Member Info for Spikeyj

Crypto, i was invited to join a covert AIM ramp & trading group back in approx 2015, who were working boards such as REM, AFPO & TRP at the time. … declined, not my cup of tea. not been part of anything remotely since before or since. but for sure, they do exist (thinner pickings for them on AIM though, compared to the good ole days!)

… the enthusiasts seem rather short of company-focused reasons why EUA’s assets would be worth more now than during the failed FSP …

several of the usual suspects chipping in with personal insults / jub fairy tales, but only one on-topic comment so far … take a bow, welcher, who suggests that EUA assets might be worth more now because of US / Russia ‘interest in the artic area’.

? any other on-topic, company-focused suggestions? - or is that it?

Punter, i have never had any position in EUA, neither long nor short.

(i would suggest also, the proposed dual listing in kazakhland doesn’t exactly support the idea that EUA is gearing up for asset sale to a US or western buyer … EUA has been listed and freely traded in london, & the UK would usually be a pretty satisfactory jurisdiction for most western buyers.)

Welcher: “I’ll forget everything and just mention how important the artic area is to the US & Russia just for starters.”

… ? maybe welcher is thinking that EUA could lease some of its clapped out mining sites to the US military, for bases they could use for opposing chinese influence in the artic? … presumably putin would not object to US siting some tactical nukes and submarine silos on EUA land? — frankly, that seems a far more realistic business proposition than EUA actually trying to dig up and sell anything.

? joking aside, though, if any enthusiasts actually wanted to try some on-topic company focused discussion, why has the war in ukraine plus trump’s moronic treachery in the white house made any of EUA’s assets significantly more valuable than they were during the failed FSP when EUA was unable to sell anything to anyone? — it would be nice to hear the positive arguments, for balance.

18:36, what difference does trump’s view of the ‘artic area’ make to the nature of the mineral assets that EUA is trying to sell, and what difference does it make to the economic viability of them? … please do explain.

more broadly, it would be fascinating to hear the enthusiasts’ arguments why EUA assets would now be seen as so much more valuable than they appeared to be during the failed FSP.

…. ? what do the enthusiasts believe has added value to this company since the failed FSP?

17:33, “Truce agreed”

? seriously!?

16:37, if US or other western companies had wanted to buy EUA’s ‘assets’ they already had plenty of chances to do that during the FSP back in 2021 … i.e. well before any sanctions, before the invasion, when metal supercycle prices were better, etc.

there was nothing to stop a US /western bidder from buying the assets during the FSP, *if* they believed that there was significant value for money on offer …. they didn’t.

Some pretty random rampy share prices guesses on this site over the easter weekend.

as per usual of late, the rampers’ game appears to be to try to pretend that some kind of ceasefire / capitulation etc in ukraine (&/or trump robbing the ukrainian people of their mineral reserves) will magically lead to an upsurge of generous buyers falling over themselves to pay top dollar for EUA’s supposed ‘assets’.

… but as ever, it is well worth remembering that this company spent a very long time trying to tout those same assets around in a formal sale process (FSP), which concluded with zero binding bids, zero assets sold, and merely an unspecified ‘proposal’ from an unnamed ‘credible buyer’ who then melted away without a trace after supposedly completing due diligence.

—-> the resounding failure of the FSP happened well before putin’s 2022 invasion of ukraine, and when the metal price supercycle was at a much better level, when there were no sanctions at all in place, and supposedly when CIS ‘investors’ were still meant to be interested in EUA.

…. whatever happens between putin, trump and ukraine, none of that will make EUA’s supposed assets, and the mining economics up in the kola peninsula, any better than they were during the failed FSP.

11:19: “Due to the conflict in Ukraine, they don’t want the dfs in the public domain.”

not only does that make no sense, but it’s also interesting to note how the story changes over time with EUA … the rampers’ standard explanation for the non-publication of the dfs used to be that the russian state would not let them publish it.

“… they have kept the assets and licences in good standing without getting paid.”

they did not forego their pay & perks, they merely deferred them. no sacrifice there from the company insiders!

“Due to the conflict in Ukraine, they don’t want the dfs in the public domain.”

LOL, why on earth not? - that makes no sense.

“Only a whiff of a ceasefire or asset sale required…”

& there it is again, the rampers’ main game these days, trying to falsely equate those two utterly different issues.

Puzzled why some folks on here appear to be arguing that EUA’s assets will somehow become much more attractive to buyers if trump succeeds in extorting mineral rights from distressed ukraine, and/or if putin can retain control of significant parts of eastern ukraine on a long-term basis.

EUA was unable to attract a buyer for any of its assets even *before* putin’s invasion (& back at a much better phase of metal price supercycle).

putin is brutally demolishing ukraine, and america is betraying its allies and destabilising the entire global trading system, significantly increasing the chances of a worldwide recession as free trade erodes.

? why would that make poor quality, loss-making mining ‘assets’ in a jurisdiction run by a brutal kleptocracy more attractive to any investors?

Agreed, good posts as per usual by lovely boy … factual, thoughtful, on-topic for EUA, and not personally abusive. exactly the kind of stuff (pro, anti, mixed/ unclear) that should be exchanged on these kind of share discussion chatboards.

Apologies, scottyd, for not including you in my suggested list at 15:34.

If you filter wolfe, me, b1ll, crypto, aubery, TDT2 & partyp that would stop you viewing a large percentage of the posts that seem to bother you. free, and easy to do.

Gecko, if you don’t want to read stuff about EUA that you disagree with, just use the filter.

12:36: “… and a thawing of geopolitical tension…”

Ibiza and i are clearly living on different planets.if this what a thaw looks like, i’d hate to see global geopolitics hotting up.

Two main points in the update:

1) they have enough cash to keep this game going for at least another one and a half years, so the directors will able to keep paying themselves their pay and perks.

2) “While the Board remains committed to an eventual sale of the Company’s assets, there can be no guarantee that Eurasia will enter into binding arrangements about this long running sale process.”

Hi b1ll, again, i kinda take your point about ‘potential’, but there is actually several years of published accounts history showing that EUA kept on losing money over a sustained period when they were trying to mine.

so although i agree it is conceivable that things could change sufficiently (e.g. very big drops in extraction costs, huge rises in metal prices) that operating the mine *might* become profitable in future, there is a clear, public year on year history that strongly points the other way.

& of course, if it was profitable now, they would still be operating it, not mothballing.