasonable red ski slope with a nice rise at the end to the offer price (to avoid hitting the apre-ski party at the bottom), no draglift or gondola required for that journey if you're starting from the wrong place.

Mr Tim987 - I missed your posting earlier - sorry.

I have stated that the number of shares anyone owns on any stock is of no concern of mine - and I consider vice versa. The only shareholders for any company I have interest in are company directors and investment institutes holdings. You may consider this a negative attitude but I have little interest in knowing what others are holding. I assume more people by far read these various discussions than contribute to them - and I think more viewpoints are required irrespective of individual holdings.

I do understand the shareholding quantity is a major discussion point for many - but not all. I wish you well with your holding - and please ensure it is in tax protection wrapper such as ISA or SIPP - then any profit and dividend is protected from Mr Sunak. If it is held outside of the tax wrapper then you still have the ability to declare any losses to HMRC and off-set against future gains - but lets hope this scenario is not applicable for anyone.

After saying all this however, I do thank you for your interest and sorry that I shall not provide much more info on the subject.

Seamus12 - my thoughts - I think (or I think I think this) that I would rather see EUA take the risk and cease operations and put all Russian activities on hold as far as legal procedures allow and see if they can sit-out the issues in Russia until an accepted working environment exists.

Problem is - very difficult to do unless some end-game/solution is visible - and I think all here understand this is not visible. I am sure if all the directors (at least the ones who are major shareholders) were in their 40's or younger - this would be a possible option. I know it's not gonna happen like that - but its a risk that may suit some.

Difficult - what to do in this position!

Its not everyone's cup of tea - but they can always have coffee.

Guys,

Forgot to include:

MCAP for CMCL = £162m

MCAP for THS = £222m

Offler, Seamus15,

Buying AIM on speculation is all good if you like like risk.

Alternatively - you may consider buying AIM mining companies that are actually paying dividends whilst also expanding their asset base and exploration - still risky but at least having excess revenue.

I would consider the following two as risky AIM mining companies which may still pay you returns of 5 - 8% depending on share price fluctuation.

Caledonia Mining CMCL : Zimbabwe gold mining and exploration company. Annual production expected this year to be 80koz (Revenue £142m, Profit $40m). Future planned invested development expected to take production over 250koz/year over the next 4 years (they stated in interviews 500koz - but I based on 250koz for now). Risk is that Zimbabwe and elections and political stability always an issue. Company paying dividends approx 5% but share price has dropped recently due to lower production and probably political tensions so maybe 6% now(I still need to look further into this). So far all investment (including solar power plant) has been through internal cash flows - whilst still paying dividend. My thoughts - I think they will take on debt to accelerate development on the new Bilboes mine to achieve 208koz/year from Bilboes whilst still paying dividends from the current 80koz/year Blanket mine. I also expect Blanket mine to produce a lot more in the future after further exploration works are complete - they have finished commissioning a new $50m new shaft (all paid for with internal cash flows). Have a look and see what you think.

Tharisa THS: Palladium and Chrome mining in South Africa. I started looking at Tharisa to familiarise with the actual palladium production when it was obvious that Eurasia was set on selling MT asset and Pd was well over $2000/oz (I originally thought EUA could be considered a pension for many if they developed MT a few years back). Existing production from the Tharisa mine is in the order of 180koz PGM and 1.6Mt of chrome (Revenue = $686m EBITA $237m). I understand their chrome production is sold 100% directly to China. I not sure who has the off-take for palladium. Again - share price has dropped recently - production of palladium has had issues but I think mainly following palladium price. They are developing (or outsourcing) solar power farms for a reliable power supply. A good point is that two different metals contribute to the revenues. They also have planned invested development with the new Karo mine providing additional 190koz/year of PGM. Karo CAPEX is about $260m. They doing all this whilst paying 5% dividends.

All risky - but the more research the more can possibly consider mitigated.

Mr Seamus12,

I answered your question - you provided multiple choice - but I answered in the margins and 100% correct.

But after reading through your posts - you also stated ". . and EUA have the relationships needed in Russia to keep all sides happy. . ".

Are you implying Heineken, Amur, Kinross never had such a relationship?

Sorry Mr Mizman, I missed your reply - only just caught it now.

