Member Info for testpack3

Cr4nky.

' Or at least some kind of update on progress or conditions for the permit to be granted'

Are you on the right board? Emmerson do not do 'updates', 'progress reports' or other information which would be useful for S/H.

One of the highlights for me is that even The Herd are unable to put a positive spin on this. Where's Westie.? Oh, dear, reality bites hard.

The debate now exemplifies the mess this BOD is in. Some are arguing over 'referral, appeal'. This is because the BOD have not made a clear statement, or at least one that is not liable to different interpretations. I'll say it again, it is most unlikely that ant higher authority than Local will override a local decision, for reasons already explained. An award with 'caveats' is meaningless. 'The EISA is awarded on the basis that a water requirements are sourced from non-dam supply and will not impact local water usage' . I believe that is called 'back to square one'.

Is there 'life' following a refusal after referral ? Obviously there is. There is a major source of Salt and Potash with $Bs of value. EML does not have the knowledge or expertise of how to overcome 'the water problem'. Obviously OCP has. You can all put yourselves in the shoes of OCP BOD and ask, 'what would I do'. I think the answer is fairly simple. A 25% premium on todays price is 3p ps. Another fund raise is an impossibility, and bankruptcy sp is 0.0p., and OCP pay a few million for the 'goodwill', which Graham would most likely pocket.

Ideas, 'The business can reapply with a different scheme or pivot and do something else - solar panels don’t use much water.'. I havn't got any positive words for this shambolic BOD, but I'm pretty sure it has examined a 'waterless operation' and it fails on many points.

GW62;

' Desal plants are not net generators of electricity. They are power hungry as are the pipelines to transport the water over what would be a large distance'

You also made a point stating EML would not want to build a Desal plant on top of mining land. On this point the minerals are extracted underground over a large area. There will be many 'top side' facilities and one more will cause no stress. This leads me to the first point. A Desal plant has to operate within the Laws of Thermodynamics. Of course it cannot produce more electricity than it consumes, However, a boiler Desal plant generates steam, from sea water say, and when the condensate is cooled the water is salt free. Before condensation, if the steam is passed through a turbine, it produces electricity. The steam is 'free' since that is the end product one requires, Potable water. The cost is the turbine.

Yes GW, transporting water over large distances is expensive. Why not build the Desal plant at the coast, then transport Potable water by pipeline to the mine, and pipe offshoots can direct this water to other areas. Who pays for all this? There is a good case for The Moroccan Govt to share a large burden if Potable water is directed to other needy areas. Like OCP is doing. Not rocket science is it.

I'm sure, with the financial metrics of the mine, that the Money Market will fund $millions for the mine project , to include water supply.

Woolves, With regard to ;

' a point blank refusal would seriously undermine inward investment into Morocco as it would be seen as not the place to invest by many mining companies.'

I believe 'many mining companies' would look at the, in this case, 'the water problem', and have a clear plan how to overcome this obstacle. Many months ago, I suggested an on site Desal plant with sea water pumped from coast, and since it generates steam, it can generate electricity. I did say that with a 20/30 yr mine life, costs are not critical, and plant would have a value when has exhausted minerals. I did not know at the time of OCP's commitment to a desal plant, but it's common sense when there is no local potable water, and unlikely to be for many years with GW.

Woolverstone. I do not think there can be any flack directed at National for an outright refusal, from any source. Environmental concern take precedence over a companies profit. Yes, jobs are not created, but peoples living conditions have not been compromised. I draw your attn. to a post of mine a week ago, in reply to a poster who stated there is a definitive 30 day timeline for a decision on the appeal.( referral) ???. There must be a mechanism for National to extend any timeline to give the Applicant time to modify, rectify their application. This is just common sense, which is in short supply in the EML Boardroom.

Anyone mailed Graham or Susie at EML and Investor Relations resp? If so, any reply received? To date, no reply to my mails, and unlikely now to receive one. I don't think Susie will take kindly if I send her a definition of IR., after all, it's only her job.

It appears from some previous posts that OCP either has, or is committed to a Desal Plant. Does anyone know where the brine is sourced. Is it sea water or ground water contaminated with the geological salt layer?

One of my 'cures' sometime ago was to use sea water, with a boiler Desal plant to produce potable water and use the electricity generated to power the mine and sell excess to the grid. the cheapest potable water from brine is Reverse Osmosis. For a mine with financial metrics of EML's proposal, with a min. of 20yrs life, the capital cost of an on site desal plant is affordable. EML must have proposed this solution. ????

Have posters mailed Graham, and received any reply? I have not had a reply, and have now mailed Susie, details below, for help.

Susie Geliher

Susie@stbridespartners.co.uk

Good post, again, Ideas.

It is of concern that the Panel 'must' declare a decision in the 30 day timeframe. Unless EML offer a workable solution to the water issue, then the Panel must declare a refusal. I would have thought any decision would have the ability to 'allow additional time' to resolve problems with the award. If the Panel were to grant the EISA, and the 'local infrastructure' was negatively impacted by the mining operation, then the onus would be on National to rectify the situation. Forced closing of the mine would inevitably lead to expensive Litigation. It really is a can of worms.

Aandii. Yr response to Hh77 tells us more about you than him/her.

