Member Info for Spikeyj

08:21 u trading demon u!

S/b 08:16: “… so no dilution going forward.”

? how would EUA pay its share towards the EPCF without whopping dilution?

… last few weeks/months the main ramp trope has been that ‘peace’ is imminent, and then all of a sudden everyone will be friends, taxation risks and sanctions will suddenly disappear, buyers will leap from the wooodwork, etc. … but that’s hardly consistent with this company offloading makeabundle’s jewel in the crown for peanuts because they are so concerned about developments in the geopolitical situation.

S/b, EUA has not claimed that MT is immune from nationalisation risk.

… they are *hoping* that the risk is lower.

I suggest that folks who take part in the webinar should ask the BoD how they intend to finance EUA’s contribution to the sinosteel EPCF, if that ever does get activated.

(in previous discussions on this chatboard, several posters concluded that EUA might have to fund roughly $26 million as their share … ? probably would be worth trying to check that figure at the webinar too?)

previously, some posters had suggested that EUA could pay its way in the EPCF by mining and selling concentrate at WK, or by selling WK to raise the necessary wonga, but clearly that idea’s a bust.

“…the proceeds of the Disposal may provide capital for the project elements NOT covered by the EPCF arrangements with Sinosteel.” [caps emphasis added by me.]

….meanwhile, obv still worth remembering, “Nationalisation risk remains a concern for foreign-owned mining assets in Russia…”

Are LTHs planning to buy now?

21:47, yes, good question.

it seems all that money from previous placings that was ‘injected’ into kk has just flown away to money heaven.

(whose pockets get to keep the benefit of that cash? - it is clearly never coming back to EUA shareholders, but shurely somebody must have done well out of that, eh?)

Crypto, note that all of a sudden the rampers seem very happy to accept that WK has always just been a loss-making mine!

… so many of them used to claim that EUA could fund itself by selling that existing sandpile /‘concentrate’ for millions, & then keep mining and selling to fund itself. — but that’s always been absolute garbage, and this exposes that rampers’ lie.

i said they would run out of cash soon, and would need to raise more money soon. if they get the votes to proceed with this, this can keep the lights on in russia for a while longer without a placing …. i suspect they were finding it hard to construct a placing for these london company shares that could then legally inject any funds into russia … hence this sale may be the only chance to finance ops in russia unless sanderson could be paid to ride to the rescue again.

In other words, “security guarantees” from a greedy narcissistic liar like trump aren’t worth the paper they are written.

the europeans still don’t want to see that, very very hard implications for europe, but shurely the penny is dropping, albeit slowly as tho’ through treacle.

trump is untrustworthy at best, and an active enemy of europe at worst.

Hi s/b, i do agree that us conduct irt ukraine is relevant to taiwan. but i think president xi will be very encouraged by trump’s betrayal of ukraine, rather than deterred….

… combination of taco, over and over again, plus trump sides with strong bullies, plus trump is a totally unreliable ‘friend’ who sells out his supposed allies at the drop of a hat if there’s a few dollars in it for him and his family.

the US should be utterly ashamed of itself for enabling trump.

S/b, all that the americans are doing is trying to coerce ukraine into surrendering.

? how does that despicable betrayal by trump translate across to taiwan, do you think?

? were the two posts at 9:07 related to EUA?

… sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander…

Some folks here seem to think that a ceasefire might be relevant to eua’s prospects.

if so, then the trustworthiness, honesty, track record etc of the participants shurely is relevant? … but EUA rampers want give putin a free pass over and over again, whilst ignoring or adding to criticism of eu / biden/ ukraine / uk etc.

me, i think none of it changes the sh*tyy underlying business here, but it’s shameful that so many of the rampers want to support fascist kremlin disinformation over and over again.

14:05, is that the same mercouris who was struck off as a barrister for dishonesty?

… one can tell a lot about people by the company they keep.

Del, —- assuming for the sake of discussion that the EUA board weren’t simply lying, and also for the sake of argument that the “credible party” wasn’t just one of their mates helping with a ramp —-> EUA presumably just relayed what they had been told by the “credible party” that said party had ‘completed’ due diligence ….

…but that doesn’t tell us how much dd they did before they concluded that they didn’t need to do any more in order to make their investment decision one way or another, or how much or how thorough such dd was ….

…. what we do know is that it didn’t lead to any bid being announced, even months before the invasion.

See you in 2026.

Added, small.

“officecat went vegas.. [..] and absolutely got spanked there”

that sounds like a remarkably unappealing remake of ‘debbie does dallas.’

Hi del, maybe they did just ask a teaboy to do exactly that?

— or maybe they completed their due diligence quite quickly (and hence very cheaply) because it rapidly became apparent from their first few inquiries that it was a complete non-starter, so there was simply no point looking in more depth?

— or maybe they never did any due diligence at all, but lied to EUA about that?

…. as ever with EUA, there simply isn’t enough independently verifiable data in the public domain to know one way or the other.

but if you wanna hang onto your EUA shares for another year or two because you choose to assume, without evidence, that someone spent a lot of money on due diligence, then please feel free, del, no issue for me what you do!

I suppose the other possibility is that EUA genuinely did receive offers which were meaningful in relation to the real value of its licences, but which just didn’t correspond to the wildly over-optimistic fantasies which the company sometimes seems to harbour about its own worth.

e.g. if i own a small rat-infested shed with a rotting roof on an allotment, and a guy from a neighbouring plot offers me £50 for it, that’s actually a genuinely meaningful offer. … but if i have somehow convinced myself that the shed is worth thousands, then i (foolishly) wouldn’t see it as a meaningful offer.

Del, you have absolutely no idea how much that supposedly credible party actually spent on doing “due diligence”.

(& similarly, if i receive a non-binding offer from a friend of mine, that superficially appears potentially generous in relation to wider market value, but that mate and i already know they have no real intention of going ahead with the deal, and it’s just a piece of puff to make others think there’s interest, then that wouldn’t be a meaningful offer either, in my book.)