Member Info for Catbert

Promoting the Indaba event Cozmo posted the following;

"In capital-intensive projects partnership quality is as important as asset quality. The value is not abstract: credible partners with aligned goals shorten timelines, improve access to capability & financing and enhance project resilience. Looking forward to Investing in African Mining Indaba."

At a guess he'd know which potential strategics have their hats in the ring.

As for "looking forward to investing in African Mining" we're in already.

GLA/DYOR

The real value will be clearer once they release the new project economics in February.

The current working total for NPV is $7.3 Bn.

This could quite easily be north of $11 Bn by February with a combination of process options / cost savings resulting from our project optimization and packaging work streams set out in March 2025. .

Following technical validation of these work streams and in order to open and advance a binding process agreement with a strategic we'd also have to have all of our project economics validated to a decent level of accuracy (possibly a job that our new finance guy is working on now).

If we have to have our project economics nailed down and agreed by a strategic by default we'd also be agreeing the NPV with that strategic.

So far we have worked through all of the technical elements of optimizing and packaging Zanaga now we are in the final throes of nailing down the financial details. Probably something our new finance guy is working on before we announce the new project economics for Zanaga at Indaba on February 10th.

Our presentation document of March 2025 uses Kami as the benchmark on NPV % valuation.

There seems no reason to change this expectation. There were a raft of Industry luminaries with their mugshots on that March 2025 document.

I am reading that as their tacit agreement to and co signing of this valuation approach.

Hopefully the posters here who think they are wrong will make them aware of their folly.

I'm looking forward to February. This project is way better than Kami and everyone knows it. Let's not f about.

That's my favourite candidate for GIS too extrader.

I don't think it's too much of an issue that they have no publicaly stated Iron Ore ambitions.

They did buy a share in Vale afterall and it was Cutifani with whom they did the deal. So there is the actions speak louder than words argument.

Then there was Greymonts insistance that GIS was tied in early as you noted in your previous post. So we must assume a pre existing Greymont connection with GIS which there was via this transaction between Vale and Manara.

Secondly, Manara is the foreign investment vehicle of the Saudi structure. Maadan which owns 51% of Manara (PIF owns the other 49%) does have stated Iron ore intentions. It might be an implied interest rather than a directly stated one from Manara but their majority shareholder has very clearly articulated Iron ore ambitions.

We could both be most incredibly wrong or GIS may be a GCC++ coalition built around Manara.

This speculation is rather fantastical and it may prompt some detractors, however it is nonetheless feasible.

It would also be a very positive and significant news item were GIS to be revealed as Manara or Manara ++.

The two appointments made are more signalling IMHO. You don't need someone whose expertise is investor management for large mining and logistics projects and someone who is a financial controller on the team unless you have some money to manage or shortly expect to recieve some funds.

GLA/ DYOR

This is congruent with the appointments of what is effectively a financial controller and an investment manager cum high level mining dev ops specialist (they've called a strategy director).

Presumably he's there to manage investor relations and delivery and the other guy is there to do financial control and to do financial control you need a reason to be spending money otherwise there's nothing much to control.

Looks like we are investor ready.

The Zanaga project would give Rio lifetime free cash flows of >25Bn depending on the various different ramp up scenarios as a minimum according to my AI - which I think is an significant underestimation.

This is a very conservative number and indeed our model shows $3950m p.a. EBITDA at $180/ t per annum which would now be over £4Bn /pa with the enhancements x life of mine x expansion. Lifetime earnings in excess of $100Bn in other words.

I know I have mixed up FCF and EBITDA here the latter figure also includes the cost of taxes interest depreciation and amortisation and doesn't look at the capital element but an asset spewing out $4bn in EDITDA easily washes it's own face in the RIO accounts.

Given that the lifetime earnings could be three times this if the resource is expanded makes this into a project which could transform it's buyer (certainly not one for a bloke who wants to mow lawns and clip hedges).

These cash flows are based on the currently defined resource which could easily be three times larger. Cascabel is $10-15Bn on lifetime FCF according to my AI so it is a fair margin smaller and it also has some debt in there too and BHP seems keen to sell citing issues with actually building the thing. TBH I think the comparison is tenous and prefer the Kami model used in the March presentation.

Share price is neither here nor there in determining sale value of Zanaga if your holders are patient and wish to hold until they obtain a fair value- although once a strategic is announced I'd expect some aggressive rerating to commence.

We simply wont sell if there is a less than fair value offer.

My guess is that based on Rio's now stricter capital allocation policy under Trott that they could easily make an all share offer to Zanaga holders stand up particularly as Zanaga could prove to be a multi generational asset.

It is also a strategic asset with large upscale potential on resource and with a lower quartile operating cost base in one of the highest growth segments of the iron ore business. They can get it without the need to burn cash (excepting the dividends payable on the shares they would need to issue to buy it).

For all the complexity of a deal like this it is an easy call on the basis of capital allocation.

Page 23 of the March 2025 report Beardozer. We should be well north of your number on that basis already.

IMHO we're worth more than a 0.3 x NAV valuation of the Kami comparison example because of scale, operating cost and resource optionality.

Even accounting for percieved jurisdictional risk.

Seabourne 68% is currently some way between the two upper prices modeled in the report i.e. between $130-180/t.

Give it three years inflation and we could be modelling the upper number as our worst case.

GLA/DYOR.

Dates to add to the list Extrader (possibly).

Future minerals forum Cutifani attends. 14-16 Feb.

CB elections 17th and 22nd March (security forces vote followed by civilian vote).

Only one candidate has declared so far.

