Member Info for Fr.Jack.Hackett

Mr Pompal,

your comment " . . . As you believe our assets are worth way less than the current mcap . . "

I have not said they are worthless - I have stated that recent transactions with other companies have indicated Russian companies are being sold for no more than their balance sheet asset value and most considerable less - AND I gave an example of such. If this is not the case then please show me examples to the contra.

Then I then use this as the predicted possible sales price being negotiated. If you think it is higher - then please show your reasoning - if you can.

The second statement you made " . . AND you are no longer invested . . ", to make such a statement you need 2 bits of facts that I am sure you don't have: 1) I had investments in EUA originally, 2) I have now sold. As I know you don't know these two facts - I suggest you are speculating.

StejStej,

For me - personal investment is exactly that - personal. I know a lot of people find this the only factor worth talking about whilst valuing a company - but I rather talk about the company. Please look at my whole posting record - and see if I ever talk about an irrelevant subject such as number of shares being held by anyone apart from Directors and Organisations.

So - answer to your question - I take the fifth !

Finally - before the bed-bugs bite,

I offer to anyone to show reason (not even need to be evidence - just reason) to indicate possible MCAP for EUA worth significantly higher than current value. Please quantify if possible - I have always presented tangible data in all my opinions when presented here. I take all opinions into account and I am happy to change my view on this - Just like Jake Blues once said - YES. YES. JESUS H. TAP-DANCING CHRIST... I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT.

Mr StejStej,

Please note these are not really calculations:

Heineken sold 300m euro assets for 1 euro

Amur sold their mining assets for $35m (which is about the same as their 2022 balance sheet Net Asset - see link https://www.lse.co.uk/share-fundamentals.html?shareprice=AMC&share=Amur-Minerals

If you look on the EUA Fundamentals tab - EUA 2022 Net Assets = £22.41m. https://www.lse.co.uk/share-fundamentals.html?shareprice=EUA&share=Eurasia-Mining

It appears that buyers of Russian assets held by organisations based in 'unfriendly countries' are getting bargains.

Thanks for your concern for me and Eurasia - and talking about calculations, I originally had this stock speculatively valued at a future MCAP of about £1.8b but only when they progressing their revenue income towards $2b/year (through production expansion in assets - as stated in RNS back in 2020 - 1000koz/year) and from healthy metal prices (Pd over $2000/oz). Unfortunately neither of the two items justifies such a high speculative future value.

Please note - share price does not only take into account asset value - but also future POTENTIAL earnings - geopolitical issues has killed off any speculation for future earnings.

For me - the market is optimistic that EUA will get asset sale income for at least 3x asset value (current MCAP). EUA board have not stated they are optimistic - just hopeful.

7 operational breweries sold for 1 euro. Not bad (if you are buying).

EUA management are VERY HOPEFUL for selling off their Russian assets before end of the year.

Lets also be VERY HOPEFUL that they get more than what Heineken got - as 1 euro does not go far across 2.8 billion shares in a dividend payment.

Amur got $35m - if EUA receive that then it wont even be 1p dividend payment per share across the 2.8 billion shares - so if you holding 1 share you may not even get the penny if exchange rates are not good on the day of payment.

The buyers market in Russia appears to be getting stronger - EUA probably correct to say 2023 is a critical year.

Unfortunately this is the reality for businesses operating inside Russia.

Wonder if they will ever find the black box

It be a privilege.

Mr Summit, when I review the metals - I take into account all the metals listed in any study.

As I made clear - I compared the Kun-Manie asset and the NKT asset as they have the study reports released. I am sure when/if EUA feel obliged to provide such information for other assets I may consider completing similar task. I do apologise on behalf of EUA for not having the MT study report data - and I assume therefore your duh! is really directed to EUA.

If they do not release such data - I start making more assumptions - I can limit these assumptions if only considering Kun-Manie NKT.

Maybe I have misunderstood the NPV to the RF.

Possibly - this value is for the following : taxes (such as value added etc) from procurement activities associated with for CAPEX, Import duties for equipment made in foreign countries, mining taxes, Corporation Tax, Income tax, Export tax etc etc.

If this is the case - then please ignore last posting - however it does appear very sided to the RF.

It reminds me of the olden days when there was 12% tax on bets in betting shops. As the bookies would generally payout 90% of what they get (you can see by normalising all the odds for a particular event) - the government would take an additional 12% for doing nothing, and the bookies would run their business (including paying wages, taxes, corporation tax, pay for shop, purchase blue pens etc) all from the 10%. And please remember - they were very very profitable even in those days.

