Member Info for Jemesa

Well, the last speculative post didn't suggest a buyout figure, merely what were potential catalysts for a share price move.

If you have bought shares in EMH, you too are a speculator : ) - welcome to the club.

But if you want to talk about fair value in a buyout then that would typically be a percentage of the Net Present Value (NPV) from the DFS. Not what the DFS could be with today's lithium price.

The DFS established a post-tax NPV of $1.135 Billion based on $26,000/t lithium. In mining - a permitted, strategic asset usually commands a buyout at 0.3x to 0.5x NPV.

Using the lower figure - Fair Value (0.3x NPV) = $340.5 Million

Shares in Issue: 237.5 Million

Value per Share: $1.43 (Approx. £1.14)

Speculation yes... Giddy... No.

This is a good point, and based on the reality of trying to coordinate this, perhaps the best approach is for those shareholders who agree with this approach to email the board, brokers etc. most of those emails are easy to locate via the RNS or just by searching zeus capital.

I have already voted, for Pavlik's incentive (because he has only 300k shares) but against Keith (he has 5m plus and that's enough to guarantee he is incentivised)

However, your suggestion is more sophisticated and an email like this

Subject: Shareholder Concern - Resolution 6 (EMH AGM)

As a shareholder of European Metals Holdings, I am writing to express my intention to vote AGAINST Resolution 6 at the upcoming AGM.

The current incentive structure lacks price-linked hurdles. Given the project’s US$1.3bn NPV (that is increasing with the demand for lithium and the recent lithium price surge), I am concerned that the Board is incentivized to accept a sub-par buyout offer. I request that the Board revises these performance rights to include a sliding scale tied to a minimum share price or a valuation floor comparable to peer transactions like Wolfsberg.

Please confirm this concern will be relayed to the Chairman.

Ok, loads of emails won't necessarily make a difference - but it would at least show that shareholders aren't remaining passive in relation to this concern.

I was thinking about the same thing, and while the obvious catalyst will be permitting (30 June), it's likely that an earlier one after 29 May and before 30 June will be an offtake for at least 25 % announced before that so management can start being awarded their "incentive".

More broadly though its the price of lithium - which is now above the price assumptions used in the key banking/finance document the DFS. At $27,528 per tonne, its over the $26,000 per tonne floor that was still profitable.

As such the $1.135 billion post-tax NPV is out of date and the true NPV likely sits closer to $1.4 billion.

This is obviously back of an envelope and ignores tin and tungsten credits, potential cost savings, and being able to ramp up production - but at 37,500 tonnes per annum and a C1 cash cost of $12,492, the mine would generate approximately $563 million in annual EBITDA.

Also not factored in is the potential for the EU to pay +30% for ESG lithium.

Then factor in the 400 million in secured grants, the net initial Capex drops to $1.70 billion.

The project could effectively pay back its entire net construction cost in just over three years of steady-state production - and less when everything else is factored in

Once it is more broadly understood that not only is this a strategic asset vital for EU competitiveness but it is also a project that will generate over half a billion dollars in annual profit for a fraction of its NPV it becomes very compelling.

So, we can't be the only people to see this, and between now and 30 June interest in likely to pick up - because while there could be a sudden catalyst (e.g. an offtake that will please the retail crowd) the permitting is the big one.

Admittedly, it's hard to keep an informed discussion going because the poisoned intellectual dwarf keeps popping in with total nonsense.

But it's a professional handover because we have witnessed more than 3.2 million shares change hands in 48 hours.

Despite this enormous volume (for EMH), the share price held fairly even and moved marginally upward.

If this was not a managed/pre agreed and negotiated/professional handover, it would have been wild.

The only reasonable conclusion is therefore a pre-negotiated transfer between two major parties. Given what we know the exiting institution, such as the EBRD, coordinates with an incoming institutional buyer through a broker. They agree on a price and execute the trades off-market as a cross.

This allows an interested seller like EBRD to exit cleanly, while the new institutional buyer can secure a strategic stake before major news - like the June 30 permit - and perhaps before this same institution decides to launch a buyout. With a bit of maneuvering it may hold a decent slice of the company before the buyout creating a bit of a win win.

So in my opinion (not intended to send intellectual pygmies into a miserable rage) this is a clear signal of institutional confidence in the project's bankability.

EBRD wants to exit because it will make more money as the lender in 12 months than it would from waiting for 5% of EMH to be worth a few million.

In my view (and I have worked with development banks) this is a huge success. They have invested in a development project in the EU in a critical area linked to the green transition and supported it through the DFS when the lithium winter was beating at the door. The EBRD development team will be singing folk songs around camp fires about this for years in their reports.

The point is that now in the lithium spring, with the project on the verge of success, they want to hand over their shares asap - to the likely buyer of EMH because the project is now guaranteed to succeed (or as near as can be guaranteed). EBRD now hand this on to their loans team - who have a critical infrastruucture project central to the green transition in the heart of europe that requires billions in investment - it's coordinated - 400m in grants from the EU, loans from the EU bank - customers linked with the State and national interest - producing ESG lithium at +30% in a vertically integrated mine - honestly it's a no brainer - and very professionally managed.

Hats off to the EBRD - well played Sir.

I’d hoped that was obvious.

The massiv volume and retail sites picking EMH is about FOMO, but the interesting thing is ioff-book trades - 500k and 350k trades.

