Member Info for LuckyLaurie

This isn’t a downgrade to the project. The update is purely ASX/JORC presentation, the final 4 years were temporarily excluded because they sit in inferred resources. EMH has been clear those years are expected to convert to indicated with routine infill drilling, as they have previously.

Nothing material has changed: production remains 37,500 tpa, costs are unchanged, grants remain in place (€360m Czech + JTF), and the project is still fully DFS-level and financeable. The underlying mine life is still 27 years, with an updated DFS to re-include those years once the ASX box-ticking is satisfied.

Even on the conservative 23-year case, pre-tax NPV8 is US$1.455bn versus a ~£40m market cap. That disconnect is why analysts remain constructive, Zeus reiterated a valuation of 88p.

Noise around disclosure mechanics. Fundamentals unchanged.

Scob14, Frustration aside, the fundamentals are moving in the right direction.

CEZ have confirmed the final DFS is complete, the project is viable, and the EIA will be submitted by year-end. Cinovec also carries EU strategic status, has ~€360m of government-backed support, and now sits in the category where additional EU funding, debt facilities and offtake discussions become viable.

That’s material de-risking. Market re-rates rarely run to BB timetables, but they tend to follow fundamentals.

For context, Zeus’ valuation remains 88p on a DFS-stage, state-backed basis.

Maybe sit back and chill , we’re now on the right path to success! The re-rate will follow.

CEZ have now formally confirmed the key milestone the market has been waiting for.

ČEZ Group have publicly stated that the FINAL DFS is complete, that it confirms the Cinovec lithium mining and processing project is viable, and that the EIA will be submitted by year-end. That is not AIM spin, it is confirmation from the Czech state-backed project partner.

This is critical because DFS completion removes the biggest technical and economic risk in the project. Capex, opex, flowsheet, metallurgy and economics are now locked. From here, Cinovec moves from “development story” to permitting, funding and build-out.

Just as important, the DFS unlocks funding. Cinovec is already associated with ~€360m of structured funding support, and DFS confirmation now opens the door to additional EU-level capital via the Critical Raw Materials Act, EIB, Innovation Fund and other sovereign mechanisms. These funds do not engage seriously until DFS risk is removed, which CEZ have now confirmed it is.

Cinovec’s post-tax NPV (100%) is widely understood to be around €1.8–2.0bn.

European Metals Holdings owns 49%, giving an attributable NPV of roughly £750–830m.

This is exactly why Zeus Capital put an 88p valuation on EMH. That valuation reflects:

• DFS completed

• State-backed partner

• Strategic EU lithium asset

• Funding pathways unlocked

• EIA submission imminent

At ~20p and ~£40m market cap, EMH is still being priced as if DFS risk exists. CEZ have now explicitly said it doesn’t.

DFS done.

Funding unlocked.

Permitting advancing.

The gap between asset reality and share price has rarely been clearer.

EMH - Right Place - Right Time - Right NOW!

Let’s be clear: Cinovec is a top-tier European lithium asset, not a speculative AIM side-show, and on fundamentals it sits above many peers that previously traded at far higher valuations.

Cinovec (EMH with partner ČEZ) is one of the largest hard-rock lithium resources in Europe, with a multi-decade mine life and valuable co-products (tin/tungsten). That alone puts it ahead of smaller, shorter-life European projects.

Add the strategic layer: alignment with EU critical-minerals policy, a stable industrial EU jurisdiction, and a sovereign-grade majority partner. Together, this materially reduces project risk and expands funding and offtake options.

Look at precedent. Projects such as Vulcan Energy Resources and Savannah Resources re-rated earlier despite smaller resources and heavier reliance on equity dilution. Their valuations were driven by timing and narrative, not superior asset quality.

Cinovec behaves less like a junior miner and more like European infrastructure. That may slow the initial re-rating, but it supports higher strategic value as funding and offtake clarity arrive.

Crucially, funding isn’t limited to blunt equity raises. For EU-aligned strategic assets, realistic routes include:

• EU / national grants

• EIB / ECA-backed project debt

• OEM / battery-maker offtakes (often with pre-payments)

• Project-level strategic equity

• Blended finance structures

The DFS doesn’t force dilution, it unlocks this funding toolkit.

With its scale, longevity and strategic positioning, Cinovec can easily justify a premium valuation relative to European lithium peers.

There’s a bit of chatter about a Zeus fair value around ~88p. I haven’t seen the note publicly as it is hidden behind a paywall, but numerically this is how a broker could reasonably arrive at that level, without assuming higher lithium prices.

