Member Info for LuckyLaurie

COD, I think you’ve misunderstood my point.

I’m not saying dilution is good. I’m saying that relative to many AIM/resource companies developing projects of this scale, EMH has shown far greater capital discipline.

Of course there has been dilution over the years, that’s unavoidable without cash flow. The difference is EMH hasn’t blown the share count out into the billions like countless others I’ve invested in over 30 years.

Getting Cínovec to DFS and EIA stage whilst keeping the share structure relatively tight by AIM standards is, in my opinion, a meaningful achievement.

Each to their own and I do genuinely appreciate your viewpoint and the thought you’ve clearly put into it.

That said, I’ve voted in favour of all resolutions. I’ve been invested here for almost 10 years and, having invested for over 30 years generally, I’ve witnessed plenty of supposedly “great projects” diluted into oblivion or disappear completely.

That’s why I personally place huge value on the discipline EMH has shown in not blowing the share count out into the billions like so many AIM/resource companies do.

Getting Cínovec to DFS and EIA stage whilst maintaining relative capital discipline is, in my opinion, no small achievement and deserves recognition.

Anyway, I barely own 2 million shares so my vote probably won’t alter anything either way 🤭

Good luck whichever way people vote 👍

Good point Jemesa and I agree, I highly doubt the 25% figure is random.

To me it looks less about “rewarding management” and more about aligning them with the exact milestone that fundamentally changes how funders and the market view the project.

A credible long-term offtake for 25% of production would:• validate demand• validate pricing assumptions• reduce financing risk• help unlock debt/grants• potentially open prepayment financing

At that point lenders are no longer looking at a theoretical lithium project, they’re looking at a strategic industrial supply asset with contracted demand.

That is a completely different risk profile.

If combined with EIA progress, CRMA status and existing state/EU support, I think the market could rerate EMH very aggressively.

£1 +++ would be conservative

Thanks Fingers, really interesting breakdown and I think the key takeaway is the direction of travel rather than the exact figures.

People are still valuing EMH like a small speculative AIM miner, when Cinovec is increasingly becoming a strategic European project tied to EU energy security and battery supply chains.

Even if only half of that type of funding/support ever materialised, the market would have to completely rethink the valuation here in my opinion.

At that point the conversation changes from:

“Can they fund this?”

to:

“How valuable is a permitted, strategically backed European lithium asset?”

Personally I think if financing and dilution fears materially reduce, a share price north of £1 stops looking crazy very quickly.

Exactly 😂

Finding the winner is only half the battle, holding through the chaos is the hard part.

"A person who doubts himself is like a man who would enlist in the ranks of his enemies and bear arms against himself. He makes his failure certain by himself being the first person to be convinced of it." Remind you of anyone 🤭

Jemesa, the funniest bit is the constant “if only it was built years ago” argument. Yes… and if I’d bought Nvidia in 2014 and Bitcoin at £200 I’d also be retired on a yacht somewhere. Sadly markets move in real time not hindsight simulator mode, thankfully have a yacht, just need a bigger one, hence my investment here to get some Bigger Batteries 🔋

Who would have thought ICE vehicles would still dominate roads 100+ years after their invention. 🫢

Predicting technology decades ahead is incredibly difficult, which is exactly why strategic assets with scale and optionality often carry significant value.

Fair point, but I think the 100+ year angle is more about strategic optionality than trying to value cashflows in 2126 😂

The DFS currently models ~26 years, but CEZ will obviously understand the much larger long-term resource potential sitting there.

Strategic buyers often value control, expansion potential and future flexibility very differently from the market.

Another point the market still massively underestimates:

The DFS outlines an initial ~26 year mine life based on the current development plan.

But Cinovec itself is widely understood to contain enough resource for potentially 100+ years of production at scale.

That changes the strategic framework completely.

CEZ is not simply looking at a 20–25 year mining project.

It is potentially looking at multi-generational control of one of Europe’s largest and most strategically important lithium resources.

That matters enormously when thinking about:

• Long-term European battery security

• Industrial sovereignty

• Domestic raw material supply

• Future processing expansion

• National strategic infrastructure

Strategic assets with multi-decade optionality are often valued very differently from standard mining projects.

