Member Info for Jemesa

Https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/28/turkey-eu-electric-car-sales

^interesting analysis here - showing why cinovec’s location and cheap / ESG lithium is a game changer for EVs - but its battery storage for gigafactories that will drive lithium prices this year as demand outstrips supply.

Once Mercedes rolls out its new line of electric it will dominate the Middle East too.

Yes, and if there’s anyone who needs a bit of luck it’s Keith. He’s seen a paper fortune evaporate but stuck in there. The whole team haven’t sold and so they too deserve some credit for their commitment.

This looks like a construction issue but not a Permit issue. securing land for a 6km+ aerial conveyor can’t be easy difficult. The cancellation of the geotechnical survey simply means they can’t drill for foundations on contested land yet.

Interesting that the DFS (completed Dec 22, 2025) shows geomet has listed rail and road as alternative transport routes. This friction explains the DFS delay, but the minerals stay where they are. It’s an engineering problem - and one you would expect will be resolved with the weight of CEZ / the Czech state and others involved. If not, it looks like alternatives have been put forward.

Very measured

For various reasons that I have outlined in detail, this is not a project that is looking to fund the mine via dilution. It has a sizeable bank ready deposit (grant) and business plan (DFS) and the main bank as a shareholder. Don't mistake this for a junior miner. But I do agree that EMH will be bought out, not by CEZ but an EU partner that keeps Geomet Green - but for fair value £1-1.40 per share seems about right.

Thanks for this and I hasten to clarify this thought is purely based on informed speculation that is itself based on public regulatory timelines and standard market practice, rather than any inside knowledge. The rationale for expecting news follows a predictable pattern of joining the dots on the existing calendar:

The announcement that I am thinking about this week is a statutory update regarding the permit / EIA process - for example the public hearing schedule, are first published in the Czech Government Gazette and the CENIA portal (the Ministry of Environment’s system). I would expect this to be followed with an RNS announcement to confirm the legal compliance progress.

Because the EIA was accepted on 12 January (submitted on 31 Dec), the 10–14 working day completeness review period is currently ending. This makes a notification regarding the next phase of public consultation logically due this week - and I am picking Thursday (guess)

Another possibility for some sort of announcement is the formal admission of 11.4 million new shares on 28 January. I am particularly interested to see if any TR-1 notifications occur that show if any funds (particularly ESG Funds) have crossed a reporting threshold (typically 3%). These filings usually appear 2–3 days after trading starts - so there's a chance for something interesting next week.

We also know that the management team has a strong incentive to drive the share price toward the 25p level. Many of the project's key milestones and existing director options/performance rights are tied to the 30 June 2026 deadline, which is also the final date for the EIA approval required by the €36 million JTF grant. Our friend Keith Coughlan stated that they are actively looking for ways to "re-rate" the company to reflect its strategic value. This includes moving past the "permitting phase" and into the "commercial phase."

I have no knowledge or feeling for the "Rocket Fuel" Catalysts - this could be new grants, a major offtake agreement or a strategic partnership with an OEM (like a car manufacturer). The EU’s Raw Materials Matchmaking window—runs from 20 January to 20 March 2026—provides a specific timeframe where these types of institutional connections and offtake negotiations are officially facilitated. And given the geopolitical context - who'd bet against Cinovec not being at the top of the list here.

So while I think a permit update is a logical short-term step to support the new share admission, the broader matchmaking window through March creates a backdrop where a significant commercial partnership could be announced at any time.

If anyone is still reading, perhaps don't sell for 20p :)

Yes, I suspect what's happening away from the market is more significant than the volume today, but its low but the rising share price indicates that existing holders are unwilling to sell at these levels, creating a supply squeeze. This is 100% logical given what they are holding. Any sale now is just hoovered up by fund via a broker who have been very successfully manipulating the price for sometime.

Institutional funds won't buy open market to avoid spiking against themselves - and the placement has specifically enabled them to build significant positions at a fixed price. Those shares are tradeable tomorrow - but the buyers will be holding - as they understand what they've bought.