Potential valuation framework (conservative, not blue-sky):

• €250–300m additional grants (beyond those already modelled)

• Binding OEM offtake, potentially with prepayment or linked finance

• EIB / ECA-backed project debt

• Market applying ~22–25% of EMH’s attributable NPV as risk reduces

Asset value logic:

• Base EMH share of Cinovec NPV ≈ £650m

• Plus grant-driven uplift ≈ £150m

• Adjusted EMH asset value ≈ £800m

Applying a 22–25% risk-adjusted multiple to that asset value gets you into the ~£175–200m valuation range, which is where numbers like ~88p come from. That reflects lower risk and lower cost of capital, not heroic assumptions.

Debt is the big hidden lever (often under-modelled):

Because Cinovec is an EU strategic project, partnered with ČEZ, long-life and aligned with European OEM demand, it can realistically access:

• EIB / EBRD-style debt

• Export Credit Agency funding

• State-supported green infrastructure loans

A conservative structure would be 60–65% project debt, at rates well below junior-miner norms. That improves IRR, reduces equity dilution risk, and materially increases the % of NPV the market is willing to pay (e.g. 10% → 20%+).

It’s also worth noting that brokers like Zeus are fully aware of Cinovec’s EU strategic importance, state participation and EU funding routes, which helps explain why their fair value assumptions can sit well above today’s market price.

In short, this isn’t a generic junior miner, it’s a policy-backed strategic asset, and broker models reflect that.

Cadellin 🤦‍♂️ Your post misunderstands both the structure and the politics of Cinovec.

First, Cinovec cannot simply be “taken into state control” in the way suggested. The project is owned and operated via Geomet, which is 49% EMH / 51% ČEZ. Any change of control would require agreement, compensation, and legal process under Czech and EU law. This isn’t an explorer on a whim, it’s a joint venture with the Czech state already inside the tent.

Second, Cinovec is not discretionary anymore. It sits squarely within the EU Critical Raw Materials framework (European Union CRM Act). That status:

• Prioritises permitting

• Unlocks sovereign and EU-backed funding

• Actively discourages arbitrary political interference

The EU wants this project built, not delayed, not restructured, not politicised.

Third, the idea that EMH can be “disregarded” ignores reality:

• EMH holds international capital markets expertise

• EMH brings technical continuity and governance

• EMH has kept dilution exceptionally low for a 10+ year project , which is precisely why the share count is still tight

That discipline is not accidental, and it matters hugely at DFS stage.

On management: criticism of execution pace is fair game, but facts matter. Keith Coughlan has:

• Taken Cinovec from concept → resource → DFS

• Secured a state utility partner

• Positioned the project as one of Europe’s most strategic lithium assets

Many lithium peers diluted multiples more and delivered far less.

Finally, on valuation: a DFS-stage, EU-strategic lithium project with state participation, funding visibility, and offtake interest does not trade like a generic junior miner. That’s why broker fair values (including Zeus) sit far above today’s market cap, they’re modelling policy reality, not BB narratives.

Disagree on timelines if you want, but claims about expropriation or EMH being sidelined don’t stand up to the facts.

The Cinovec DFS is exactly what long-term holders needed: credible, financeable and strategically important. No hype, no nasty surprises.

Some will point at the 15.2% IRR and call it “low”. That comparison only works if you pretend this is a desert brine project with cheap labour, loose regulation and zero ESG standards. It isn’t. This is Europe. EU strategic supply projects are built for security, certainty and funding support, not headline 30% IRRs.

Cinovec delivers:

• 26+ year mine life

• 37,500 tpa battery-grade LCE

• ~5% of EU lithium demand by 2030

• Located in the heart of the EU EV & gigafactory corridor

• Fully aligned with CRMA, ESG and EU industrial policy

The capex is higher because this is a fully integrated European operation, underground mine, processing and lithium chemical plant , built to EU environmental and labour standards. That’s exactly why:

• €360m Czech government grant

• EU Just Transition funding

are already embedded, and why EIB / EBRD / EU Sovereignty Fund debt is now available post-DFS.

Crucially, the DFS now unlocks:

• formal project financing

• binding offtake negotiations

• additional EU-level funding routes

And the wider context matters: the EU is actively pushing OEMs and battery manufacturers to secure domestic supply and reduce reliance on China. Projects like Cinovec aren’t optional, they’re policy priorities.

Nothing slipped: production held, mine life held, grants confirmed, CEZ still fully involved.

