Member Info for Skelly85

Ciaran, Jemesa will enlighten us all with the answer.

Binding opinion? How far up your hole are you reaching for this stuff?

EIA APPROVAL,

JUNE!

THOSE ARE THE TERMS OFNTHE JTF GRANT.

JEMESA PROMTS HIS AI TO WRITE THE GREATEST LOAD OF DOG SHIGHT AND MIX IT INTO THE MOST ELABORATE CONVINCING WORD SALAD HE CAN.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, A TURD IS A TURD.

Remember

Lol.

Still mixing up euros amd dollars.

Your AI really sucks

Oh,

And its 36 million USD. So in Euros, about 31.

Luckie and Jemesa are just copy/pasting AI junk.

Don't listen to any of it.

Luckie, once again, the JTF grant associated with the APPROVAL not summation of the EIA is not 360 million. It is 36 million. THIRTY SIX. NOT three hundred.

Bubbles, I think you might need to rephrase

"

It is what some bitter folk do when they miss the boat in single figures or dumped at a loss previously !!!

"

To

It is what some bitter folk MIGHT do IF they miss the boat in single figures or POSSIBLY dumped at a loss previously !!!

Thats just as informed a statement as most of the others here, given none of those apply to me.

The EIA submitting was not to trigger the 360million grant.

It was to meet one of several prerequisites for the JTF Grant, which is only a tenth the size of that.

Luckie, you've obviously fed your AI chat with so much BS its creating posts for you with even more BS.

Remember,

Its not 360 million in funding,

Its a reimbursement grant.

And most importantly the terms are that its a grant of

UP TO 360

Everyone here understand UP TO?

Because that also includes values of 1 euro. There is no guarantees of getting the full amount. KC even said it in his latest interview. Its just a headline click bate number the likes of Jemesa create deception with.

A lot of comme to on EIA "complete" too

But EIA SUBMITTED doesnt necessarily mean it was compete. Especially since it was submitted at the very last second before the deadline. And it definitely doesnt mean Approved.

We all know how EMH manipulates stories facts and timelines. Dont be fooled!

The points are not questionable. The are questioning what the switch it, which has a quantifyiable value which is very important to the calculation, aside all the other metrics that are missing. You could have quantified it, but you didnt.

Jemesa pulls a bunch of random numbers out his hole, and somehow none of them take into consideration a comparison between current status of the mines, operating costs, construction costs or debt.

Incompetent or deceitful? Or both maybe?

Jemesa clearly hasn't watched any of KCs historical videos.

Hint hint. They are exactly the same. Same imminent milestones that have never appeared. Same macros, same EV sales, same distance maps. Whats actually changed from one year and one video to the next? Nothing!

Ooooh, offtakes soon.

Where have I heard that before???

Oh yeah, from the same man, every year for the last decade.

Anyone want to buy snake oil?

Jemesa, you’re taking a generic EBRD mandate and pretending it’s a guaranteed sequence for EMH. It isn’t.

Yes, the JUMP programme exists. It says EBRD can provide equity early and can provide debt later. It does not say they:

must transition to lender

must sell equity first

or follow a fixed “playbook”

There is no evidence in EMH disclosures that EBRD is:

acting as lender

mandated for financing

or involved in any debt structure

Dropping below 5% is only a disclosure threshold. It does not:

“clear the cap table”

enable block transfers

or hide a buyer

If EBRD was transferring a meaningful block to ČEZ, that would trigger market disclosures. There’s nothing.

Also:

EIA is not approved

FID is not taken

financing is not secured

Those aren’t minor boxes, they’re the core requirements for bankability.

Saying “the price would already be 40p if those were done” is irrelevant. That’s just acknowledging they’re not done yet.

The only confirmed facts are:

EBRD invested early → ✔️

DFS completed → ✔️

EBRD reduced stake → ✔️

Everything else you’re claiming (lender role, share transfers, ČEZ involvement) has zero supporting evidence.

You’re not describing a process, you’re filling in gaps with assumptions.

Just interrogated ChatGPT and it told me Jemesa is full of shight.

Jemesa, this is mostly made-up narrative dressed up as “logic”.

EBRD absolutely does care about returns. It’s not handing out free money, and it regularly sells down or exits investments. Saying it “doesn’t care about making money” is just wrong.

There is no €400m unlocked. No grant is secured. EIA isn’t even approved yet and FID hasn’t happened. Those are basic prerequisites, not optional extras.

Dropping below 5% is just a disclosure threshold. It does not:

“make way for banks”

trigger some magical “Stage 2”

or turn them into a lender

There is also zero evidence of any NDA, share bundling, or deal with ČEZ. That’s pure invention.

And the idea that EBRD always does “equity → sell → come back as lender” is not backed by real examples. In many cases they just reduce or exit. Full stop.

Projects don’t become “bankable” because someone wrote a forum post about it. They become bankable when:

EIA is approved

financing is secured

FID is taken

None of which has happened.

Stick to actual disclosures instead of filling in gaps with shight.

There’s no evidence supporting that interpretation.

EBRD reducing below 5% does not “make way” for commercial banks. There is no rule or requirement linking shareholding levels to project financing. Banks routinely finance projects where institutions still hold equity stakes.

EBRD’s investment in EMH (2023) was specifically for pre-development work and DFS-stage support, not construction financing. That phase is largely complete, which alone explains a partial sell-down.

EIA is not approved yet (only submitted), and FID has not been taken. Project financing is also not secured. Those are the actual prerequisites for bank-led construction finance.

EBRD does provide loans and guarantees in some projects, but there is no consistent, documented pattern of: “equity investment → sell down → return as lender to the same junior mining project.”

Performance rights are standard incentive structures and do not indicate EIA approval or FID is imminent.

So the facts are:

EBRD invested at early stage → ✔️ confirmed

EBRD reduced stake → ✔️ confirmed

EIA/FID/financing secured → ❌ not true

EBRD preparing to fund construction → ❌ no evidence

Anything beyond that is speculation, not fact.

The post probable direction for EBRD based on their historical, though rare stake in junior minors is that they are done. They are selling out and moving on.

One thing I agree on with Monster. DYOR and dont listen to Jemesa and Luckie. They are full of it, change what they say every day to suit themselves and spread misinformation.

I've dont the research Monster. Was just testing if you had.

EBRD has a niche history of investments in junior mining. Theres definitely no standard you can come onto this board with suggesting the things you and Jemesa are.

For the very few instances of junior minors, the most common path of EBRD is to take an equity stake until feasibility study, then sell down and exit. No history of selling down and then going for a big loan.

Defending Jemesa is a sure fired way of becoming a fool.

And how many minig projects has the EBRD participated in like this one where you can make these comparisons?

Any examples?

Lol.

Dont exist!