Member Info for Fr.Jack.Hackett

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.

Maybe post here instead:

Mr Jiffy,

its fair point - silence from any BoD is never good - however I think this Board have deliberately been quiet since Feb-2022 for reasons which are obvious to many. I expect the COMPANY thinks silence is golden (or platinum) under these circumstances.

Mr Jiffy,

its fair point - silence from any BoD is never good - however I think this Board have deliberately been quiet since Feb-2022 for reasons which are obvious to many. I expect the COMPANY thinks silence is golden (or platinum) under these circumstances.

Mr Del,

Without spending too long on this, just my take on some of your questions:

Q1 - If the COMPANY responds positive to your question, then I would expect the "credible party (the 'buyer')" may now need to re-evaluate the completed DD as it is over 24 months ago. In addition my question would be if the Board consider the "credible party" still a "credible party" as its been over 24 months.

Q7 - The Board did inform shareholders on the 11 April in an RNS. Maybe consider re-wording if you like EUA to respond differently.

Q9 - Would not be surprised if EUA can use NDA to withhold some or all of this information.

Q12 - I understand EUA have already stated the sanctions do not prohibit any of EUA activities. Any further information I expect they will be able to withhold under NDA.

Q17 - I would expect the Board to disagree with the context of your question - as it is the easiest political answer. Maybe raise a specific where it is open to misinterpretation. I think most of the RNSs are clear - unfortunately on here certain people intentionally mis-interpret the wording. An example - "The Board remains of the view that any buyer is likely to be found in BRICS countries" - it is clear from this wording (at least to me) that the Board are not in any level of detail discussions with any buyer - but do think there are buyers likely from BRICS. So based on this - I expect the credible party has flown south for winter and does not know winter is over. I am sure in the AGM they will have no choice but to make similar announcement.

Possible additional interesting question -

1) If the Board believes "This (sales) process has now run on substantially longer than the Company's management team had anticipated", well - how long did management originally thought this process would take?

2) If the information issued in RNS dated 6-Jan-2022 is still applicable and has the backing of the full Board.

Mr Dulyred & Mr PI,

I understand about people speculating and I understand that the company can call for a meeting any time.

I raise the point of the specific wording "not less than 14 clear days".

I raise the point generally to all observers that whether this differs to standard announcements and therefore needs AGM vote for approval.

I understand similar was NOT requested last year - therefore I would expect reason for this request from EUA board.

I would also consider worthy of questioning at AGM (for them who bothers) - as the requested action is from the COMPANY and is suggestive of something THEY think will happen in next 12 months BUT they also thought would NOT happen at time of last AGM.

It is only holding COMPANY to account.

One point to note - the resolution #8, I don't think the COMPANY requested this in the past - so may give indication they may require to call an additional meeting for some reason during the year!!

8. To authorise the Directors, in accordance with the Company's Articles of Association, to call a general meeting of the Company, other than an annual general meeting, on not less than 14 clear days' notice.

It appears for the last two quarters actual production has not been in accordance as originally proposed planned. One thing I do note - CMCL board statements are always made in good faith with the information they have to hand.

So when Mr Learmonth states, ". . . we have much work to do to make up for the production shortfall from the first six months, we are confident that we will do so and we therefore re-iterate our production guidance for 2023 of between 75,000 and 80,000 ounces of gold. . . ", I for one believe this is their intention and they are addressing the issues.

Lets wait and see how this unfolds - but based on past performance, I am expecting them to achieve their expectations for the one simple reason - they stated in the RNS that they "are confident that we will do so ".

Wording from the BBC website link:

"Following the presidential decree, the prospects for this sales process are now highly uncertain,"

Good morning Mr Friendsps,

Please note - EUA have already stated a dividend policy - I mentioned it earlier in the weekend - and ask the question on whether they still maintain this under current circumstances (if not - you'd think they would notify shareholders).

I cannot see any shareholder value (at current share price) for using issue of shares for a raising of capital for future investment - any funding for future investment I suspect shall need to come from the possible asset sale and the 20% dividend retention they have stated in the dividend policy.

If the COMPANY needs to raise capital by dilution - then I am sure its use will be to pay for the electricity meter for the life support system and not for investment.

That said - without an asset sale, I suspect the discount applied to any raise would take into account the situation the company is in - and maybe the discount be similar to what FAB recently experience.

Mr Jiffy,

Would you not consider the current price of 3p worth a speculative punt ?

At 3p - to buy back at less than a 1/10 of what you sold - must be a little tempting.

As so many on here keep saying - you can't un-find a mine. However - the future economics on whether it's reserves or resources depend on the commodity price and other economics. If you think commodity price may rise over next few years then may be interesting.

In addition - hostile activities shall end - tomorrow, next month, next year, next decade - and then the 1/10 then becomes 10/10. Countries leaders change - at least due to human lifespan - so probably expect certain leaders NOT to be of significance within the next 10-15 years.

If you like a punt - this must be considered cheap - but I think it is speculative nowadays as to many variables can go against the direction the company is heading to increase shareholder value.

As for your thoughts - when you bought in sometime ago - what was your endpoint? was it 32p ?

What would your consider your endpoint to be now if you ever do again buy-in ?

For information - 2 years ago I had this company set at most at 64p assuming plans for a 1000koz/year at MT and 64koz/year at WK mine was progressing - the company obviously at the time had no intention of achieving such performance targets.

M a r s ellus Wallace