Member Info for Jemesa

Good catch.

Also this makes things more interesting - the first tranche is triggered by an Offtake Agreement. Keith would get more shares as soon as this is announced and it doesn't require any permitting/EIA approval first. Looks like the offtake would have to be announced after the AGM on 29 May for this to be secured - or shareholders would be asked to vote on a reward for past performance.

Interesting to see the buy side interest today as the feeling that something is happening seems to be catching on.

For what it's worth, I think you're 100% correct in your assessment, and it assists that Keith is aligned on that because of his shareholding.

It also feels that EMH had done its dash and it ready to exit.

Where you and I differ is whether more performance rights are required for Keith at this point. Completely respect your opinion - we just differ on that point.

In my view the buyout is happening within the next 8 weeks and we may even find out on or before 29 May. The 3 signals for me are:

- April 15 Geomet clarification confirmed that EMH is effectively blocking its own dilution while the project moves forward on unanimous funding terms

- The EBRD trim to 4.86% (11.5m shares) meaning it can move those to the buyer under a private deal under NDA and qualify as the project lender

- Keith asking us to vote for him to get more performance rights at the AGM which include the "change of control" vesting of those shares immediately on a buyout - not an incentive for being there for the project but a commission for getting a deal done on the way out.

For better or worse, it doesn't seem like EMH was ever about hanging on for a big complicated multi-billion $ construction - the project looks a little big and way to political for EMH and Keith - the guy managed to walk across one minefield and I think he knows now that wasn't a great idea.

The relevant questions for shareholders (assuming I am right) are: 1. What will fair value be (not much we can do about that) and 2. Should Keith get his extra performance related options (he has 5m plus - do we want to vote to give him another 1.8m? Related to that will him having more act as less of an incentive to get a fair value for the share price)

On the second question all shareholders have a vote - I suggest voting No. to Keith's additional options - unless and until - EMH provides more information to shareholders.

We’ll be able to spot you, the guy sitting on top of the fence

Thank you!

So the Notice of Meeting explains the 3.6 million performance rights (split between Keith and Pavlik) are tied to three milestone - that must be achieved within a 3-year window.

Tranche 1 or 33% are reward for obtaining the Binding EIA Approval

Tranche 2 is when the Board makes a formal Final Investment Decision (FID) to fully fund and build the project

Tranche 3 vests upon the Commencement of Construction at the refinery or mine portal.

If a buyout happens these would vest immediately - giving Keith a healthy exit / sales commission.

Again, I think our Chairman with his 5 million plus shares is sufficiently remunerated / incentivized and it stretches all credibilty (for me) to suggest an additional incentive is required now. It's essentially saying, without this extra 1.8m he could get bored and walk away in a huff as he will only leave 5m on the table.

Pavlik - on the other hand - I completely understand - the personal overseeing the technical work on the ground - with a 300k shareholding - the incentive makes sense.

As usual it seems impossible to have a sensible discussion on a key vote, without nonsense and buffoonery creeping in.

First - the decision on Resolution 6 boils down to a single question of incentive: does an extra 1.8 million performance rights actually make sense for a Chairman who already sits on a 5.75 million share stake?

If you think it's important to provide Keith with more incentive then vote: Yes.

If you think he has adequate incentive then vote: No

But do not get confused by the repeated tripe of people who do not understand that in the real world people have real jobs and Keith has led this project for 12 years—this is his actual job, not sitting around playing with AI and having stupid opinions on the internet.

For Keith factor in the 45% Australian tax bracket and the asset-stripping reality of a divorce settlement, his net annual remuneration averages out to roughly AUD$200,000 per annum. While that places him in a decent professional bracket, it is a far cry from getting super rich by fleecing a company - he is a career executive who has traded over a decade of his life to get EMH to this point.

The only relevant question for shareholders right now - is do you think he has sufficient incentive? My view he has sufficient incentive and the mistake that I see is that we've been asked to vote on a question where we don't know what the performance rights are actually based on. This to me seems like an error.

Of course, Keith only needs a 50%+ majority from shareholders so he'll likely get it - but some sensible analysis on this forum would be useful.

I think that’s a very fair point - but buying right now could see him done for insider trading (assuming he knows something)

No, it’s not about endorsing Keith for past leadership, it’s a decision based on future results/hitting certain deliverables.

For once, it would be helpful if there was some attempt to understand the context.

If the additional shares - 1.8m are intended to be an incentive (I think they are intended to be - but happily stand corrected) - then will they actually create an incentive if Keith already has 5m plus?

