Member Info for 99icecream

Why would Align / Catalyse / Richard Jennings ramp this stock in December 2024 (when the stock price was 1p), if they wanted to buy it ? - Their Analyst (Dr Green) now has a TP of 9.44p (Optimo Capital, 6 January 2025 Research).

"...the financiers in the Summit Consortium are targeting to deliver a non-binding financing term sheet by 31 March 2025.."

I don't think that means funding will happen 31 March 2025 - just the term sheet will be provided.

What is not at issue is that the government can apply reasonable conditions as part of the ESIA, so for example an oil rig might not be allowed to flare gas or discard waste water etc. So, the ESIA can demand best practice is carried out, which in the case of EML and its water use and its treatment of waste is what has been offered.

It depends what the BIT has to say about environmental considerations. Most of the older ones have nothing to say on the matter, and even if both parties to the treaty agree to a new version, an investment is governed by the treaty that is in effect at the time of the investment. Hence the have been many instances where a government will want to cancel a deal (particularly in the oil sector) on environmental grounds, but find that if they do so they must pay compensation (such as Rockhopper vs. Italy).

https://direct.mit.edu/glep/article/24/4/10/124271/The-Rise-of-Sustainability-Provisions-in

Testpack3 - FWIW

EML stating that they were misled, is not relevant to the case, but was meant to explain to EML shareholders why EML waited so long before going to ICSID Arbitration. The case rests entirely on if Morocco ask unfairly regarding the BIT.

Morocco could have refused the ESIA, but they would still be liable to pay damages after ICSID Arbitration. So this is not relevant. It is clear that EML did more than might be expected to minimise water use. Ironically this will increase the size of the claim.

Have a look at the Rockhopper case vs. Italy. Rockhopper had exploration rights (for oil) off the coast of Italy. They were refused a production licence as a later Italian government decided it did not want Oil drilling within 12 miles of the coast. Arbitration decided that they must pay compensation to Rockhopper, regardless of the reason.

Spreadax increased their voting rights to over 5%, this was due to an increase in their holdings of financial instruments

Thorpe1 - I can't imagine that your are really suggesting that you have spotted some flaw in Emmerson's case that has not been considered and rejected by Boies Schiller Flexner LLP. These guys know what they are doing. In addition the litigation funding firm will have looked at the case in detail before agreeing to fund it, do you think they would risk $11 million otherwise?

So, from the prospectus 30 Mar 2020, "A Mining Licence is Issued where mining is justified, through a full Feasibility Study with Environmental Impact Assessment...."

We know that BRES has one Mining Licence Granted 20 June 2019 (until 19 June 2040) over an area of 20.97 square KM.

It would seem that its this

I cant find any specifics with regards to any limits in the Mining Licence.

So it would seem that its this Environmental Impact Assessment that has been updated consistent with BRES plans and updated standards for these things.

No doubt a good thing that another box is ticked on the journey to actual mining, but I doubt it contains any change in the current plans for production, which will ultimately depend on demand for the products and the availability of funding.

Extrader

So why pay $4.6 Billion for Zanaga (100% of NPV) but only $0.5 Billion for Kami (30% of NPV) ?

The short answer is NPV is not the only thing you care about, you also care about the return, Kami is worth only a fraction of its NPV because the return is poor.

For Zanaga you pay $4.6 for the project and spend $2.2 for cap ex. Total Investment $6.8 and get back $9.1 Billion in Value (9.1/6.8 = 1.34 x your investment)

For Kami you pay $0.5 for the project and spend $2.9 for cap ex. Total Investment $3.4 and get back $4.59 Billion in Value (4.59/3.4 = 1.35 x your investment)

NewKOTB - FWIW - I think its $4 Billion to $9.7 billion uplift. Some of the items e.g. the $700 million saving on pipe and the $2 Billion saving utilising Dry Tailings might be have a higher probability of being delivered at this point.

We have:

1. Up to U$6.0 Billion - DRI

2. Up to U$1.0 Billion - Pellet Plant

3. Up to U$ 0.7 Billion - Pipe

4. Up to U$ 2.0 Billion - Dry Tailings

Extrader - I took the $4 Billion to mean that at this point (before the extra DRI test work) they are confident that at least $4 Billion of NPV enhancement can be delivered.

We know that the Zanaga ore is not all the same. There is Hematite and also Magnetite. The Hematite consists of some DSO and other ore that requires Benefaction.

So its not 0% or 100% DRI but maybe somewhere in between.

I chose ELP as a Supergroup famed for being named after its members !

The resource is about 6,900 Tonnes at circa 32% Iron Ore = about 3,200 Tonnes @ 68% after benefaction. Even if you get eventually to 90 Million Tonnes p.a. Zanaga would last over 40 years.

The investors here are too preoccupied looking in the rear view mirror (at Glencore's exit at 4.1p/share) too realise how good Zanaga has become and how close to becoming seriously valuable.

The new investors (a team of friends / associates of Andrew Trahar and Clifford Elphick) are a kind of Supergroup of the Iron Ore world. Not ELP, but DTC!

DTC = Davis, Trahar and Cutifani

The base case for the NPV is $6.9 Billion, but could be as high as $15.6 Billion if they can make some cost saving changes and get the Iron Ore to DRI standard.

There's no mention of the EPP, and the new plan assumes the pipeline will be built initially at 30 Mtpa capacity (saving $700million), making stage 2 of the build almost inevitable.

Someone was determined to sell 3 million shares at a time when when the market prices price for 30k shares (NMS) was

bid 3.70 - ask 4.00. That trade was the cause of the falling share price throughout the afternoon.

FWIW - I don't have a problem with the mention of other ICSID type actions. For the time being, its the only thing that is happening or is relevant here.

BTW - As you may recall from the most recent prospectus (RNS 26 Nov 2024) the DFC was behind the substantial expansion of the current drilling program to drill in the new sites (Northern Syncline West and GTA01a). This added approx 180 new drills to the original program of 40 (infill) drills.

"The Company had originally budgeted $10m to complete the DFS, however, following recent consultation with

the DFC the Company will now pursue a larger mining operation thus requiring additional drilling to build further

inventory of mineral resources (“Expanded DFS”)."

My point is that the generous DFC funding would come with strings attached, (i.e. that the bulk of the product would go to the USA). Only now can they secure off-take deals with the US.

It is just the opposite of a new issue. The shares have been purchased by the company and will be cancelled.

This is the old way of doing things. Usually when a firm buys back its shares they are "held in Treasury" and can be resold at a later date.

Its only 6 weeks since test results became available (RNS 30 January 2025).

"Testing confirmed the exceptional purity of Orom-Cross graphite ............. composite anodes produced with Orom-Cross graphite achieved .................... one of the highest loadings ever recorded in the battery industry, thus reinforcing its strategic importance in advanced battery applications."

Far too soon to be concerned about off-takes. I remain very optimistic.