Eurogold Share Discussion Threads

[sis2005] 24/4/2006 13:08

Doing a china gold?

[cezary] 24/4/2006 12:39

What is warranting this rise.
Makes me think I should be buying more!!

[Abuse team] 23/4/2006 13:50

Post removed by ADVFN

[phillis] 23/4/2006 13:49

Good work GS.
Seems like the directors of OXS still believe the assets of Transgold are not far enough from the potential reach of the Hungarian authorities despite EUGs hungarian lawyers saying the risk is minimal

I'm pretty certain OXS will be working behind the scenes on some sort of closure with the Hungarian authorities

[giant steps] 23/4/2006 09:44

Reminder of the orginal 14 July 2005 deal
"
The total value of the transaction will be £17.3 million equal to £0.07 per
Eurogold share.

Oxus already owns 43,188,100 shares in Eurogold equal to 17.44% of the fully diluted share capital. These shares will be cancelled as part of this transaction.

Thus the net purchase consideration after set off will be £14.3 million with 30.6
million new Oxus shares being issued, based on the average closing price of
46.7p of Oxus shares over 6, 7 and 8 July 2005.
"



"

The proposed Transaction comprises the acquisition by Oxus of:

•all of the issued capital of Eurogold (Bermuda) Limited, a subsidiary of
Eurogold which controls its assets in the Ukraine;


•all of the issued capital of Explorer SA, an exploration subsidiary in
Romania which holds largely exploration assets;


•certain assets at fair market value of Transgold SA, a joint venture
company in which Eurogold holds a 50% interest. Transgold operates a
carbon-in-leach plant (CIL) at Baia Mare in southern Romania for the
treatment of gold tailings.

"

[giant steps] 23/4/2006 09:43

Reminder from AIM listing document

4 Legal Claims Against the Group

"
Arising from the incident referred to under the preceding heading, a range of
proceedings were instituted against Transgold and the Company. A number of
those proceedings were of a minor nature and were commenced by Romanian
citizens in Romania. All of those actions have been settled.

Two separate actions of a more substantial nature were commenced, the first
being by the Republic of Hungary in Hungary against Transgold. That action
claims a range of remedies including substantial damages which it is alleged
were suffered as a consequence of the negligent acts or omissions of Transgold
in relation to the operation of its tailings dam. The proceedings have not been
prosecuted with vigour and advice received from the Hungarian lawyers appointed
by Transgold in Budapest is to the effect that the proceedings are likely to be
successfully resisted.

The second claim was commenced by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia against
the Republic of Romania and Eurogold. Again, the proceedings have not been
prosecuted with vigour and furthermore:

a) that part of the proceedings against the Republic of Romania has been
discontinued; and
b) there is an application before the Court by the Plaintiff to name Transgold
as the defendant, rather than Eurogold.

The advice of the Yugoslavian lawyers appointed by Eurogold is that the
prospects of successfully defending the action are good.
"

[giant steps] 23/4/2006 09:42

Reminder from AIM listing document

3 Corporate History

"
Eurogold was incorporated in Western Australia in 1983 and listed on the ASX in
March 1987. The Company's current direction effectively commenced in 1996 when
Transgold was formed by Eurogold in conjunction with Remin.

Transgold subsequently developed the Baia Mare Treatment Plant to mine and
process the Meda and Central Tailings Dams, with the first gold pour taking
place in April 1999.

In January 2000, a wall of the tailings dam associated with the Baia Mare
treatment plant was breached and approximately 100,000 cubic metres of
contaminated water was released into the local river system.

Because of the claims threatened or anticipated to be made against both
Transgold and Eurogold, the then directors of Eurogold placed the company into
voluntary administration on 15 March 2000. The Company remained in the hands of
the administrators until a Deed of Company Arrangement was finalised on 29
September 2000 and the conditions precedent contained in the DOCA were
satisfied. On 27 September 2001 control of the Company was returned to the
directors.

The company changed its name from Esmeralda Limited to Eurogold on 28 May 2002.
As a consequence of the DOCA, proven creditors of the Company were paid out
either from the existing assets of the Company or from the Esmeralda Creditors
Trust, formed as part of the DOCA. Secured creditors remained unaffected by the
DOCA. Subsequently, on 26 June 2002 the secured creditors entered into an
arrangement with the Company whereby the obligations of the Company to those
secured creditors were discharged subject to the satisfaction of a number of
conditions precedent.

The conditions precedent dealt with the identification and use of money for the
rehabilitation of the Meda dam site, the obtaining and maintenance of all
necessary permits and approvals, the approval of a rehabilitation plan and
the engagement of appropriate experts. On or about 27 August 2002 the
conditions precedent to the Deed of Release were satisfied. There are also
conditions subsequent that require fulfilment, which are detailed in Section
10 of Part 6.
"

[sagem] 22/4/2006 07:02

WORTH REMEMBERING :-

LONDON (AFX) - AIM-listed miner Eurogold Ltd said gold resource at the Saulyak mine in Ukraine is now believed to be in excess of 1.2 mln tonnes, double than its previous estimate.

The upgrade was done after completing a resource review which began in August last year.

