Member Info for Fr.Jack.Hackett

Mr Redirons,
Your opinion is always welcome but please - you have one factual error - I have never been banned.
I allow you to correct your post (with regards to the factual error) but your opinion remains - and should be heard.

In the meantime - please correct what is in error in my post below - as I did say that I may not be correct.

If you cannot add value - suggest you allow others who can.

CAW1,
You mentioned in your earlier post yesterday (17.27) 'My question really is what do people think the assets for sale are'.
A good starting point is what does Eurasia own ?(its easier to sell if you own it):
WK mining licence
MT mining licence
MT Flanks (exploration licence)
Semenovsky tailings (possibly still own - not heard much - maybe its disappeared or varnished - like an old oak table)

Nyud (don't think Eurasia own this yet - but understood to be in progress)
Other JVs (don't think Eurasia own yet)

Some of above may be in error (out of date) - if so I apologise - and hope others correct.

Dip666,
Thanks for getting back on the subject.
Please note - I was not doubting anything in your earlier post at all.
- It was just to see if GGP or NCM have indicated if there are mechanisms (whether informal or formal) to avoid the Step 4 - but like you have stated - I also agree they will probably be a little pragmatic in ensuring things are wrapped up neatly without outside help.
My view - if Step 4) is initiated it would not benefit either party.

Thank you

Dip666,
With reference to the 6 steps you listed - would you know if any parties have indicated that there is any mechanism between steps 3) and 4) for a process of 'arbitration' directly between GGP & NCM to avoid entering the Step 4) ?
I suggest this would benefit both parties.

JeanA,
Correct me if I am wrong - but is parsec a measure of distance ...

LT-I,
I may disagree (just a small amount) as from what I have seen - Eurasia have indicated virus issues as one of the items which slowed the progressing of the asset(s) sales - but to my knowledge, they have not mentioned virus as contribution to delaying development up to planned production for WK or MT.

LT-Investurr,
I think your words are correct - and can be reflected in the specific use of certain terms in the RNS.
With this in mine - I would therefore wish Eurasia to provide the following update:
i) latest production figures for WK - and the progress towards to 64kozpa planned production
ii) Confirm at least MT is being sold - and therefore progress to planned production is not being pursued

Item ii) would at least stop me cursing EUA - as they stated 4 years ago that planned start of production would be in 2021 !! which would bring in 100's of m$ of revenue !!

Are they listening ???

It be interesting to know who on this forum originally used the phrase EUA v2 !!

The heading of the link provided is very significant :
'North American Palladium Reports $167.8M in Adjusted EBITDA for 2018, Announces Quarterly Dividend'
Its generating revenue in a relative secure area of the world.

Mr Marik - as Flanks NKT is not yet producing revenue - and you stated you have taken that into account - could you oblige to share the following (if you have used the DCF for NPV)
1) the year for first revenues you use for NKT
2) the discount you apply

Just for information - I suspect NKT may need to show predicted production > 500-750 kozpa (pt eq - including the other metals) within 4 years to be at $600m

It will be interesting to see how ACF deal with this NKT information as it does not refer to the whole of Flanks - maybe they split Flanks into two separate financial models (1-NKT, 2-Area adjacent to Lo). Also the following comparisons will be of interest:
1) Capital expenditure: WA = $613m (for partial Flanks): ACF report = $149m+$72m+$64m = $285m (for whole of Flanks).
2) Revenue : WA never stated first year of revenue : ACF stated $2692m for 2023 in their last update in September 2021.

ACF stated they used discount of 17% in September 21 - I assume they will drop this a little - but wonder what value they now apply (the JORC is important as it maybe a requirement for financial arrangements - but as Eurasia DS stated - it is more of a paperwork issue as the information is already available in the Russian system for MRE - so little risk associated directly) - they cannot go as low as MT at 12% - because MT has already finance in place with the Sinosteel EPCF contract.
I consider ACF may address the initial capital expenditure offset by applying a finance deal like the existing EPCF and maybe also provide a pragmatic approach for the revenue for 2023.

thanks for the advice from everyone today.
I may go for my nap now - but I just wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the point raised earlier - Pd (eq) v Pt (eq).
- It is interesting that Eurasia are now using platinum equivalent rather than Palladium (which has been used by Eurasia throughout for MT & Flanks).

Question to Mac :
Reviewing the report issued yesterday by WAI - Figure 2.5 on page 11:
Would you agree the red line area represents the full Flanks exploration licence - and therefore implies the report for NKT area extends (incorrectly in my view) across the whole Flanks area.

The Flanks area around Lo (which extends north to West Nittis) is a separate area (with another 11moz PGM).

This is my understanding - and is also complimented by your recent post :
6: NKT - https://rfgf.ru/gkm/itemview.php?id=53121

I understand there are two items requiring clarification:
1) Area included within the JORC
2) $1.7b valuation

I think Mr Y was spot on with the shaded areas on sheet 6 - they are areas Eurasia already have mining licence for 2moz PGMs and NOT included in this report.

I am wondering if the map on sheet 11 maybe misleading - and others will identify this fact or not - but the red line area listed covers the whole of the Flanks exploration area.
I have been under the impression the flanks consisted of two main areas (based on RNS dated 1-July-20) :
i) Flanks north of the existing West Nittis mining licence which I understand is included in this report and called NKT (containing 2.3moz of PGM plus other metals)
ii) Flanks around the existing Lo mining licence and extending north towards West Nittis (containing 11moz of PGM plus other metals)
Total PGM = in the Flanks area = 13.2moz (plus other metals)
reference the following map issued sometime ago
https://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/6909N_1-2019-9-25.pdf

So based on this - I suggest the map on Page 11 is therefore misleading showing the NKT area including the area south of the West Nittis extending to Lo. This area I understand will have a separate resource announcement.

