Member Info for Spikeyj

If they don’t attempt a placing, fsp, where do you think EUA will get funds from to get started as a shiny new hydrogen / ammonia etc biz? … not happening for free, is it …

( …me, i’m not sure they really want to anyway, but it seems to be the new story that’s being pushed by mac et al. now that the DFS malarkey has fizzled out.)

(obviously, i do also prefer that i, my friends and my family make rather than lose money when investing, but i don’t know anybody personally who has gone long or short in EUA.)

No, i’ve never put any questions directly to EUA. frankly, i don’t see what the point would be of even trying; they will not give any extra meaningful info to an individual pi. they will say only what they want to say and what they are legally obliged to say. (i think del’s question list is a good one, but i doubt EUA’s BoD are going to give much of a response to it.)

re people “potentially losing money”, generally i feel pretty neutral about that in relation to gambling shares like EUA. EUA is not imv a proper wealth-creating, win-win business that can increase overall economic prosperity for all, and can make employees, investors, tax-payers, suppliers, etc. all better off. i think EUA is essentially just a zero sum gambling game, with its primary business being to persuade people to buy the shares it sells, & thereby fund pay and perks for the BoD & their associates … any actual mining activity seems a bit of side-show for EUA!

people who buy low and sell high will make money, but the people that they sell to will lose money. … hence given that all involved are presumably adults making their own risk decisions (- with some choosing to put their money into a speculative junior miner on AIM operating in brutal, near lawless kleptocracy - ) i don’t care that much which pis make money and which pis lose money.

(i do generally prefer that honest and polite pis make money rather that rude / dishonest ones, but there are both sorts in both pro- and anti- camps.)

re PATT, if you want to chit-chat to him over on advfn, do it yourself, your biz not mine.

Sure, that’s why i said ‘for example’.

they might get 0.5p, they might get 2p, they might fail to get any placing away at all. all the fun of the fair!

but £2.5 million or £10 million don’t sound that much to fund a screeching handbrake turn out of russkie mining either.

given that EUA share price has had to tread water pretty vigorously to hold 3p, even after that stupendously positive news that the long awaited MT DFS had been ‘accepted’ ( - lol, but not published, as it seems it’s better the market doesn’t get to see what it says - ), then what share price do you think they might manage for placing another 500,000,000 shares, folio?

… given that EUA’s BoD have utterly failed to sell even part of the poor quality ‘assets’ they have in russia, after years of trying, it’s gonna be interesting to see what price EUA can get for their next placing to start up their brand new ‘anything-so-long-as-its-not-mining-in-russia’ business.

if do they manage to get that consent to issue another 500,000,000 new shares, that’s a fair bit of dilution, but if for example they only get 1p a share for them it’s still only £5 million… that’s not going to buy them much of a new biz.

I think toffers is correct that the person using the mac ID on lse is the same who posts as aberdeenman (and presumably several other IDs). i think toffers is probably also correct that this person was paid money to promote ctag shares on social media. & from the way mac posts on this board i think it’s likely that he has been paid to promote EAU shares too.

of course, that doesn’t make mac an ‘employee’ of EUA. it’s perfectly possible they have just paid his company, or him as an individual, a fee to promote the company, but with EUA retaining distance / deniability about any particular content / methods used by mac.

and of course it’s not an offence to do PR /social media work for a company, providing one sticks to legal methods. mac does post a lot of utter garbage, but he usually tends to be fairly careful not to post things that could be seen as direct claims to have inside information, or post downright fake info.

ajmho.

EUA sales pitch for the next placing?

“OK, so you came in for the asset sale, sure that’s still gonna be great when it happens, really great, but in the meantime, hey, look over here at these shiny shiny new hydrogen & ammonia keys … all we need now is just a little funding to get it underway while that asset sale is still pending…”

Fair ‘nuff.

“I struggle to believe that ZM would get involved in anything shady”

? out of interest, are you being serious, scuba? - it’s hard to tell these things sometimes from the printed text alone. … maybe the site’s new emojis would help…

20:24 mac playing bait & switch.

Parttimer32, 17:38: “The point is, we don’t know, the DFS isn’t published…”

yeah, that is indeed the point — and that is precisely why it is such blatant b***-s*** ramping to say that “of course” NN would pay 55p for EUA, when there is so very, very little concrete information about what this company has, what it is doing, and what the mining economics would be to develop it.

i very much doubt it would be possible to prove that EUA itself had committed fraud. i think that the company itself has been very careful with the wording of its RNSs, so it would be difficult to prove any outright falsehoods.

rather, i think the modus operandi of the company is more about leaving bucketloads of room for over-enthusiastic / naive / greedy pis to read in, or imagine, very rosy scenarios …. but where that’s mainly about those pis own hopes and dreams, rather than anything concrete stated by the company. so just a matter of, caveat emptor.

the enormous flapping red flags here imv are much more about what is *not* said by the company, and the things that they do not release or update on, rather than what is said.

