Member Info for Ideas

I think it’s too remote to affect this project and just feels uncomfortable, especially as the hold up predates all of this by some way

Source: https://english.alaraby.co.uk/news/morocco-chooses-neutrality-un-condemns-putins-war

I haven’t read any counter-views or checked whether this is balanced

The wrinkle here is that Morocco has aligned itself with the occupying force in this, or at least is one of the countries being impartial.

Morocco’s history in Western Sahara has that some observers considering that it doesn’t want to vote for respecting international boundaries for fear its own conduct in Western Sahara will be challenged and it separately apparently has strong / growing trade ties with those conducting special military operations so again seemingly wants to preserve those (not my words / opinions - just read to that effect).

I haven’t considered the implication for this project, if any, but it has come on my radar this weekend as a background context.

I can’t think of any immediate impact but found it notable. I agree, conceptually, you would think the background would mean rushing the permit out.

Very nice, Westie.

Seems a paid-for-marketing analysis of the “happy path”:

“This document is a marketing communication sponsored by Emmerson Plc (EML)”

Simon Francis looks like an ex-big bank analyst now writing special reports as “Orior Capital”. No website, so presumably a niche pen-to-hire, maybe timed for fund raising. He seems to wrap in a few video interviews with Proactive Investor, etc. from other companies that have employed him so will look out for that.

A very pleasingly happy path, however, he came here! Ha ha. Thanks for sharing and defo what we all want to see rolling through! GLA

Thanks Westie - a good add.

The RNS is the only point that I would build on:

When you said, “surely if there is still a problem with the permit, then something would have to have been RNS'd by now”, in response, I don’t think that is the obligation or that we have that protection.

An RNS obligation will only kick in on something definitive, in my understanding. I think its technically okay for a business to keep its shareholders in the dark during a tailspin, because it might yet pull up.

So for example, if the authorities were to say, “we’re not going to be able to grant as thing stand and we don’t know how we’ll get there” (hypothetical exaggeration), it could both be bad new and *not* trigger an RNS because it remains a work in progress.

Its not that there should be anything wrong, but we can’t rely on RNS in the way that you say, so without the positive assurances, we just don’t know. And given assurances are free to make and buoy the share price, that’s what’s puzzling me.

Re: Takayama’s point, why be wary at all? Well, thats because the AIM companies I’ve already seen go under also looked great; they always do because you have to look great to be able to raise and list on AIM at all. Investing is risk management and that means regularly checking the risk register. If a key risk is not updated for a long time, I think you do have to / it is okay to at least take note.

This is perplextion and disappointment more than a gripe and I’ll give it the benefit of quarter end. I have in saying all of this also topped up by a decent percentage this week, so my glass is well filled Westie!

Slurms, thanks very much for pulling that list together.

Fair play, it’s a good outlook and thanks for saying.

The silence while the application time exceeds another example and seeing a few AIM past companies close is driving my attention, because it’s a go / no go for the project.

I don’t specifically disagree with your point, but I also don’t know that it is “pretty normal” for ESIA to take this long in Morocco, because Graham told us it could come through last summer - I took that as “normal”. I think that’s the crux of the concern. If the business could give us an objective appraisal, it would remove the concern.

Always keen to hear more about the project, so it’s the silence rather than the time at heart. Very keen on the project at large.

He could be the operational owner if Hayden is the face; it would be a major transaction so would need more than Hayden on part time.

Conceptually, the paper work must be out now if Graham is saying he would hope to close debt finance in Q2/Q3; it takes months to sign a residential mortgage, so the possibility of closing by September would I think mean provisional offer being in circulation now.

Finance could be signed conditional on ESIA without too much trouble; just that it’s all theoretical without that permit.

The RNS I referred to below very clearly states that “ He also serves on the board of exploration company GreenRoc Mining Plc”, so just correcting to avoid doubt that nothing is factually incomplete.

Absence of visible updates (different from news) just drives concern, sometimes.

Just looking up James Wynn:

Rainbow Rare Earths:
- chat on the LSE board about government approvals taking over five years, “Pensana lost planning permission, lost £10m on the lease,company haven't reported it, shares down 66%”

Avocet Mining:
- gold explorer, Jim Wynn became FD in 2015 seems to have gone bust, no news since 2017

Moxico Resources
- nothing in production

Jim Wynn is also advertised as the finance director at Greenroc Mining - wasn’t listed in any press releases I saw, which said Moxico was his last venture - that’s what Greenroc says too:

https://greenrocmining.com/about-greenroc-mining/

The RNS below describes Jim Wynn (same photo) as a director and lists directors dealings as of December 2021:

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/GROC/director-dealings-vvdsfmjasi6faai.html

I don’t see any board chat of him leaving; is he working for both part time? Why is the RNS factually incomplete, and potentially misleading, if it’s a regulatory communication.

Does anyone know anything more?

Overall, I’m not seeing any material “in production” experience at board level, and they haven’t claimed it, this seems more about cutting accounting costs with an in-house Accountant and company Secretary (to me) than a formal strategic appointment; not joining the board “at this time” has the flavour of more junior hire.

The continuing silence over the ESIA is concerning me, moreso than the delay itself; no visibility of any steps taken, no narrowed timelines, exposition of any fresh requests for detail. It may not be too long for the ESIA to be granted but it’s too long I’m my view that the business should no nothing more than its last update. I wondered for example if the government may have asked for a share of the mine or its revenue, not uncommon in other jurisdictions, as a share of the windfall increase in the potash price.

