I don't have any answers to that unfortunately, what is worse is that I do not know how many answers the rest of the shareholders do have either. As far as I am aware the 49% of the project ownership has paid for the lavish existence of BOD for the past 4 years as well as questionable study work that is now being reworked.
@Khao whilst the scenario of the negative NPV and/or non favourable economics is on the table, I do not think that it is the case. Both EU published guidance and JTF minutes both communicated that the preliminary economics for the project were strong and are being further improved upon with recent site relocation decision. Both documents were posted here and I have highlighted the section about the favourable economics.
I do think that at this stage anything is possible, if CEZ are playing by the 'rule book' of materially undervaluing the asset/project to then buy it for scraps from a bleeding-out minority partner (fully knowing that they (CEZ) will develop the project post purchase, and maintain a 2nd set of books that they use internally for approvals with the government), we (EMH shareholders) would then be in deep trouble.
Asset valuation is a subjective territory, as is the NPV and project economics, if one of the parties (CEZ) that is the approver of the study development is not agreeing with the study outcomes (DFS) and pushes for extra conservative assumptions, weightings and modelling then again EMH and its shareholders will be in trouble. Who knows maybe all this noise and delays around DFS development is being caused by CEZ not accepting rounds and rounds and rounds of DFS(s) that are presented and not approved for circulation? WHo knows, we are really clutching at the straws for information here.
Occam's Razor principle application to block out the noise and conspiracies would likely point us to the obvious:
DFS is delayed due to local municipality unrest, DFS will be delivered in FY26, CEZ is positioning themselves for a takeover in the meantime.
Point is though, EMH is not communicating anything to the market which just keeps everyone guessing.
I do not buy into the "EMH is not able to communicate out to the market because CEZ does not endorse it", simply because Geomet is the owner of the Cinovec Project (51% CEZ, 49% EMH), and it is not Geomet that has any responsibility for announcements to its shareholders, that is the legal role of EMH, to inform its shareholders of the progress and activities, CEZ has no say, these are non-negotiable responsibilities of a publicly listed company in accordance with compliance requirements. EMH should do better and improve its transparency practices, even if there are some skeletons in the closets, we the shareholders deserve to know.
(20min delay)