Item 2
The report states NPV(8.33) of $1.7b over a 11 year operation. I have looked at the numbers on Page 37 and I get their figures by the following:
Year 01 : 0 production, $200m capex : FCF $-184m : NPV $-183
Year 02: 0 production, $200m capex : FCF $-168m: NPV $-351
Year 03: 0.25moz Pt(eq) production, $200m capex : FCF $-50m: NPV $-390
Year 04: 0.5moz Pt(eq) production, $20 sustaining capex : FCF $224m: NPV $-232
Year 05: 1moz Pt(eq) production, $20 sustaining capex : FCF $464m: NPV $69 (mine breaks after 3 years prod)
Year 06-13: 1moz Pt(eq) production, $20 sustaining capex : FCF $464m: NPV year 06=$344m$, 07=$569m, 08=$828m, 09=$1040m, 10=$1234m, 11=$1413m, 12=$1576m, 13=$1726m
Using 11 years production the NPV(8.33) = $1726m based on AISC $600, Pt $1200oz

Mr Cygnet,
The 8% is the discount applied each year to the free cash flow generated when operating. It a multiple for each year - to get the future cash flows at todays price. So next years cash is today worth 92% of what it will be.
remember - in general - a $ today is worth more than a $ next year, and even more than a $ in two years time.

In RNS dated 26-Sept-19, NKT contained the following (for the whole NKT area - which is excess of the NKT within the Flanks): Pd = 1.7moz, Pt 594koz : Total Pd & PT PGM = 2.294moz

In RNS dated 01-July-20, in the section Background to the Flanks application it states that 'an additional 13.3moz total PGM (primarily palladium) within or partially within the flanks application:
Flanks to the deposit at Loipishnune = total of 11moz
NKT Massif = 2.3moz (assume this value is for the whole NKT area - including area outside of the exploration licence)

RNS dated 16-Dec-2021 stated 57 tons of PGM = 1.995moz at NKT (assume this to be within the area of exploration licence only), In total - it is estimated the metal basket of resources provide 11.2moz of Pt (eq) again assume within the exploration licence area only.
- It is interesting to note that Eurasia are now using the cheaper platinum as an equivalent rather than Palladium (which has been used by Eurasia throughout for MT & Flanks)

If I have made errors in the two assumptions above - please correct me
If anyone has views on why the change from Pd to Pt equivalent - please provide your views

General thought:
This latest RNS was never expected to provide new information - but it serves to translate existing data to languages more acceptable across the financial world (makes funding easier).
Interesting times ahead and wait for the MRE JORC data for the Flanks off Loipishnune which should re-confirm and compliment existing data already available.
What I think would add value to Eurasia MCAP would be issue of mining licence and mining plan for the Flanks and the issue of DFS for both MT & Flanks (I expect this now to be combined).
In addition to MT/Flanks - the JV MRE will add value - however I think the transfer of 75% ownership of some/all of these potential assets need to occur to get the assets on the books (EUA can decide based this on the data contained within the Russian Cadastre before any JORC report).

DanielC,
I understand it is for the NKT which is part of the Flanks exclusivity area (which is separate to the MT mining licence area).
What it also means - there is huge value in the resources in these areas some of which have been mined previously but hold huge $ value for multiple years of production.

Mr Sherifff3,
I understand the 11.2Moz platinum is an equivalent value - so it combines the nickle, copper & 57 tons of PGM & Gold into a single metal resource.

General thought :
This I understand is the MRE for a section of the Flanks - so does not include the 1.9moz already for the MT mining licence. So other Flanks MRE shall be expected for Flanks and also for some of the Joint Venture assets.

It was interesting that they provided a NPV - so shall need to look at the report - but looking at the figures in the RNS quickly - and utilising the NPV(8%) used in the RNS I estimate the NPV is based on a 20 year mine life with production 600kozpa (eq) and a $600 AISC.
- What I think is next is a mining licence granted for this area of Flanks - this would then allow a large % of the NPV stated in todays RNS to contribute to the MCAP (currently I assume it is a low %).

MT NPV is $146m according to ACF (I estimate this to be higher - between $300m - $400 as the mining plan does state 128koz/pa is reached within the first five years - which ACF cash flow model does not)

WK NPV is $162m according to ACF

Anyone can add these numbers up to get the actual MCAP (taking into account the ownership for Eurasia of 80% for MT/NKT and 68% for WK)

Tigra,
It was 21 Sept I posted my 'calculation' for ACF AISC.

Thank you Tigra for the update.
I thought I may have missed some earlier information on Eurasia stating an AISC.
I do hope something is issued (DFS for MT & update on WK production) as this would stable share price.

Just for further information - I think I posted earlier my 'calculations' for what ACF have probably used WRT AISC for MT & Flanks and I think I worked it out as (posted a few months ago):
MT = $950
Flanks = $814
Taken from the latest ACF report just used the following:
AISC (incl mining tax & others) = (Revenue - Cash flow pre-tax) / (Revenue / Pd price).
I know I simplified it in my earlier post but it gives an idea of what they used.

Hello Tigra,

You stated in your earlier post the following
'Our all in sustaining costs (AISC) for ALL projects in the arctic zone (including every licence allocated in the Rosgeo JV areas) has today fallen dramatically ',

I am not aware Eurasia have stated a AISC for any project in the artic zone yet however I am not up will all information - if you have an earlier AISC for any mine please supply reference as shall be able to utilise in financial modelling rather than use estimated ranges which are often optimistic.
Thank you

Star786,
The RNS on the GRL website is complete with respect to AISC (<$600), I suspect it is an issue of data loss whilst transferring to the LSE system.