The past has led us to where the share price is right now and Keith has been as punished as anyone else, and the only relevant question for the way this resolution has been framed is to ask - will 1.8 shares that he will be given (subject to meeting milestones that should have been well communicated to shareholders before we were asked to vote) actually / in fact create an incentive?

It’s not about punishment for past alleged failures (debatable at best) or reward for being the leader and what’s good for him is good for us - it is because it’s being characterized as an incentive…

I am asking - how much of an incentive could it honestly be?

The question I’ve asked is simply if Keith has 5m odd shares - Will an extra 1.8m incentivize him more?

If not, why does he need an incentive?

I just don’t understand the thinking behind it - so if someone could explain it to me - much appreciated.

Good point.

I really want someone who knows more than me (not too hard) to explain to me the way an extra 1.8m shares will be an incentive for Keith.

I'm actually wondering if it would do the opposite - in other words if he has an extra 1.8m shares for free - then he has less of an incentive to drive the highest share price for EMH.

To my mind, it just needs to be clearly explained rather than taking shareholders for granted (which it feels like for most people who post here regardless of how good or bad they think EMH's prospects are over the next few months)

Thanks, I understand that, and yes, like you I consider that EMH is on the verge of a massive re-rate - given the macro environment and where things are with the project.

BUT this is the question: Will an extra 1.8m shares for Keith act be an incentive, given he has more than 5m shares already isn't he adequately "incentivised"?

This is a totally different situation for Pavlik - I have no issues there and understand the incentive.

For Keith this just looks lazy - if he'd come to shareholders with a transparent plan, explaining some real targets that he has to meet he could have convinced me (I don't need much convincing given where things are) but I think there was an onus on Keith to do more here. He failed in this regard so he got my No vote. I expect he's counting on a low voter turnout to swing this in his favour, but again, presumptuous and a bit lazy.

He needed to do more to explain the extra incentive he's asking for.

I have voted for Keith to stay on as CEO, no judgement, just wondering why you think he needs another 1.8m "free shares" on top of his already substantial shareholding to motivate him further? City has found the conditions - which seem to be buried somewhere - but it just seems pure amateur hour to ask for 1.8 million more shares (diluting investors albeit marginally) without going on the front foot and explaining very clearly what Keith will do for shareholders if he gets an extra 1.8m free shares.

I just don't understand his thinking at this point - other than to attribute it to an outright greedy grab.

I’ve cast my vote for the EMH AGM on May 29th with a split: YES for Richard Pavlik (Res 7) but a NO for Keith Coughlan (Res 6).

Pavlik is on the ground and holds a relatively small stake (300k shares), his incentive makes sense to me.

Keith already sits on 5.75 million shares so I’m not sure he needs extra motivation and it just looks greedy.

Keith - wake up mate - spread the rewards and think about getting someone with PR ability to do the appearances and promotion.

I’m looking forward to the 2 execs setting out their reasons - hopefully by 29 May they’ve got some good ones

So, the world’s largest electric vehicle (EV) and battery manufacturer wants to take over part of Volkswagen’s Dresden plant—located just 50km from the Cínovec mine— to bypass EU tariffs - meaning the world's most aggressive lithium buyer wants to be a local customer.

Doesn’t byd have established links with posco?

Bidding war?

The Economist has recently made 3 short (macro) points about the current situation that show just how the scale of the tailwinds behind cinovec right now:

1. Global energy prices are surging (projected +24% in 2026), creating a massive inflationary wave (confirmed by the world bank)

2. Fossil fuel supply chains are proven to be dangerously brittle. Critical Minerals are the new Oil and that national security now depends on material sovereignty*

3. Europe is structurally exposed and desperately needs to find domestic solutions to bridge the gap between failing oil/gas and the new green energy system.

Surely the time for Geomet is now and the sun is shining on Keith and his team. For EMH shareholders we are part of the exact project that the economist identifies is the solution for the EU in this context.

Keith and team have an open goal - very interested to see what they say between now and the end of May to justify their 3.6m share request (Pavlik I get - he's on the ground in Prague) - Keith, may need to dig a little deeper for some good reasons - so between now and the end of May they should be thinking about what to announce.

* - This specific phrase appeared in an Economist analysis (and subsequent reports in March/April 2026) titled "America's scramble to break China's grip on critical minerals."

