Member Info for Fr.Jack.Hackett

Mr Beast,
they may not match all your criteria with regards to resource but Caledonia Mining (CMCL) is probably my fav AIM mining company I am watching. Producing over 80koz gold in 2022 (goal achieved) - have just completed multimillion investments in new central shaft (67m$) and solar power (12m$)- all funded by internal cash flows whilst still paying 5% divs.

one of my highest criteria with some of the small mining companies - achieve the planned progress and/or production - then everything else nearly falls into place.

I would like EUA to state planned production for West Kytlim & MT up to the the target production of 64koz &1000koz respectively in accordance with which they stated in RNS issued on 1 July 2020.

I also been watching Goldstone resources where their target production went from 50koz to 25koz to 12.5koz within 1 year and still not achieved.

Mr Mac,
I would also like to believe 1). MT is being sold (always assume that and makes sense) & 2). would make sense that the NYUD DFS submission before NYUD asset sale. However I do still have a piece that does not yet fit into the circle concerning MT - and that is the following statement issued in the corporate update RNS on the 21st December:

'Our strategy remains as previously announced - to continue to develop our assets while working with counterparties in BRICS countries regarding the possible sale of our Russian assets, a process which we appreciate has now run on longer than the Company's management team anticipated'

The above statement implies that the COMPANY was expecting the asset sale process to have already reached conclusion before the 21 December.

However - the square bit is not fitting into the hole is the fact that Eurasia Mining have always stated the Monchetundra DFS scheduled for first submission around end of 2022. The only interpretation I can reasonably take from this is that the COMPANY was expecting asset sale conclusion BEFORE DFS submission.

Mr Mac,
The COMPANY has clearly stated that the asset sale process should already been completed, from RNS - ". . . regarding the possible sale of our Russian assets we appreciate has now run on longer than the Company's management team anticipated. . . ".

They have always stated that MT DFS is anticipated for submittal at end of 2022. So it is up for question what they have been trying to sell prior to MT DFS submittal. It may be all assets but without DFS or DFS approval etc - but not sure that is shareholder value.

It is clear to me - they were expecting conclusion of 'asset sale' prior to MT DFS submission.

With regards to the 100% licence - it is not clear on the date this was taken on. As it is 100% - then it's not part of the JV.
I have little thought on where and what this is - but I have a small suspicion that its practical to all parties that this falls to Eurasia (for reasons maybe location, access or other).
However - company has been a little to stealth with this.

Mr Mac,
1) I believe the Japanese suitor has pulled out of asset purchase (sometime ago but after AGM) - and they were also organisation that completed the due diligence sometime ago (from the wording of RNS in the last 6 months).
2) I also think Eurasia have changed their future plans in Russia - and are no longer want to commit 20% of their asset sale into further Russian investments.

I do still think Eurasia will be involved in the future hydrogen technology - just not in Russia.

Japan no longer mentioned as a location of potential asset suitor -only BRICS.
I have no doubt Mr. Kosaka is knees deep in asset sale stuff. I have loads doubt that this work involves selling to Japan based organisations - as the company only now makes reference to BRICS.

Mr Mac4671,
I do not think Eurasia Mining now consider Russia as an Investment friendly jurisdictions - and I think that is why they used such language in the RNS - to give confidence to future investors that Eurasia Mining shall now be focused away from Russia after this draw-out asset sale which the COMPANY itself has stated has now run on longer than the Company's management team anticipated.

You may have a different opinion on what the statement means - and you may also like to believe Eurasia STILL plan long term new business investment in Russia. I do not think signing the ERDC agreement by default makes Russia an Investment friendly jurisdictions for the signatories (unless they are from countries such as China and other countries that will not vote against Russia at the UN).
When this agreement was signed over 12 months ago - I am sure the company had plans for future investment in Russia - these plans I suspect changed 9 months ago (I would like to believe they have) and I think is why Eurasia used the specific terminology in the RNS to re-assure investors that any monies received via asset sale will be used elsewhere. Otherwise - why use such language in RNS.

I would also suspect any LSE listed company BOD expanding investment in new business in Russia (with the threat of further sanctions being imposed at any time) would not be servicing their shareholders well with such cavalier attitude.

and YES - i do see the previously copied and pasted corporate update RNS segment which clearly states that the office is supporting Dmitry with the sale of assets. Japan (as I stated) is mentioned as an office ONLY - not as a location of potential suitors.

My thoughts on the EURASIA's participation in any new ventures (such as hydrogen etc) in Sakhalin and Kola was fully addressed by EURASIA in the Interim Results RNS issued on the 30th September 2022, the statement:

". . . we continue to look at expanding the business in various ways, including the development of hydrogen projects internationally coupled with new mining opportunities in investment friendly jurisdictions. . ."

Investment friendly jurisdictions can be interpreted many ways - and my interpration of this statement would likely knock-on-the-head any new development by Eurasia on Sakhalin.