And I suspect CEZ understands that extremely well.

There seems to be a constant assumption that if EMH is ever bought out, shareholders will somehow automatically be forced to accept an unfair valuation.

Legally and commercially that is far too simplistic.

EMH is not a distressed company, nor is Cinovec a stranded speculative asset.

EMH owns 49% of Geomet, has completed a DFS, has strategic project status, major grant alignment, progressing EIA/permitting and, importantly, holds meaningful rights within the shareholder agreement.

This is not a “sitting duck” situation.

Any serious transaction would certainly require:

• Independent board recommendation• Independent valuation/fairness work• Compliance with UK/Australian market rules• Shareholder approval thresholds• Scrutiny from institutional investors• Consideration of strategic asset value, not just current AIM pricing

People also forget that CEZ itself is partly state owned and operates within a European political and regulatory framework.

If Europe genuinely wants to attract long-term strategic investment into critical raw materials, allowing obvious undervaluation of one of Europe’s most strategic lithium projects would send completely the wrong message to the market.

The irony is that every major milestone strengthens EMH’s negotiating position:

• EIA progress• CRMA strategic importance• Grants reducing capital intensity• Increasing lithium security concerns• Comparable sector transactions emerging

Strategic assets are not valued purely on today’s spot lithium price or current AIM market cap.

They are valued on replacement value, scarcity, geopolitical importance and long-term control.

That is why strategic buyers pay materially different valuations compared to traditional market trading levels.

Personally I think the market is still pricing EMH as an AIM lithium explorer, while Europe is increasingly starting to treat Cinovec as critical infrastructure.

Big difference.

It is becoming an increasingly credible scenario for ČEZ Group to eventually buy out EMH, especially if Cinovec continues derisking over the next few months.

The strategic logic for CEZ buying out EMH is very strong:

• Full control of a nationally strategic asset

• Simplified decision making

• Easier financing and offtake negotiations

• Easier integration into a Czech / European battery supply chain

• Removal of AIM / ASX minority shareholder complications

• Elimination of EMH veto rights within Geomet

• Greater flexibility around future industrial partnerships

From CEZ’s perspective there is a genuine argument that buying now may ultimately be cheaper than waiting.

Importantly though, that does NOT automatically mean a lowball offer succeeds.

The market narrative around Cinovec is changing rapidly:

• Cinovec is increasingly viewed as strategic, not speculative

• Europe now has genuine critical minerals urgency

• Comparable transactions are emerging

• Institutional awareness is improving

• CRMA support materially changes project importance

The important point many overlook is that CEZ does not need Cinovec to be “just profitable”.

It potentially serves:

• National industrial policy

• Energy transition strategy

• Battery independence

• Supply chain sovereignty

• Geopolitical resilience

Strategic buyers often pay very different valuations compared to traditional mining buyers.

The recent pace of developments also feels significant:

• EIA acceleration

• Strategic project status

• Grants alignment

• Increasing urgency around timelines

Personally I think the valuation framework has shifted materially over recent months.

Assuming positive progress continues, I would probably now view a credible buyout zone somewhere around 90p–£1.40.

And remember, Zeus already set an 88p Fair Value target before many of these strategic pieces potentially fully align.

Interesting times ahead.

Very interesting trading today.

Those late reported 100k + 110k trades at exactly 17p now look increasingly important.

If those were buys, it appears a significant block of stock sitting at 17p has potentially been cleared out, because immediately afterwards buyers suddenly had to start paying materially higher prices:

40k at 17.45p

12.5k at 17.489p

20k at 17.50p

50k at 17.90p

That is exactly the type of behaviour you often see when a market maker has finally exhausted a supply line and needs to move the ask higher to attract sellers.

