Member Info for Spikeyj

Meanwhile, FT front page interesting re AZN.

Agree with jatw, at some there is a very hefty fine coming … presumably lots of very active negotiation underway. me, well long AZN on a longer term investment view, happy to remain so, but short term this s/p will remain under a lot of pressure until fine / other outcome known. not currently trying to make any short-term trades on it, as no visibility on the twists and turns that will come out of the china subplot over the next (few?) months (?).

will probably try to drip a small amount more for l/t in if we see 9500 & under.

The guy has proven form of telling outright, deliberate lie on this board about comms from amit. not worth giving that liar the time of day.

Dietch, i am interested in EUA, just not financially.

EUA …

… couldn’t sell its so-called assets when trump was president.

… couldn’t sell its assets when trump was not the president.

…couldn’t sell its assets when it had raised loads of placing money.

… couldn’t sell its assets when it had hardly any money left.

… couldn’t sell its assets before putin’s murderous invasion.

… couldn’t sell its assets after putin’s murderous invasion.

? there’s a pattern, perhaps?

Dietch, no concern of mine whether you or others listen or not, entirely up to you. unlike folks like TCM and gecko, i’m not trying to influence the share price.

Jarv55 14:43: “Cash always gives you a better bargaining position.”

well, they previously raised an 8-figure amount of placing money, and that didn’t help them to achieve even one single sale of one single asset. zero, nada, EUA null points. spectacularly incompetent, and gives no reason at all to think further placing money will help ‘em do any better.

(utterly bizarre imv that EUA pis seem so unquestioning about this company just siphoning off that 8 figure placing money to someone else’s pockets, never to return to london pis! - they raised a huge sum of money and achieved nothing at all for shareholders from it … but presumably some sneaky russian and /or cypriot banker is laughing.)

B1ll, in EUA land, the “added value” from the unpublished DFS is probably much like dusting a hot steaming dog turd with a little bit of glitter.

16:19, 16:58, bang on, mr_w.

EUA could of course make things vastly more transparent all round by publishing the DFS. it is a humungous, flapping scarlet flag that they choose not to do so, imv, particularly when taken alongside their failure to sell any assets despite years of trying.

the fundamental problem with EUA is not putin’s war, simply that it is a poor quality mining project - always has been, always will be, tho’ sentiment may come and go amongst the pi punters.

Hi jarv, thanks for your reply at 11:16.

i was already aware that CS has previously used the rather vague / weaselly term ‘added value’, in relation to the unpublished DFS.

but you made a much more specific claim, which is **not** supported by any public domain evidence, i.e. that the unpublished DFS has added more proven reserves…

… rather naughty of you, jarv, since ‘added value’ might have nothing to do with extra proven reserves.

as ever, EUA is very careful with its wording, leaving loads of things remarkably vague, but with plenty of room for over-optimistic posters to read in what they are hoping for, or deliberately misleading rampers to pretend that more positive things have been announced than is actually true.

? what was the underlying value before the war started?

[soz, meant, of course, ‘peace for our time’.]

Https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-north-korea-troops-putin-kursk-latest-b2645353.html

but on the plus side trump has in his hand a paper, peace in our time, yay!

DFS has not been published, but yesterday jarv55 claimed to know what it says about proven reserves. no response from jarv so far to explain how he supposedly has such inside information…. [tumbleweed, * , *]

also notice a few posters today making very confident, but non-factual statements on behalf of the investment community (e.g. chicomimi12 07:49: “We all no [sic] this is going north within time.”) — lenoman has previously got very narky when he thinks such has come from EUA sceptics, but not a peep out of him when such statements come from rampers … #doublestandards, leno, dear boy, double standards.

21:37, yup, quality post.

“Sitting on the sidelines trying to guess entry points is a costly strategy here.”

sitting with a long position trying to guess exit points has also been pretty costly for many pis, plenty of whom are still stuck here well underwater.

[soz, typo, meant, “have you been made inside to..”]

Jarv55 13:19: “The Dfs [sic] will show an increase in reserves to buyers.”

so far as i am aware, DFS has not been published…. ? have your been inside to its contents, jarv, or are you guessing this from CS’s rather vague remarks about ‘adding value’?

“You assume it will be London investors funding the mining.”

no i don’t, jarv. i think it’s far more likely that they will have to raise the money elsewhere, and simply dilute the UK pis. i just meant that EUA would probably be able to raise money more cheaply *if* the london markets were accessible to, and interested in, funding more EUA ‘development’. but i don’t think london is lifting russkie sanctions anytime soon, and i don’t think putin regards UK as a friendly country — the guy is actively at war with us, and trump election doesn’t change that.

? just out of interest, will trump be able to increase the amount of proved reserves that EUA has, very significantly decrease the amount it costs to locate, extract and distribute them, prevent putin from levying/docking monies sent from russia into london, persuade london to allow UK investors to fund mining operations in russia, supercharge world metal prices again, and find some way for EUA to have meaningful free cash flow before placings are needed?