Member Info for Fr.Jack.Hackett

Saxonaxe has filtered me - if anyone can ask him why it would be useful - unless he (like many are just angry).

The question I asked earlier
- If people think things will be better tomorrow - I would like to know their reasons.

Mizman,
I agree a confirmation of sale of assets would move share price - however if it requires shareholder approval then that could be 30+ days.
A month is a long time when a country has started war - and things may change quickly - and I would expect the change would not be for the better.
It would be interesting to know which organisation would have the strength and capital to purchase mining assets, probably also requiring large investment capital, located in a country that have started a war with a neighbour.

People buy - because they think the share price is good value and will not go down
People sell - because they think the share price will not go up
- If people think things will be better tomorrow - I would like to know their reasons.

'RE: NPV @ discount rate of 8.33% ($US M)* 1,692'

The discount used on future cash flows in the above NPV calculation is 8.33%. To some investors - this has always looked low - and I am sure many investors have taken that into account and applied their own discount before investing.
When I first looked at Eurasia - I considered a discount on future cash flows of 30% to be acceptable for use in valuing the new assets. For operational assets (like WK) this was reduced to around 25% mainly based on the expectation that any development can be funded by internal cash flows. Based on these discounts Eurasia looked very interesting to investors that may like a little risk.
With the Rosgeo JV RNS - I ventured to reduce these discounts to around 25% and 15% respectively - as it looked like the authorities were encouraging developing the area and would provide a level of confidence for foreign investments.

Actions over the last few weeks have shown that under the present regime - Russia is not such a place to have such a level of confidence. Recent actions would make using over 50% discounts on future cash flows a low figure - even if no investment is required.
Russia actions have occurred at exactly the wrong time for some companies (especially Eurasia).

If this was an open-pit mine in Australia, a discount of between 6-10% would be applied and there would be little further discussion and everyone would continue living a boring life. It is because of the risk that make Eurasia interesting - but this risk needs to be managed. Actions by others (Putin - not the EUA) has made the risk unmanageable for some - and the RNS yesterday shows this as these types of RNS are not what anyone wants. There is little to change this until the regime has changed.

ARealDartagnan,
"anyone else think we have more than one buyer ?"

Yesterday I repeated part of my January statement concerning a consortium.
I suggest the consortium can be the single entity buying the assets - and various stakeholders can have various % of either Kola mining, Kola Nickle or both.
In this post - I also suggest Eurasia may also be stakeholder of the consortium (especially if WK is also part of the deal).

Judge_mental,
I posted the following on the 16 Jan after the Kola Nickle RNS - I did say I would not re-post in later discussions - but I will give a summary of it below which I think may still be applicable to how certain things may manifest with these subsidiary companies - now with the (already known) incorporation of Kola Mining:
Selected text from the 16 Jan:
"
Eurasia have recently created the company Kola Nickel Incorporation to 'carve out all the nickel assets of Eurasia into one subsidiary company'.
The word 'all' is very important.
It is understood (not yet confirmed by EUA yet) that a similar subsidiary shall be used to possibly carve out some or all of the PGM assets of Eurasia into one subsidiary company (Cola Mining !!).
It appears strange to create these additional companies to undertake the companies interests of the various metals which shall be produced sometime in the future by a number of mines whilst also in the progress of selling one or more of the assets - so there must be a few logical and/or pragmatic reasons that can be discussed and deduced.
My first thought refers back to the previous mentioned 'credible party' and possibly this is or has now changed into a consortium (which EUA may also be a participant). Each member of the consortium may have different future demands for the various metals.
So the various parties in this 'imaginary' consortium may be able to hedge more for nickle assets or PGM assets depending on how much of a share they have of the subsidiary companies.
(example : Mrs Doyle Nickle PLC may own 10% of the consortium but own 25% of the Kola Nickel and 0% of the Cola Mining) . . . . . . .
So, based on EUA creating this single company (Kola Nickle) to manage ALL the nickle assets - it can be a reasonable conclusion that all JV assets, MT (incl Flanks) and possible WK assets are being sold to a SINGLE party (the consortium).
"

The main point I am suggesting - and is still aligned with today's RNS, is that possibly all assets (on Kola) are being sold - AND Eurasia may also be a small part owner of the "sold" assets (possibly a small % of the PGM company Kola Mining) - which would then be the input for the future opportunities alongside H4Energy. Eurasia need to bring something to this JV - and suggest it would be a small % of the output from Kola Mining.

If the current political situation was different - I am sure further information would have already been released. I am of the opinion that clarity on whatever path to followed will only be available with a SIGNIFICANT reduction in the political tensions - and I would like to write significant in big bold flashing luminous letters - but unfortunately cannot.

