Member Info for Montmuzard

Ooooh, the green coffins didn't like this thread. Clanking around in their eternal prisons. Haven't got a clue what any of them are saying, and more's the better.

Rums all round for shipmates up on the top deck!

Some facts: (a) we’re well into “the coming weeks” now for the DFS; (b) the board seemed confident accounts would be ready in early June (it’s now mid-June). So why haven’t they released the accounts and set the date for the AGM, given the accounts correspond to end-2022? Could it be that they’ve had the final opinion on the DFS for some time and are now crossing t’s and dotting lower-case j’s for a much bigger announcement at the same time?

Looks like we might be due a tick up in short order: some buys just tickled up to 3.25p - rums all round!

"You can't even spell libelous you fool!"

Neither can you. It has a double-l in British English. You also can't spell "farcical" but if this is the level you're resorting to, you should probably just put your toys back in the pram and roll home.

"If I have any mission in life, it's to see you lot behind bars"

If your recent ravings are anything to go by, you could do with a nice long rest behind bars, padded ones.

Again, desperate stuff, from the desperate reincarnated lunatic.

"Right now, they need everything they can get their hands on for their own domestic markets. Russia has been alienated by the majority of the world."

A largely irrelevant point. Eurasia's subs - if/when mining - will already be selling metals into the local market initially, and this will also be the case with whoever is going to be buying. So it's irrelevant, from Eurasia's perspective, what the relative share of metals exported will be.

Of course, this is a transparent attempt to spread FUD that Russia might be about to expropriate Eurasia, for which, again, there is no evidence whatsoever. Why do it now, and not sooner? Why would NN and others want to receive expropriated assets knowing that they would then be subject to expropriations elsewhere? Why would the Russian state want to be tied up in litigation when it's time to recover once war is over? Why would they want to be recovering in a context where junior explorer - the lifeblood of the industry - will touch the country if expropriation is a possibility?

As I've said a million times on here, the interests of everyone - Russia, Eurasia, Norilsk and others - are aligned. They want to get these assets producing, while protecting the pipeline of future early-stage investment, and the best way to do that is to demonstrate to the world that hard work (by Eurasia) can be rewarded and licences/the law upheld by facilitating a transaction everyone is happy with.

"Plus they are using metals in their ammunitions against Ukraine, and I hate to say it, but they will need what they can get for shrapnell"

Yeah, PGMs at $1000s/oz are definitely what you would use for artillery shells.

"It's an awful thought, but this is a war situation, and even before the war, they couldn't sell a bean, now they have no chance"

As ever, no evidence presented for this claim beyond brainfarts. On the operational side - the latest being the dragline at WK and the DFS at MT - everything is progressing well. On the strategic side, the claim simply doesn't stand up because, by definition, the sale process is ongoing and is therefore incomplete. If it had failed, this would have been RNSd. So the most anyone can say is that the sale process hasn't completed yet. It might not complete. But we have no evidence yet that it won't.

"Why haven't they completed the Rosgeo JV? because no doubt Rosgeo will be handed everything anyway for free..."

Utterly senseless: a completely mental line of reasoning. Rosgeo already has everything and it was going nowhere with it. Why would it go into a JV if in the first place if it intended to expropriate down the line? It needed Eurasia's expertise, licences and proprietary data to get the JV assets moving forward. Rosgeo's interest is in selling, not retaining and (not) mining.

"I have no agenda"

Really? Seriously people, just green bin this nonsense...

Desperate, desperate stuff. It’s embarrassing really. Making up new handles. Making claims with no evidence. Not understanding RNSs that were published years ago, or having a trove of personal notes to refer back to with cross-referenced sources to be able to respond to others calling out a lack of evidence. Deramp. Deramp. Deramp. Makes you wonder why someone would spend so much time in reincarnated monikers infecting the discussion board of a share they have no confidence in. I know I wouldn’t: I would have moved on long ago and put my energies into whatever I’m investing in next…

There you go: “I’m sure I read it” but can’t say where or substantiate the claim. Total whackjob.

Stop lying to scare off newbies.

The sinosteel contract can be exercised for up to ten years after it was signed in October 2016: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/EUA/procurement-construction-commissioning-contract-pr7u5e8x4kyh49j.html

Further details updated in 2019: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/EUA/monchetundra-update-sinosteel-epc-h1-2019-7rsx513mvrxuame.html

If this part of the published operational strategy was no longer feasible they would have had no choice but to RNS it.

Unless, of course, you have evidence that proves otherwise? My guess is, like all your other lies, you don’t.

Eurasia are already mining West Kytlim and the operational strategy for Monchetundra - and it’s key milestones - has been laid out in successive annual reports and other documents for a number of years now. It’s clear that they are running some way behind now, but that’s hardly surprising given the pandemic and war, but now the DFS is either here or imminent they’ll have to take a decision at some point in the next few months (at the latest) on whether to execute a transaction or execute Sinosteel.

Ah the timeworn strategy of the FUD-spreading deramper: “I’m just trying to help you all see sense and protect your investments” and “I’m just being devil’s advocate” by asking the questions nobody else will. If I were the devil and this were the standard of your advocacy, I’d have long ago incinerated you in the fires of hell.

Of course there’s a (small) chance they could lose the case. But I’m a sentient human being who can read and understand things, and on the evidence of the two claims - much of the relevant bits outlined below, unlike in your cherry-picked and vague assertions about it - I’m prepared to take a considered risk that they won’t.

