We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
I don't know the numbers from back then, but I don't think it was that high. It was, however, high. But that was back then, and indeed the rampers ruled the roost then. Not now though. This is definitely a derampers paradise.
He's still there, according to Companies House. Remember, he's a geologist by trade, not a PR guy. Although there may not be much geologing going on, it makes sense to put in a proper PR firm if things are about to get busy on that front.
"so keith has been let go / or walked "
Not according to Companies House he hasn't, and they're pretty quick on getting updates on there (like, within an hour or so of being notified).
Poor effort at deramping there.
BFL: Russia is part of BRICS, hence my comment about possibly NN or Rosgeo, so we may not be out of the woods just by selling to BRICS, although of course selling to India for example would make the money flow to the UK easier.
I'm also taking the "sale this year hopefully" comment for the vagueness I think it was intentionally meant to be. I can certainly see winning the tax court case this week unblocking the sale of the sand, as that is the most obvious reason for not selling it to date. And that sale could indeed be the proof of concept I refer to, if they do decide to pay a dividend on the back of it.
"My question was, given that list of supposedly great things about EUA, from a rampers’ PoV what keeps the share price down in the sewer?"
Personally, I think that the market has decided that any assets EUA hold will only be of any value if they can be sold at their worth and the proceeds get back to the share holders. It is that transactional proof of concept that has not yet happened for EUA. We could hold tens of billions in reserves, or £2.50 worth, the buyer could be NN, Rosgeo or Xo Bloggs, it could be sold in USD, roubles or magic beans. None of this matters if the share holder sees no financial return at the end of any transaction (if there is to even be one).
The moment that proof of concept happens, that's when the SP will correct towards the true value of the assets. It's that binary as that for me.
", the issue of seeking damages for the cost to them of not being able to profit from selling their shares"
It's not EUA's fault they lost them, which Q&M know ful well, whcih is is why they settled on a simple reissue of shares, rather than press on and sue for compensation. You clearly don't understand the finality of the Tomlin order (it is well documented). As long as EUA honour the Tomlin order, this case is closed.
If Q&M then want to start a new case to claim extra compensation outside of the Tomlin order, then they will need to open a new case. I would guess the first thought in the new judge's mind would be "why was this new claim not resolved in the Tomlin order?"