Member Info for mac4671

The part you pasted CAW, that simply states that it's not limited to the licensing -

"but not limited to mining licensing support."

As in they get other support as well as the relevant licensing support.

Honestly, seek the relevant professional advice on the ERDC agreement, it's a legally binding agreement and changed the Kola assets dynamic quite a lot to be honest. I'm simply trying to help people with it, because, well, there does appear to be quite a few who have missed it's implications for what Eurasia are currently doing at the Monchegorsk district.

GLA

No CAW, the licenses are for land use rights as the state own all of the land. You get an exploration land use license or a resource extraction land use license. MT has extraction land use licenses, MT flanks has exploration land use license. The ERDC would gain the extraction license for MT flanks for example on behalf of Eurasia.

When you can show me where they have stated this oldspursfan i'll listen -

"All thats happened is its gone from November, to November/December "

The mining plan is the mining plan oldspursfan, how do you think ore extraction and processing will change due to a conflict hundreds of miles away from any Kola asset? It won't!

GLA

ERDC do all of the work CAW, they procure the licenses and provide the relevant legal cover etc -

"Eurasia has signed the ERDC Agreement providing that ERDC shall procure:

(i) land use rights for all Eurasia's projects in the Arctic"

Eurasia are a Arctic resident after signing that agreement, it's a different ball game to anything that was done previously -

"· Legal defence of rights and lawful interests of registered Arctic residents by the Arctic management company (Article 17 Law 193)."

If people struggle with what the ERDC means i would suggest seeking the relevant advice on such things as it changed the Kola assets dynamic quite a bit tbh.

GLA

It's where the uninhibited development comes from you see. The mining plan is to include flanks and rogeo jv assets, neither have appropriate mining licenses. Once DFS is done and they accept the plan, the licenses will be procured by ERDC for Eurasia, enabling Eurasia to take the project into production uninhibited -

"This production volume does not include Monchetundra Flanks and Rosgeo JV projects which will be separately announced"

ERDC are state owned so it should run more like clockwork than the old 3 body system things used to have to go through imho

GLA

The ERDC effectively procures everything for us from the agreement being made you see, all further licenses etc -

"In the framework of this application, Eurasia has signed the ERDC Agreement providing that ERDC shall procure:

(i) land use rights for all Eurasia's projects in the Arctic (both Eurasia's own and all projects included in the binding agreement with Rosgeo), which will be an important contribution to an uninhibited development of the projects in the region. All the land plots of all Eurasia's projects on Kola and all projects included in the agreement with Rosgeo are included in the Appendix to the ERDC Agreement."

GLA

That all depends on if a buyer is waiting for DFS details before making a binding offer CAW. At DFS details stage they can make a binding offer stating that they will pay X amount as long as the DFS gets accepted.

The DFS will go through the newer ERDC agreement system, so, we don't have any basis for comparable timelines as it will be the first thing that we know of to be submitted via that binding agreement!

The Arctic Management Company could accept it fairly fast and issue the relevant response, we have no idea until it is submitted via the ERDC system imho

GLA

It is the budgeting which gives the count down to November, people can read that for themselves -

"has budgeted a further £527,000 for statutory reporting on this asset to November 2022"

"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."

"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 do apologise if the budget does not suit your standpoint!

GLA

Oh, and oldspursfan, i don't mind being wrong about the dividends, but, others seem very incapable of accepting the numerous times that they've got things wrong themselves.

Are you capable of accepting that a statement stating X amount of weeks BEHIND SCHEDULE, would suit your suggestion better, or, is your opinion cast in stone and can not be altered?

GLA

"you're the one treating a 5 year plan from however many months ago as being absolute gospel" - And there lays the problem, oldspursfan doesn't believe the released RNS information.

So, you're trying to argue against the RNS information, that's quite interesting and very telling tbh.

You also clearly don't read anything i post, perhaps it's just reading that is the problem here?

"Of course, November is a large window in itself, could arrive at the beginning, or, could arrive towards the end."

You can't just make advent count downs up to suit your position old chap, it doesn't work like that lol

GLA

It doesn't need to state November in the interim oldspursfan as it states ON SCHEDULE.

So now you're also attacking their initial 5 year mining plan details that they dropped back in Sept 2021? Are you ok?

The DFS is on schedule, it was started a very long time ago and that 5 plan is the initial part of such things.

And yes, that's right, Flanks and Rosgeo JV assets are also being worked into the mining plan, as it tells you that way back in Sept last year -

"This production volume does not include Monchetundra Flanks and Rosgeo JV projects which will be separately announced"

You simply need to read what they release to see what they've been doing since Sept of last year up until when the budgeting runs out at November.

To suit your suggestion better they could have stated 4 weeks behind schedule, it's not difficult, there are appropriate phrases to describe the situation of any schedule.

GLA

No they haven't oldspursfan, they have stated on schedule before the end of 2022. On schedule for November which strangely enough is before the end of 2022. Nowhere has it been stated that anything has changed from the initial schedule given. If it had been stated as such it would have said behind schedule.

Of course, November is a large window in itself, could arrive at the beginning, or, could arrive towards the end. Only the BOD know the specific date that they have it scheduled to be ready for submission for. I've merely pointed out the correct budgeting for Monchetundra which runs until November and also provided the second statement which also states November. If it was to run further then they would have changed such things apparopriately, why do you think that they wouldn't in the interim report? They could have stated two weeks behind schedule for example, which, would suit your suggestion far better, don't you agree?