Mr Brisk,
Many have queried the lack of updated WK production rates and resource data.
This information is expected to be provided by EUA and it is not understood by many why it has not been released officially.
EUA will need to provide soon as I understand to comply with LSE listing legislation (others may be able to confirm if this is true) and normally it is customary to provide quarterly production figures.
Unfortunately - with the lack of recent production information - I suspect EUA are holding off providing recent WK production figures to the LSE until they are obliged by the Russian authorities to provide filing for the Russian subsidiary company.
There is a general view in life : if it's good news, you hear it first : if its bad news, you hear it last. So I like EUA to provide WK production data soon - just to satisfy everyone that the former applies.

That said - WK is only a small part on the full company potential - but it can also be used to compare between what the company says in RNS to what is actually achieved.
RNS data from 1-July-2020 states:
WK - Target production 64koz
MT - Target Production 1000koz
Evidence of progress to these production figures would be directly reflected in the MCAP of the company.
Evidence of the progress to these production figures is probably with that camel I mentioned earlier. Only EUA can change that.

Brisk,
to my knowledge - ALL known EUA's mining & exploration assets and interests (all MT & JVs) with the exception of the Flanks exploration adjacent to the Loipishnune mining licence were included in the Russian Resource & Reserves update in the last RNS.

Any data on WK is as elusive as a camel.

Brisk,
You asked if the latest RNS figures included all the NKT (including open pit).
My interpretation is YES it does based on the following wording in the RNS:
". . . is pleased to announce 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. . "
and
"The table is released, as additional information has been received by Eurasia."
and
"The reserves and resources under the JORC Code (by Wardell Armstrong International), further to those already announced for a portion of the NKT deposit, will be announced separately."

So - I assume EUA have received further data on some of the assets based on the Russian code (possibly from Rosgeo) and the data released clearly includes the NKT area (including the open pit).

The resource & reserves in the RNS (how I read it) therefore includes all EUA's mining & exploration assets and interests (all MT & JVs) with the exception of the Flanks exploration adjacent to the Loipishnune mining licence (as I do not think they are part of any of the Rosgeo JVs). I look forward to seeing Lo Flanks in the near future.
As usual - I am sure some of the more experienced/knowledgeable posters will either confirm/correct this - and I thank them.

The CPR info released in December 2021 for NKT included NPV for the underground operation only. EUA stated WAI will release NPV for open-pit separately.

EUA also make it clear that the JORC code data from WAI for the assets shall be be released under a separate notices.

in addition, you can only sell what you own - so if sell price is £4b then that is sell price for 80% of MT or 75% of joint ventures as they are.

Nice reserves & resource summary yesterday - but I think missing Loipishnune flanks still. i do look forward to Lo flanks.

Stevengale,
Your comments are much aligned with a post I made a few weeks ago about the same time the RNS about the Kola Nickle company being formed in which I suggested reasons for various internal companies being form.
I am not going to repost - as it never raised much of a discussion then - but if you click on my previous posts you get an idea.

Just a general thought on the ongoing concerns with the current world affairs as they are - i suspect any good news RNS would not make much inroad to the MCAP - and all parties may be walking a lot slower towards an end point than maybe a few months ago.

Commandoash,
Also look at the spread - Alba is about 5-8% in reality - and you also have less risk with Greatland.
Suggest you look at playing this share for the longer term - and do not put to much on the short-term expectation on the 5% announcement - but wait it out for the longer gains.
Treat it like a slow smoked beef brisket - rather than a rare fillet.
- and my tip for beef brisket - don't take it out 1/4 way through - as it is never good and will always leaves you disappointed.

Cooking tips free on LSE.

Mr Postman,
as most of the resources have already been classified under the Russian Code reserves and resources - most will assume JORC classification probably not expecting to re-rate the resources.
The financial markets do prefer certain classifications - especially if they are going to provide the finance.

Pk,
I sort of partially address some of your points in my post yesterday (9.23am). It was a longish post so will not repost.

Marik,
that link you provided shows that nickle is present in all major assets (apart from West Kytlim).
It therefore compliments my earlier post yesterday (16-Jan at 9-23am) where I suggested Eurasia have already implied in their last RNS what is being sold as the wording states clearly that Kola Nickle has been incorporated to 'carve out all the nickel assets of Eurasia into one subsidiary company'.

So if they are now putting the management of ALL of Eurasia's nickle assets into a single subsidiary company then that means if they plan to sell any nickle asset in the future - then they plan to sell all nickle assets (or why do it).
Unless the only asset being sold is West Kytlim, which I doubt based on previous announcements - then the only other reason (which I have deduced) is that ALL JV, MT & FLanks are being sold - as each of these would produce nickle and therefore this metal shall be managed by the single entity - Kola Nickle.

