Member Info for Spikeyj

Mr_wolfe, out of interest, i remember that you and nuffin agreed a £100 charity bet about the EUA’s asset sale being done by this september (1st, if I recall correctly?) - he said it will happen by then, you said it wouldn’t.

i think you asked him if he wanted to double the size of the bet having seen the AR RNS. i wanted to ask, did you get a reply from nuffin about that, or is the bet still only for £100?

Re mac 16:59, the financial viability of the assets (- or otherwise) makes a big difference to how much EUA shares are worth (- or not).

Mac: “… the buyer does …”

what buyer?

there is nothing in that RNS about EUA having a buyer, it just says they will need to find one

S12345: “…we have had this conversation for 3 years with other licences too that have not been revealed yet.”

yup. they don’t tell their shareholders much, do they?

S12345: “Who cares”.

you are a fairly unusual kind of shareholder. most people who invest in shares would want to know what those shares were actually worth, or at least to have as much info as possible to help them make sensible estimates of that.

if you don’t know what a company’s assets are worth, then why would you invest in them?- might just as well stick a pin in the gee-gee’s form guide down the bookies.

still, your money, your choice.

Mac 14:24: “… DFS for both main assets is needed to do the most accurate discounted cash flow valuation. It tells any buyer if an asset is financially viable or not, stopping them from purchasing a red herring so to speak”

… which is a main reason why it would be really important for shareholders, and prospective shareholders, to know the DFS content. as without good quality information about what parts of EUA, if any, are ‘financially viable’ (and to what extent), shareholders are just being asked to hold onto the proverbial pig in a poke … but what is really in that poke? (… archaic word for a bag, that conceals what it is that’s actually been purchased.)

for sure it would be important for prospective asset purchasers to know what they are getting for their money, but that should also apply to purchasers/ holders of EUA shares.

… if EUA thinks it’s important not to release the DFS, perhaps they should at least offer some explanation to their shareholders about that?

… e.g. we haven’t published the DFS yet because [XYZ], but we will do so by such-and-such a date.

… e.g. we have not published the content of the DFS as this is subject to a binding NDA with a specific potential buyer.

….e.g. we have not published the DFS as we’ve lost it / dog ate it / it shows awful project economics.

etc.

? is it true that christian also used ACF to ramp KIBO? - echoes …

They need to make sure he turns up to his trial anyway, whether he’s dead or alive. zero confirmatory evidence that i can see on the internet that earley has died. i suspect it’s simply disinformation - long history of strange games being played wrt WRN.

- stretch8 19:18: “… what is the point of derogatory messaging…”

- stretch8 20:28: “Filtered the neghead audrey - what an arz….”

null point for self-awareness.

Https://www.proactiveinvestors.com/companies/news/1019718/astrazeneca-rebounds-as-analysts-mull-hard-to-read-cancer-drug-update-1019718.html?region=ca

Hi aubery, thanks for your reply. i do take your point about rawlinson’s history and good reputation, one of the few positive things going for EUA. i would really like to know what rawlinson thought about the ACF stuff (which seems utterly reprehensible to me). perhaps the distinction is between what EUA itself can be shown to have done, vs what has been done by other folk attempting to ‘promote’ it by a colourful variety of means. EUA presumably can rely on some deniability in relation to some actions of those others.

Publicising a good DFS would be an important way to support the share price ahead of a fund raising. hence, hiding a good DFS from the market is likely to be strongly contrary to the best interests of existing shareholders if a sale is not imminent, because further placing(s) at low share prices will dilute them heavily. the directors have a fiduciary duty to take that into account.

meanwhile, S12345 19:48: “Now the situation has eased …” - ?? are you joking?? - what the heck do you think is happening at this point between russia and ukraine? - do you think they have agreed it was all just a local misunderstanding and are bezzie mates again? strewth!

? was that the sub-contract operation team who had all those problems with those high balconies, ‘shortly’ after their performance appraisal over a nice warm (positively glowing) cup of green tea?

“very disappointing, boris, i’m going to have to let you go”

“but comrade igor, we’re on the tenth flooooooooorrrrr”

Dulyred 17:13: “Because they received it late June …”

very obviously, EUA already knew what was in the DFS when they sent in to be ratified / agreed, i.e. long before june.

EUA has already had ages to decide how they could share the DFS with the market, if they wanted to.

dulyred “Or the buyer doesn’t want it released before sale.” fantasy land. EUA still has no buyer, despite years of trying to sell this stuff.

You think his contract would have said that he needed to give notice for resigning, but zero notice for retiring??

Re: “If there is nothing likely to happen on that front, why choose not to start mining via the sinosteel agreement?”

fair question, and EUA has not really explained why.

my own guess would be some combination of:

1) it would only make sense to activate the sinosteel agreement and get mining if the DFS is good, and it will be a very profitable enterprise. but if the DFS is poor, then it would just be a black hole for anyone’s money to start mining it. … knowing the DFS content would help clarify this.

2) it is likely that there would be some costs incurred for EUA itself if they activated that deal - EUA simply doesn’t have the cash or revenue at the moment to do anything other than mothball mode and wait/hope for … ?

3) EUA never disclosed what the conditions were for being able to activate the sinosteel agreement, but did say that there were conditions. it is possible that even with the agreement still in effect, one or more of those secret conditions are not met. obviously, it would help understanding if EUA were to publish what those conditions are.

Hi stej, yes i agree some of my post is about inference and best guess rather than 100% factually explicit on all points.

and of course same goes for some of your remarks too, such as the idea that the CEO has gone “as his job is done”.

? if we assume for the sake of argument that DFS publication has not been prevented by NDAs, then what alternative possibility would you suggest about why they are not publishing it?

[… note that the company itself has said there are no binding agreements, so that seems to exclude the idea of a buyer lurking in the background who has insisted EUA is bound into an NDA agreement. … were you suggesting some kind of ‘gentleman’s polite request’ instead that EUA keep the DFS content secret, rather than an enforceable binding NDA?]

Hi aubery, what would be your guess about * why* they have been stockpiling rather than selling?

personally, i don’t buy the idea that they were doing that in order to take a punt on future rising prices (- and if they were, rather weird thing to do given that they aren’t set up with the expertise to be a commodities trading house speccing away like glen etc).

so my suspicion is that it’s something to do with a sanctions issue, e.g. blocks on remitting resultant proceeds etc. (a darker suspicion could be that the grades in that particular batch of sand may not turn out to be what they are saying when they try to process it, but that might be a suspicion too far given EUA’s commitment to moral integrity in business.)

? wondered if you have a different theory about it? tia.

I think that’s fair enough from EUA, T bills pretty much good as cash for most purposes.