I would also like to add - in the comparison to Amur - and it is taken from the Amur RNS dated 7th June:

". . . The design parameters maximise revenue generation to the RF based on fully loaded taxation and royalty schemes. The total Net Present Value ("NPV10%") deliverable to the RF is projected to be US$ 628 million. This approach does not optimise the financial return to the project operator which is addressed during the next and final requirement of the DEMP, the mine planning stage. . . ."

and also . .

". . . It has been established that a 19 year open pit operation at an annual rate of 12.4 million ore tonnes should be implemented. Financial results have derived a NPV10) of US$ 333 million and an IRR of 15.6%. A nickel price of US$ 14,468 per tonne (US$ 6.56 per lb) and a copper price of US$ 6,758 per tonne (US$ 3.07 per lb) were used in the RF feasibility study. The results provide the basis for the next phase required as a part of the DEMP where RF approved mine plans and designs are to be compiled. . . "

Therefore the Russian Federation (RF) is the majority beneficiary for this development (US$628) whilst to Amur it is approx 1/3 (US$333). I assume total NPV of the Amur Kun-Manie asset is (628 + 333) US$961m. Please - if I misunderstand anything listed above - let me know - as it needs to be addressed.

So, applying this scenario (if It is correct) to the EUA NKT NPV from CPR : US$1188 (WAI) & US$1692 (spot prices):

35% to EUA / 65% to RF : therefore NKT NPV for EUA = US$415.8 (WAI) & US$592 (spot prices).

Then applying the 10% of NPV for the asset sale (based on Amur sale of Kun-Manie) : NKT sale price = US$41.8m (WAI) & US$59.2m (spot prices).

This would be very concerning -as it is considerable lower than probably the investment made in the drilling etc.

Please note - If correct - this ratio of sales price would then aligned to the revenues expected from the future maximum production of Kun-Manie and NKT (numbers I may post later today or tomorrow).

With regards to Amur - and to make any comparison to EUA position (which is the only point for discussing Amur here) - it is worth looking at the dates and MCAP.

20-August-2021: Amur produced a feasibility study Permanent Conditions Report (TEO) on the Kun-Manie nickel & copper deposit

: SP = 1.8p : MCAP = £25.2m

25-January-2022: Received (indictive) offer of £100m - NOTE this is pre-conflict

: SP = 3.5p : MCAP= £49m (MCAP is 50% of indictive offer)

9-May-2022: Offer of $105m with $75m being paid over period of 4 years and debt transfer of $30m (starting in 2027, $3m/year for 10 years) : Management was 'delighted'

: SP = 1.3p : MCAP= £18.2m

25-May-2022: Above offer was rejected by shareholders

: SP = 1.135p : MCAP=£18.9m

7-June-2022: TEO study (a level of feasibility study) indicated NPV of $333 at 10% discount.

: SP = 0.9p : MCAP= £12.6m

5-August-2022 - Offer of $35m in single payment was accepted.

: SP = 1.27p : MCAP= £17.8m (MCAP is 50% of agreed offer)

24-May-2023: Declared Dividend Payment = 1.8p (£25.2m)

: SP = 1.8p : MCAP= £25.2m

23-August-2023: SP = 0.125p : MCAP= £1.75m

The above accepted offer was approx 10% of the NPV(at 10%) from the Kun-Manie study report. EUA NKT NPV(at 8.33%) was US$1188 (WAI) & US$1692 (spot prices). So if using 10% of NPV : then NKT would be sold for US$118m (WAI) & US$169m (spot prices).

With respect to MCAP - Amur showed a MCAP of about 1/2 the offer price at most relevant times during the sales process.

A preferred comparison would also take into account the difference in the discounts (10% v 8.33%) which I sugguess would drop the EUA value by say 10% (maybe an accountant can relate the two NPV with different discounts - but it will require various assumptions to when revenue is received).

In addition - a quick review of the Amur feasibility data indicates the Amur asset appears more profitable than NKT based on the numbers in the two reports. I may put some NUMBERS together later on here for anyone who has read both reports.

Statement from Amur (24-May-2023) : ' . . As the funds have been sourced from a non-sanctioned entity in Russia, payment of the dividend has required extraordinary non-typical enhanced governance approaches for implementation of payment . . '

I thought EUA themselves have put EUA-2 at low low priority and therefore if EUA have low visibility about asset sale then I suppose they have lowlowlowlow visibility about any consideration about spending time to discuss EUA-2.

I am also in same thought of mind as EUA BoD with regards EUA-2.

Mr Mac,

I think you correct in what you say, " . . For BRICS it is a very large WIN. . . ", especially for the discounts they now know they can expect and highly likely get whilst buying up any resources.

