Member Info for JMUK26

I bailed on the spike back into the 180's recently after a good few years holding. This war isn't ending any time soon in my view and OTB are likely to have a bad year or two in my view, through no fault of their own. I can see it dropping back down to £1.20ish which would present a good re-entry for a long term hold. For now I'm out.

Just filter him out guys. He's bringing nothing to the table but uneducated lazy negative views. He's not reading your responses because he is earning £3p/h to post this garbage and hates his job. Just green box him it makes for a much better forum.

Read the RNS's Steven. Fixed price contract so it's the contractors risk to deliver it on time (or early) and on cost. There should be no more need to raise further money for this project. If they want to duplicate the strategy to alternative locations then yes more dilution probably necessary but you'd hope any dilution will be offset by the rate of return it gives Atome.

I think you misunderstood my post Cpt. My initial post was just saying that it is still being priced as very highly speculative, whereas i do not think it is VERY highly speculative. We are on the same page with our thoughts.

I do not agree that is a VERY highlight speculative infrastructure play StarBright, but you have your opinion and I can have mine. It's happening in my opinion as the UK simply can't do without it, and funders will see a huge ROI - all signs point to this. Look out for any announcements from Reeves on infrastructure in the next week or 2, we may well get a mention. Of course, it is still speculative, but market cap to even a conservative NPV shows a big disconnect.

Having done a bit of research, 85% of the projects awarded national significance in the last 4 years are either in operation or currently under construction. Given that in additional to this we already have NSTA approval, we are dealing with tier 1 consultants who are giving their backing, and have an MOU for private funding, it looks very very likely this project will proceed. Valuation wise it looks like there is a massive disconnect currently on a risk adjusted basis. Its still being priced as a very highly speculative infrastructure play.

I think you’re overlooking a key factor Magic-orb: the pre-listing re-rate. Once the Nasdaq listing date is confirmed, I expect MKA to move closer to a fair value that reflects the US valuation. While a surge in volume will naturally see some investors banking gains, any downward pressure would likely start from a much higher base. Ultimately, if the US listing performs well and trades at a premium, it’s more likely to create upward arbitrage pressure on the LSE price rather than a sell-off.

ProfitJock - "By 2028 and 2031 there will be a different Government in place who will be dropping disastrous self-harm Net Zero energy policy". If you seriously think fossil fuels are the way forward especially after the events unfolding over the last couple of months and the fragility it has revealed to the entire infrastructure, you need to do some reading and educate yourself. Even if we have to suffer a reform government, they absolutely will not be pulling the plug on this project, as it is all about making the most use of the infrastructure we already have, and improving our self sufficiency. Its just a silly uneducated simplistic comment.

Thanks James. We will all bear that in mind. What would it be worth from your detailed analysis with gas license and without gas license? Your posts suggest a man that has been around the block and knows how to value such companies.

Then when you had done that, take your computer and throw it out of the nearest window, and never log back onto LSE again. Kind Regards.

The results were for 2025, so last year. "Next year" means 2026 financial year, so this year.

Where have all these dimwits come from over the last few days. Just filter, as they aren't listening to your well reasoned fact based responses anyway.

We have James, who is thick as mince, with his one liners because he can't be bothered to do any research. Then we have NFT, who goes onto ChatGPT and says write me an investment analysis on EPP, but skew it to why it is so risky, no mention of any positives please.

Neither know anything about the company, and both have an obvious agenda. It's just a shame for their sad little lifes that they think they are doing something productive with their time.

Testpack - Sunk costs will be considered but lost profits absolutely have to be considered also as the company had BFS/JORC/Investment. If not, any major mine in the world owned by a foreign entity could be expropriated once reserves are confirmed, and the government would know they only have to pay back sunk costs, to get access to multi-year profits at a bargain price. I think your 140m estimate is very conservative, and personally I think it may be nearer 400m (say 20p per share). LCM have had a torrid time recently, but no scandals. You are probably thinking of the Dubai investigation that was in the news some time ago, but that was incited by the same guy they had sacked just the year before for fiddling his expenses, so it was clearly a smear campaign in revenge, and nothing has ever come of it.

I don't disagree with your thought process, it all makes sense to me, but why if settlement is so obvious do India not settle with Panthera for example? Gold is at an all time high so India could be benefiting hugely from mining the sites gold right now rather than keeping the site on ice for years. India further hung themselves when they decided to auction off the site to a developer, and effectively proved the expropriation, but yet they still do not settle despite the odds being heavily stacked against them. They instead choose to kick the can down the road. Instead governments seem to want to protract things as long as possible, never admit liability (by settling early), and pay much more in the long run to avoid the blame.