Would welcome better communication and expectation management because this is strategically important and basic updates are not price affecting (i.e. no RNS needed, and even if it were, the business has been okay about using RNS to advertise webinars so it’s above that worthiness threshold).

Uncommon 2-3m share sale today (up to £150k in what *looks like* a similar seller pattern - i.e. may not be)

Comes across as counterintuitive with potash prices looking increasingly favourable and the ESIA surely due now or never. Everyone acts for their own reasons though and there’s not necessarily any insight or read across.

Fingers crossed the business can crack on. The recent activity increases the burn rate while also being progressive.

In a way, I’m surprised it didn’t move the price more. However, I think someone has also been selling quite heavily over the last week or so; I noticed around £75k of similar sells one day and there was a similar pattern over a few days. Presumably, there’s still a relative balance. Certainly a decent punt!

Moroccan Minister for mines, after the meeting with Simon??

I had a look at some comparables - and thank you PotashPete for suggesting taking some action:

- Both Predator Oil and Gas and Sound Energy plc received pre-pandemic Moroccan ESIA approvals in what looks to be around 9-12 months, in their context for gas exploration.

They may not be reliable reference points because each approval will be individual and the complexity of the ask will affect the timeline. I don’t know anything of their or applications.

However, if our application went in Q4 2020, you could use those to give a rough expectation of approval in Q3/Q4 2021, all things being equal.

Also it seems fair that the pandemic and a change of government could add another quarter and take us into Q1 2022, where we are now.

If all of that were correct then it would give some confidence that we are tracking to an objectively reasonable timeline, and suggest that any misaligned expectations were in the business.

Can’t draw any conclusions but it’s some objective reference point.

And as this is public information, EML is well placed to research:

- it does make Graham’s Q2-Q3 2021 prediction seem an over-promise, which to be fair he has said himself (still, how did that come about in a small team with locals on board, and does it say anything for the Board’s wider grip on things or is it just a fair mistake?); and

- sharing information like this, albeit better verified, might manage people’s expectations better than the relatively unspecific assurances to now.

Hopefully, it’s Rupert’s time to shine if he is in country now!

@OnlyOneShareMe Thanks and no intention to put any work on anyone

I'm not aware of any prospect of OCP competing; it was more thinking:

- the ESIA timeline is now, objectively, long;

- it's long because a) it's just a long time, and moreso b) the Board, who are the closest to this, publicly considered that it could come through in Q2 2021;

- coupled with all of this, OCP was first presented to be an almost definite customer and, as at end of year, appeared to be completely off radar and disengaged - I don’t see how any fundamentals have changed to drive that.

So, rhetorically, I was pondering, what’s the most challenging position that there could be: 'does the state have any interest in slowing the business for a year with the ESIA, if so what would that be?'

The most nefarious thing that I could quickly think of was OCP developing its neighbouring property itself. However, this is not to suggest it is a real or likely prospect; just critical thinking.

Thank you for sharing your reflection, which is very helpful.

I do feel that something is generally amiss here; it's simply so long with no ‘real’ explanation. I'm not saying by this that there is any 'doom', but I do feel that the Board has a better handle on it than we have sight of and could help a lot by sharing more.

Case in point, we were only told in hindsight and months after the water authority has asked for more information, which was hardly damning and could have given the market greater confidence to share. Every business hits bad news and if they can’t get comfortable sharing that then, in the long term, it would damage trust, needlessly.

Hopefully and probably, it's benign, it just seems a very long time and I wish the Board would share more. If this was the normal timeline, why would they, with the benefit of experienced local Moroccan employees on the ground, think it could come in May last year?

Just creates a vacuum that seems unnecessary when we hear they have 'full confidence'

Please have the confidence of your convictions and share more, if so, Graham!

Hillview, its true; you in fact said even less, given the “if”:

“if we are to surmise that part of his role was to expedite the delivery of the permit”

I don’t think it changes the point, which was simply to share a recollection with you.

On the point that “BoD would be acting entirely negligently if they awarded more contracts in the knowledge that there was a problem with the EIA”, let’s remember these can all be conditional contracts, wholly or in part depending on environmental approval. The signing of the contract does not, of itself, mean anything conclusive either way, albeit its an upbeat step.

Hillview, you said Rupert / the non-exec came onboard to help the approval. I have no view either way but at the time I recall Graham saying that he wasn’t coming on board for that and it was too late in the process to make a difference but that he was working on something that would be very good for the business. Perhaps OCP at the time, though EML seems out of favour with OCP for now from Graham’s London South East interview presentation.

Does anyone know if OCP has a mining licence for its neighbouring plot? The only nefarious reason for a delay that I could imagine is if OCP were to compete as a producer.

It doesn’t mean anything of itself but the delay does seem obscene after being hoped for as early as May last year (i.e. beyond typical bureaucracy; it could be conceptually be within territorial norms but does seem a stretch).

That was a decent trade to start the day.

I wonder who would be selling in single blocks of 1.1m shares - fairly narrow group of people, I would think (i.e. institutions would chug it through in smaller trades, etc. and seems disproportionate to the new covid news overnight).

It seems more likely an individual choice and buying opportunity for others on the dip. Curious (for me) though!

Very big buy:

16-Nov-21 11:24:35 6.90 vol 1,200,000 Buy* £82.80k

That’s not a private investor topping up their ISA

Yes Audible it’s a new account as of 2018, and I gave no examples save the three examples in my message (Mon 10:06).

GLA for tonights webinar and, fingers crossed, a road to production!

There’s a presentation for this website tomorrow evening also Pippee. Perhaps 6:30pm, from memory, but best to check.