Member Info for Jemesa

Yes, I am furious that I don't have a time machine.

Should have added that there's a whole different, legally binding way of valuing a total resource for potential buyers of EMH.

What this will include: strict mining codes and independent expert valuations. The short point is that an actual acquirer's valuation will include the tin, tungsten, lithium, the €360m in grants, and the DFS altogether.

With the greatest respect, I think you are wrong. Any buyer of EMH's share cannot pretend that the tin and tungsten is not there along with the lithium.

The reason it's not in the DFS is because it would have been horribly complicated to include it. There's no way that Keith wasn't thinking let's put the tin and tungsten in there, but the consultants preparing the DFS would have explained - this is going to be very expensive, all the same modeling, processes, and economics would have to be run on 3 resources - rather than the one resource that offtakers are interested in - the lithium. I can imagine some discussions around this, and I think where it ended was to recognise that the other resources are there, can be extracted, and will count as credits - but for the purposes of the buyers/finance, lithium is in the DFS - tin and tungsten aren't.

But imagine a buyer of a copper mine that knows gold is there too. The gold extraction will pay for the mine operational costs, the copper is pure profit. What would happen if that buyer just put in an offer for the copper value of the mine?

Many of us are in this stock because it's lithium and its green transition - but we have to remain realistic - at the end of the day this is a mine, mining resources pure and simple - Anyone buying this 49% gets all the resources - they have to all factor into the price - as does the 400m in grants.

Holding EMH shares - well, I don't need to explain how undervalued they remain (for now)

I hear the sound of a thousand tiny violins. The thing about investing is that it can go up or down, and past performance is not a guide to future performance. If you’re unaware of this, then yes, leave your money in a bank in future.

But you could also take note of current events and even the Troll’s ramper opinion below that permitting is not a problem and could have happened a decade ago it’s so easy. But this also comes with a warning, don’t listen to charlatans, or fools.

So, by all means sell, complain about not making enough money (as if this was something that should be guaranteed for you) but remember if you sell right before the stock soars in value / only you are responsible for that decision.

There is that interpretation re Keith’s request for more shares - but there’s also the point that there’s no way he’s allowed to buy them at the moment..:

But I voted no, because performance rights are intended as incentive as well as a pat on the head. I don’t see that he needs any more incentive.

For what it’s worth I think emh will get fair value. It’s relatively small change to pay 500m for 49% of geomet, and what it represents. Plus CEZ and CZ will benefit from a high valuation for Geomet and come out looking good for the EU as a serious place for foreign investors - the sort of thing the EU is going to need a lot more of.

There’s also the small matter that EMH has 400m in grants, a billion $NPV, and a shareholder agreement with CEZ that means it has a veto over any Geomet decisions.

If the market today thinks, wow, EMH is about to get an offer that will double its share price, this itself would be interesting.

What I mean is EMH is not a sitting duck.

Indeed. Other than the obvious differences from being the mansion next door, the buyout mechanism could be different - parties interested in EMH’s portion will have to bid up or CEZ can just match. It could be an interesting dynamic if it plays out.

a bit of an “oh ****” moment for anyone who sold emh today?

The thing that catches my attention is that the sells are not moving the price down - the demand for EMH has certainly changed and it looks like another 7th day of big volume.

Interesting to see what trades cross after the bell rings.

You'd have to be as blind as a worm not to be able to look at the trading pattern in the last 6 days and realise 6m shares being traded between 16-17p is a very strong indication of a well managed share handover. The green flag is someone is very happy to buy all of those shares right now.

But in my experience, worms don't enjoy successful fishing trips.

But something is definitely happening as it looks like 6m by volume in 6 days - and the price is pinned 16-17p - it’s a managed handover of a lot of shares behind the scenes, because of just how steady the share price is.

I know from deep sea fishing when you see the churn you know there’s action under the surface - interesting to see what happens next

Yup, the troll has posted 1800+ times and only on EMH - claims not to have any EMH shares - therefore there is no portfolio.

Irrelevant time waster - does not have a seat at the table.

Should be ignored.

Ignore the Troll.

Irrelevant time waster who has no shares, nothing sensible to say, and has mouse sized balls and a mouse sized bank account because he cannot afford EMH shares even at this ludicrously discounted price.

Most importantly if someone posting on this board DOES NOT OWN EMH SHARES - then they are IRRELEVANT and a complete WASTE OF TIME.

Ignore the troll.

Just when we thought it was a safe and sensible discussion forum, this bottom dweller crawls out to deliver the usual low life commentary

I think this is a healthy discussion and it's good to see the balanced and sensible views here. Ultimately it is the shareholders that own the company, and management's role is to maximise their returns. In one way they have done this as Lucky says by being responsible and not diluting into oblivion. But at the same time, there is something incredibly tone deaf about a Chairman sitting on 5m plus shares asking for 1.8m more without actually delivering.

Who is advising Keith?

At the very least there should have been some explanation around Resolution 6 that explained why awarding Keith 1.8m more shares is in the interests of all shareholders. Would this have said, with 1.8m more shares Keith will be 100% on it and he will really lift his Youtube appearances and aim for 100 views?

I have also noted the point that this discussion on this forum may not sway the vote - but I am assuming that EMH does monitor this chat, and who knows there could be some big shareholders among us that can make a difference, particularly because apathy among shareholders to vote is a big deal.

So voting does matter - even if it amounts to a protest.

Yes - Pavlik

No - Keith.

But again - healthy that everyone has an opinion and makes their own choice. I totally respect Lucky's points.

Agreed. It's been an interesting couple of weeks watching some major transfer of share ownership but not major price hikes. The whole thing looks very well managed, as if a large player is building a significant position before the news. I am no expert here - so this is a just a thought.

There may be others with knowledge of this area, but I agree it is testing the patience - but perhaps that is the point, and as we know patience has been well and truly lost along the way.

I agree with Lucky's point though and when compared to what can happen EMH hasn't diluted us into oblivion along the way, so the upside remains tantalisingly close.

Great post, thank you.

Thanks, I guess my only question is: don't you think Keith will be sufficiently rewarded with his existing 5m plus shares?

Voting to give him 1.8m more without a clear explanation of how this will further incentivise him just seems lazy to me.

Thank you, Monty!

I have voted No to Resolution 6 - the reason for me is very clear - Keith with 5m+ shares is well incentivised and does not need another 1.8m shares to keep him in the room to see this to the end. If EMH communications had been better and provided a good reason for this I may have voted yes. But in the absence of clear communications saying why Keith should be further incentivised - sorry that's a no from me.

As previously communicated Pavlik - on the ground and negotiating with 300k shares in his back pocket - Yes, he needs some incentive so I am happy there.

With the utmost respect to your view - I have voted yes to resolution 8 though.

I don't believe that Resolution 8 is a blank cheque— rather I think it is a standard way to leep the project moving without draining the company's remaining cash.

Company listing rules means this cannot be used to stealthily pay Keith or his family - remember people like Keith owe a fiduciary duty and with everyone watching what happens next it would be foolish to do anything to breach that duty.

But yes to resolution 8 means - if required EMH - can pay world-class consultants (engineers/grant writers) in equity rather than cash.

Any shares issued like this must be publicly disclosed to the ASX/AIM, so we will be able to see who gets these shares. There's also alignment because advisors only profit if the project succeeds and the share price rises.

I see resolution 8 as standard.

Resolution 6 though - Keith, mate - make your case by getting some runs on the board first in terms of the share price and then come back to us.