Member Info for 99icecream

Don't be concerned about the apparent fall in price, the real price for reasonable size is about 4p to sell and 4.15p to buy (basically unchanged from yesterday).

The price is stuck here for the present due to the overhang from the last placing (6th Nov). The shares were sold for 4p with warrants and I guess some of the buyers are happy to sell shares at 4p and keep the "free" warrants.

FWIW - IMHO few seem to appreciate the huge value here.

" No idea why it went horribly wrong though..." - In my view the simplest explanation is usually the best. All we know is that someone sold aggressively at the top, we don't know if they had bought early (and made large profits) or later (and made a substantial loss). However, their actions caused an over-reaction after the peak.

Not the first time this has happened, from memory its was (briefly) over 20p in 2018.

Regardless, I'm not buying or selling until the deal is done.

Hmm - That's not supposed to happen now as the investment banks systems are supposed to prevent dealers exceeding their authority. Last time I heard of something similar was in the 2000's, the guy got 3 years.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/city-watchdog-bans-rogue-trader-who-lost-lcs-163-2-7m-1980016.html

I thought most investors had read the RNS correctly and that was why we had the +50% price rise. No idea why it went horribly wrong though.

This isn't a new idea. See the following from 2018:-

https://www.liquidafrica.com/haldor-topsoe-to-help-build-2-5-billion-congo-fertilizer-plant/

If you have Potash, Phosphates and Ammonia, you can produce a premium (NPK) fertilizer product. With Congo having the necessary elements to produce this, its an obvious idea for the SEZ.

I suspect that this is also behind the promise of investment by Patrice Motsepe in the Hinda phosphate project.

https://breakingnewsbilingue.com/patrice-motsepe-plans-360b-cfa-franc-investment-in-congo-phosphate-mining-by-2025/

It worth considering that the US$2.2 Billion valuation, (which is likely to be the valuation basis under the ICSID), is actually a low number when you consider what would have been the case in 4 or 5 years time if the ESIA had been awarded.

The RNS 1st Feb 2024 (which gives the $2.2 Billion NPV8) also states that the Annual EBITDA is estimated to be US$440 million (when the mine is producing). A valuation of 8 to 10 times EBITDA ($3.52 Billion to $4.4) would be a reasonable assumption.

IMHO if Morocco do want Khemessit, for themselves, then its logical that they would agree a settlement soon. The ICISD process could take 4 or 5 years, during which time OCP will not be able to mine EML's or its own site as to do so would add significant weight to EML's case. Also, Morocco does not need to find the compensation as OCP is very cash generative and could easily borrow against Khemessit to fund the settlement .

Salt, that's a new one. With about 5 x 10^16 Tonnes of salt in the oceans, that is about 12.5 million kilos of salt in the ocean for every kilo added per year.

The litigation funders know that their deal not just consists of the funds but also is only forthcoming if the claim is seen as valid and there is a high probability of success. The funding agreement therefore gives credibility to the claim. Deals can be done at any point and the funding contract will cover the different situations in which a deal is agreed before or after funds are drawn down or after the arbitration is concluded.

The answer may be in the WSJ article, I don't know if the "Terrain" is geography or political.

Fortescue’s Africa Iron Ore Ambitions Challenged by Gnarly Terrain

The company is in the final stage of legally ratifying an agreement signed with Gabon’s previous government

https://www.wsj.com/business/fortescues-africa-iron-ore-ambitions-challenged-by-gnarly-terrain-fd76373d

Given they came up with the KMP under Graham Clarke (which has added over 50% to NPV), I can't share your view.

One of the early steps is to appoint a Quantum Expert to independently calculate the size of the claim.

JazzyGeoff - Please ignore previous, I have my notes mixed.

The Claim by GreenX vs. Poland was funded on a multiple of costs basis with LCM (Litigation Capital Management) advancing US$12.3 million and due to get 6x (ie. US$73.8 million) on a successful outcome (taking between 2 and 5 years).

So the costs here do not depend upon the size of the award (but they obviously won't take a case that would not justify their fees).

JazzyGeoff - FWIW - The ICSID Claim by Rockhopper vs. Italy was funded on a multiple of costs basis with LCM (Litigation Capital Management) advancing A$16 million and due to get 5x (ie. A$80 million) on a successful outcome (taking between 2 and 5 years).

So the costs here do not depend upon the size of the award (but they obviously won't take a case that would not justify their fees).

SD67 - "This really does have the feel of a share about to take off."

Just the same as last year, when it reached 10.25p on 28/12.

I don't subscribe to this idea that games are played in such an illiquid stock, or the MM manipulate the price. There too much risk and too little reward for it to make any sense.

IMHO the price is being moved by buying and selling in Johannesburg, where there are few trades, but larger trades (on average) than we get in London or Australia. Possibly there is a perception that investors in Johannesburg know more than others about what's happening as they are closer to the action (e.g. Summit Group).

IMHO noting will happen on the financing front until the new year, no doubt there are discussions / presentations to those interested in royalty or streaming (off-take) deals so that they are prepared for the new year.

RIDER75 - Here's a question for you.

Suppose after a period GreenX gets it arbitration award for Jan Karski. What will be its attitude to its assets in Poland ? Will it look to sell them to Bogdanka or JSW or Poland. GreenX might not be keen to develop the assets given the history.

Given the above, how will Donald Tusk get the best result for Poland, getting the assets it clearly wants ?

RIDER75 - Just a matter of time until this is resolved. The best bit of news is given in your post of 11/11/24 @ 9:55.

It quotes Prime Minister Donald Tusk (who must have the benefit of speaking with Poland's legal advisers) saying that the case is obviously lost:

"The case is rather hopeless, because a lost arbitration is a lost arbitration........"

and

".........it was rather obvious they would win this arbitration."

And of the annulment request he said :-

"....Poland now have to pay...... If we don't find a legal solution - which I think has very little probability to set aside the award in this arbitration..."

So, Tusk is prepared to pay, what is a significant but not a large sum (and is more concerned with apportioning blame).

Back on the other site, with posts before 13/12/24 erased.

It is unclear what "Resource Development" means in this context. It might mean doing more of the processing in Congo, and exporting higher value items. e.g. Furniture rather than Timber, Iron Ore Pellets rather than Pellet Feed, Blended NPK Fertilizers rather than Potash and Phosphates. Basically, the SEZ is there to promote more employment and more value added in Congo.