What I find particularly encouraging:

• Very little meaningful sell pressure

• Most sells tiny in comparison

• Larger trades overwhelmingly leaning buy-side

• Buyers happy to pay nearly 18p despite earlier liquidity at 17p

• Bid holding firm while ask moved higher

• Market cap still only ~£41.5m

People also need to remember the backdrop here has changed dramatically over the past few weeks:

• Official EIA consultation now live

• Public comment period running

• CRMA strategic project status

• EU critical minerals urgency increasing

• Cinovec recognised as strategically important for European battery security

• Potential grant/funding catalysts approaching

• Offtake/funding discussions likely progressing in the background

At some point the market stops valuing EMH like a speculative explorer and starts valuing it as a strategic European lithium asset sitting inside one of the most important supply chains in Europe.

If the 17p liquidity really has now been absorbed and the overhang is reducing, the rerate could become surprisingly aggressive because this remains an exceptionally tightly traded AIM stock.

⬆️📈

She’s going to blow ⬆️📈🚀 🫢

There’s a difference between debating a company/share and repeatedly posting personal, inflammatory or deliberately antagonistic comments. Healthy scepticism is fine — abuse and constant baiting isn’t.

Ignoring someone only works if the behaviour stops affecting the wider thread. When posters repeatedly provoke, misrepresent or personalise things, people are naturally going to push back.

Debate the investment case by all means, but there’s no need for constant hostility from either side.

This 🔔 End is obviously related to Earache 🤦‍♂️

Great to see people actually engaged and voting 🥳 democracy in action and everyone making their own minds up based on their own investing experience and risk/reward outlook.

Some are clearly still very focused on the frustrations and delays of the past, which is fair enough, while others (myself included) are looking more at where the project appears to be heading from here.

Personally, I genuinely believe the tide is changing.

Whatever people think of management, the reality is:

* DFS completed

* EIA submitted

* EU strategic importance now undeniable

* Funding/grant discussions progressing

* Strategic interest/speculation increasing

* And importantly, the share structure still far more disciplined than many AIM peers after all these years

That combination feels very different to where we were even 12–18 months ago.

I completely understand why some shareholders are frustrated after such a long journey, but equally I think there is a danger in becoming so anchored to the disappointments of the past that people fail to recognise when sentiment and fundamentals may finally be shifting.

For me, the debate around the resolutions is actually secondary to the bigger picture:

Are we potentially approaching a major rerating/value inflection point after years of groundwork?

I personally think we might be.

Good luck all whatever way you voted 👍🍀🥂

You’re entitled to your opinion and reasons for voting the way you are, and equally I’m entitled to mine.

I’m certainly not a “company man” I’ve run my own businesses since I was 20 and one thing I learned many years ago is that incentives matter and good management teams should be rewarded when they create value.

I’ve also been investing for over 30 years and have seen plenty of “great projects” diluted into oblivion with billions upon billions of shares issued along the way. I’ve also experienced the odd delisting and total wipeout 🙈

That’s why I place huge value on what EMH has achieved from a capital discipline perspective.

Getting a project of this scale from concept stage to DFS and EIA submission whilst keeping the share count relatively tight by AIM standards is genuinely impressive in my view and that discipline alone deserves credit.

People keep focusing on today’s share price as though the only thing that matters is where we currently trade. I’m far more interested in where the company could be heading from here.

If Keith earns millions because shareholders receive transformational returns from current levels, then honestly I hope he does earn millions… and I hope he earns me millions too 🥳🥳

I’m not interested in grudges or endlessly harping on about the past when the company appears closer than ever to a potentially transformational period.

I’ve been invested here almost 10 years. I’m focused on what lies ahead and whether shareholders finally get rewarded for the time, patience and risk taken supporting the project ⬆️📈🚀 🥂🍾🥂 🥳

Good Luck All …… we’re getting close 👯

Fair question, and I completely understand why some shareholders see it that way.

For me personally though, I don’t really look at it through the lens of “does Keith already own enough shares?” I look at it more from the perspective of overall outcomes for shareholders.

I’ve been invested in plenty of AIM companies over the years with “great projects” that ended up diluting shareholders into oblivion with billions upon billions of shares in issue long before they ever reached this stage.

Keith/EMH hasn’t done that.

If management delivers:

* a strategic deal,

* major funding,

* a rerate,

* or a successful exit,

then I’m comfortable with them participating in that upside alongside us.

