Member Info for Fr.Jack.Hackett

Tanks for that update Mr EMC.

Mr EMC,
I may have missed this information - but you stated '. . . as the market was expecting $25m for the 5%. . .', could you direct me to any previous market information that indicated that $25m was expected - as it be interesting to read.

Thank you.

Bucky,
I thought (or assumed) by now WK would be doing well to finance the majority of the other COMPANY activities. I am not convinced it is or will be able to do so in the next three or so year - so I suggested a few questions based on WK info from the last RNS (posted yesterday):

Question 4: Based on the statement in the Annual Report, 'James Nieuwenhuys, Chief Executive Officer commented: "Operationally the West Kytlim asset is performing well." '
a) Can the COMPANY confirm that 3,643oz of raw platinum was approximately the performance target the COMPANY set for West Kytlim for 2021 ?
b) Can the COMPANY inform SHAREHOLDERS what the performance target for West Kytlim is for 2022 ?
c) Can the COMPANY inform SHAREHOLDERS what the planned annual targets are until the target production of 64k oz at full capacity is reached (stated in RNS issued on 1 July 2020) and the planned year to achieve the 64k oz full capacity ?
d) Can the COMPANY inform SHAREHOLDERS what the AISC or on-mine cost per oz for West Kytlim in 2021 ?

This is the reason I suggest for sharp fall in share price today.
And yesterday fall - based on ban on Russian gold.
Tomorrow - ??

Mr Del - I not sure they are questions rather than discussion topics (but that may be what you want after reading the thread).
I have a few points that some may also consider here - I do apologise if some of this have been addressed in the Annual Report or elsewhere:

Question 1 : Based on the RNS issued on 30 June statement, 'Eurasia seeks to MAINTAIN open, direct and two-way communication with its shareholders through various media...'
- Will the COMPANY be providing quarterly operational updates (as a minimum for West Kytlim) throughout 2022 ?

Question 2: Based on the RNS issued 30th June and the statement - '. .the Board's opinion that it has a reasonable expectation that the Group has adequate resources to continue in operational existence for the foreseeable future, which management has determined to be at least 12 months from the signing of this Annual Report to the conclusion of the 2023 financial year.'
-What measures will the COMPANY consider and put in place if the opinion of the Board is found to be over optimistic with the operational existence or the geopolitical climate has a negative impact on the COMPANIES finances over the 12 months ?

Question 3: Based on the COMPANY website statement '. . 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..', and the RNS statement issued 30th June, ' . .has set aside sufficient funds to complete and submit a Definitive Feasibility Study for the Monchetundra project in November 2022'.
-Can the COMPANY confirm the Monchetundra project DFS planned for issue in November 2022 shall incorporate Loipishnune, West Nittis and FLANKS ?

Question 4: Based on the statement in the Annual Report, 'James Nieuwenhuys, Chief Executive Officer commented: "Operationally the West Kytlim asset is performing well." '
a) Can the COMPANY confirm that 3,643oz of raw platinum was approximately the performance target the COMPANY set for West Kytlim for 2021 ?
b) Can the COMPANY inform SHAREHOLDERS what the performance target for West Kytlim is for 2022 ?
c) Can the COMPANY inform SHAREHOLDERS what the planned annual targets are until the target production of 64k oz at full capacity is reached (stated in RNS issued on 1 July 2020) and the planned year to achieve the 64k oz full capacity ?
d) Can the COMPANY inform SHAREHOLDERS what the AISC or on-mine cost per oz for West Kytlim in 2021 ?

- nope - thats GGP !!

Is it possible the suspension is linked to possible announcement concerning the 5%

some high localised grades:
§ Including 13.9m @ 22.8 g/t Au & 0.46% Cu from 1,013.4m - nice
§ Including 0.5m @ 96.0 g/t Au & 0.10% Cu from 1,020.7m - very tasty especially if repeated in adjacent drilling

Tygra - please also take note of the spread - I suggest the 22% drop is not as it seems - but could easily be 20% rise on open as it is 40% spread

Mr Mac,
I would concur that if shares were suspended to make an announcement concerning continuity of NOMAD or any of the legal/financial advisers - an announcement would have been presented yesterday evening or this morning at the latest (simple - direct - and in very few words) - whether it was good news or bad news - that's irrelevant.

As it has not been made - then I consider it more likely either to do with asset sale or company structure and/or possible relations with other organisations.

Having said this - now the shares are suspended - I see no reason for Eurasia to at least provide the context surrounding the reason to suspend (ie asset sale or reorganisation).

Finally - as the announcement was not provided by 7am - then I also conclude it is at least a binary or higher announcement.