With reference to Japan - it has now only been referenced as an office now - not as the base location of a potential suitor. In addition , reference to 'due diligence' has also not been seen since the Japanese suitor reference - suspect items are linked.

Reading yesterday's update it appears the following statement from the RNS . . .
". . .regarding the possible sale of our Russian assets, a process which we appreciate has now run on longer than the Company's management team anticipated. . ."
is not aligned with my thoughts (and others on here) for what the COMPANY is considering selling as part of its 'asset sale'.

My view prior to this RNS of what was being considered as the 'asset sale' would include MT (and flanks) - and would be linked to submission and acceptance of the DFS. The COMPANY has for some time (over a year) been informing shareholders DFS submission is expected at end of year (with the assumption that acceptance would be received a number of months after submission).

For the COMPANY to now make clear in a statement that the sale process has run longer than the management team anticipated leads me to believe that MT is therefore not part of the 'assets' being discussed for sale OR, if it is part of the asset sale then the DFS submission was NEVER a pre-requisite to the sale (something I find extremely hard to believe).

In addition to the above point - if MT is being sold but DFS submission was never part of work to complete asset sale - WHY spend money completing the DFS ?

Other opinions always welcome - as logical reason may provide a realistic scenario of what the COMPANY is trying to sell (and purposely not telling shareholders).

Mr mizman,
When you talk about 'DFS news next week' - I assume you are talking about EUA informing shareholders the DFS has actually been submitted (I assume 'submitted' means submitted to the authorities) - which they plan to do by year end (as stated in RNS).
If you mean 'DFS news' is anything to do with the CONTENT of the DFS - then the COMPANY has already informed shareholders precisely when they will update shareholders with this information - and it is not related to a date but to a 'response'.
I make this clear in my last post earlier today.

Mr Mac,
It is noted that the COMPANY has already issued a CPR which indicates the NKT underground asset NPV is valued between 1.2 - 1.7 b$ (based on 8.33% discount). It also observed that current Mcap for Eurasia is in the order of $120m due to circumstances outside of the Eurasia's control.

As the Company has indicated that the DFS for the Monchetundra area (understand this will include flanks) is 'on schedule for SUBMISSION before the end of 2022', then I suspect if any RNS released before year end (stating the DFS is submitted) shall not have any significant re-rate of the Mcap value (as NKT CPR report has little reflection in the current MCap). In addition - I suspect DFS being 'submitted' would not be pre-requisite to an asset sale.

My understanding (and correct if wrong - please) is that the DFS would need to be 'accepted' by the relevant authorities to start having any Mcap re-rate (especially under current geo/political circumstances) - and I suspect it also needs 'acceptance' as part of requirements for sale of asset - in which case the Mcap would re-rate to close to whatever the sale price.

Please also note (as I stated previously on this board) - I am not expecting Eurasia to mandatory issue RNS in December as they have not said they would. The wording Eurasia have used is ' . . The Definitive Feasibility Study for the Monchetundra (West Nittis and Loipishnune) open pits is well advanced and on schedule for completion this year. Details of this report will be provided WHEN A RESPONCE IS RECEIVED from the relevant authorities'.

I would like to think they will at least inform shareholders that it has been submitted (and maybe it is requirement for LSE AIM) - but I am not expecting any details of the DFS to be made available in December - at least until they have a 'response' from the authorities.

I did provide my definition of 'response' on an earlier post.

lovelyboy,

Also taken directly from the Eurasia Mining website '. . Monchetundra PGM and Battery Metals Open Pit deposits with EPCF contract signed with Sinosteel are being advanced to production with Flanks areas to be integrated into the production plan . . '

Flanks shall be incorporated into the plan - and some of these deposits are contained within Flanks.

https://www.eurasiamining.co.uk/

Trying to get an update of the Eurasia M&A 'activity' and my understanding from company statements is as follows (correct me if I have missed anything out or if Eurasia have announced otherwise):
Taken from RNS issued 02-March-2022:
"The Board notes our focus on BRICS (in particular on Russia, China and South Africa) and Japan in terms of our M&A strategy"
Taken from RNS issued 30-Sept-2022:
"our M&A team is focusing on BRICS counterparties, and discussions are ongoing with predominantly Russian, Indian and Chinese non-sanctioned counterparties"

From the two statements above - I deduce the entities from South Africa & Japan are probably no longer interested (maybe forced out due to sanctions or maybe through choice).

I assume the ONLY organisations still sat at the table (obviously in comfy seats as they been sat there long time) are organisations not yet affected by sanctions and based in Russia, India & China (see above).
In addition - 1 organisation completed due-diligence as stated in RNS issued 28-Oct-2021. Are they still sat at the table?? - I understand it was verbally stated 'they still at table' by an Eurasia executive at the AGM back in July. It appears some organisations have (possibly) pulled out since the AGM in July based on the statement on the 30th Sept 22. Is there evidence to confirm or deny this (such as legal requirements for AIM company to issue such notice)?

