Member Info for Ctw2014

RPKS: I respect your input and local knowledge but I think you are being overly pessimistic. The German dimension is an unwelcome twist but the Saxony Govt is tied into the CMRA strategic project priorities as well as the Czech Government. The EIA process in Germany appears to be a consultation process of limited scope (set out in the RNS) which under CMRA principles should be run in parallel with the Czech consultation process. I don’t believe at all that the most recent RNS was suggesting a whole new German EIA process and I think there are two strong indicators of that: 1) the new unified CENIA filing acknowledging the German dimension. This is the “starting gun” for the consultation process in both countries; and 2) the fact that, as you say, the Czech public hearing is scheduled for second half of June. I think it’s very tight but still just about on track and if the German dimension does cause a slight delay I would assume an extension to the JTF grant (especially bearing in mind it was probably the Czech Environment Ministry that came up with the recent advice!). Also, bear in mind that we know that the studies have been done, translations provided and meetings already held with the Saxony Government, all before the RNS was dropped about the CENIA filings (which I think would have been held back if there was likely to be a significant delay because of this issue). No doubt all will become clearer soon (presumably well before the AGM - remember those performance rights needing approval).

Interesting to see Geomet cooperating with the Zinnwald project on the cross border mining issues. Makes sense of course but what makes sense doesn’t always happen!

When I say “it is bound” of course I am referring to the Czech government.

Gsdsitgs: There is in fact serious confirmation in the CENIA documentation that the CMRA expedited process is being followed. Firstly the fact that the public hearing is going to be scheduled so quickly (stated as second half of June in the translation you posted yesterday and now confirmed as “in the coming weeks in the RNS just issued). Secondly, the fact that the two EIA processes (for the mining, and for the processing plant) have been unified as a single process. This is classic CMRA policy to avoid things happening sequentially and dragging the whole thing out. In my view, if there was a serious risk to the deadlines/JTF funding, EMH would have been obliged to have said so in the RNS just issued and provided an update. I think we can all breath a collective sigh of relief and be confident that things are on track and any delays in the final decision will, if they occur at all (and I don’t think they will) be minor and matched by an extension to the JTF deadline.

Gsdsitgs: This post is meant to be helpful not argumentative. I think where you may be missing the point is that both the “small EIA” and “big EIA” are “standard” processes. Given the scale and importance of this project it is a given that it would be treated as a “big EIA” and so your comment that the local Usti municipality said it would go through the “big EIA” process is unsurprising and surely correct. The document you posted is, as you say, unofficial. As far as I recall from reading it, there is no reference in it to the CMRA or its impact on the process for a strategic project under that Act, and it therefore takes no account of that impact. You are, of course correct that the CMRA is an EU thing, but the critical point is that, as a member of the EU, it is bound by EU law.

Gsdsitgs: I too am incredibly grateful for your posts and local insights, but I think the document you posted (apparently produced by a “Green” association and not the clearest of explanations ) sets out the “standard” EIA process, not the compressed and prioritized process being applied to CMRA strategic projects. For the former, everything is sequential and timelines are relatively flexible: assessment report; review; public comments/hearing; decision. For the latter the review and public comment processes are run concurrently, saving something around 45 days. Member states are mandated to prioritize strategic projects and comply with the accelerated timescales. The public comment 30 day period is triggered by the documents published on CENIA. The assessor who will issue the binding opinion won’t wait until that is completed to start reviewing them but will do so in parallel. Of course, he/she will have to take into account public and other comments but your translation of part of the documentation yesterday flagged that the public hearing is planned for the second half of June; although the exact date and the venue is not yet fixed. Apparently, the Ministry can issue the final decision almost immediately after the public hearing under CMRA if there are no “fatal flaws” revealed. The same Ministry imposed the 30th June deadline on the JTF grant and could be said to have an interest in acting with the utmost expedition to enable it to be met, or equally could grant a short extension if required. Thus, the deadline can theoretically be met albeit it’s very tight and could easily slip a bit. But your suggestion of potentially the end of the year is, in my opinion at least, way off. As previously stated, my guess is some greater clarity will emerge before we have to get our pens out and vote for the AGM!