At ~22–25p EMH is still pricing in only a single-digit % of its share of DFS NPV. As the market digests the facts and short-term trading noise fades, it’s reasonable to expect the share price to work its way toward a more sensible valuation over the coming days and weeks.

DYOR, but this DFS materially de-risks the story and marks the shift from speculative to strategic European infrastructure.

🤣🤣🤦‍♂️ Skelly, at this point you’re not analysing a stock, you’re processing regret.

You really do sound like a sore loser who sold too early and now can’t accept that it was your decision, and yours alone. Own it. No one forced you out. No one owes you vindication. Constantly crying about dates won’t reverse a sell button you pressed yourself.

Back to reality:

• “Mid-2025 DFS” was always a target window, not a legal deadline.

• DFS ≠ EIA approval, repeating that confusion doesn’t make it correct.

• Dilution? Still no RNS. Still no numbers. Still hypothetical.

What you keep dodging is the actual setup: ~200m shares in issue. That puts EMH in a materially stronger position than most AIM peers at this stage, no multi-billion bloated register, no future consolidation gymnastics, no historic dilution killing upside when funding lands. That discipline matters.

The contrast is telling. Some investors quietly hold long-term positions in strategic assets. Others spend years obsessively posting about a stock they claim not to own, tracking dates, sentiment and other people’s decisions like it’s therapy.

And yes , there is still more than enough time for a genuinely game-changing RNS to land. If it does, we all know the next line already:

“Yes it landed… but it should’ve landed earlier.”

At some point it’s healthier to stop crying about the trade you made, grow a pair, and move on.

12.5MW NEPTUNE V contract signed with Octopus Energy Generation for Kimberly-Clark’s Andrex® manufacturing plant in Kent.

Let that sink in.

This isn’t a pilot.

This isn’t a demo.

This is real infrastructure, not PowerPoints, deployed at a live, energy-intensive FMCG site by a Tier-1 global manufacturer.

Why this RNS matters (and why the market still hasn’t caught up):

• NEPTUNE V keeps winning containerised, plug-and-play, bankable. Exactly what industrial customers want.

• Octopus isn’t guessing, this is financed capital via HYRO, backed by HAR1 government support.

• Kimberly-Clark doesn’t experiment, they deploy proven technology that works at scale.

• Operational by 2027, long-dated, visible revenue with zero “maybe” attached.

And here’s the part still being ignored 👇

The bigger picture:

• £150m+ current order book

• 500MW+ signed mandates approaching FID

• £350–450m potential revenue pipeline (and that excludes further NEPTUNE V scale-up)

• A balance sheet strong enough to outlast weaker competitors as the sector consolidates

This is exactly how hydrogen scales:

containerised → financed → deployed → replicated.

The 🐘 In The Room 👇

💧HYDROPULSE: Europe’s emerging hydrogen powerhouse

Hydropulse isn’t a side project.

It’s the logical end-game.

Build.

Own.

Operate.

Supply hydrogen as a service.

No capex risk for customers.

No technology risk.

Long-term offtake.

Recurring, predictable revenues.

This Octopus / Kimberly-Clark project is the blueprint for what Hydropulse is about to roll out across Europe.

The shift from “can this work?” to “how fast can this scale?” is now happening in plain sight.

This is what an inflection point looks like.

The rest is just maths. 🚀🚀🚀

Romongronaldo - what a load of nonsense 🤦‍♂️

This post is misleading, full stop. Let’s go through it line by line:

1. “ITM Power lowers EPS”

ITM didn’t “lower” anything. ITM does not publish broker EPS forecasts.

This is AlphaValue adjusting their own model, not company news.

2. “Following a routine model rollover”

Exactly. A model rollover is analyst housekeeping, not a downgrade, not a warning, not new information.

3. “Higher expected EBITDA losses linked to legacy contracts and fixed cost under-absorption”

There are no new or ‘extra’ legacy costs here.

These are long-disclosed factors ITM has been transparent about for over a year and which are already baked into guidance.

If anything had worsened, it would require an RNS. There isn’t one.

4. What ITM actually said (the only source that matters):

Early Dec 2025 Trading Update:

• FY26 guidance maintained

• Revenue £35–40m

• Adj. EBITDA loss £27–29m

• Cash £197m at 31 Oct 2025, guiding £170–175m year-end

That level of cash usage is entirely expected in a scale-up phase and fully consistent with disciplined capital allocation across the group, including advancing newer platforms like Hydropulse, all within stated guidance.