Your point about a "cheap" takeover is unlikely for several structural reasons. First, the €396 million in total grants is awarded to the project company, Geomet, based on its current partnership between EMH and CEZ. A hostile or non-EU bidder would risk the Czech government rescinding these grants, which are tied to specific regional investment and job creation mandates. This makes the project significantly more expensive for an outsider than its current market capitalisation suggests.

Furthermore, CEZ owns 51% of the project, acting as a sovereign gatekeeper. They are unlikely to permit a low-ball takeover of their junior partner while the EU is aggressively pursuing Strategic Autonomy under the 2026 RESourceEU plan. At 20.25p, the market is not yet pricing in the €360 million grant or the EIA submission from 12 January. Any major announcement, such as an offtake agreement or the official gazetting of the permit schedule, would likely meet very little sell-side resistance - but I don't actually think it has to be a major offtake deal (yes that would launch the rocket) but I expect just a positive EIA update - on track etc - would do the trick.

Hold on - Thursday/Friday seem likely for an annoucement.

Rare break from the day job, just to note:

we are living through a once in a lifetime geopolitical shift that has been coined by experts like Mark Carney as a “new world order”. This is seeing a huge national shift resulting in vital strategic assets being protected and subsidized in a way we haven’t seen in peacetime in the west. If you hold shares in EMH you are holding a piece of a strategic national asset at this time, the value is only going one way, it’s bankable, and essential, who is selling at 20p?

Hold my friends, just amazing 500k sold by lunchtime for peanuts.

Further note: Mark Carney’s Davos 2026 speech confirmed the thesis many of us have held: the "Rules-Based Order" is being replaced by Strategic Autonomy. Carney warned that "middle powers" must build their own resilience or be "on the menu."

My thought is the DFS stayed lithium focused to show it could fly just on lithium without relying on by products / meets the grant requirements

He eat point, and using the 0.05% M&I average with a 65% recovery is the better way to model a 25-year LOM. Even with these more conservative numbers, the by-product revenue remains a substantial 'free' bonus for a project that is already being funded on its primary lithium resource alone.

I also like your point that the bigger picture remains the $2.2B vs. $71.5B industrial ratio you highlighted. Securing $71.5 Billion in annual EU automotive output for a mere $210 'insurance premium' per car (0.38%) is a negligible cost for European sovereignty.

Incredible really. Thanks for taking the time to pull me in on that.

Another area that I’ve been considering this week is just how much Keith and EMH directors are aligned with shareholders, and this is something to take note of.

For example Keith and team have maintained their core positions throughout the market’s volatility, the directors' personal financial recovery is now entirely contingent on driving the share price back toward its fundamental project value. This commitment is supported by a clear mandate to avoid further dilution, leveraging state grants and a major institutional partnership to fund construction. By shifting the financial burden away from shareholders and toward project-level debt and subsidies, management have a vested interest to ensure that the eventual returns from this strategic asset remain concentrated for shareholder.

To be fair to Keith his losses in EMH far exceed anything he’s been paid by EMH in the years he’s been there.

As investors it’s good to know the leadership team are in lockstep with shareholders.

.

Ghin hasn't understood what the DFS is, and who it is for. Fortunately banks, strategic partners and customers of EU passport lithium already understand and importantly have backed this up with nearly half a billion already.

Maybe a waste of time but:

The total cost to build the mine and the processing plants is US$2.16 Billion. However, it is important to look at the Net Capex—what the company actually has to find because the Czech Government and the EU have already approved US$463 Million in grants (€360m + $36m). This could lower the Net (actual) Bill to US$1.72 Billion.

The plan is to fund this through "Project Debt" (loans against the mine) and "Offtake Pre-payments" rather than just asking shareholders for cash.

How is this possible? Because of the OPEX - actual running costs and what it will produce - Premium EU grade lithium, plus tungsten and tin.

So for funders they will see it will $12,621 to produce one tonne of lithium - based on various assumptions that are for the most part very conservative.

Then at current prices (Tin at ~$51k and Tungsten at ~$1k), these by-products generate $165 Million in cash every year.

So the actual cost to produce lithium drops to ~$8,205 per tonne.