Mr Bingo,

Understood, however I thought Nyud was included in the part of the Rosgeo resources mentioned in the original RNS resource/resources (see below) - but I may be incorrect:

". . . the reserves and resources breakdown by metals for the Monchetundra Project (Loipishnune and West Nittis deposits), the NKT area, and the projects included in the agreement with Rosgeo . . . ". I don't think I will be able to circle the square or square the circle.

Anyway - enough of trigonometric shapes, on a more transient topic, Luton Town pulled out of the relegation zone during the weekend without even playing a game - so maybe I can allow myself a small level of optimism for winning the league - and not just being very hopeful. Not sure how long the optimism will last.

Very interesting Mr Bobby.

I wonder, probably others do too, what menafn consider as the minimum amount of production to be considered a key player in platinum?

Whatever it is - they consider EUA has achieved that threshold.

I did earlier ask for posters comments on the following - with respect to what was said at the AGM (with regards reserves & resources):

". . . We cannot produce reserves and resources figures for deposits we do not own . . "

- and compared to what their position was in the RNS issued on the 8 Feb 2022.

I still don't think anyone has commented - I would be grateful. As for my understanding, I think they did in the RNS exactly opposite to what they told shareholders they can do at the AGM. I am trying to identify if my understanding is similar to others.

Mr Beast,

No - unfortunately - I did apply. I have read the transcripts which a couple of kind posters posted on here - thankyou all.

Overall - the wording appeared more positive compared to what I thought would go on - especially after last year's AGM.

As mentioned the AGM - in the transcript it says (with regards reserves & resources):

". . . We cannot produce reserves and resources figures for deposits we do not own . . "

Maybe I ask here what posters think about the above statement bearing in mind the RNS issued on the 8 Feb 2022. If anyone could align these up to square the hole - I would be grateful.

Thank you

I mentioned sometime ago that I was VERY HOPEFUL Luton Town will win the premier-league this season.

The first game was a set-back. I was hoping for better this Saturday - and I am now CERTAIN it will be better - as the game is postponed (so cannot lose 4-1 if not playing). I was also hopeful Luton can pull out of the relegation zone without playing a game - but I am not OPTIMISTIC that the other results will accommodate this.

I am still VERY CONFIDENT that Luton Town will not achieve what I am hoping for (to win premier-league) - but it will not stop me from hoping.

On a different subject entirely - it would be very reassuring to hear from EUA BOD that they have any such level of confidence in what they are very hopeful for.

Ceejay,

I was also looking at palladium forecast a few days ago and i noticed the prediction of $1500 in mid 2024 but also an awful lot more predicting lower :

"Palladium is expected to trade at 1216.93 USD/t oz. by the end of this quarter, according to Trading Economics global macro models and analysts expectations. Looking forward, we estimate it to trade at 1105.48 in 12 months time."

The above is more typical of what I find over the last week - and the second link below indicates the ongoing lowering of future price predictions. Over the last 2 years - I think palladium is one of the most unpredictable metal from the brokers - as according to data I probably posted here 2 years ago - Pd should now be 3800/oz.

https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/palladium?embed/forecast#:~:text=Palladium%20is%20expected%20to%20trade,1105.48%20in%2012%20months%20time.

https://www.reuters.com/article/precious-prices-platinum-palladium-idUSKBN2WT10J

From the wording of the Polymetal news report - there are similar similarities with EUA and also indicating a level of concerns for their position due to sanctions:

. . . . an asset sale, for which he said there were a number of interested buyers, the only viable option. . . A spin-off or distribution of the subsidiary to investors are not possible. . . . . the sale of the Russian business remains the only reasonable option. . . .

AND they provided a timeframe -Six to nine months was a realistic timeframe.

I HOPE EUA BOD are reading the information provided from Poly to shareholders - as EUA have never provided any timeframe or indication of timeframe (apart from its been going on ta ta ta ta 2 long) - and shareholders here are mainly relying now on the HOPE expressed from the EUA BOD.

Polymetal activities in Russia alone mounted to over 1000koz of gold production last year - so I can see lots of buyers lined up to purchase revenue generating assets. Be interesting to see any info on the asset sales prices - as I am sure this will be made available one way or another!!

Info taken from:

https://www.polymetalinternational.com/upload/ib/1/23-03-16/2023_03_16_Preliminary_results_FY2022_eng.pdf

Mr Beast and others if attend AGM,

The statement from the AGM . . "ANNUAL REPORT – MUCH TOUGER THIS YEAR – HENCE THE DELAY" . .

Can anyone say if the BOD gave any further explanation as to why it was tough ?

If not - did anyone asked a similar question to the BOD concerning this.