Member Info for Fr.Jack.Hackett

I think all information for your questions are listed in the post.

However - if not clear - MT & NKT are combined - listed together as the maximum production EUA have ever stated (see RNS dated 1 July 2020). FCF is just simply based on % of revenue (% used based on Vale figures).

NKT CPR stated ROI figures based on number of years running at full production - but it did not give any indication of timeline to full production. It also (correctly) never took into account the ASSET PURCHASE PRICE which any prospective buyer will need to make to be able to develop the mines to full production. As the Asset Sale Price is not applicable for EUA in CPR report - as they already own it (or most of it) -- but it is applicable for a buyer - please remember.

So - I presented figures based on what Saudi have invested in for 10% of Vale.

Wardell Armstrong NKT ROI figures are based on EUA developing the mine. ROI figures will increase for the 'creditable party' as they gotta buy the asset in the first place!! And most here wants that sale price to be high as hell.

Thank you Magnum - well spotted - give that man a biscuit.

But the end result is still correct !! 19.4 years !!

As not much to do - and Mr Mac seemed excited with Saudi buying into Vale asset - then applying same ROI to EUA to obtain a Payback-Period v Asset-Sale Price:

From Vale : FCF/Revenue = 5.7/41 = 14% ; Payback period for Saudi investment = Cost/FCF = $2600M/$570M = 4.5 years ROI

Applying same FCF of 14% of revenue to EUA and assume EUA max Production 1000koz (Pd equivalent - generous) @ $1500/oz :

Total Revenue = $1.5B (assume max revenue optimistic 3 years after asset purchase):

Using the FCF/Revenue = 14% : EUA FCF = $1.5B x 14% = $210M

Mine CAPEX NKT = $613M (taken from CPR), CAPEX MT = $176M/0.85 = $207M (taken from Sinosteel contract)

Mine total CAPEX (NKT & MT) = $820M

TOTAL CAPEX = Asset Sale Price + Mine total CAPEX

Assume full production 3 years AFTER asset purchase (optimistic):

Asset Sale Price $0M : Total Capex = $820M : Payback = $820M / $210M = 3.9 years + 3 years = 6.9 years

Asset Sale Price $100M : Total Capex = $920M : Payback = $920M / $210M = 4.4 + 3 years = 7.4 years

Asset Sale Price $250M : Total Capex = $1070M : Payback = $1070M / $210M = 5.1 + 3 years = 8.1 years

Asset Sale Price $500M : Total Capex = $1320M : Payback = $920M / $210M = 6.3 + 3 years = 9.3 years

Asset Sale Price $750M : Total Capex = $1570M : Payback = $1070M / $210M = 7.5 + 3 years = 10.5 years

Asset Sale Price $1000M : Total Capex = $1820M : Payback = $1820M / $210M = 8.7 + 3 years = 11.7 years

Asset Sale Price $2600M : Total Capex = $1820M : Payback = $1820M / $210M = 16.4 + 3 years = 19.4 years

Above is based on Vale ROI data which Saudi are happy with and ignoring any interest rates and other inflationary things. For the very optimistic amongst us - If the Saudi spend same $2.6B money on EUA asset purchase then they have to wait 19 years for return of investment.

Earlier calculations had quicker ROI as metals price was higher (Pd equivalent over $2100/oz). Based on the Saudi acceptable ROI - even if EUA give away the assets it will be nearly 7 years to get money back!! Please comment whilst provide your figures and maybe a little justification if you will. As mentioned - this is based on the Vale buy-in by the Saudi.

https://www.kitco.com/news/2023-02-17/Brazilian-mining-group-Vale-s-EBITDA-and-net-income-down-in-2022-on-lower-iron-ore-prices.html

If have time later today - may look further into the Vale figures and apply same criteria to EUA to show possible payback period for asset purchase based on what Saudi ROI.

Mr Mac,

Looks interesting and good purchase for $2.6B for 10% (EV = $26B).

Vale mining has P/E ratio of about 5 - 6.

Dividend yield of 5 - 7%, Revenue $41B, Free cash flow $5.7B, EBITA $18B

2023 Production - HAPPENING NOW:

- Iron Ore = 310,000,000 tonnes

- Nickle = 160,000 tonnes

- Copper 335,000 tonnes

- Should bring in about $42B again this year

Take 10% of the FCF - then looks like $570,000,000/year to the Saudi Arabian Mining : they get all their money back before Christmas 2027 - all because of the immediate revenue source. This is why operating mines worth buying - reduced risk, reduced or 0 CAPEX, revenue immediately - what more do accountants want??

https://www.kitco.com/news/2023-02-17/Brazilian-mining-group-Vale-s-EBITDA-and-net-income-down-in-2022-on-lower-iron-ore-prices.html

Mr Ragsrob,

. . . "He is Unbelievable a vile individual. . . "

. . .are you referring to the Luton Town goalkeeper (Walton) on loan?

DUFC23 - they weren't really my team - but they are now and for the next 12 months.

Treadingcarefuly and others,

The BOARD are very hopeful of completing a deal before end of this year - because they told shareholders at AGM. The BOARD does not see much visibility in the asset sale/completing the deal - because they told shareholders in recent RNS. This year is critical for EUA - because the BOARD told shareholders at AGM.

Everyone can have various opinions on what the above means - but I am certain the BOARD is very specific in the chosen wording used in both AGM and RNS.

Last week I stated how hopeful I am for Luton Town to win the Premier League - together with my level of confidence of them to achieve this.

Mr DATTABASE1 ,

If you get this message - maybe you can read my post on this thread at 29 July 10.41 - just requesting some info from you if you like to contribute - feel free to.

Mr Chessmaster1234, Your logic I find is reasonable and acceptable and I am sure many companies do sell their assets in a similar way - and I am positive EUA board would have consider such generous proposals a few years ago when the share price was 42p+.

Where I say there's a counterbalance to this - is that the BOARD have stated they are trying to obtain maximum shareholder value - and, if such a generous offer of 1.5x current share price is received, I would say the BOARD would then consider maximum value to be obtained by developing the assets in a timely manner starting with energising the Sinosteel contract for 130koz/year plant. This may mean back-tracking on the departure from Russia policy - but would increase shareholder value above selling the assets at 4.5p share.

Risk would increase - but risk is always high when dealing with Russian assets.

Mr EIE01,

Typical example of unrealistic information in the ACF report - within just 2 years it shows revenue of over $2,500,000,000. It takes time and effort to build mines - and with the help of Harry, Ron and Hermione it can possibly be complete in 2 years.

With the help of the Russian, Chinese and other countries and lots of time and money - it may take slightly longer (maybe 5-8 years to reach such revenue). The majority of the NPV from the ACF report was from these early years of revenue generation - but in reality this was never gonna happen.

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.