"enact the sino steel contract " - I have for the last few years (before the conflict started) have been wanting this to happen - as (in all NPV calculations) the value is in the future revenues and to achieve this EUA need to build the mines and show evidence it is happening to justify all valuations (even the ACF valuation which showed over $1b of rev within 2 years). If anyone wants to spend money BUYING the asset and then an extra $1b in CAPEX development the asset - they wont see that benefit which EUA could if they developed.

Bearing this in mind - it may be a saviour that EUA did not get into debt - as wasn't it the serving debt that caught Petropavlovsk out and killed them off? And they could not sell gold as they were contracted to sell to a single (sanctioned) entity. Company value $0.

One point I will disagree with, you stated "I take your conjecture purely as a means to discredit the BOD and effect shareholder confidence, just before delivery of the assets sale", I disagree with your whole statement. Firstly your opinion on my conjecture is suggestive which I cannot respond to but I like to stated that I do disagree with your conclusion. Secondly, your statement "just before delivery of the assets sale", please expand - maybe you have more information than us mortal shareholders (including the EUA board - who have clearly stated in RNS that there is low visibility and they have been recorded in AGM as stating they only have HOPE in the asset sale this year). Please expand where your information is coming from. I hope you can, but I am not that confident you will.

Tim987,

I have answered this clearly - please review posting history.

Please contribute to the discussion if you can. If your only contribution is asking how many shares people own - then please leave me out - but if it is something concerning EUA and their activities then I be happy to listen and contribute with you.

Seamas12,

I have stated exactly what I like from people on this discussion (if they can) to show a reasoned justification to a negotiating sales price being discussed.

If they cannot - it is easy to say so - or don't even contribute (its not a criminal act to not respond). If people are basing everything on luck - then that is their investment policy.

I have been searching for a positive outcome from a western organisation pulling out of Russia - but so far cannot find. If people here have reason to believe EUA will be different to all others - then I like to know and why.

Boddy Bingo has indicated where there maybe value - in the locality for the assets and also possibility that they are under-estimated in the reserves - this shows some level of reason to value the company higher. Unfortunately - by nature of undeclared resources - it cannot be quantified - but there is a level of logic.

Please note - my (optimistic) price range indicated 5p-8p share price - this is between 60 - 260% increase from existing SP - so if anyone thinks that someone saying this company could be worth over twice the existing sp is degrading the company

value - then maybe they need to revaluate.

This is the discussion which should be had - rather than being very hopeful.

I contemplate the RNS issued on the 6th January 2022 (where COMPANY HINTED that they already knew what sale price was by being able to announcing the dividend policy) kept in shareholders whilst the noise of possible Russian actions was being announced weeks before-hand - there was reports of 100,000 troops on the border in November 2021. I wonder if this RNS was issued for a purpose over-and-above the wording in the RNS.

Mr Bingo,

Its in the CPR - $800,709, 000 (I use $1b as easier to write)

Mr Beast,

You may have overlooked one other point

- Sanctions

If you are not aware - please see link below.

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/sanctions-against-russia-8211-a-timeline-69602559

General comment:

Some posters have stated clearly that I got an agenda.

They are 100% dead right. I have also stated clearly my agenda - and I now repeat it below:

"I challenge everyone (if they wish) to come up with a reasoned justification to a negotiating sales price being discussed by Artem & Dmitry"

I have presented reason and evidence for everything presented (some may agree - others may not) - and would like others to show reason on why I am incorrect.

Mr Bingo,

thanks for contributing.

The value I am presenting is based on the precedents set earlier - mainly what has already happened with Amur & Kinross (and Heineken). It is not that the assets have no value, its that the environment they are in has diminished their value.

The Amur Kun-Manie asset sale has a lot of familiarity to some of the assets with EUA (see link below):

Kun-Manie study report (Permanent Conditions Report TEO) identifies possible mine operation for 19 years, with metal production Nickle 86kt/year, copper 23kt/year: giving Revenue of $1342m at full production (based on recent metal prices).

NKT WA study report (Competent Person’s Report CPR) identifies full production for Nickle 26kt/year, copper 12kt/year, Pd 130koz/year, Pt 30koz/year, Ag 3.3koz/year: giving Revenue of $611m at full production (based on recent metal prices)

Both would require CAPEX in the order of $1b in development.

