The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
Leon's short shorts: https://www.shortman.com.au/stock?q=EMH
£3 based on expected increases in Capex and Opex to be announced in the not-so-forthcoming DFS.
The bot sounds a lot like the guy Paul replying to this Tweet: https://twitter.com/pcyrani/status/1750098485695656345, he/it has done it a few times.
Anyone consider that publishing the DFS is quietly contingent on the EU CRMA and perhaps announcement of the Strategic Projects? That is my theory for the delays, ain’t nothing being announced until EU show their cards…
I'd expect progress to be tied to the filing of the request for permits. The lack of progress from July likely shows that the request for permits is still a while away.
Small update published on ESG: https://esg.socialsuitehq.com/mob-public-dashboard/european-metals-?report=1637305297946x302952839446447800
The last update was on 24th July (the method of scoring was updated sometime in October):
Governance was 36%, updated to 89%, now 91% and one area marked as Verified
Planet was 9%, updated to 29%, no change from July
People was 19%, updated to 55%, no change from July
Prosperity was 23%, updated to 56%, no change from July
“We see zinnwaldite as an extraordinary mineral that is a superior host to lithium than the highly sought-after mineral, spodumene. The production of lithium hydroxide from zinnwaldite requires considerably less energy and capital than from spodumene, as has been demonstrated by the successful zinnwaldite mining and processing operation at the Cinovec project in the Czech Republic, and the PEA-stage Zinnwald project in Germany," said Caprock CEO Vishal Gupta.
https://www.canadianminingjournal.com/news/caprock-confirms-zinnwaldite-is-lithium-bearing-mineral-in-newfoundland/
The production of LiOH from zinnwaldite requires considerably less energy & capital than from spodumene says Caprock Mining, which confirmed the lithium-bearing mineral at its property in Newfoundland as zinnwaldite...
https://twitter.com/ZinnwaldLithium/status/1732663736089956849
Chinese manipulation of the market - shake out the Western investors
Worth a watch - https://vimeo.com/884340881 about 9 mins in, now that there is agreement on the CRMA, they will be drawing up and getting consensus on the list of mines that will be considered strategic projects and providing incentives.
Fair enough @sidfiddler and dave - posted as a counterpoint, since I was curious and don't want my expectations to be running high for a quick announcement for everything to fall into place - given that everyone is waiting for the EU to show their cards. Chris Berry mentions the pressure large corporates are putting on governments not to go elsewhere in his latest episode: https://open.spotify.com/episode/2cWV3uGAjU4dw9XrewHhMq?si=f978caa3af814159
If we get significant news before summer, I'll be very happy.
Part 2:
possibly due to the increased number of languages and legal systems involved in the EU.
The average time for the publication of the act in the Official Journal of the EU was 0.8 months in the 2014-2019 legislative term, compared to 0.7 months in the 2009-2014 term, 0.6 months in the 2004-2009 term and 0.5 months in 1999-2004. This means that the publication process has also slightly increased over time, possibly due to the increased volume and complexity of the acts.
The average time for the entry into force of the act was 0.7 months in the 2014-2019 legislative term, compared to 0.6 months in the 2009-2014 term, 0.5 months in the 2004-2009 term and 0.4 months in 1999-2004. This means that the enforcement process has also slightly increased over time, possibly due to the increased number and diversity of the stakeholders involved in the implementation of the act.
Therefore, the total time for a provisional agreement to become legislation can vary from a minimum of 9.2 months (if all the steps are done in the shortest possible time) to a maximum of 11.2 months (if all the steps are done in the longest possible time). However, these are only indicative figures, as some acts can be approved, revised, published and enforced faster or slower than the average, depending on the specific circumstances.
Since the Council and the Parliament struck a provisional deal on the CRM act today, which is 13 November 2023, and it is a priority for the EU, we can assume that it will be approved, revised, published and enforced swiftly, meaning that it will not go beyond the average time for each step. Therefore, a possible estimate for when the CRM act will become legislation is around September 2024, which is 10 months after the provisional agreement. However, this is only a rough approximation, and it may change depending on the actual progress and outcome of the approval, revision, publication and enforcement processes.