You fail to understand a simple fact. One can own shares in a company, because of it's products, it's management, the size of it's market, or potential market, or because it is an OEM with prospects. One also has to understand that the MO for a BOD member, and in particular its CEO, on AIM, is to secure the financial well being of themselves and family. This is done through salary, pension payments, perks and voting for free shares. If the company is successful, that is a bonus. Most experienced S/H will always have a healthy amount of scepticism, and will not take at face value every statement on a RNS. Then there is you Aandii, a self confessed ramper, infecting the gullible with your nonsense posts on 'forecasts'. The research notes, more often than not, are using company supplied information, and highlighting 'pipeline of potential orders'. How dare you treat posters who have different opinions to yours, and are not gullible, with disdain. I can criticise you because I have facts on my side, and am not gullible, and have a healthy amount of scepticism about comments from people who I personally do not know. You are a compulsive obsessive with EQT and it is bad for your health. I used to have a large holding here, which now is considerably smaller. I believe in the technology, there is obviously a market, the problem for me has been managements failure in delivering the goods. So far my scepticism has proved right. Your optimism has proved wrong. Finally, having 11+ B shares in issue rules out 10p sp this Millenium. For clarification, people who bought at nearly 3p ps, thought 10p was a given. And, Aandii, I'm not bitter, just disappointed with this company. I'm doing very well on some other companies, and I expect failures with others. I could sell my remaining shares here, but it would not pay for a weekend in a decent hotel ( plus booze).

I think some posters are not looking at this objectively. EML has a Mining License. In order to mine it needs water. How much, the BOD are reluctant to say. lol. Water supply is part of the EISA. It does not matter that National awarded a ML, EML has to satisfy everyone concerned that its mine will not negatively impact the environment. We are painfully aware it has not been able to do this. I refer to previous posts as to why Regional has passed the decision to National. If National has an obligation to release EISA decision within 30 days, then what can have happened to ameliorate the thought process in that time scale. It must be an option for National to give EML a timescale to offer acceptable alternatives to the 'problem', or relinquish the Mining License. A timescale of 2 years would seem satisfactory for this BOD, although raising capital would be a bridge too far I believe. There can be no Court action by EML because it will have not provided a solution to environmental concerns, unless of course National are stupid enough to offer OCP the ML with EISA approval following this 'period' with no 'better' water solution.

I have no idea of Israeli Tax Laws, and if share BB qualifies for tax relief? I would doubt it. The 'Treasury' shares have no value on the 'books', but can always be re-introduced to the companies books by various means, devaluing S/H's. I cannot see any reason why BB shares are not cancelled, rather than placed in Treasury, except for re-introduction later.!

There is always an element of 'greed' at BOD level, then there is 'avarice.' The Market is yet to make its mind up.

Agreed Mickey, and only a 1.7% increase in SP. Disappointing.

This volume and number of trades can be considered a 'leaky' ship if August update is imminent, however, for a leak detection company, one would have hoped for a 'fix'. Had to be said. lol

I mailed him last week, polite wording, requesting clarification on who got National involved in water issue, Regional or EML?.

I also mentioned S/H dissatisfaction with comms from EML. Received no reply. Have others mailed him?, and any response?

Aandi. Commendable. Believed your own BS.

Another waste of time to look at your totally meaningless link. FFS Aandi, Research notes, from Brokers or others, are not worth the paper they are printed on, I thought that would have twigged with you by now.

BTW I was in AXS a few years ago at 26p. No need to read research notes. Good technical product, with a huge market, and proven to 'do what it says on tin'. Very simple Aandi. Try using your own brain, instead of relying on others to do your thinking for you. It might save you money. Sorry, It would have saved you money.

Some posters are now saying that Regional did not have the authority to approve since water is such a national issue. If that is the case, then the whole BOD should resign en masse for dealing several years with an entity with no clout. I am confident that regional had the clout, but have 'passed the buck' upwards, in case of repercussions if the mine water supply impacts local considerations, and there is lots of flack flying around. Contrary to some posters beliefs, I cannot see an imminent fix here. Dorothy, no need to 'buckle up'.

Good info. GW62, and reinforces my suggestion that Local did not want to commit to the EISA in case the mine caused harm in the local environment, and so has passed the buck to National. The project is clearly needed on an employment basis, but OCP may have a different opinion. If my opine is correct, then National will be between a rock and a hard place, since granting the EISA, and if the wheels fall of, local will give the grief, and the bill, to National. We may have to wait a long time for water issues to be resolved, either by natural causes, or by man made engineering.

For all of the posters who stated that awarding EISA was a 'gimme', I trust this has been a wake up call.

I have no worries owning Plus, unlike a few of my other shares.lol

A re-rate will happen when the BOD desist from the BB programme and pay a divi which reflects the companies profit.

Savaloy. you were obviously not invested here when Plus was trading at £2+. I'm happy to say I was, and £2 to £19 is a re-rate in anyone's book.

After viewing his video, I am surprised II's have not called for an EGM to oust him. As has previously been mentioned, he is a liar, and therefore anything he says has to be dismissed. His comment that he knew the EISA would be 'referred' is a lie, and laughable. The RNS clearly stated that Regional was unable to approve the application, and that Emmerson had exercised it's right to refer to National. Not Regional had referred. Ho looked very uncomfortable. I will have to pull back from my 15p target if/when EISA approved, since with approval, this clown will not get this project through to fruition. The market is still selling following his interview, and paltry share buys.

For those unaware, his mail address is;

Graham.Clarke @ emmersonplc.com

I have no idea how the MC can decrease. It was trading at above £19 a few months ago, and since then the no. of shares in issue has reduced by a few %age points through share BB.. The shares being bought are from the open market, and hence, should appear in the daily reported buy/sells. This, in theory, should not affect the sp since the buys have an obvious equivilent sell. The fundamentals of the company, if anything, have got better. Logic says we should be trading at £20+ and a PE of c7/8, rather than the present PE of 4.5.. 80m shares in issue cannot be too many for a company with this T/O?. When/if the BOD drops this BB, and pays out 60% of EBITDA to S/H through divis, the re-rate will be phenomenal. Please bring it on.

I receive voting notices with IG. Nominee A/c customers have to request info. on other notices and will normally be sent a link.

Deadly silence.