I am not sure whether it will be the subject of a formal RNS, but given we are being asked to approve the grant of 3.6m performance shares at the AGM on 29th May, I am betting on something positive coming out before the deadline for submitting voting proxy forms, whether by RNS, RNS Reach, an AGM statement, or an interview. As always, just my opinion.

It’s not crystal clear to me, but given the time of the trade being posted and the price, it looks more like a sell than a buy to me and that would account for the fact that there was no upward movement on the days buys.

EBRD disposing of more for strategic reasons as previously discussed ? At all events it seems to have been absorbed without the share price flinching. The trade was pre CENIA update. If it was a private investor selling, I reckon he/she will already be regretting the decision. Next few days should be interesting.

My understanding is that this starts the clock on the 30 day public consultation period, which leaves just about enough time for a “quick” public hearing and the publication of the final EIA approval by 30th June. Once the extent of public opposition/interest is known (ie probably during the last week of the 30 day period or immediately after) they will know the size of venue required for the hearing and will post the date and venue. We know that there is form here for taking things up to the wire and it looks like this is another example of that, but it now feels as if we are back on track barring anything unexpected. My opinion only. Not advice.

Thanks for the translation! Looks fine.

Purely speculation on my part Troy. Maybe something in that pipeline they were so happy about coming to fruition? At all events it’s looking good so far today.

Skelly: Actually, I am not confusing the two. Whilst the JTF grant and the 360m grant are handled by different Ministries, both declared support for the project in the zoning approval process. The link is indeed clearest with the JTF grant (the Ministry of Environment hold both the JTF and EIA keys) but both of the Czech Government Departments involved and relevant EU authorities will be working hand in glove to deliver this CRMA strategic project. The 360m Euro grant is handled by the Ministry of Industry and Trade, but both departments are mandated to work together on strategic projects and indeed sit on the same committee for strategic investments. I did say “broadly speaking “ and that is what I meant.

I think the EIA approval will come before an offtake announcement, but that an offtake will follow rapidly after approval is received. Meeting the 30th June deadline is tight but achievable and even if it were to slip slightly, it’s not the end of the world.

It’s worth bearing in mind that broadly speaking the people awarding the big grants here are the same people that need to approve the EIA, so I regard the risk of a major problem with the EIA as low, particularly since a lot of public consultation including hearings has, I believe, already been undertaken as part of the zoning approval process.

By not identifying EIA approval as a trigger, the board are essentially (in my personal opinion) acknowledging this is already essentially nailed on and not a sensible target at this stage for a performance incentive. An offtake is a more acceptable target as it is more likely to drive significant shareholder value.

I think it’s all going to move forward pretty quickly over the next couple of months so I have just topped up by another £5000 worth. That is, however, a decision based on my own opinion only and is not intended as advice to anyone.

Hmmm, I wonder?

It’s always worth checking the actual announcement rather than relying on a chat board for info. My reading of the terms of the performance shares is that they are triggered by A) offtake; B) FID; and C) construction (plus share price gain back up provisions). I am fine with those triggers but they differ from what has been reported here.

Just interrogated Gemini AI about the EBRD’s move and it confirmed that this is likely a positive development. Reducing or exiting now is consistent with it making way for Commercial banks to lead the financing for the construction stage after EIA approval and FID. Even setting performance rights now is a positive sign that the ducks are lining up for EIA approval, FID, etc. I recommend anyone invested here does their own research on this rather than relying on someone’s opinion on a chat board, including mine, but I am personally satisfied that things are looking pretty good going forward.

Given Quantum’s involvement, I am far less worried about cash needs than I would be otherwise. They have, as you know, already invested a significant sum at 20p (when the share price was only about 3 or 4p if I recall correctly) and I would be surprised if we don’t see another investment at a strong premium from them. Obviously that’s just my opinion.

Bit of a mixed bag that but overall positive I think.

Reference to spending on certain corporate initiatives is interesting. My guess is we can expect two near term developments:

1) Further extension of the CLAs; and

2) a Further investment from Quantum Leap Capital, also at a premium to the current share price.

On 2) we were told discussions were ongoing on further collaboration and we can see that further cash will be required.

Good to see the prediction of a net profit for H1.

And ruins any liquidity in the share. So much for making a market!