Icecream - If Emmerson loses the arbitration, they technically retain ownership of their physical equipment (if they haven't already cleared it following March raise), but that is all. Morocco would regain full control of the potash reserves and would be free to do what they want with it and grant themselves a license. Even if said license it identical to the ones Emmerson submitted.

Doesn't mean Morocco will come to an out of court settlement at all. If they think they have valid grounds for rejecting the license, they will let the process run its course and then take it.

If you want full risk but full reward then you will need to hold for the full 5 years, but returns could be monstrous if you have the nerve. There will always be those investors with shorter time horizons that pile in just before or after the hearing on the basis that they can potentially win £1 for a 5-10p stake though and that gives longer term holders an opportunity to exit should they wish as they have already made a satisfactory return and can exit before a binary risk. You are right that it will either go to zero if they lose, or it will go up potentially hugely if they win, so its about risk tolerance and timing on an individual basis.

In regards why Morocco breached the law to begin with and let it get this far, I can't answer that, but it is not an isolated incident. Governments are often corrupt, and even if they think the right thing to do is to settle, they often don't because they know it will drag on for years and why risk settling now under your political parties watch rather than the next party settling the bill and getting the blame instead? India, Poland, Greenland, Mexico, Spain for example all have current claims against them for similar expropriations, some are as clear cut as it gets yet they still try and fight it. They should know better but it doesn't mean they do.

I don’t disagree on the timeline; 5 years is a standard lag for ICSID, but I’m not sure why that makes it a brave hold.

We have $11m in non-recourse funding, which means the legal merits passed institutional due diligence. The funder carries the cost, so we aren't being diluted to pay for the wait. Morocco has a solid track record of paying out (look at the 2024 Coronation award) because they won't risk their sovereign credit rating for the sake of one claim.

At a £30m cap vs a $1.2bn memorial, I’ll happily take a 5-year wait for that kind of asymmetric return. It’s a patient man's play though unless you like in just before the hearing and hold for at least a few months.

Hi Stringer, appreciate what you are saying about timescales and if you are a trader the liquidity here and price movements are not going to offer a great deal of opportunity day in day out. However, if you look at similar listed companies that are pure arbitration plays you will generally see that those who get in early and sit on their hands will be well rewarded. This is because early investors can get their shares cheap, purely because people don't want to sit on these for years, and the SP should gradually re-rate as the case reaches it's conclusion and is gradually being de-risked from a procedural point of view. This was trading at around 2p not long ago, and fairly rapidly went to 3p, so even if you were happy to sit and hold for a few month at a time there is still money to be made with no a great deal of downside risk. Its just a bit boring which is fine.

Yes esduk, this one is also frustrating me a little. They have not even really bothered to communicate this issue properly following us reading it in the investor presentation a good few weeks back for the first time. So, we are limited to 25tpa in an environment where we really ought to be ramping up production rapidly to test how things are working at much increased outputs and then applying any lessons learnt to Germany and beyond. German hub will now have to lead the way which is the wrong way around really. Like you say I'm surprised the UoB buy-out hasn't happened already and you'd think it would be top priority. I'm also surprised to see no word on the acquisition. Usually when urgent fund raises are done for an aquisition, it's all been agreed subject to funding and you get the RNS the next morning. Lets hope things start coming together a little quicker going forward.

The RNS you just quoted literally disproves your point. It’s an optional facility with a no-discount floor and a 2.99% volume cap per tranche. This isn't a death spiral where a lender dumps at any price it’s a controlled tap to fund FEED with Siemens. If you're expecting a £13m cap to fund a nationally significant infrastructure project with magic fairy dust instead of staged equity, you’re in the wrong sector. At this point you are just embarrassing yourself.

Agree with WiseInvestor. Where did CrudeTrader think the FEED capital was coming from—a bake sale? For a £13m cap company to secure a £15m package (including £5m in debt) for a project of this scale is a massive vote of confidence. Yes, the ATM facility causes short-term churn, but it beats a massive, discounted placing that would’ve nuked the SP overnight. This is the price of moving from a 'concept' to 'FEED' with Siemens. Great news and at the moment the board is seemingly being flooded with paid de-rampers, so I take that as a good sign!