5. Cash “might have reduced”?

Yes, because they told you it would.

Following guidance isn’t a negative surprise; it’s execution.

6. While you’re cherry-picking headlines:

12 Dec 2025 RNS: ITM signed two new engineering contracts totalling ~70 MW.

Operational progress never seems to make it into these scare posts.

Bottom line:

This is a paywalled AlphaValue interpretation, recycled language, and a misleading headline dressed up as company news.

No RNS. No downgrade. No new costs. No guidance change.

What’s increasingly clear is how little appreciation there is for the capital discipline shown at EMH. On AIM, that alone puts it in a tiny minority.

Look at what usually happens:

GGP

   •   Ran the share count into the billions

   •   Then a 20:1 consolidation

   •   Trades ~£4.40, which is ~22p in old money

   •   Once hit ~50p old money

Asset quality didn’t save the share price, dilution and consolidation permanently capped it.

HE1

   •   Billions of shares issued

   •   Repeated placings

   •   Constant “jam tomorrow” RNS

   •   Chart destroyed by dilution, not geology

PREM / KOD

   •   Tens of billions of shares

   •   Endless equity raises just to survive

   •   Reverse splits to mask value destruction

   •   Early holders never recover economically

This isn’t bad luck , it’s AIM’s standard playbook:

1. Over-issue equity early

2. DFS → more dilution

3. Capex → shareholder annihilation

4. Consolidation

5. Share price never behaves properly again

Now look at EMH:

   •   Still a tight register by AIM standards

   •   No desperation placings

   •   No reverse-split gimmicks

   •   49% of a Tier-1 EU lithium asset retained

   •   Strategic partner (CEZ) and EU backing at project level, not plc-level dilution

People shouting “mismanagement” while ignoring this are missing the point entirely.

If EMH had taken the easy AIM route, we’d already be sitting on:

   •   Billions of shares

   •   A 10–20:1 consolidation

   •   And a permanently broken chart

Whether you like KC or not is irrelevant. Capital discipline of this level on AIM is rare, and it’s been completely underestimated.

Before anyone asks, yes I once had investments in both GGP and HE1 so I’m talking from experience!

Let’s put some numbers around this rather than focusing on dilution headlines.

Comparable hard-rock lithium projects at DFS stage point to NPVs of €1.5–2.0bn. Using the lower end only, EMH’s 49% share implies ~€735m attributable value versus a current market cap of ~£40m.

Allowing for a realistic funding path, equity, strategic support from CEZ, European debt, very substantial EU funding available at Cinovec project level (milestone-based, claim-back grants as standard), and post-DFS offtake with EU battery and automotive supply chains, assume the share count rises to 500–600m over time. Those grants and offtakes don’t replace equity, but they reduce net capex, improve debt terms and limit dilution once DFS economics are defined.

On that cautious basis, attributing even a modest fraction of DFS NAV supports a valuation range of ~70p–£1.00 per share once DFS risk is removed, without assuming blue-sky lithium prices or aggressive multiples.

It’s also worth remembering institutions don’t buy uncertainty at 20p. Their entry point is post-DFS, when risk is defined and projects become financeable. For EU-strategic lithium, capital is often mandate-driven, focused on supply security and policy alignment, not short-term price noise.

Starting from just ~207m shares, EMH is unusually well positioned for a re-rating once DFS lands.

DFS defines value. Funding follows.

Scob14, I get the frustration and you’re right that at this stage the DFS is either ready or it isn’t.

For the record, I’ve been invested here for ~10 years, so this isn’t blind faith or defending KC and I’m certainly not on anyone’s payroll. If the DFS doesn’t land after recent guidance, criticism is fair and accountability follows.

What I don’t agree with is rolling a potential final-stage slip into the same bucket as historic early-stage delays. This is third-party engineering sign-off, CEZ alignment and lender-grade scrutiny.

The share price reflects DFS risk discount, not a verdict on the asset. EMH owns 49% of a tier-one project alongside CEZ. When the DFS drops, that gap closes fast.

Some have sold up out of frustration, I get that but maybe they should get out and do some exercise and walk back into the room with Fresh eyes, we are most definitely in a better position now than ever before.

Good luck all, Truly Exciting Times Ahead

Skelly, you’ve written a lot, but several key points are simply wrong.

A DFS delay is not a “lie”, it’s routine on tier-one projects involving permitting, EU processes and a state partner. ČEZ don’t work to bulletin-board deadlines.