The fact that your gap-toothed friend has reared his genuinely ugly head again is something I take as a further sign that good news is round the corner. Anyway, you’re going in the green bin now. Again. Rums all round to genuine LTHs!

It's like a whack-a-mole, or perhaps whack-a-turd every time she comes back round the u-bend.

Incidentally, this "debate" prompted me to go back and read both sets of evidence again while making a brew. A few things jump out:

1. The Queeld case is almost entirely about tardy responses to its requests. However, the Eurasia case notes that their representatives were given all the information they needed two days (August 2nd 2018) after reporting the lost certificates (and many of the subsequent requests were not responded to because the company didn't need to respond).

2. Queeld/Mispare themselves requested physical share certificates - rather than holding them in CREST - which places an even larger burden on them to keep them safe. The company's articles of association make clear that indemnities can be whatever the "Directors think fit" and they are justifiably exercising great caution in this regard.

3. The real kicker (paragraph 83.5 of Eurasia's amended particulars) details the reasons why they have (quite rightly) refused to reissue the certificates on the basis of the 30 day indemnity offered which, once expired, would expose the company and its shareholders to risks generated entirely by the claimants' failure to safeguard their certificates: (a) a possible sale might be obstructed if someone else turned up claiming to be the beneficial owner; (b) no assurance was offered "beyond bare assertion" that Queeld/Mispare had not dealt in their securities or had them made subject to a judicial process (and elsewhere it is noted that no explanation of how they were lost was ever given); and (c) this really matters, because the person claiming to be the beneficial owner was the subject of bankruptcy proceedings in April 2021 pursued by a Russian state-owned financial institution, her husband had been declared bankrupt and arrested in absentia for misappropriation, and they were both the subject of a worldwide freezing order.

So, in short: I'm not remotely worried about Eurasia's position in this case. Typical FUD-spreading by the reanimated green ghosts.

"I can't see why the old certificates cannot be de-listed"

Because it's quite conceivable that Queeld are lying and have sold the shares (and, indeed, did so at 0.5p when they were escaping from Russia under a dark cloud, before then panicking when they saw the price go up astronomically). It's not rocket science.

"Would you be happy if the company lost details of your shareholding say and refused to replace your share 'certificates' on the register?"

The company didn't lose the details of Queeld's shareholding; Queeld did. Again, it's not rocket science. If I lost my share certificates, it would be my own responsibility, as it would be my own responsibility to ensure that I can find an insurer willing to indemnify me against the possibility I'm making it up and someone else turns up with my shares.

The entire Queeld claim seems to turn on the idea that it is somehow the company's fault that they lost their certificates and couldn't find anyone who would insure them for tens of millions of pounds. It's hardly surprising and it is neither Eurasia's fault nor its responsibility to solve.

I have read the amended particulars, actually, as well as Eurasia's amended defence, and right there on page two of the latter it says quite clearly that Queeld offered indemnities limited to 30 days only, which for obvious reasons is unacceptable. Funnily enough, if you read the former, which detail at length every single piece of email and written correspondence between Queeld's representatives and the company over a four-year period, the bit where Eurasia allegedly said that a 30 day indemnity would be acceptable was, er, apparently the only piece of crucial evidence that was relayed solely over the telephone. Nice try though.

As it is, even if Eurasia were to lose the case - or it drags on for a long time - it would have no bearing on the asset sale. The dividends accruing to the owner of Queeld's shares would simply be held on account until the case is resolved and/or someone else turns up to claim them. Either way, other shareholder dividends will be unaffected.

Generally unwilling to engage with the unflushable, but before I stick it in the green bin, again, for the umpteenth time, it's worth saying that it is inconceivable that Eurasia will lose the case against Queeld. The facts are simple. The company fulfilled its statutory duty by issuing share certificates. Queeld claims it lost them. The company has offered to replace them once Queeld provide an indemnity against any liability arising (which is the normal practice when this happens). This has not been forthcoming, so the company has refused to issue new certificates as these would be in breach of its articles of association and potentially be damaging to the interests of shareholders. Unless anyone has a different story, I fail to see how Queeld have a case here, at all.

Can't see Rickstars as he's evidently being eaten by worms in my green cemetery, but if I remember rightly, that particular lie also mixed me up with Montyboz, a different person.

"It's a real shame that all these well researched 'LTH' have disappeared now that EUA is not doing do well"

I don't think any of them have disappeared. I mean, by definition they haven't, as so little of the company has been traded the past few months. There's just not much to discuss when the company is completely watertight and we're playing a waiting game. Personally, I've quietly accumulated an extra 300,000 shares in recent weeks and remain fully confident - like the board - in my investment.

"...but they were there stifling open conversations..."

Nobody stifled open conversations. That's a favoured straw man of the deramp crew. What they did was argue against illogic and unevidenced assertions with reason and logic. Telling someone they're wrong isn't preventing them from speaking.

"...condemning people like myself for suggesting a top slice for the family to lock in profits when Eua was in the mid 20's".

Another straw man. Nobody on here has ever condemned anyone from taking a slice. What they may have done is argued against prophets of doom talking the company down without evidence, logic or reason, which is quite plainly not the same thing.

We're well into the "coming weeks" now and, in my view, the "relative near term" is almost here. Rums all round.

If you need to make up multiple identities to post on an internet forum, you're quite clearly up to no good.

"Hi Montmuzzard, so are you saying that Eua are free to mine regardless of DFS? I was always under the impression that a DFS had to be approved by the relevant authorities before a mining plan could be executed?"

No, of course not. I thought it was clear what I was saying. Lenoman has probably said it more clearly though.