It also means (or I have deduced) that a single organisation possibly a consortium, shall buy the lot (possible with the exception of WK).

I would suspect Eurasia's advisor (SP Angel) would not approve release of last weeks RNS using the word 'all' in relation to the nickle assets if they were actively in the process of selling some but not all nickle assets.

I have kept the exception on WK - as it is not a nickle asset - but it could well be included.

All the reasoning is in my earlier post.

Eurasia have recently created the company Kola Nickel Incorporation to 'carve out all the nickel assets of Eurasia into one subsidiary company'.
The word 'all' is very important.

It is understood (not yet confirmed by EUA yet) that a similar subsidiary shall be used to possibly carve out some or all of the PGM assets of Eurasia into one subsidiary company (Cola Mining !!).

It appears strange to create these additional companies to undertake the companies interests of the various metals which shall be produced sometime in the future by a number of mines whilst also in the progress of selling one or more of the assets - so there must be a few logical and/or pragmatic reasons that can be discussed and deduced.

My first thought refers back to the previous mentioned 'credible party' and possibly this is or has now changed into a consortium (which EUA may also be a participant). Each member of the consortium may have different future demands for the various metals.

So the various parties in this 'imaginary' consortium may be able to hedge more for nickle assets or PGM assets depending on how much of a share they have of the subsidiary companies.
(example : Mrs Doyle Nickle PLC may own 10% of the consortium but own 25% of the Kola Nickel and 0% of the Cola Mining)

In addition - Kola Nickel Incorporation could now possibly sign off-take agreements for nickle to one or more companies (which themselves may also be part of the consortium) allowing the following to be visible:
1) The relevant company which signed the off-take has guarantee metals supply for the foreseeable future.
2) The individual companies/organisations of the consortium have evidence of future asset worth to justify the acquisition from Eurasia for the mining asset/assets to whoever they report to (could be shareholders, government agencies, private equity, etc).
3) Evidence of future value of the assets for the financial markets (investment banks etc) which is where the monies may come from for such a large investment.

So, based on EUA creating this single company (Kola Nickle) to manage ALL the nickle assets - it can be a reasonable conclusion that all JV assets, MT (incl Flanks) and possible WK assets are being sold to a SINGLE party (the consortium).

Please let me know your conclusions - as reasoning needs to address the following:
- ALL nickle asset management are tied into a single entity
- JV and MT contain Nickle - so will be tied into the single entity
- Eurasia are still progressing with selling substantially all of Company's assets

Roger85,
In reference to your earlier post '. . and taking into account EUA owns 80% of what may be sold . . '
EUA can only sell what they own.
So (unless they also have agreement with the 20% owners) EUA can only sell 80% of MT.

Also,
Please find link to the Tropicana reserves & resources.
http://www.tropicanajv.com.au/irm/content/reserves-resource-statement1.aspx?RID=284

ProfQuatermass,
Your effort in valuing the 5% against the Brucejack mine is structured well.

One point I would consider of interest : you stated 'Brucejack has an AISC $743 and is forecast to produce 311k oz pa over 13 years, which is a total of 4,043,000oz Au. The deal values each oz Au @ $730'.
your calculation in obtaining the $743oz only considered the Brucejack Reserves (approx 4moz). Would you also consider it reasonable to include the Resources (M&I) = 7.2moz and Indicated = 3.1moz.
below is link to the Brucejack Resources & Reserves (for 1st Jan 2021)

https://s23.q4cdn.com/277467366/files/doc_downloads/brucejack/Brucejack-Resources_web-March-2021.pdf

Hope this helps.

As again, I thank you for your honesty Redirons.

Redirons,
I thank you for your honesty, and I do find it challenging to find the information from certain companies especially if it's not stated clearly in RNS. There should be NO reading between lines required.
In addition - the numbers (MCAP v NPV etc) also needs to add up - which is what I look for - and if not - I need to ask the questions if it is not clear in RNS. EUA - they add up. Other companies - they may not.
One point Eurasia stated in RNS in 2020 was :
WK planned production 64koz
MT incl Flanks) planned production 1000koz
- anyone on here can then put value on the company (with different parameters) - but can value the company's future cash flows.

I have never seen such from GGP and have asked the question. When the knowledgeable people are back after the holidays I will ask the same questions. If GGP state 750koz year or higher - maybe things start looking different.

Just for information - I am also reviewing other mining companies - and my preferred one is Caledonia Mining - their RNS have all the information available from the company to value.

Suggest look at as many companies NPV - calculate them - and see where GGP stand in the list.