Member Info for Spikeyj

Welcher, you are simply wrong. EUA did not get $200mln.

Hi stan. it was going just fine, then poor ole chess/g decided that he wanted to chat about my posts despite his previous melodramatic exhortations to others not to, lol.

….i haven’t said that i won’t post, just that i expect i will have less to say about EUA over the next few months as they’ve finally had to fess up about a few things, got caught out, and frankly have few cards left to play.

Happy clappy EUA rampers have always been too focused on notional ‘in the ground’ values of hypothesised valuable metals (…as though EUA simply owned lots of valuable pure metal ingots stored in an LME warehouse.)

but if you want to get a proper understanding of value, then you need to take seriously the whole *cost* and risk side of things

… what will it actually cost to find and dig stuff up, to process and extract metals from ore and waste, to store, market, transport etc,

… and who will be need to be paid what to get all that done, what are the financing costs, opportunity costs, what is the taxation regime, what other special ‘costs’ and ‘fees’ need to be paid in criminal state like russia.

(refreshing though to see that you’ve decided to read and respond to my posts again, c/g - seems you’re almost as much a flip-flopper as gecko.)

“… if EUA got $200mln for less than 0.5%…”

but that’s the thing ….they didn’t.

C/g, the phrase I have tended to use is near worthless, or nugatory.

and imv, that’s been very clearly reflected in the truly dismal sum that EUA hopes to receive even if all goes well with this desperate firesale attempt to keep the lights on in 2026.

…. take a look at the tens of millions they poured into it over years, the supposed value of the concentrate stockpile, and then look what they got (fingers crossed, lol) in the end. EUA shareholders would literally have been significantly better off if the company had just walked away from WK for zero years ago instead of pouring money into it and making all those loans to kk.

a key point in the valuation of EUA’s supposed ‘assets’ has always been the jurisdiction risk. EUA owns licences in a criminal kleptocracy that is deeply hostile to british interests and does not respect property rights. that’s a very longstanding problem, not just linked to the invasion of ukraine, and a capitulation in ukraine wouldn’t negate that either.

i think you are a fool/ seriously naive to believe that MT is really worth the numbers being puffed around today in the BoD’s feeble attempt to spin this clusterf*** disposal (hence my post to mr_w) but over and above that, if by some miracle MT ever does turn out to be valuable and commercially viable, putin and his friends will simply steal it, and there will be nothing that the EUA BoD can do about that.

nice to see that you remain an optimist though, i suppose someone has to be left holding the baby. good luck with that.

Bought some, medium size, longer term view.

Mr_w, your 14:56, post of the day, both spot on and very funny.

meanwhile, i think i will be posting on this board a bit less here for a while —> less to discuss imv and less fun now that they have been forced to drop the risible pretence about being able to generate cash from wk, admitting it’s always been a loss-making money-pit, abandoning the daydreams about selling the sandpit pile for multimillions etc, and now that it is crystal clear all that placing money has disappeared never ever to return to EUA, ‘loaned’ away into money heaven.

… this firesale for a pittance also puts paid to the tedious ramp that an imminent peace was just about to bring a rapid end to sanctions / taxes etc and send EUA’s share price soaring as buyers rushed in to pay huge prices.

fun’s over for a while, until the cash starts to run low again, or they find some other game to play.

have a good new year, mr_w, c ya in due course.

? maybe also ask CS why EUA ‘lent’ all those many millions to KK when they weren’t going to get it back?

… somebody made good money out of those loans, it ended up somewhere, but it sure ain’t the ordinary shareholders.

Russia is a kleptocracy… ‘exit taxes’, lol.

12:34 “No threat of nationalisation for MT/ NKT” — putin does what he wants, when he wants.

… mm, but why now? … when ‘peace’ is just around the corner, according to c/g and friends.

anyway, some professional tasks call now, so laters all — pls someone just for the giggles ask CS at the webinar in what way the AIX listing helped to restore full EUA value by the end of 2025.

I confess, i do find it curious that the hit on EUA s/p today has been so small, when the share price here has been sustained for so long by the idea that peace and hence supposedly trade normalisation is just around the corner … seems to me that flogging wk like this because of the geopolitical as rather jars with that story, but it seems pis don’t wanna hear that. nowt so strange as AIM.

10:01, I will have another coffee just for you asher, again my apologies.

S/b, unfortunately for EUA, currently having some kind of tax ‘advantage’ on mt doesn’t affect whether or not putin might suddenly decide to simply nationalise british owned assets at the stroke of a pen.

re sinosteel, several posters on here had previously thought there is already enough info about the EPCF deal in the public domain to know that EUA would be on the hook itself for an eight figure sum. … hence, suggest that’s worth asking about at the webinar, since it seems that CS is increasingly asking shareholders to rely on the value of the sinosteel deal … if that’s his pitch for EUA, only fair he explains it properly.

@asher, managed to access the history on advfn for free after all, my apologies to you for my mistake (and my commiserations on your holding.)

(Ps your link takes me to a page where advfn invites me to pay them money for a subscription to see live streaming trades —> no thanks. no idea why you refer to it as my “beloved” advfn — generally i prefer lse, and certainly wouldn’t pay anything to either. the trades i see are simply those posted on lse.)

S/b, I’m sorry that you feel ‘challenged’ about your posts … but it is the company i am asking about, not you personally …

… particularly, (a) i have pointed out that EUA has *not* tried to claim that mt would be immune from renationalisation, and (b) i have asked how EUA could pay its share of the EPCF costs without incurring significant dilution?

I don’t know why you wanted to pretend yesterday morning that your buy at 4.8p was larger than it really was, asher.

Type in whatever you like asher, it didn’t show in the published trades.

Asher was the fibber who claimed a buy at 4.8p for an amount that never showed on the trades, although a much smaller buy, also at 4.8p, also ending in “,114” shares did show around the same time.

? anybody still wanting to claim that EUA played an absolute blinder by ‘choosing’ not to sell WK for a ‘low price’ before putin’s invasion?

… that used to be one of the rampers’ fairytales…