Member Info for Spikeyj

(If you like, please explain what significant exploration you believe EUA was doing *before* putin’s invasion, with reference to the specific relevant RNSs.)

Fairtradetub, this is a discussion site to discuss EUA. you claimed that EUA is “is first and foremost an exploratory mining company.”

but that’s simply a false / dishonest statement, since EUA does not explore to any meaningful extent.

i don’t know if you are deliberately dishonest, or simply don’t understand what this company does. i am inviting you to explain why you made that claim, and what your evidence is. punter also previously made that false claim, and failed to provide any evidence or justification to back it up.

so far as i can seem EUA doesn’t do any significant mining, nor does it do significant exploration.

it just sits on licences bought from others and periodically tries to flog shares based on rampy stories about what jam might one day be found at the end of the rainbow, paying nice pay and perks to the directors etc in the meantime for very little work … lifestyle company.

Hardly brilliant. just transparent tripe.

20/7/25 fairtradetub 22:47: “EUA are first and foremost an exploratory mining company”

…? so what exploration are EUA doing? - punter can’t explain, can you?

SB, u beat me to it.

There would be no point ramping up production at wk, since it costs EUA more to mine than they can sell product for.

the more they produce, the more they would lose.

that’s why they don’t mine, even though they claim it is fully operational.

… meanwhile, same question as to punter, which he signally failed to answer …. what exploration are EUA conducting?

? was it moxie who first tried to puff the idea that ‘rmg’ was rosenbergmarten, or did someone else in the WhatsApp group try pushing that lie before moxie tried it on lse?

16:01, it would be a more reasonable assumption, imho, that amit is simply lying.

Trombone,

(1) why would cloudtag not want to tell its shareholders, and the market, who the supposed new NED is?

(2) if there really is a new NED, and there were some genuine reason not to name them - don’t all laugh, just for sake of argument! - then why would cloudtag publish the initials of their real name?

(3) who do you think is actually running cloudtag now, since it seems that nobody has an executive role?

…. curious out of all the many things and entities in the world that rmg could possibly have stood for, several amit groupies all at once seemed to be suggesting a particular baltimore firm - so who was it who started that lie? … who suggested it to you, trombone?

EUA ain’t investment, it’s just gambling.

Although i also assume that he lies through his teeth about filtering and unfiltering.

Mr_w, when in the thread view setting seeing the list of extant threads (rather than when inside a particular thread) I do see something that reads like, last poster, poster ID, time of last post.

I’m not normally in that view mode, but assume Wilco uses something like that as his default.

19:36, or grammar.

10/10/16, “The contract is conditional on, *amongst other things*…”

emphasis added by me. they have never publicly explained what all those other things are.

Back on 4/12/19, CS said in RNS that the sinosteel thang could be an activated until 2027. …. in 2019, that must have been seemed far ahead, but clock is ticking loudly on that too. (? did any subsequent RNS extend that timescale?)

Del, maybe that’s a part of the problem? … if EUA assets are actually worth something significant, then EUA would be in a better negotiating position if prospective bidders knew that EUA was genuinely prepared to mine instead, if bids insufficient …. usually better in business not to be stuck with one plan only, as others can exploit that.

Anyway, it’s the weekend, chillax.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqQT0S6D-Dk

If this company really had the good stuff,

- they would have shouted dfs details from the rooftops,

- they would be continuing to mine their supposedly fully operational mine and selling ore/concentrate,

- they would have provided feedback from the fsp, about the specifics of what was for sale, some indication re counterparty/ies, and very importantly what price levels were supposedly under negotiation,

in the absence of asset sale, they would have activated sinosteel if the economics were genuinely very good.

none of that happened.

Hi del, no additional comment from me .. need to know the economics for the other numbers to mean much, but suggest caution needed on cut off grades used, EUA seems to want to dazzle with grades which many other projects would view as waste.

re sinosteel, there’s a similar transparency issue … in years gone by, some folks wanted to make a lot out of an agreement with sinosteel being implanted in place, but so far as I can recall, i don’t believe that the company ever explained that the “conditions” were that had to fulfilled to activate the agreement …. they might be trivial /easy, or they might be wildly unrealistic for EUA to meet, whether that’s about coughing up £££ or other stuff. but me, I suspect the conditions are very far from trivial (as you could guess!)

meanwhile, time is dragging on, and the longer they leave all this hanging, the fewer years they have left on the licences, and that seriously impacts project economics.

off to harvest blueberries, atb and gl, del.

(i probably wouldn’t phrase it quite like mr_w did, i don’t have his pithy flair, but in a broad sense i tend to agree with his overall stance of giving very little credence to anything much this company has said for years. lots of it just seem like smoke and mirrors, very deliberate, and things like the use of the ACF report, zak, attempted use of optimo, richie and friends, stink to high heaven … v v v similar imv to deep red flags on other such shares.)