This is what ChatGPT thought of the timeline from here:
Thank you for sharing this news with me. According to the press release, the Council and the Parliament have reached a provisional agreement on the CRM act, which aims to reinforce the supply of critical raw materials in the EU. This is an important step towards the final adoption of the regulation, but it is not yet the end of the process.
The provisional agreement still needs to be formally approved by both the Council and the Parliament before it becomes law. The press release states that the Council will adopt its position at first reading once the legal-linguistic revision of the text is completed, and then the Parliament will vote on the Council’s position. The regulation will enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the EU.
Therefore, the time for the CRM act to become legislation depends on how long it takes for the Council and the Parliament to approve the provisional agreement, and for the text to be revised, published and enforced. Based on past acts, we can try to estimate the average time for these steps.
According to the European Parliament, the average time for the Council to adopt its position at first reading was 3.5 months in the 2014-2019 legislative term, compared to 3.4 months in the 2009-2014 term, 3.6 months in the 2004-2009 term and 2.8 months in 1999-2004. This means that the Council’s approval has been relatively stable over time, with some minor variations.
The average time for the Parliament to vote on the Council’s position at first reading was 2.4 months in the 2014-2019 legislative term, compared to 2.3 months in the 2009-2014 term, 2.2 months in the 2004-2009 term and 1.9 months in 1999-2004. This means that the Parliament’s approval has also been relatively stable over time, with some minor variations.
The average time for the legal-linguistic revision of the text was 1.8 months in the 2014-2019 legislative term, compared to 1.7 months in the 2009-2014 term, 1.6 months in the 2004-2009 term and 1.4 months in 1999-2004. This means that the revision process has slightly increased over time, possibly due to the increased number of languages and legal systems involved in the EU.
The average time for the publication of the act in the Official Journal of the EU was 0.8 months in the 2014-2019 legislative term, compared to 0.7 months in the 2009-2014 term, 0.6 months in the 2004-2009 term and 0.5 months in 1999-2004. This means that the publication process has also slightly increased over time, possibly due to the increased volume and complexity of the acts.
The average time for the entry into force of the act was 0.7 months in the 2014-2019 legislative term, compared to 0.6 months in the 2009-2014 term, 0.5 months in the 2004-2009 term and 0.4 months in 1999-2004. This means that the enforcement process has also slightly increased over time, possibly due to the increased numbe
Yawn, might get there by March 2025 - Council and Parliament strike provisional deal to reinforce the supply of critical raw materials - https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023/11/13/council-and-parliament-strike-provisional-deal-to-reinforce-the-supply-of-critical-raw-materials/
Summary text: "On request of The European Commission, ECHA is requesting any relevant additional data related to cardiac foetal malformations compared to the information considered in the opinion of the Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) adopted on 16 September 2021 on Lithium Carbonate, Lithium Chloride and Lithium Hydroxide. RAC will review the submitted information, clarify the evidence available and the association between exposure to lithium salts and cardiac foetal malformations, and, if necessary, amend its opinion."
The paper referred to concludes this: "Our data suggest that Ebstein’s anomaly is associated with maternal mental health problems generally rather than lithium or benzodiazepines specifically"
First steps to ECHA revising its opinion on the toxicity classification of Lithium? https://cosmeticobs.com/en/articles/headlines-13/clh-classifications-targeted-consultations-on-lithium-compounds-and-methyl-methacrylate-7667
Everyone is waiting on the EU to reveal their hand - VW, CEZ, etc - no-one wants to commit to anything, even releasing a DFS, until the EU get their act together…
What are KC’s incentives - he gets a bonus on delivering the DFS, but what else? When is he most likely to capitulate and agree to sell?
Jonesy - if we were to pursue a deal similar to Keliber (also post-DFS, but before FID and EIA), then this would be equivalent to around £1.33 per share when valuing by production capacity.
And in Lopare, Bosnia - same deposit as Jadar: https://tn-nova-cz.translate.goog/zpravodajstvi/clanek/527184-pohroma-pro-cesko-v-bosne-nasli-dalsi-obri-naleziste-lithia?_x_tr_sl=cs&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp#:~:text=Lithium%20hýbe%20světem%20a%20stává,na%20dobývání%20tohoto%20žádaného%20kovu.