I think (my humble opinion only not intended to send people into ignorant rages and rants) is this is the managed exit by the EBRD. Since falling below the 5% EBRD can move shares via pre-arranged deals. They likely know the buyer's identity, as these are coordinated handovers to a strategic partner - if we knew who this was it would give the game away.

The new entity stays anonymous by keeping its stake under the 3% disclosure limit and holding shares in different legal entities. Essentially, this is a professional handover ahead of the June 30 permit.

Looks like word is spreading: https://www.fool.co.uk/2026/05/05/down-78-this-top-growth-share-is-starting-to-bounce-back/

Just to add to this to counter any deliberate attempt to misinterpret what's going on and spread lies over these boards, let's be clear about the scope of the cooperation with the Germans set out in today's RNS.

The first thing is this entire EIA / permitting process for Geomet - remains an entirely Czech national process. The Ministry of the Environment in Prague is the sole authority.

The consultation with the Germans is a limited-scope consultation required under the Espoo Convention because the deposit straddles the border.

The consultation relates ONLY to hydrology and mine scheduling - and it has nothing to do with the processing plant or broader infrastructure.

As the RNS says, a joint hydrological model by ERM and DHI is already complete and has been handed over.

The Saxon/German authorities are just reviewing that model they already helped shape through the Zinnwald project.

Under the CRMA (an EU Regulation binding on CZ and the Germans), this is a designated Strategic Project with a legally capped 90-day window for a final decision.

Nothing changes the fact that the 30-day public window started yesterday.

Keith’s RNS today confirms the review is done.

Think about it like this - you have permission to build a nice Greenhouse for your Geraniums against your boundary wall, and you just pop over to the neighbours to let them see the plans - not because they can stop it but because you're being polite.

I was pondering this part of the RNS too, and first though that Geomet probably has to due to the shared hydrology and also for international law reasons as well as to ensure no German objections that could be awkward. There's a whole legal body relating to transboundary effects that needs to be covered and is.

But there is also the BYD move into Dresden for its EU expansion - A unified 'Cínovec-Zinnwald' lithium hub creates a strategic alignment for the EU that should benefit an orderly transition. The scale of the project is staggering really and just keeps getting bigger - partly due (as many have noted) the 2026 context, rising lithium and everyone waking up to the scale of the projected demand that seems to have surprised even the big investment banks

Thanks! :)

According to my wife, I am never right about anything, and I can't even mention this rare event as then she'll know I have invested in a lithium mine in the czech republic... so I'll have to make do with whatever I can get here.

I was about to say - I expect to be hearing from Keith soon and that the CRMA is binding in CZ law - but now I have to read that RNS I was expecting.

Again - thank you, and so interesting.

We seem to be involved in a real time experiment to see if the CRMA timelines and the designation as a strategic project, plus the 36m JTF grant make an actual difference to business as usual.

One would hope so, but as you are more familiar with the local context - you're right to say - let's see!

Thanks for the translation and the local context!

It is fascinating to watch the Go signal being pieced together from Czech regional bulletin boards while the broader market seems oblivious

I hadn't appreciated this point about the unified MZP536 code but it's good to see confirmation of the independent expert’s support for the EIA findings.

The 1.23 million shares traded yesterday seems to have been a connection of the dots too.

For previous posters - no, of course I don't have specific knowledge of a RNS being prepared - I am simply commenting on a public forum that it seems to me that if information is known by only a few, then there should be some sort of obligation to publish it more widely - yes, I understand that it is a technical update relating to an ongoing permitting process, but the news is that the independent expert appointed by the permitting authority (CZ Min of Env) has essentially agreed with the EIA prepared by Geomet and submitted on 31 Dec 2025, opines that any minor impacts can be taken care of via mitigation measures, and that now the 30 day consultation window is open.

It could be 50:50 whether that is worthy of a RNS - I am suggesting it is - but others are saying "oh no, how dare he, my geraniums need watering!"

Keep up, Grandad

RNS incoming...

Thanks! That makes sense. I think stage 5 is the public hearing and 6 is the decision and the CRMA suggests 5 has to be within 30 days, and we know the JYF is tied to stage 6 before 30 June.

At this point any objections would require technical grounds and the point is for the decision maker - MoE what do they weigh up. At this point it will be: Geomet’s EIA opinion and then their own consultant’s independent review and opinion - the latter suggests no major issues and there are ways to resolve minor issues.

At this point any serious objection would need proper technical expertise and within 30 days.

Perhaps she’s the one who bought the 485k share block yesterday?

So it seems like the independent consultant hired by the cz min of Environment has supported the findings of the EIA and said all good to go, triggering the 30 day consultation under the CRMA and providing the legal support for the permit before 30 June.

At this point this is only published in Czech and locally so it’s not nationally updated.

Once this is updated it’s likely to trigger a RNS and as such there’s likely to be some bumps.

Wondering if anyone helpful and knowledgeable of the cz local system can confirm this.

I spoke to soon - that was quite a volume day on no official news... anyone else wondering about that 485k volume trade?

Thanks, that does accord with my understanding of the legal processes and timelines for the process and the 30 days.

One would imagine that when Keith gets out of bed he may look for his pencil to put out a RNS about this update.

Looking at the trading today and a volume of 679k without news I have been wondering what's happening - I should imagine this news will filter out if Keith can't find his pencil sharpener

So, for those of us who are a bit slower on the update - what's happened?

It looks like a positive EIA and a 30 day clock has been set for the public hearing?