Member Info for Jarv55

Anyone can read the agm transcript and read exactly what was said this is my take on it but I am sure others will have different views.

Eua has significant assets that are ready for development. West Kytlim, Moncetundra and MKT. The board is focused on getting those assets sold as quickly as possible.

The Political situation hasn’t made their job easy. Grant Thornton had a lot more work to do this year, but at present sanctions do not affect them, they provide Russians employment and no one is trying to stop them selling.

The previous raise was earmarked for machinery costs and project developments.

The Rosgeo agreement expired on the 26th Feb. This prevents any further value creation in Russia.

Eua can sell their stockpile if they want to. Eua has enough cash for the coming year.

The Queeld court case has no effect on the sale of these assets as they are held by the company not the shareholder.

Dmitry is still very active in the M & A area.

James had finished everything he needed to do and took the projects through to the milestone of being able to start production, we are not advancing Monchetundra so he has moved onto other projects.

The new Ceo will be appointed after a sale is concluded.

Eurasia version 2, is basically moving into the hydrogen economy, and in fact, renewable energy in general. It was previously linked directly to their mining projects in Russia.

Due to obvious political changes, they will now look at projects as a way of transitioning, maybe out of pure mining. But again, that relies on having a successful sale.

They are still developing Eua 2 and will give more information when there is a clear road map.

All shareholders are given the same information via an rns. Due to Aim rules they are restricted from speculating.

They are re-jigging how they mine WK to save on costs, the dragline is performing well.

The Japanese office does have different jobs to do during the year and needs expenses for this.

With everything to do with licensing, regulations and compliance, they must comply with Russian regulations.

They are very hopeful for a sale by the end of the year and have reasons for that but can’t tell us what they are, due to Nda’s in place. The most recent Nda was signed in June.

The Sinosteel contract is very attractive as it includes the financing, however their main priority is a sale of the assets.

Artem has a background in resources and is a specialist in corporate governance and helped Shell previously. (Sakhalin exit?) He has helped a lot in the sale process.

Eua expected to make a sale before the DFS, but it needed to be included due to Russian regulations.

The Board believes that this year is a very critical year for the company and feels it is important for the board to have maximum flexibility in being able to raise pre-sale for Eua2 if need be. However the sale takes precedent over everything else.

Del no that did not happen think you need read the Agm transcript. The cost for being part of Nyud was taken from the original amount that we paid for entering into a possible JV for the total of 9 assets. https://twitter.com/GMF782/status/1685375794086809600?s=20

The Rosgeo Agreement allows Eurasia to gain a 75% equity stake in each of the nine new mining assets (the "Additional Assets"). The remaining 25% equity stakes will continue to be held by Rosgeo.

Eurasia has paid an initial consideration of c.US$0.5 million of cash (the "Initial Consideration") for its share in the JV. In addition, incremental consideration would become payable under an earn-out structure (the "Earnout") in the event that Eurasia decides to proceed to develop the Additional Assets. The total of the Initial Consideration and the Earnout (if applicable) is capped at 75% of the value set under the relevant Russian law if the Additional Assets had initially been auctioned by the Russian state instead of being acquired by Rosgeo.

The decision on whether to proceed and thereby incur all or part of the Earnout is wholly at the discretion of Eurasia. The Earnout (if Eurasia decides to proceed) will be spread over the period of the development of the Additional Assets. Eurasia has 24 months in which to decide whether to select some or all of the assets to develop. If Eurasia determines not to proceed with any assets, no consideration would be due beyond the Initial Consideration.

Del where did they pay $35 million for the jv it never went a head as far as I am aware and expired I thought they only paid for NYUD.

Nyud Project and Rosgeo agreement

Eurasia retains a right to 75% of the Nyud exploration licence,

which was applied for and later received by Rosgeo’s subsidiary

OOO Monchegorskoye with an intention of establishing a joint

venture with Eurasia’s 100% owned subsidiary, Yuksporskaya

Mining Company, pursuant to the now expired two-year agreement

between Rosgeo and Eurasia as announced 26 March 2021. The

project is now being considered in the context of the Company’s

proposed asset sale.