Then the funders will look at the return that the mine will produce over 25-years plus (note it's more like 30 years plus production will be ramped up from DFS figures). But sticking to DFS - Annual Production: 37,500 tonnes of Lithium Carbonate.

The next thing finance looks at is what will the lithium sell for (currently $21,683 (Jan 23 price)) - but this costs only ~$8,205 to make, the profit is ~$13,478 per tonne - at the moment

This produces a yearly Profit: Approximately $505 Million in pre-tax profit every year for 25 years (very very conservative)

So for Ghin he should realise that Cinovec will project pay back its entire construction bill in roughly 6 to 7 years, leaving nearly 20 years of pure, debt-free cash flow.

Our entire history of human progress has been based on these sorts of decisions - and a bonus here is that it's part of the green transition, with the strongest political and legal mandates supporting it anywhere in the world.

I have seen a few odd posts about the byproducts - overly positive and negative, and I don't think it's just an economic argument but more a strategic one as it becomes clear that Cinovec is part of the EU's survival and national security.

Ok so tin first - 60 million tonnes at a 0.08% tin grade, the project contains roughly 48,000 tonnes of tin concentrate. Distributed over a 25-year life of mine, this allows for an average production of 1,920 to 2,000 tonnes of tin per year. I think this is largely agreed even by the negs

Tin is approximately $50,000 per tonne (yes can go up and down) then - the annual revenue from this by-product is roughly $100 million. Applied as a credit against the initial 37,500 tonnes of lithium carbonate (yes, v conservative but the figure now) - it reduces the cost of lithium production by approximately $2,666 per tonne.

So tin can do some nice little leaps and jumps, but let's look at Tungsten - this is the heavy lifter.

Tungsten is designated as a Strategic Raw Material (SRM) under the EU Critical Raw Materials Act. Cinovec then is a x2 behind the scenes doing the hard work of lifting the permitting into the speed skating lane and showing why the €360 million Czech Government grant was awarded.

Tungsten is also highly dependable what you need for the lifter on the ice (note I am not familiar with ice staking terms) and v likely to see sustained price pressure due to its mission-critical role in defence and aerospace (other countries will be holding on to theirs). Realistic prices are at approximately $1,050 per mtu (equating to $105,000 per tonne of concentrate).

Cinovec (on conservative production) can annually produce of 600 tonnes meaning tungsten would reliably lift $63 million in yearly revenue. Applied to the lithium production, this provides an additional credit of $1,680 per tonne.

These two credits are combined, the total "rebate" on lithium production reaches $4,346 per tonne (based on the conservative figures for cinovec)

The DFS, baseline cash cost for lithium production is $12,621 per tonne. Add our current credits and the cost for the project drops to approximately $8,275 per tonne. This positions Cinovec as one of the lowest-cost lithium producers globally, a substantial margin even if lithium prices were to go down (unlikely). But then also consider this is premium EU produced ESG approved lithium compliant with the EU passport.

Cinovec already has the legal and political shield that pure-play lithium projects lack and the EU know its success is less dependent on lithium market sentiment alone and more tied to broader European industrial security.

So I hope Keith has got his sequined unitard on and good skates - he's going to need both.

Great post.

I've been a little busy with the day job, but noticed on the new presentation that Slide 22 has shifted language from "discussions" to "finalizing strategic partnership and offtake agreements." This indicates that binding contracts with European car or battery makers are likely in the final legal stages. While very much expected given the quality stamp of the product, it's good to see things progressing as they should. Someone else already pointed out the phase 2 growth but cinovec is definitely not about only 37,500 tonnes per year as the update shows "Phase 2 expansion optionality" to increase output as European demand grows - and it looks set to grow.

Also interesting is the CEZ/Nationalization Factor, as I have noted that the Czech government is currently moving to 100% ownership of ČEZ (EMH's 51% partner). This effectively makes Cinovec a National Strategic Project, speeding up the permitting process.

