Member Info for Jemesa

You need to come out of your imaginary tunnel, troll as you may be able to see more clearly without continually banging your head resulting in a state of permanent confusion.

My understanding is that with the environmental permit approved - then green funds with stricter rules can pile in, and strategically it’s a good time to negotiate the final terms of an offtake. Both will push the share price upwards.

Perhaps not talking, but definitely thinking about it. I think the lack of response, is that this isn't as dramatic as it could be. The deadline for written and therefore scientific, engineering and localised impact assessements has passed. A town hall type situation is unlikely to be able to delve into technical details. More likely it will focus on the local benefits, jobs, investment and assurances relating to how concerns have been resolved over time.

Everything actually points to Keith/Geoment/Consultants/CEZ doing a good job here - and the actual data is quietly very positive relating to where things are with the EIA. Noting the context that the CRMA already makes this project overwhelmingly in the public interest, the Cinvald association are not against the mine or trying to stop it - they are focusing their energy on optimizing transportation routes and logistics. Not killing the giant, but just saying walk over there.

But most importantly, and away from what could be seen as "fringe groups" the Ústí nad Labem Region has officially confirmed it has zero comments on the current EIA documentation because Geomet already listened and integrated all of their previous feedback.

It's worth pausing for dramatic effect on this one - partly because this is so undramatic we have to try something. But if the region is happy that comments have been sorted, then this is why it has taken so long to get to this point. Not headline grabbing news, but a quiet vote in favour.

There are remaining local requests - for example the town of Teplice - 11 km away wants to ensure that the thermal water pressure that feeds its spas isn't affected (the EIA says it won't be) and Dubi wants enclosed conveyors.

At this point, it's really only a question of what conditions will the environmental permit have - not whether or not it will be granted.

For us no drama and quiet is exactly what we are looking for.

The foundational science is settled, the regional government is satisfied, and the project remains firmly on track for its June 30 ministerial decree."

Given that Geomet has a proven track record of quietly integrating local feedback to neutralize political resistance,

Not sure who or what replied, but thanks for sharing - regardless of the issues/disagreement relating to how to implement - the fact is that there is a move for supply security and Geomet remains the ultimate beneficiary of this overarching Western policy shift.

Thanks to this thread for digging those updates out - this is my take on it (for what it's worth):

First - the process is moving exactly as it is supposed to - the submissions were filed before the deadline on 11 June, and the time for submissions is now closed. So this is it - whatever is submitted now (and further comments raised in the public forum) - the decision can now be made on or before 30 June.

As noted there are big positives based on the years of work already undertaken - this is no major regional or local stakeholder is trying to block the project. As noted local grassroots groups like the Cínvald association are not seeking a shutdown - but there is participation to make the project's logistics better - in other words compromise towards getting this right. As noted this constructive approach is noted by the Usti nad Labem Region officially confirming it has zero comments on the current EIA documentation, and noting that Geomet has successfully integrated all of the region's prior feedback.

Big green tick.

The other bigger tick is that we know the GEOMET EIA has already been independently validated by the Ministry’s appointed consultant, meaning the foundational science of the project is secure.

But there is a specific concerns raised by two areas being:

1. Teplice which you would expect given the importance of the long-term protection of the deep thermal aquifers that feed its spa economy, and

2. Dubi that is focused on minimizing surface noise and dust from ore transportation.

The point about these concerns is that they are valid, but they will be balanced against everything else about this project - the economic potential and the CRMA that makes it overwhelmingly in the public interest.

So in terms of the two technical concerns set out above - the decision maker - CZ State/Ministry also has a way of approving the environmental permit but ensuring that the technical concerns are taken into account - the Permit can be issued or approved with conditions (very normal).

For example for Teplice’s hydrology concerns Geomet can be asked to create a real time monitoring network to ensure that their pressure isn't dropping (it won't based on the EIA) and monitoring that is easy.

For Dubi's concerns - the ore can be transported via fully enclosed underground conveyor tunnels - as planned.

I am very interested to see what approval conditions will be attached to this - but given how this is moving it seems like it is on track for 30 June - because it seems very unlikely that Geomet's engineers and the MOE have not already anticipated these types of concerns and are already thinking about how conditions can take care of them. This is the way the system is supposed to work.

Share the photo of you in a mankini dancing in your imaginary tunnel

Get back in your imaginary tunnel, troll.

So, your advice would be:

"Guys listen up: Sell right now before 30 June - the biggest decision in EMH history - and listen to me on this because I wrongly said the DFS wouldn't be filed, I wrongly said the EIA wasn't filed, and I imagine tunnels that aren't there"...

Strapping yourself to a bulldozer in a borat mankini is your best hope of being taken more seriously right now.

My take on this is silence is exactly what we should expect from a project moving in the right direction. There's clear political will and ministry level coordination to move this to a final decision on 30 June (something that wasn't always clear). We are struggling because we can't see the behind the scenes work - nor do we have confidence in how this new CRMA framework will work. But the CRMA framework in theory is our biggest guarantee - it has already declared this project in the public interest. The science in the EIA is robust - we know this because the government's independent consultant has said so, and the regional rezoning has been taken care of - meaning the biggest hurdle (you can't build that there) has been removed. The public consultation is a legal requirement and missing it would be a mistake - as would providing commentary about it pending the decision - hence the silence.

The public consultation and public support or opposition is important - but the decision maker ultimately will be guided by hard facts and this is where the EIA comes in as the most reliable decision making tool - to rely on.