EMH isn’t “days away” from losing JTF funding, nor is it an “empty shell”. It holds a 49% stake in an EU-strategic lithium project backed by a state utility.

What is striking is the obsession. You appear not to be invested, yet spend an extraordinary amount of time attacking the company and its shareholders. That isn’t scrutiny, it’s an agenda, and it shows a lack of respect for genuine investors with real money invested.

Hopefully you understand the risks you run with these comments?

Skelly 🤦‍♂️ ….. The article is actually a good read, particularly for anyone with a background in the motor industry, which I’ve worked in all my life.

That said, linking it to EMH or KC is completely illogical. It concerns cartel behaviour by established battery manufacturers, not upstream lithium supply or project developers.

There’s no connection! Have you actually read it 😂😂

Exactly.

70p–£1.00 was me being charitable.

Anyone who has actually looked at end-to-end lithium projects at FID knows 50–60% of NPV is standard. Apply that here and you’re not debating £1, you’re looking at £2.50++ without stretching credibility.

The noise is coming from people who sold the last run, didn’t understand what they owned, and now spout utter rubbish hoping fear might get them back in cheaper.

Do the work, or keep embarrassing yourselves 🫢

Googoosh 🤦‍♂️ have you actually done any research or do you love spouting garbage ……

Sodium-ion is a distraction in this debate. It doesn’t solve Europe’s real problem: securing EV-grade lithium, at scale, inside Europe.

EVs require high energy density, low weight and proven chemistry, that remains lithium-ion. Sodium is heavier, materially lower energy density and largely confined to low-value stationary storage. Even the major players (CATL, BYD) are clear that sodium complements lithium, it does not replace it!

This is exactly why the EU’s Critical Raw Materials strategy, strategic project status and grant frameworks are focused on Tier-1 lithium projects, not experimental alternatives.

Cinovec sits firmly in that Tier-1 category: one of Europe’s largest hard-rock lithium resources, long mine life, integrated processing, and designed to deliver battery-grade lithium hydroxide directly into the European EV and battery supply chain.

With the DFS imminent, Cinovec moves from narrative to bankable economics and credible offtake discussions with European OEMs who must localise supply. That strategic positioning is precisely why Cinovec continues to attract EU grant support and strategic backing.

Valuation-wise, DFS-backed lithium projects typically trade at 10–20% of NPV. Even the low end implies a valuation multiple of today’s ~£40m market cap, with 70p–£1.00 entirely plausible as the market re-rates on DFS and offtakes.

Not surprising at all Tennents, CCS keeps failing for the same reasons: high capex, poor economics, regulatory risk, and no scalable business case without permanent subsidy. BP, Drax, Acorn, different sponsors, same outcome.

Green hydrogen is the opposite trajectory. It actually scales, costs keep falling, and it decarbonises rather than trying to bolt a filter onto fossil fuels. That’s why capital and policy are shifting.

And crucially, this is where ITM stands out. Unlike many in the sector, ITM has:

   •   real customers (RWE, Shell, Uniper),

   •   real projects moving from FEED to FID,

   •   £200m+ cash runway,

   •   and industrial-scale products already proven in the field.

Jefferies recently reiterated BUY on ITM with a 115p target, explicitly citing commercial traction and balance-sheet strength .

CCS is a dead-end cost sink.

Green H₂ is the build-out solution, and ITM is one of the few names actually executing.

Thanks for pointing this out 👍

This is actually an important step, even if it’s not a permit yet.

Approval of the 6th ZÚR update formally unblocks Cinovec in regional spatial planning. In simple terms, it confirms the project is allowed to exist in that location and can legally move through permitting.

It’s:

• not a mining permit

• not a construction permit

• but a necessary gateway decision

Without this, permits can’t be granted. With it, they can.

Exactly the sort of quiet, bureaucratic progress you expect ahead of DFS, EIA and final approvals. Another box ticked.

No one’s claiming certainty or crystal balls.

The whole point of models, peer comparisons, or even AI checks is to sanity-test assumptions until the DFS replaces debate with hard numbers. DFS dates slip all the time in mining, that doesn’t change the asset, the jurisdiction, or Cinovec’s EU strategic status.

At ~£40m mcap, EMH doesn’t need “best-case fantasies” to re-rate, it needs a credible DFS that stacks up against recent lithium DFS/FID peers. If it does, the valuation gap is obvious. If it doesn’t, the market will say so very quickly.

Dismissing numbers without offering alternatives isn’t analysis, it’s just noise.