See too: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2026/04/21/global-energy-markets-are-on-the-verge-of-a-disaster?utm_campaign=a.io-btl_fy2627_all_conversion-testingasc2-sasub_prospecting_global-global_auction_facebook-instagram&utm_medium=paid&utm_source=facebook&utm_content=discovery.content.non-subscriber.content_staticlinkad_np-automatedGlobalenergymarketsareonthevergeofadisaster-n-may_na-na_article_na_na_na_na&utm_term=sa.all-evergreen&utm_id=120246539630310437&fbclid=IwY2xjawRitd1leHRuA2FlbQEwAGFkaWQBqzOXRlnT1XNydGMGYXBwX2lkEDIyMjAzOTE3ODgyMDA4OTIAAR6VmGccIa6IPnHRu26XjDbSi1mMm0wai2nIUOSl7ub66P46U5gbAKU4E23r_A_aem_ljYKog1TYFvZo7Y9JFA30w&campaign_id=120246537496760437&ad_id=120246539630310437

Put it this way, the goal is open and they just have to tap the ball in.

I think the short answer is all permitting is being handled by CEZ and govt and offtakes are being/will be negotiated at the Geomet level. Offtakes would usually follow permitting, but there’s nothing to stop a MOU between geomet and the offtaker anytime - if that happens expect a RNS

We know because the cz govt has announced it that they are in discussions with POSCO - and posco provides the processing technology as well as showing they’re interested in buying in for a slice of the action. Posco could and likely would be interested in further scaling up of the mine. As we know the science has confirmed - it’s big.

We saw from Keith’s recent presentation that in 2026’s context offtakers and investors are approaching the project - so while cez is in the driving seat, EMh may have some announcements to make before the end of May - this could be what’s being offered in return for those 3.6m shares / lets see - lots of signs but nothing certain as yet.

Yes, no point looking for performance rights unless…

Yes - the silence is frustrating - but the silence is standard protocol for this stage of the permitting cycle. CEZ is way too big to even think about how the silence affects retail investors :)

ATM - the cz Ministry of Environment is in a mandatory internal technical review phase and are legally required to stay quiet until the formal public window opens.

The EMH directors are in a regulatory blackout period ahead of the May 29 AGM and the June 30 deadline, meaning they couldn't provide "updates" even if they wanted to.

So in the absence of news we have to read the signs - EBRD trimming below 5% huge one - performance rights are another here. Directors don’t tie their pay to FID and construction milestones if they think the permit is going to fail.

Silence in this situation is golden.

In the final analysis - we haven’t got a choice anyway - except to wait - but with this disconnected share price and the potential upside who wouldn’t wait and see for a month or so?

With the greatest respect: the EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) has been completed and was submitted on 31 Dec 2025.

What Geomet (and us) are waiting for is the Binding EIA Opinion from the Czech Ministry of the Environment—that should be provided by 30 June 2026 as part of the $36m JTF grant milestone. While that deadline could theoretically be moved by a month or two, August 31 is final cutoff.

I think you are saying that given it is 1 May today, it is not possible to fit the procedures within the timeframe for the Binding Opinion on 30 June.

I am saying there is time based on the CRMA and Czech law for the following reasons:

First - the 45-Day 'Completeness' Check (Art 11(4) CRMA)The law states: 'The relevant single point of contact shall, no later than 45 days after receiving an application... confirm that the application is complete.' This date ended in mid-February. If there were deficiencies preventing the start of the next phase, the Ministry was legally required to flag them by then. This is the actual fast tracking at work - the Min had the option to reject within a time frame but did not (plus point for EMH)

The Regional Rezoning (ZUR) approval on 10 February also proves the state was already satisfied with the project's technical standing. You will know better than me - how significant is this? I think it is very significant

2. The 90-Day Public Consultation Cap (Art 14(3) CRMA)The CRMA states verbatim: 'The public consultation... for strategic projects... shall not exceed 90 days.' If the public phase opens now in early May, a 30-to-45-day window for comments easily meets the 30 June target. Remember too that the REgional approval / ZUR already satisfied the most difficult and substantive public hearings - the EIA is now focused on technical mitigation, not land-use debate.

We may find out more in the next few days/weeks to confirm this or a possible JTF extension, but the source of the funds (NGEU) has a hard deadline at the end of August 2026.

I see nobody is really interested in the 3.6m shares: but I now think this could be a positive sign. If the Directors have visibility on the permit's progress, they are in a legal blackout period and cannot buy on-market without risking insider trading (my mistake thinking they could buy). Their proposed issue is almost certainly linked to these specific success metrics, aligning them directly with us. I would be interested in seeing what those success metrics are - a very high share price would get my vote!

Happy long weekend all - onward and upward.