I know there have been some questions raised about CEZ and a buyout but it cannot simply buy out EMH/Geomet because doing so would likely change the ownership structure enough to invalidate the €360m in EU/State grants (CEZ is too into fossil fuels - Geomet is clean), which are tied to the current JV arrangement - not to mention the European Development Bank (EBRD) shareholder / EU mandate for this sort of public/private partnership.

The state leadership though does suggest that Public Consultations are moving very quickly and now confirmed for February. Keith did have what appeared to be a throwaway comment in the interview about EIA being quicker than they expected. Looks like he's right about that.

Everything is pointing towards a big funding arrangement being put in place by EBRD - I can well imagine that Geomet is a priority and the slide deck for EMH did a good job of comparing the various projects with cinovec being the most compelling lithium play in Europe by some distance.

We've seen the new floor for EMH share prices this week, and it doesn't look like we will be seeing anything like it again. Hopefully people have been paying attention and not giving up their shares for peanuts.

I think this is an area that I understand through my work. I understand why people think this is the way company board's think, but the reality is that CEZ is way too big to think that small. CEZ also knows that everything will come to them eventually, and are happy for this to play out.

The CEZ Board prioritises capital efficiency, particularly in a new area. I am not sure what you actually mean but if you are suggesting that CEZ could build a second, separate processing plant for imported ore then that would be a massive waste of shareholder money. Boards hate duplicating overheads. It is significantly faster and cheaper to add a second string to the existing Geomet plant which would use the same staff, power connections, and EIA permits (filed Dec 31). CEZ won't spend 5 years permitting a new site from scratch.

But if you mean CEZ could go it alone without building a second plant - remember the shareholding of EMH - this is a classic EU public private partnership approach and there is significant people who want to see this succeed for the wider proof of showing that the EU can achieve this sort of investor led development - and to show that there needs to be a fair shareholder return. The EBRD is a Golden Handcuff because it lets the project rely on "cheap money"—€360m in Czech grants and low-interest loans from the EBRD. These funds come with strict Good Governance provisions attached.

CEZ acts in bad faith toward a minority partner, they risk a default that would trigger the withdrawal of nearly half a billion euros in funding. CEZ Board simply are not that stupid/small minded and will not trade $400m in free cash just to save a few pennies on a buyout.

Remember too - the immediate priority is offtake agreements - To sell lithium to brands like VW, BMW, or Mercedes, the project must be "Brand Safe." Global carmakers will not sign 10-year contracts with a refinery mired in legal disputes. CEZ's focus is capital efficiency and maintaining a clean, professional joint venture because their focus is on securing the multi-billion-euro offtake deals.

Ultimately CEZ knows it will own or largely own Geomet in the future - there's no way EMH gets to take 49% of profits from a 30 year mine making $500m to start with and rising - But the CEZ board won't make a move until project is fully de-risked and generating its estimated $500m annual EBITDA, the logical move for ČEZ is a friendly, fair-market buyout of the remaining 49%. It’s a clean transaction that their own institutional investors would applaud, moving 100% of the profits onto their balance sheet without the legal or political fallout.

EMH isn’t an obstacle that people think it is - EMH is the technical partner that helped unlock the EU’s largest lithium grant. The Board knows that a clean acquisition at a future premium is the right way to go.

A more likely scenario right now is EMH will be looking for someone external to buy them out at around £1 per share

That’s true for the mining side of Cinovec - but for the refining side once you have the lithium in solution, the process of refining it into 99.5% Battery Grade Carbonate is largely the same whether it came from zinnwaldite, lepidolite, or imported spodumene.

Also remember that the Prunéřov site is a 36-hectare industrial monster. If the EU needs to process imported ore, Geomet doesn't need to rebuild the mine—they just add a Spodumene part to the front of an existing, billion-euro refinery.

Again, it’s just a question of following what the EU is doing and its plan for 40% home refining - it has to go somewhere - there aren’t many options so this will fast track Cinovec

I will tackle the more important subject first, the Aussies also have the best masters of the dark arts - pitch doctors :) and I think being an England cricket supporter perhaps prepares you better for following the EMH story - the hype, the waiting, the let down, the promise, the refresh - then the improbable victory every 10 years or so...