I am not so much holding my breath as just being impatient for 30 June - in the last few days the volume has been so small (nobody selling or buying) there's nothing worth reading into it. I guess everyone is playing the waiting game - but as someone said anything could trigger a move in either direction.

😂 - I guess the clue should have been a solid state battery without lithium …

Good post and largely agree - the only points to note is the consultation requirement is solely a national cz legal requirement in line with the Aarhus convention.

The use of the CRMA framework makes this a case study and a precedent for the EU - because cinovec is designated as a strategic project it means that as it enters this process it is already overwhelmingly in the “public interest” - in environmental law terms this changes the way this is dealt with. Remember the EIA is at the end of the day a decision making tool - it is not the decision - yes this one is professional and expert and supported by the MoE’s independent consultant - but ultimately the decision maker is just guided by the EIA - by the consultation points - but finally whether this project is in the public interest…

Thanks for the interesting points. The 50:50 assessment makes sense, but I think it’s worth noting the following as they may be important:

- Czech national law governs the domestic consultation. International conventions bind the project because domestic statutes enact them. This rule applies to the cross-border process - but it’s national Czech law that governs this process.

The registry at MoE contains a single, unified EIA dossier. There are t three separate applications - just one but I can understand the confusion as there was a preliminary filing but this was superseded by the full EIA Dec 25

- The Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) designates Cínovec as a project of overriding public interest. This designation accelerates timelines and raises the legal hurdle for objectors. Opponents cannot rely on basic complaints and hope this can have any effect / yes they have the right to make their points but they must present superior scientific evidence to challenge the data prepared by the experts in the EIA - that the MoE independent consultant has also agreed with.

Thanks - the very area that the Treaty of Westphalia was signed giving recognition to sovereignty of states and ending perpetual euro wars as well as the start of international law. Fitting that today this results in limited cross border EIAs, and consultation.

Interesting: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jun/07/eu-uk-car-industry-lobbying-second-brexit-ev-tariff-delay

I am not claiming that the public consultation is a milestone event - the milestone event is the 30 June deadline for the Environmental permit based on the EIA that the Ministry of Environment issues and that is also supported by the independent consultant hired by the MoE.

The reason that the public hearing on 17 June is significant is that there has been discussion relating to whether the timelines can be met leading to 30 June. To be fair to all - there hasn't been clear guidance or communication on this - and to be clear too - others have used this gap to promote misinformation and fear (for ends that make no sense to people who are not trolls).

So the point about 17 June is that we now know that there is a good chance that the 30 June deadline can be met - will it be met? I don't know.

My view is that it probably will (60:40) - but what I think (and I accept you can have a different view and there's nothing wrong with that) is that the CRMA framework will have a real impact here. All written submissions have to be in by 11 June - this provides 6 days to prepare responses and then 2 weeks to prepare the decision. This is a very technical and sophisticated EIA and project - and ulimately a EIA is just a decision making tool - it assists good decision making. The decision will be made on whether the EIA shows the environmental impacts have been taken into account and potential harm is minimised or mitigated.

The impact news this week has been the CEZ AGM with a repeat of linking POSCO to this plus the announcement of the timelines towards the 30 June decision. A positive decision releases the 36m and reduces fears relating to dilution as things move towards the next big milestone the FID - before that - and at any time we could see a buyout. Also wasn't something said at CEZ level about drafting permits? I can't recall where I read that but it sounded to me like a fairly solid hint.

Is all of this positive spin as some have claimed - or am I just setting out the way this project is moving through the permitting process one step at a time towards what looks like a good outcome? People can have different views on that.

I genuinely hope your timed approach works out for you - it's not my preference.

Things could change quickly next week, as it wouldn't take much to promote where this project has got to - EIA approved by independent consultant appointed by the Ministry (who grants the permit) plus all consultations wrapped up on the 17 - leaving the time to make the final decision on or before 30 June - meaning release of 36m...

I have noted whenever the troll reemerges from his imaginary tunnel it usually coincides with a huge green flag for EMH - he's like a lucky charm or a muddy leprechaun with terrible spelling and grammar

This explains how the price has been maintained around 17 p for so long, despite the volume. Just to note when the EBRD RNS was dropped it was recording its shareholding as at 22 May - so not a biggie, but they likely have around 8mil shares left with 4mil sold, so 1/3rd of the way there. But this is clearly a managed sale of the EBRD shares with brokers finding buyers relatively easily. We could see this speeding up now with the news from today that's locked everything in for the env approval at the end of the month.

That’s great - seems to confirm the limited cross border EIA is wrapped into the timeline leading to 30 June. Seems like there’s been coordinated planning after all.

I’ve read somewhere that at the public hearing German translators or translator will be there. It suggests that the cross border consultation has happened and it’s being wrapped into the public hearing on 17 June. It was never a veto, just a requirement to consult so it would make sense and EMH confirmed the meetings had occurred and materials shared.

I’d like to see a RNS but it looks like CEZ gets to decide what’s annnounced and they may prefer the view this isn’t market sensitive news. The recent repetition of POSCO + this confirmation of the public hearing are the big news for those of us glued to the news wires and reading the tea leaves and consulting the direction of the wind

Admittedly I am expecting rational behaviour. But it’s also true that this is quite a complex process with lots of moving parts - I’d expect this latest announcement will take a day or two to sink in. But let’s see - I definitely could be wrong on the short term impact or lack of.