… some obvious examples being [! far from exhaustive!] they don’t publish the full DFS for WK or MT; they don’t publish the detailed mining plan for WK or give quarterly quantitative updates about actual mining activity and production; they don’t say what the conditions are for activating the sinosteel thang; they have never said what size of offers have been made, by whom, or for what; they never said what the actual nature of the “proposal” was by the supposed party who had done diligence; they never said what happened to that party, [etc!].

the strategy, i think, has been to leave pis more than enough (hope/) rope to hang themselves on over-optimism … but that is *not* fraud.

i think the ACF report was egregious nonsense with laughable projected figures, and my impression is that it was very cynically used by certain people [?who?] to ramp up the share price. but of course EUA itself did not author or publish the ACF report, so it has distance / plausible deniability from that.

i do think some of the rampers for this company have used dubious, & sometimes i suspect downright dishonest tricks to promote and ramp EUA’s shares, sometimes using that ACF report — but that again of course is very, very different from alleging, or being able to show, that the company itself had anything to do with such activities.

i think EUA itself has probably been very careful to stay within the letter of the law, & i expect that to continue. ajmho.

Scuba, & what about if NN had made a ‘cheeky offer’ of 0.2p, or one brass farthing for the lot? - in all these years EUA has never disclosed anything about the nature of the offers received, or who they were from, and which part(s) of the company they related to. red flag.

C’mon stej, don’t play dumb. in his post at 12:16, makeabundle speculated about a hypothetical price of 55p, and then in the next paragraph makeabundle clearly stated:

“Of course NN would be delighted if they could buy the lot at that price”

“Of course..” at 55p???? - seriously!? - why?

… claiming that “of course” NN would be delighted to buy EUA for almost 20 times the current share price, with zero attempt to justify that with reference to proven reserves and published info about the mining economics here is just plain old-fashioned rampy b***-s***.

let’s see some proper calculations about the mining valuation, based on public domain info that anyone can independently verify, to show why someone like NN would want to pay anything even remotely close to that figure.

“… 55p a share from NN? Of course NN would be thrilled if they could buy the lot at that price…”

garbage ramping. evidential basis and calculations for this claim? - zero.

Small.

Fairly long investment horizon, yes, but i’m more diversified (inc geographically rather than bold, and uk will be hobbling for some years to come, brexit having been a breathtakingly stupid act of national economic self-harm.

happy enough to hold some aviva as value for medium/longer term, good biz, well managed (now!) and not over-priced imv,

Added, small.

one day, rodders.

but suspect ‘one day’ is not coming very soon, long-ish haul.

poor old UK.

Seamus, 21:25, gl & atb.

Stej, corruption a problem for sure, but not just that. even if one disregarded russian risks regarding war / outright invasion, there’s been very very long-standing and major risk in russia regarding disregard for contract law and property rights. very often in russia, ownership of property / assets is primarily a matter of brute force / might is right, and can change overnight.

with that in mind, holders of shares in a UK company with russian subsidiaries should imv be wary of large loans on uncertain terms being made to those russian subsidiaries, particularly where the assets, such as they are, are also held in those subsidiaries. … non-trivial risk if the wind changes that shareholders could get left with shares in the UK company that cannot retrieve funds from those russian subsidiaries and cannot enforce a claim to those assets either. ( … i am *not* saying that definitely will happen, but it’s way *more* of a risk compared with e.g. a junior Uk miner with subsidiaries operating in safer jurisdiction such as canada, US, australia, etc.)

Hi seamus, yes i do agree with you it’s not generally very useful to keep listing everyone’s past predictions; most of those historic numbers on Ian’s guess list shouldn’t be taken too seriously. and we do all get some stuff wrong for sure.

but i think it’s sometimes very appropriate, particularly in relation to certain posters who clearly lie very deliberately and repeatedly, for example to claim inside information, or who make a point of being so very ‘overly certain’ to the point of bullying/shouting down and mocking others who have a different view, but who then don’t acknowledge their mistakes over time.

i also think it’s pretty legit to challenge people who confidently predict a certain share price but then predict a rather different s/price only a few weeks later without explaining why their view has changed so much. if the person has a good rationale for the change in their view, they can of course answer the challenge clearly and politely.