I also think people underestimate how difficult it is to get a project like Cínovec to DFS and EIA submission whilst maintaining relative capital discipline. That benefits all shareholders.

Could the communication around the performance rights have been clearer? Probably yes, I’d agree with that point.

But equally, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a board to want management incentivised and aligned during what increasingly looks like a potentially transformational period for the company.

At the end of the day, we all vote according to our own risk/reward view, and I fully respect those voting differently

I respect that everyone has different views on the resolutions, but I do find it slightly strange how some investors seem more focused on what management might earn rather than what shareholders themselves could potentially earn if the project succeeds.

If EMH delivers:

* strategic funding,

* a major rerating,

* or even a buyout,

then shareholders stand to make substantial returns from current levels.

In that context, I personally don’t begrudge management being rewarded alongside us after more than a decade of work getting Cínovec from concept stage to DFS and EIA submission.

Many AIM companies would have diluted shareholders into oblivion long before reaching this stage. EMH hasn’t. The share count has remained remarkably disciplined relative to peers and I think Keith deserves credit for that.

Could things have been communicated better at times? Probably yes. No management team is perfect.

But I personally believe Keith has done a fantastic job getting the project to this point and one which increasingly feels close to rerate territory.

At the end of the day, if shareholders are making life-changing returns from here, I honestly don’t see the issue with management participating in that success as well.

Each to their own of course ⬆️ 📈 🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀 🥳

Interesting post, but I think it massively underestimates two things:

1. The amount of value already created

2. The importance of aligned incentives in getting a complex strategic project over the line

Under Keith, EMH has gone from concept stage to DFS and EIA submission on arguably the most strategically important lithium project in Europe, whilst keeping the share count remarkably low compared to most AIM stocks.

That didn’t happen by accident.

People talk about “dilution” as though EMH has been run like a typical AIM lifestyle company. It hasn’t. We’ve avoided the billions upon billions of shares that have destroyed shareholder value elsewhere.

As for the performance rights, I struggle to understand why some are so against them IF management delivers a transformational outcome for shareholders.

If:

* a strategic deal lands,

* funding is secured,

* or shareholders see a substantial rerating / buyout,

then why shouldn’t management participate alongside us?

The “change of control” wording keeps getting highlighted as though it’s unusual. It isn’t. These clauses are extremely common because companies want management aligned during potential transaction periods, not distracted or disincentivised.

People are also forgetting Keith already owns millions of shares. His interests are already heavily aligned with shareholders. The idea that he somehow wants a “low-ball” outcome makes little sense when his existing holding benefits most from a higher share price anyway.

Everyone should vote how they see fit, but personally I’m focused on outcomes, not resentment towards management being rewarded for over a decade of work getting Cínovec to this stage.

DFS + EIA submission + disciplined capital structure on AIM is not something I take lightly.

Exciting period ahead IMO

I’ve voted in favour of all resolutions 🥳🥳🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀

People can make their own minds up of course, but for me the key point is this:

Under Keith, EMH has progressed from concept stage through to DFS and now EIA submission on one of the most strategically important lithium projects in Europe, whilst keeping the share count remarkably tight compared to most AIM companies.

That discipline matters.

Just look across AIM at the number of companies with billions upon billions of shares in issue after endless dilution cycles. EMH has avoided that, and as shareholders we will all benefit from it if a major deal or rerating lands from here.

People also underestimate how much work goes on behind the scenes over many years on projects like this. Negotiations, government engagement, funding discussions, strategic relationships etc don’t happen overnight. Anyone who has listened to interviews over the years, including the 2026 YouTube discussions, can see the amount of time and effort that has gone into getting Cínovec to this stage.

No management team is perfect, but I personally think getting to DFS + EIA submission while maintaining relative capital discipline is an achievement worthy of support, not constant negativity.

At the end of the day, if shareholders see a major uplift from here, I honestly couldn’t care less if management are rewarded alongside us. Alignment is not a bad thing.

Exciting few weeks ahead IMO 🥳⬆️📈🚀