Things have changed - and may change very quickly in December & February.
In early December 2022 - further EU sanctions shall be inflicted on Russia - making it illegal to buy oil (via the sea route)
In early February 2023 - understand it will be illegal for EU to buy ANY oil or refined crude.
(I am not certain what the associated gas sanctions are with Russia - but understand the pipelines have been put out of action anyway). All this leads me to think after early February - the EU and probably other nations will agree to inflict maximum possible sanctions on Russia and Russian organisations and companies - with the sole purpose of making it impossible for any commercial organisation to have operations involving Russia.
In addition - I suspect the EU (and other western countries) will be in a more secure position to apply a level of secondary sanctions on other countries (such as China & India) to minimise certain trade with Russia if they wish. What level (if any) of secondary sanctions only time will tell.

Overall - I suspect any sale of any asset by Eurasia should be completed (lock stock signed and money transferred) before February.

A very well managed company - growing out of profits whilst still paying 5%.

I would expect any conclusion to the sale process to be released at the earliest opportunity on RNS - as all other parties will also be possibly releasing similar news.

If sale is agreed after 6.31pm - then we may actually hear about it first through other sources (such as Eurasia website or buying company website) than LSE RNS.

If the Russian authorities have recently released this statement - then I assume a formal response from Eurasia via RNS will be expected before the days end.

Scipio - I not to often here nowadays but I am expecting the following info to be released before end of year as stated in Annual Report RNS :

1) Update on WK progress and production figures
(James Nieuwenhuys, Chief Executive Officer commented: "Operationally the West Kytlim asset is performing well following a successful winter stripping programme and a subsequent increase in stripping capacity. As discussed in our Operational Reports the mine is expected to make the switch to hydro-generated grid power later this season and the use of electric draglines, both important developments for sustainable platinum group minerals and gold production through life of mine. I look forward to providing shareholders with further updates regarding progress during the second half of 2022.")

2) Evidence that WK is self -funding in 2022
( The Group is in the process of installing electric draglines and grid power, realising its plans for the West Kytlim asset which is intended to be self-funding from 2022.)

3) Any update on the development programme for MT and full clarity on the strategic options:
(The Group has spent £682,419 on a development programme for the Monchetundra asset during 2021 and has budgeted a further £527,000 for statutory reporting on this asset to November 2022, keeping the asset in good standing while strategic options for the project's development are considered.)

4) Receipt of DFS for MT and surrounding assets:
(The Company continues to progress discussions with regard to the potential sale of its assets, appointing KPMG Russia as agent in May 2022, and has set aside sufficient funds to complete and submit a Definitive Feasibility Study for the Monchetundra project in November 2022.)

I am sure if all of the above are positive (especially items 3&4) - then you get your chance to invest in uranium (no matter what your EUA buy-in price is).

Mac - You are correct in the NPV that the independent WAI accessed for NKT - also - this was based on only the underground asset I understand - so expect a possible further increase in value.

However - from a conservative viewpoint which I am sure some investors may have - the 8.33% discount rate would be more appropriate for such a development in Australia (and is similar to what I would use on some of the developments there such as Greatland's joint venture with Newcrest).

In reality - I expect a lot of organisations and individuals have a higher discount built in to their valuations for Russian assets and maybe have increased this again due to what has happened this year. This will also be exploited by any buyer - whether BRICS, Japanese or other - as nobody will pay more than they think they can pay for something.

Mr Mac,
I agree that often firms (backed by governments) sometimes buy over the odds for natural resources for their long term plans - however, I suspect maybe under current situation and a review of Eurasia share price today - no country backed organisation (inside or outside of Russia) will pay such amounts at this moment in time - as times are difficult for London based companies with businesses in Russia.

When BOD states they are trying to get shareholder value - I suggest that may now have evolved slightly to mean they may keep the majority of the assets on the books until future times and sell minor asset if possible.

West Ktylim may be a lifesaver as it shall be generating revenue internal in Russia.

Its only an opinion - if the COMPANY provided further clarity it would help.

Mr Ibiza,
Based on a 30% discount, I had Monchatundra (including flanks) NPV worth approx 64p/share (including approx 3-5 years before any revenue generated).
On a similar model for Greatland Gold - I had their 5% stake (which Newcrest may purchase) valued at approx £50m (using 8% discount) - as it now been valued at $60m - I think the model is reasonable accurate for my research purposes.
The additional Eurasia JV assets would increase this price even further.

Unfortunately - the downside is that I cannot see any such return for a considerable amount of time even after all hostilities from Russia have stopped.
Any buyer of any Russian asset in the future (after hostilities have stopped) would apply discounts much higher than the 30% which I consider reasonable at the time - 50%+ may become the normal for accountants valuing Russian assets for a long time to come.