I personally believe the sale has the highest priority but they are also working on bringing Eua2 in near enough at the same time hence the ask for more flexibility regarding the funding as there maybe some kind of crossover, what comes first I don't know but I do believe them when they say they are aligned with shareholders and want a sale.

Spikey this was the exact question at the agm and how it was answered.

The current question regarding our cash and assets was based on what is our productive monthly cash part.

I prefer to answer the question a different way, that at the present time the company has sufficient cash to meet its outgoing for the coming year,

including returns from the currently unsold concentrates.

Would love to know where the 8 years comes from do you add a year to create more drama?

Rickstars bottom line a lots of the dre-ampers / trolls comments have been de- bunked.

Comments such as the buyer(s) has walked away. - No they have not.

Queeld court case will prevent a sale. - No it does not.

There are no Nda's in place. - Yes there are.

All rubbish spouted by non -shareholders.

Dfs may of added extra info so maybe why another nda was signed.

Very happy with that Agm lots of questions answered factually. Key points for me geopolitical landscape has obviously made things more difficult, however buyer from 2021 is still at the table, no one is stopping them from selling no two sales are the same in Russia. The Queeld case has zero impact on a sale. They are looking to sell this year. New Ceo will be appointed after the sale. New nda was signed in June this year.

EUA AGM 26th July 9.00 am

Visit

https://web.lumiagm.com/156228828

on your smartphone, tablet or computer.

You will then be required to enter your:

• IVC 11-digit Investors Code, including any zeros and

• PIN – the last four digits of your IVC.

You will need the latest version of Chrome, Safari, Edge or Firefox. Please ensure your browser is compatible.

Del the bods wages actually decreased if you look at accounts for 21 and 22.

Toffers the claimants have changed their solicitiors three times and left it for months before re-pursuing it. The company have tried to resolve it and have simply asked for proof of ownership through indemnities which they have not provided . We could all say I have lost my share certificates but we would all need to prove we actually own them for them to be re-issued. I don't see how they can claim damages when its their fault they lost the certificate or sold the shares to someone else.

I really don't see how this has even got to court to be honest.

Paragraph 85 is denied. The Company has not breached the Articles. The Claimants therefore do not have any claim for loss or damage. If (which is denied) there has been any breach, it is denied that it has caused any loss or damage. As to the alleged quantum, any such alleged amounts are not admitted as the Company is not privy to such matters. The Company therefore puts the Claimants to proof. If the Claimants have suffered any loss, it is their own fault as pleaded in paragraph 80.3(9) above and the Company puts the Claimants to proof that they would have been able to obtain countersignatories as guarantors to the Indemnities notwithstanding the existence of matters pertaining to the Claimants and their own circumstances and/or to persons in any way connected with the Claimants and/or to the Claimants’ shareholdings as pleaded in paragraph 69.3 above.

99 Paragraph 86 is denied. The Claimants ought to have tried further to resolve the matter with the Company before issuing these proceedings.

IX. Conclusion

100 The Claimants are not entitled to any relief against the Company.

Korribian its pathetic.

Https://www.miningweekly.com/article/anglo-joins-zambian-conference-to-discuss-resource-tax-2023-07-07

I think the negative posters were invested in Arc years ago and got in for the AA deal only to see that break down. So they are naturally sceptical and annoyed at having lost money, there has been so many delays here you can't blame them for thinking that way, they may have bought at 8 to 9p on the hype and had to take a hit. But the deal is done, they are just waiting now on African time lines, which is never fast. But once the approvals come in AA will hit the the ground running with the drilling campaigne, Its a case of when not if now. AA are fully backing Zambia now as we can see by the articles shared. The market is a fickle place if they hit 8 -9p before the deal they should hit that again on drill results which makes Arc good value down here.

You know that do you? You don't know how many have still got spread bets open from higher up.