Member Info for RMR1969

Dore123 - of course there will be some details in the DFS, but I am not sure what is now so 'confusing' about all this....

Much has changed at WK and in the world of PGM in recent times, the DFS has been approved, we have considerably more PGMs at WK than we had originally thought, metal prices have gone crazy (and we know that at WK Rhodium was a significant contributor to revenues at $11,000 per oz and we are now at nearly $30,000), and PGM world supply has been compromised due to NN flooding issues.......none of these are small changes, they are dramatic.

I think it wholly appropriate that based on these relatively recent and very significant changes (all positive for EUA), they would seek to review, adapt and change any plan that may have previously been considered.

DORE123 - to be fair the words about 'no mining plan' are of course my own and perhaps not really accurate, there will 'a plan' somewhere, it's just stating the the DFS itself is not 'the plan', that seems reasonable.

Clearly now the DFS has been approved, and mining is to be allowed at multiple sites concurrently, a more detailed and, perhaps more progressive and up to date plan can be made - no issue with that seems all very reasonable and appropriate.

What we can put to bed though is that they were referring to someone else's plan.

Well fair play to Keith, less than an hour after my email he has responded to my question regarding the mining plan at WK, pretty damn impressive I have to say and lovely to see how responsive to investors EUA are.

My question was "In you latest RNS on West Kytlim, it says that "The DFS as submitted and now approved is not the Company's mine plan but allows for mining at several open pits concurrently." Can you please confirm whose mining plan it actually is?"

His response, and I am sure it would be sent to anyone who asked so I think it fine to post here, was "Dear XXXXXX, That may be read as ‘The DFS is not a mine plan’. We aim to outline our mine plan for WK in due course."

So I think that is clear, there is no EUA mine plan presently communicated, nor anyone else's, but we can expect more details on it in due course.

As I said, very impressed with the speed with which the company replied.

Tilly

Much as I appreciate your birthday wishes, I think it is RR1889 (Ryan) who has the birthday today rather than me, mine is in May so I haven't registered that with Ian as my guess since I trust, hope and believe we will be sorted by then......my moniker of RMR1969 has been confused with Ryan's a few times....lol

Happy Birthday to both Ian and Ryan!

Rums all round again, Septic Lil will simply have to wait for me :)

Tilly

Much as I appreciate your birthday wishes, I think it is RR1889 (Ryan) who has the birthday today rather than me, mine is in May so I haven't registered that with Ian as my guess since I trust, hope and believe we will be sorted by then......my moniker of RMR1969 has been confused with Ryan's a few times....lol

Happy Birthday to both Ian and Ryan!

Rums all round again!

Dore123, I have now done exactly as you suggest, if I receive a response I will let you know.

Ok, I see where you are coming from, however that is simply because that is how you wish to perceive it is it not?

You don't know for sure that it is EUA's plan, or indeed that it is a contractor's plan, you are merely suggesting they are being deliberately misleading, I choose to read it differently.

Are you saying you have other information which brings you to that conclusion, information not available to anyone else?

Dore123 - have you not even read the RNS on the 15th March 2021, it states, and I quote..............

"The DFS as submitted and now approved is not the Company's mine plan but allows for mining at several open pits concurrently."

How much clearer can it be, why would you then say that you can 'assure us it is the EUA mining plan' - what you say makes no sense whatsoever.

Agree with you DonBroco - absolutely no way on earth would you go to all the trouble of putting together a DFS with some old crappy contractors plan from years ago...........the plan would need to be up to date for the authorities to approve it, and not forgetting, it was only rather recently that plans were being discussed and put in place to operate multiple mines at the same time, that is not what was happening previously, it is what the DFS was all about, so I am convinced it has to be a new and up to date mining plan - question is, if not EUA's, then whose is it?

I would happily bet £10 with those odds, are you happy to take it?

If I lose I will send you £10, if I win then you donate £10,000 to the charity of my choice?

That would be the Alzheimer’s Society.

Are we on?

Citi Investment Bank

"Citi sees the palladium boom continuing into next year as a supply shortage worsen. The bank assigns a 60% probability that palladium will trade up to $3000/oz by the middle of next year, with a 20% probability of hitting $3500/oz.

“We remain bullish palladium over the next six-to-12 months and expect prices to rise to $3000/oz by mid-2021 as the market is set to see a sustained deficit and higher net speculative positioning,” Citi said."

Augurs well.

PP and Billions

Absolutely acknowledge your points, but it does not detract from the fact that the 2.2m oz are worth $1.13b more now than they were in July last year, that is simply irrefutable.

You are most likely correct that a long term price will be taken which will not be the current price, however that LT price has to be reviewed at some point and with the price of Palladium jumping more than 30% since July 2020 I am sure it has been discussed during this process.

Who would accept a LT price of $1,750 per oz when the current price is $2,700 and every expert prediction and view is that it will rise further with little to no sign of any retrace? It makes no sense.

There will have been some discussion on this point I have no doubt whatsoever, no one could surely suggest that such a price rise will have been ignored, it changes the fundamentals considerably.

........and of course all of that $1.13b is profit since the AISC remains broadly the same over that same period!

Just a reminder that the 2.2m oz of JORC resources at MT alone, that is without including anything else, ignoring the additional 15m oz potential within our licence area, let alone the 40m oz in the wider district, and also completely ignoring WK and Seminovsky tailings, that 2.2m oz alone is today worth........

........just over $1.1b more than it was when the FSP started............think about it, if we had been bought for $3b in July last year, the purchaser would have effectively paid off more 37% of the purchase price without lifting a shovel....!

Crazy opportunity for someone here.

Fair point, been a good day to buy anyway, added 75,000 shares myself and will top up again this week if the price keeps dropping, if this BB is anything to go by I think people are just getting bored / thinking news is further away than they had hoped but I for one was very happy with the update we received a couple of days ago.

Just happy to wait this one out.

Tilly

The time of the transaction was 10.12am, are we sure the price was 27.31 to buy then........?

DC - not really, but there was some comment somewhere a day or so ago about the need to update the significant shareholder info every 6 months, unsure exactly how true that is, but they have done it now so maybe it is true.............unclear about any rule breach though as since I don't pay for his rubbish I cannot read the article......!

Anyone out there care to admit they do subscribe and can share, we won't hold it against you...........

Norway's border pretty close to where we are in Russia, reckon they know what could be there......!

CAW1

https://www.klp.no/en

try this, Norways largest pension provider.

Not meaningless DC, not at all. Fully appreciate they are P1 inferred, but the licences are being or have been applied for under Russian law and are expected to be issued, the BOD have had significant experience and success in doing this to date, the areas can then be proved up, so far from meaningless IMO