Member Info for Spikeyj

“… he will disappear when the ceasefire is announced.”

there is no good reason to believe that a ceasefire (of whatever flavour) in ukraine will make any meaningful difference to the value of EUA’s so called assets, located way up in the frozen northwest of russia, not in ukraine, and far from putin’s war.

the big, big issue for EUA is nothing to do with the war ; it is whether or not (a) EUA can mine to make big profits, and (b) whether anybody will pay good money to buy their mining licenses. …. A & B obviously very linked, since if they can’t mine profitably and productively, then no one in their right mind will want to buy their ‘assets’ anyway.

— and the evidence so far is that they can’t mine profitably, and even though EUA was trying hard and publicly to sell assets years *before* the war, including a lengthy formal sale process which failed, they were unable to sell any asset at all.

short term traders like chessgambiteer and others are desperately keen to talk up the possibility of a sentiment based share price spike on a ceasefire, presumably because there’s precious little else by way of genuine commercial news for EUA to base a ramp on at this point. (and the attempted ramp around AIX and mystery mrbigs eager to buy in has fizzled.)

… you know it’s a dire situation when rampers are trying to get folks excited about yet another paid for promotional ‘report’.

Not the place for pro russian propaganda, wilco — ‘SMO’, you should be ashamed.

‘SMO’ —-> putin fan boys.

it’s a major, protracted genocidal war of aggression, started by vladimir putin. call a spade a spade.

(and unlike ragsrob and his ilk, i don’t keep changing my ID on this site.)

17:49, nope.

whether i right or wrong about it, unlike some on lse i am pretty consistent in the views i express about EUA over time.

… & just to spell it out a bit more for the hard of thinking, stuff like grades really matters….

… if you own the rights to 10 tons of e.g. gold that’s mixed in with 1000 tons of rock, the economics of extraction will be way different versus owning 10 tons of in situ gold that’s got to be separated out from 100,000 tons of rock.

…. that’s why it’s important to look at the cut-off grade points used in the various marketing pieces etc that come out about companies like EUA …

Mooching, c’mon, it doesn’t work like that. you need to know what the real all in costs are, vs what product can be sold for.

… if it costs someone $1.1 to dig up and process ore that can then only be sold for $1.0, a project is not viable.

it’s not enough to say, oh, we’ll get someone else to do the mucky work, while we just sit back and take a percentage of the profits, if there are no profits.

Wilco, you’re almost beginning to learn, well done! — that’s the thing about EUA, they never publish detailed independently veritable numbers about real costs. … just lots of nice fluffy numbers floating around about what might be in the ground.

Retail pis locked into EUA have spent literally years consoling each other by swapping supposed huge in-situ numbers … all very nice on a cold kola night, but that pays no bills.

…but all the while, the give-away is that EUA has been unable to sell any of their assets, and they don’t mine as they can’t mine profitably.

Mooching, but just how much does this particular “mucky work” cost?

(And better still, wouldn’t it be great too if they were instantaneous and required no remediation? - what a world that would be!)

Just think what an easy and profitable business mining would be, if only one didn’t actually have to locate, dig up, transport, store and process all those pesky metals that might be lurking underground. … if only those tedious processes didn’t cost money, eh?

Added, small.

(Anybody following EUA properly will of course recognise where that particular cautionary small print can be found.)

Wilco, this is the kind of thing to be wary about when reading ‘broker notes’, ‘research’, etc …

… consider carefully, cui bono?

[hint, it’s not meant to be you]

“This research report and its contents are intended for professional investors and not for retail investors. A marketing communication under FCA rules, this document has not been prepared in accordance with the legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and is not subject to any prohibition on dealing ahead of the dissemination of the investment research.”

If there genuinely had been potential big-time buyers seriously interested in paying up for EUA assets from before putin’s invasion, then they should already be well aware of what EUA has to offer from access to the data room during the failed FSP, rather than looking to the kind of garbage paid-for PR puff that the likes of optimo, align, michael green etc fart out when a company puts a shilling in their slot.

me, i don’t believe for a second that there were big investors who had to sell out london listed shares because of the way but who then begged CS to list in kazakhstan so they could rebuy through that secondary listing. … a fairy tale for the specially gullible, that one.

Kammy, maybe try being a valued hnwi client of a serious investment house that covers genuine businesses?

Lol, much like michael green’s ‘research’ and price targets in his paid-for ‘reports’ about AIM shares …. his wildly wrong predictions/targets regarding ADME spring to mind, for instance.

? have you ever come across sharebel, scotty? - he’s actually worse.

They might try to pretend that the audience for the next piece of paid for pr puff are strategic investors, but in reality the intended target will be gullible retail pis, exactly as happened with the risible acf ‘report’.