Ore dug from the site will be treated at the Transgold plant, in which Eurogold holds a 50 pct stake, situated across the border in Baia Mare in Romania.

"We continue to be focused on successfully merging and ramping up our Ukraine and Romanian operations so that Eurogold can take its place alongside the other mid-sized producers of the former Soviet Union," said chairman PeterGunzburg.

[thescoop] 21/4/2006 23:41

Phillis and GS,
Thanks for BOTH your contributions.

[giant steps] 21/4/2006 23:07

Phillis - tongue and cheek my friend, of course i will make my own decisions, and certainly not on the basis of your informed comments.

[phillis] 21/4/2006 22:48

Do as YOU please. It is of no consequence to me.
My postings are for everybody

[giant steps] 21/4/2006 19:27

Phillis, i may have to consider your views as a contra-indicator! Contact with
directors is generally not helpful, easy to be fed with what you want to hear.

If Oxus are trying to make progress with EUG they will not be sharing it with
you and I, unless you are saying you have some privileged capacity
(director/ex-director of Oxus ?)

[phillis] 21/4/2006 17:48

No games, (don't play them) - am still a holder.
Don't expect any corporate actions from OXS until the Hungarians are sorted.
Presume further info was gleaned in the original DD(atfter all nobody takes as gospel what is included in the accounts - it's what is not included that is critical)and possibly subsequently

[giant steps] 21/4/2006 17:30

Phillis - no disrespect, but no time for your games. The point i was making is
that o/s legal action was pending at the time when OXS made their offer, i.e. not a new issue, which is different from saying there is no issue. Yes, there
is still an 'alleged issue' as noted in the accounts.

[phillis] 21/4/2006 16:50

My info GS came from the horse's mouth, so it does seem as though it is an issue still

[giant steps] 20/4/2006 19:56

Nothing new about Hungarian issue; Oxus made an offer for EUG knowing this.

Recall from Accounts 2005

Regulatory Issues
SC Aurul SA (now Transgold SA) was previously the subject of litigation from
a number of small litigants and the Hungarian Government, following the tailings
dam incident in January 2000.
The Hungarian Government continues to pursue Transgold SA for damages
allegedly resulting from the tailings dam incident in January 2000.

[phillis] 20/4/2006 18:45

The issue with the Transgold shut down is the potential claim by the Hungarians. Nothing will happen until that is settled once and for all

[cezary] 20/4/2006 08:58

Now that the Jerooy deal is dead for Oxus,they could focus more on Eug with the Salyuk mine.

[banney] 19/4/2006 18:42

If you've had a good day please consider giving a donation to the lads dressed as Elvis racing 350 miles to the North Pole on behalf of Great Ormond Street Hospital – It makes the London Marathon seem like a stroll in the park!
To donate or view how they're getting on visit

thanks for your time

[zaphod99] 24/2/2006 10:01

With Oxus engaged in the Jerooy negotiations perhaps they've agreed to put EUG on the back burner until Jerooy is finally resolved. The last thing they'd want is to give the Kyrgyz government any ammunition to continue their refusal to give the licence back and EUG could perhaps be regarded as an unnecessary distraction.

EUG also have the blight of an environmental disaster hanging over them and although Oxus would not have been implicated, it could perhaps have been used in the propaganda war against Oxus had the deal gone ahead.

Interestingly, RBC regarded the EUG deal as positive because of exploration potential.

Personally, I don't think we've heard the last of the OXS/EUG deal. Anyone else sniffing around EUG as a potential takeover target may have been put off by the recent negative announement regarding the processing plant.

[mattybuoy] 23/2/2006 22:19

Re-reading the recent RNS about the Transgold shutdown, I have managed to clarify myself somewhat ...

The key point is that the plant is not economic with the current low throughput. However, the implication is that it would be if the gold from Saulyak were to be processed there. Which is the plan!

It is more a matter of EUG not having sufficient funding to keep the plant going until Saulyak comes onstream. Or until they can find some other customers, as per SAGEM's post #104.

So, it might indeed be an idea for Oxus to step back in, but at a lower price.

[pecker1] 23/2/2006 18:32

Well, they now seem to be shod of that plant which seemed to be more of a liability than an asset. The only asset they have left that is worth serious money is the Ukranian mine with nearly a 1m oz resource.

Also appears simpler for OXS to buy this now as the risk of being saddled with either a claim and/or the stigma from the pollution incident would seem to have disappeared.

I always thought the absence of any public slanging match between the parties after Trew pulled out left the door open for a future deal at the right price. The reasons for OXS buying that strategic stake in EUG seem even more valid today.

[clemo69] 23/2/2006 17:04

Dont know but someone is buying as the mms want shares

[cezary] 23/2/2006 15:51

Might we see some interest from Oxus again??

[thescoop] 19/2/2006 09:24

Speculation that OXS is buying or is there some evidence Cezary?
There's been little written about why OXS pulled out of EUG, there was just the implication that the deal became too expensive as the OXS share price rose, but IIRC there was always a cash limit of ca.$17M on such a deal anyway so that particular reason doesn't sit well with me.