But you are too kind - not a finance person, and no real knowledge of it. A lawyer by background and politically aligned with international legal standards being implemented in national law and supportive of the green transition (so there is bias in my support of EMH/Geomet/Cinovec). I have found myself involved in undertaking baseline assessments from a legal perspective in relation to renewable energy/green transition projects, but most of what I understand about Cinovec has just come from researching it, asking questions, and following wider geopolitical trends (another aspect of my day job).

Posting just personal thoughts, not a day trader, and interested in the project for the long term.

Thanks, and I would only add that it's equally as important for people to realise that Cinovec isn't just a miner digging raw material - it is producing 'Clean European Lithium' under the world’s strictest environmental and labour laws (with fair payment that further guarantees the political approval) on a brown field / ex mining site (EIA assured environmentally and politically).

In the eyes of the end consumer for cinovec lithium - this transforms the lithium into a premium marketing feature for any purchaser of that lithium (offtake agreement - anyone?) because eco-conscious (and increasingly nationalistic/supporters of the EU) buyers will pay a premium to know their battery wasn't built on questionable ethics or high-carbon logistics. The return of tariffs and the US/China threats further reinforce this, and start to make cinovec lithium look even more attractive - further as I understand it, vertical integration and the IP that EMH has developed also make it one of the cheapest to produce - but I stand to be corrected on this.

With the new EU trade deals (like Mercosur) set to bring in raw material imports, the focus also shifts entirely to processing capacity - and this is something that has also been missed (but won't be for much longer).

Even if you import the raw ore, it still needs a EU place to refine it into battery-grade chemicals - remember the EU has legislated for 10% EU mined and 40% processed. By positioning Cinovec as a domestic refining hub, we aren't just reliant on our own resource - we become the essential 'kitchen' for all lithium entering the continent. In a world of strategic stockpiling and 'Fortress Europe' trade policies, owning the refinery is even more valuable than owning the mine - but Cinovec does both.

There's a reason that the EU in an age of tightening budgets and criticism has thrown half a bil at this with more to come... anyone who just follows the money should come to the same conclusions.

I’ve had a look at some of the posts and can see the old adage applies: don’t argue with a fool because a bystander won’t be able to tell who’s the fool.

There’s no point arguing the DFS figures with him or the capex because he just hasn’t understood what the DFS is, who it’s for and what it means.

He’s stuck on the price of the construction bill/capex while ignoring the massive cash returns it builds. The DFS confirms the project will produce 37,500 tonnes of lithium annually (not taking into account it will ramp up and tin and tungsten). At the study’s conservative pricing, that generates roughly $975 million in sales against $473 million in costs, leaving a staggering $500 million in annual profit (EBITDA).

While the $1.7bn Capex sounds high, it’s not a bill for shareholders—it’s a bankable asset. Between the €360m in state grants (free money) and low-cost debt from the EBRD, the project is designed to pay for itself in just six years. After that, you’re left with decades of pure cash flow from a resource that is still 80% untouched.

In the context of this weekend's Greenland trade crisis, this isn't just a mine anymore; it's the EU’s largest domestic 'lithium bank.' The $1.45bn NPV isn't just a number—it’s the mathematical proof that once this engine starts, it becomes a strategic cornerstone for Europe.

The only question that is really relevant is what would be a fair value buyout for EMH / and who could do this to keep the grant conditions alive. The former question is likely to be £1.15 a share

Skelly was right - but that was sometime ago - and he hasn’t caught up. The reality is that the Greenland trade war and the Mercosur deal have just turned Cinovec from a "mining project" into a "National Security Asset." While he’s complaining about paperwork being missed, the Jan 12 RNS confirmed the EIA was filed on time (Dec 31), securing the grants and proving the project is on a state-backed fast-track - Skelly gleefully and wrongly thought that the deadline had been missed. But with Lithium back at $22k and a €360m grant covering the build, the $1.45bn NPV makes the current share price a joke—the EU cannot afford to let the continent's largest refinery fail just because a few forum posters feel bitter. He’s also not likely factoring in the life time of the mine, what that means, and that it’s likely to go into overdrive