I suggest it is an announcement which EUA are wanting to announce - rather than announcement they are forced to make or don't want to make.
The reasons:
-I am not aware of any NEW additional sanctions imposed on Russia by UK (or others) OR any NEW ownerships restrictions of Russian Assets imposed by Russia - therefore Sherlock has deduced it must be an announcement specific to the company and/or assets - and which can significantly impact company SP.

Therefore based on the above - suggest the evidence turns towards positive information for shareholders.

It is a good early attempt - but suggest it leaves even more questions - but that's twitter for you.

It would gain more value if later today Eurasia could release some RNS confirmation that at lease one of these 'multiple work streams' which DLA Piper are still included in, is the continuation and progress to conclusion of the asset sale/s inline with previous released RNSs.
- if they cannot clarify that - then the questions start.
Suggest this is also completed in-day RNS before 4.30 today if the news is positive.

The importance of the JORC is that its a pre-requisite for Eurasia to buy the other 25% of these joint assets.
I understand JORC released data is NOT considered a mechanism for any major resource/reserves upgrade as this information is already available within the Russian system of grading. Releasing the resources/reserves under the JORC standard would allow these reserves and resources to be acknowledged by a wider audience s - such as many stock exchanges around the world and financial institutions which may be approached for capital for investment.

IF it is part or all of the joint venture assets (maybe together with MT and/or WK) that are part of the items Eurasia are in the process of selling AND the buyer wants 100% ownership - then the JORC SHALL need to be completed and I assume released in RNS. If the buyer does not want 100% of the asset (75% maximum is acceptable) then JORC does NOT need to be completed.
That said - I assume any potential buyer would need to raise capital - and therefore I think JORC will need to be completed to allow the capital to be raised.

I have said before - Eurasia can ONLY sell what they own.

As for DLA Piper - they are legal representative for Eurasia on the asset sales process - so I assume the legal work to transfer the JV reserves/resources to JORC standard and any legal work for EUA to purchase the 25% from Rosgeo needs to be treated separately.

EIE01,
earlier in January and again in February I proposed that a consortium of some kind consisting of various parties with differing interests in the various bag of metals may be the buyer (which even Eurasia may also be a party too).
Stating the various countries give me more confidence that that is the case.

Its just a pity that recent events now dictate the path forward. Due to these events - I have also proposed that whatever bid for the assets was originally on the table (assume there was) has now been replaced with another.
Saxonaxe I think binned me for proposing the last statement above - but it is just a logic thought that many have.

EIE01
If that is true - then it does mean that sanctions DO help big time.
People always poo themselves when a nice lifestyle may be taken away.

Jonmo91,
Your first paragraph I agree with 100%.
Suggest others here may be able to contribute - as I feel that even negotiation talks are difficult as it has been proved this last two weeks - what one may say does not mean much in reality.
The UK is struggling with understanding the truth from the leaders on minor things (last few months its dominated UK politics) - how feasible is it for foreign parties to go to negotiations with that level of honesty and trust which some have shown over the last few weeks?

Based on this - I suggest your 1st paragraph is the only way for any sort of solution.

Mac,
The share price is 10p, MCAP is £285m, I suspect if sales negotiations are still taking place (say with a Chinese company or so) then a large amendment to the sales price I suspect would have been made.
I am glad you agree 'that the BOD at this stage need to give us shareholders something concrete details wise'.

Bankrupty,
I am assuming what you say is based on whoever is buying the assets are not or getting finances from any organisation or person subject to sanctions (either now or possibly in the future - as it takes time to arrange share holder votes). Also - they still want to buy the assets at the price they agreed before war started.
Could they still be in a position to renegotiate prices to their advantage. Also - lets see if any RNS is issued shortly indicating a stakeholder is increasing their holding.

One item or glimmer after reading yesterday's RNS is the word 'activities' in the statement taken from the RNS below :
'There is no impact on Eurasia's operations or activities.'

I assume selling assets would be deemed activities - and therefore (as of yesterday) has not been affected - at least by the sanctions.

Mizman,
I agree with the first two points. I partially agree with point 3.
Unfortunately for Russia - I think the Russian leader has taken Russia a few steps further than ever considered acceptable - and I think it will need more than time to resolve. I suspect a change of government as well as time will be required for foreign nations to reconsider.
I suspect whatever sanctions are implemented over the coming days/weeks/months shall remain in full on Russia long long after the hostilities.

Please note - I suspect it is Putin and Putin alone that puts off many potential investors in Russia - and also causes so many investors who do decide on Russia - to hold such large discounts on their Russian investments.