Amur sold Kun-Marie for $35m. !

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/AMC/kun-manie-teo-submitted-for-review-j7e0hqdxbgqld6m.html

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/EUA/tier-1-scale-jorc-mre-at-nkt-ex-operating-ni-mine-nv4fejk2l8nq60v.html

At the beginning of the long weekend, I challenged readers to submit their REASONS and to QUANTIFY (if possible) for justification that the company value is worth above (or below) the Net-Asset in the LSE Fundamentals tag (£22.41m) under the circumstances of what has been happening under the Russian Federation.

Jarv55: still expects to get 20 to 30p (submitted before the challenged) - which equates to asset sale price of £560m - £840m with REASON : good relations with the RF and the DFS (but we not seen this yet).

Seamus12: suggests 30p - which equates to asset sale price of £840m - with REASON behind the value: ". . 30p which is 10 times from here. . ", even though the reason stated is 100% correct (3p x 10 = 30p), I suspect this reason would not stand long under forensic scrutiny - however you have all day to add further to your reason Seamus12.

As 30p was mentioned twice - which equates to £840m or $1,050m - so lets see what people can buy in Russia for $1050m:

3.5x Kupol mines ($300m) sold by Kinross : each one producing 481koz/year gold with AISC $637, calculated Revenue $865m, EBITA $558.5, TOTAL Revenue for 3.5 mines = $3,027m, TOTAL EBITA $1954m (production data from 2021 Operations Summary spreadsheet from link below). This is existing mine - so no huge CAPEX required.

30x Amur Kun-Manie mine assets ($35m): Feasibility Study indicates NPV of $333m for 1 mine (see link below), so total NPV $3330m.

Polymetal - soon maybe add Polymetal to this list - current MCAP is about $1000m, and looks like they have already written-off Russian assets from the MCAP. Revenue approx $2890m with 60% in Russia and 40% Kazakstan.

With so many posters on EUA over the last few years - surprised not many more posters ventured to reason & justify EUA are worth more than £22.41m - so only conclusion to be taken - not many here believe EUA are worth more.

Where will the path that EUA are following lead ??

For me - I gave an optimistic price of 270M£ to 450M£ a few weeks ago, however I now reducing this by 50% after reviewing recent transactions in Russia (based on what happen with Amur & Kinross) down to £135m to £225m (SP 5p - 8p). Please note - this is my OPTIMISTIC value range - and my pragmatic value is considerably less and more inline with Amur when they sold Russian assets.

https://www.kinross.com/news-and-investors/financials/default.aspx

https://amurminerals.com/content/wp-content/uploads/20210820-Kun-Manie-TEO.pdf

https://www.lse.co.uk/share-fundamentals.html?shareprice=POLY&share=Polymetal-International

Mr Nuffin,

It is the reason/justification/precedent for a higher price I am challenging others to provide. If nobody on here can present reasons for such valuations - then surely nobody on here thinks EUA is worth much more than the Annual Accounts state they are worth.

I know its the long weekend - so many have other things more interesting - but for the few who have nothing to do but chat on a share discussion (on a weekend with no trading) - then maybe they like such a task.

It is probably the last holiday weekend before the EUA asset sale (as the BOD are VERY HOPEFUL for a sale this year) - lets enjoy it !!

Mr Jarv55,

Back on the 29 July (10.41) I did make reason for negotiations occurring at around £270-450M for all assets.

" . . .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). . . ".

However - whilst comparing EUA with other mining companies on recent asset sales (see discussion yesterday) - even these valuations are becoming hard to justify.

As the great Jedi Knight Yoda may have said after a few pints, "look around the fate of others you must to see what path for you to follow".

It would be nice to hear from anyone who can reason higher valuations under the current climate.

I challenge everyone (if they wish) to come up with a reasoned justification to a negotiating sales price being discussed by Artem & Dmitry - the highest reasoned sales price shall win a smiley face like what Pompal posted at 11.10 today.

Sorry, Mr Pompal - forgive me, after all that ranting from me I actually forgot to answer your question.

Answer is NO.