GLA

From the 5 year mining plan they gave the snippet for they simply work their way to the lager relevant 20/25 year plan, i think most who understand mining understand what they've been doing this last year -

"pleased to announce that a detailed mining plan has been completed for the first 5 years of the life of mine of Loipishnune open pit and the West Nittis open pit, both of which form part of the Monchetundra project."

They budgeted until November for doing such things, and, well, as far as RNS is concerned that is all on schedule imho

GLA

Oh and by the way, we've already had a snippet quite some time ago, remember? -

"· Updated results of block modelling and open pit optimisation have created the opportunity to increase phase one ("Phase One") annual ore production by 1.7 times (from 1Mtpa to 1.7m Mtpa) compared to the Russian Feasibility Study (the "FS") throughput. The FS was approved by the State Commission on Mineral Reserves as announced on 3 April 2017. Phase One includes Loipishnune open pit and West Nittis open pit only

· Revised production profile has resulted in the metal grades in the first year of production amounting to 2.6 g/t of palladium and 3.5 g/t in total of palladium, platinum and gold at West Nittis open pit mine. A revised production profile at Loipishnune has also resulted in the following grades: 1.8 g/t of palladium and 3.1 g/t in total of palladium, platinum and gold in the first year of production

· Phase One annual metal production has now been calculated to be equal to 128 Koz of palladium equivalent, over 70% higher than the volume projected in the FS. This production volume does not include Monchetundra Flanks and Rosgeo JV projects which will be separately announced

· Mining equipment selection has also been revised with the focus on the use of electric shovels, following the same ESG friendly strategy focused on low-cost electricity connection and electric excavators that is being implemented at West Kytlim now, to be implemented on our Kola projects

· The site infrastructure layout drawing has been developed to include all major infrastructure elements

· Extensive power generation spare capacity exists on the local grid, represented by predominantly green energy sources: hydro and nuclear (please refer to the details below)

· A tailings storage location has been identified for the life of mine (please refer to the details below)"

Lovelyboy will like this part i bet - "This production volume does not include Monchetundra Flanks and Rosgeo JV projects which will be separately announced"

GLA

And if it doesn't and it arrives on schedule in November oldspursfan i hope that you acknowledge what the BOD have stated is correct, these things work both ways.

I don't see it as vague, when it first cropped up it initially said complete in 2022. On further reading of that RNS is gave the budget timeline and also a separate statement with KPMG stating November also. I have cop and pasted both directly into the first post of this thread. Has the budgeting changed? If not, why not if Wardell Armstrong are to be employed longer than expected?

GLA

Another moniker from the same person of old lol

Spoke about EV's and people not being interested in a Palladium miner, it just shows how little research these traders do as he's missed the large amount of Copper and Nickel also at Eurasia's assets lol

Better luck next moniker cupcake, to the green bin with you with the rest of your trading monikers!

GLA

In our Monchetundra example, it would be behind schedule and over budget if it was implied to be late. Extra days employing Wardell Armstrong etc cost more money. It is budgeted until November as per the relevant RNS which tells you so, that is their budgets schedule.

GLA

No oldspursfan, it implies exactly what is written, it is on schedule. Did you know that November is before the end of 2022, imagine that if you will. Anything later than the previously mentioned schedule would be behind schedule as per the given phrases.

GLA

Now schedule is an interesting word isn't it, once you had so many revolutions around this globe we call Earth you get used to seeing it in various phrases, each with it's own meaning. Now, the three most regular phrases are below -

1) Ahead of schedule

2) Behind schedule

3) On schedule

Now, let's remind everybody which of the three the BOD chose to use in RNS all year, yes, that's it, well done, number 3, on schedule!

Ok, so we've arrived at the correct schedule phrase, so, now what? Well we'll go and have a little look at the schedule that has been mentioned in RNS, makes sense right?

"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."

"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."

Until a different phrase is used using schedule, i'll take it that the BOD mean exactly what they wrote when stating that it is on schedule.

Some Sunday fun!

GLA

With the Rosgeo JV assets the bulk of the work is on the assets that don't have previously operated open pits on them for obvious reasons. The ones with previously operated pits have historical mining DFS done etc, all done prior to them being taken into production many years ago.
This is why the BOD refer to certain assets as brownfield relaunch projects, as they're simply ex operated mines and are being relaunched.

All ex operating Rosgeo JV assets are an absolute cakewalk to take back into production, pits are in place, NN is next door, roads and other infrastructure is already in place etc.

GLA

That's what this part tells you, it tells you that the Arctic management company can grant the licenses -

"· The right of registered Arctic residents to get land lease for their projects in an out-of-auction procedure, whereby it can be the Arctic management company that grants such lease right to land plots in state or municipal ownership"

It's what the licenses are that they receive, land lease licenses to extract X resources because all land is Russian state owned.

Prior to the ERDC a license submission would have had to go through the usual three russian bodies, taking circa 3 month at each and taking around 9 month total from submission to granting. That would apply to a further Monchetudra flanks extension as an example under non-erdc permiting.

Rosgeo JV licenses are not even a hard transfer as Rosgeo hold them, hence why they are able to explore them and get up to JORC speed prior to the license passing to Eurasia. They can transfer them whenever they like, it's a JV and it's between the BOD of eurasia and Rosgeo as to when that will take place. They could simply do all of the work for all assets and transfer all of them across at once. They were given 24 months to assess which ones they want to take on which runs out in March 2023, so, they have to have assessed them all prior to then in order to make their decision on such things. You can't make the decision without assessing whether they will be financially viable to take on, that means doing the appropriate mining assessments to arrive at the appropriate potential financials.

Can we make money from it? YES - We take it on. NO - We don't take it on. It really os that simple with the JV assets tbh.

GLA