Interesting article https://lansinginstitute.org/2025/12/12/elections-without-choice-power-ethnicity-and-foreign-influence-in-congo-brazzaville/

Possibly add Aramco to your list extrader as they have partnership with Baowu / PIF also possibly Orion too as a potential offtaker / royalty partner?

Hopefully Cutifani is batting for us. Good news if he is. It looks like a very high level event.

GLA / DYOR

If the PIs get rogered then so do the likes of Elphick so I can't see it happening plus it woud look bad on Greymont and the strategic so there's no need for it. The worst outcome is if the BOD sell out for a low ball offer. This is possible but not likley.

If we get multiple bidders and the revaluation of the asset is accepted this is very unlikley. A dilutionary raise prior to announcing the strategic is very unlikely but possible if the strategic process fails.

I think that the strategic pays for the FEED but IMHO a lot of the FEED has been done in a modular fashion already - so it's a reworking not an entire FEED from scratch.

If we hold to build then we'll get diluted down by a very large % assuming the strategic funds it all/ if we sell pre build we'll probably have to negotiate hard.

It all depends on the deal- for example if we can get royalty type funding as per Kore we might be able to hold onto a decent read through on the project same applies if we can get development bank funding as per Kefi style deal.

Currently small PIs are aligned with the large long term holders. What's good for them is good for us.

A lot is riding on what strategy the Board sets for the project from here on in. February should be interesting.

I have grilled my AI on the subject of a possible drive to hold the share price in place -the AI is not convinced of any such notion. I asked the AI to ignore all commentary on here and ADVFN in answering the question, but to also consider the "A" trading and the absence of PR accompanying the RNS from yesterday in formulating it's answer.

The AI wasn't convinced of the price manipulation idea or indeed that the selling was anything unusually worrisome.

Besides citing the illegality of such a gambit the AI suggested there is a perfectly sensible rationale that a large holder might wish to divest a few into the strength created by the news, furthermore we are a thinly traded asset and the next inflection point is a somewhat all or nothing stage.

AI sugegsted that some may take the view that we still have a long way to go even from here and that capital could possibly be tied up for a few years.

On the rather conspicuous absence of a PR drive to bolster the share price after the postive news and my wondering if this was part of the share price rigging theory. Again the AI argued not suggesting instead that yesterday's RNS was merely a waypoint on a more significant chain of developments and that a wiser course of action for the BOD would be to avoid spiking the price too early in the piece.

The idea being that the bigger end point in this chain of events is the announcement of the strategic.

So yes someone is selling. However some are buying too.

Who was selling? We don't know -possibly Shard had remaining inventory, we don't know, however if they did still hold a few million now would be the time to divest as we approach a stage where we either do or do not sign the long awaited strategic.

Hopefully the former but if we invert the outcome and assume not then the price will take a hit for sure. So selling at this stage whilst baffling to many LTHs could be a rational act by some- depending on their own unique circumstances (entry point / risk attitude/ other circumstances/ size of holding etc).

Most posters here, myself included, seem to be of the opinion that this event will mark the launching point of the long awaited rerate.

I'm pretty happy with this AI derived explanation as I was wondering where all the PR was and thinking it odd that we didn't have any. Actually yesterday was good news although not reflected in the price - however we are not far from potentially transformational news.

GLA/ DYOR

Good point Driving. One positive though. At least it's a bigger pie in the sky than the previous one.

Hopefully at some point we be able to hold a rise for longer tham Nora Batty's husband.

Jiving I would agree with your point about a strategic agreeing a full financial committment in advance of the election.

However..... there's a case where announcing the strategic in advance of the election is quite a likely scenario. Possibly even the most likley scenario given the potential positive impact of an announcement like this on the Nguesso ticket.

An announcement of this sort offers the promise of jobs, roads, power and incoming investment - plus the foreign earnings capacity.

All attributable to both Snr and Jnr (given that no other ministers are permitted to travel overseas without explicit presidential authority).

Secondly such an announcement would still give the strategic the scope to withdraw if a regime hostile to the project were to supplant the Nguesso ticket.

The idea of there being a political / economic quid pro quo strikes me as quite likely.

Imagine a scenario where the strategic is announced and then there is a coup against Nguesso - would the people of CB want to lose the project or for there to be significant delays?

The country doesn't have such huge financial resources that any regime Nguesso or otherwise can or would willing jeapordise such an opportunity.

There remains an element of political risk from the election of course and more so from the presidents age however the Nguesso clan retains control of the military and any opposition would need to overturn this in order to sieze power.

Furthermore power brokers such as China and indeed most other states with diplomatic relations would also be best served by the incumbent regime if for no other reason than the fact that continuity offers a greater degree of certainty.

Presently there appears to be little if any support for a regime change outside of the rather divided political opposition in country.

Add to this the fact that the regime hasn't agitated against the project and this despite an outward appearance (probably false) that little progress has been made.

One imagines that firstly the regime is fully aligned and secondly that the project will add significant kudos to the Nguesso regime and it's achievements in the crucial weeks running up to the election.

We'll find out if I'm right or not fairly quickly. But if I were Nguesso I'd be peeved if the announcement wasn't made in the run up to the vote.

Indeed Nguesso and his polictical party are one of the key enablers of the project and any kudos attached to its realisation is rightfully theirs.

Thinking back to the newspaper article which sent the shareprice flying and the subsequent tiddling on our strawberries RNS issued by the BOD to shut this down- it may not be a bad assumption to assume that any strategic might view share price spikes as a proxy for a leak.

Our BOD needs to manage the strategic and perhaps this is part of the process. I'm happy for them to do so.

Thus a process to manage volatility might be a wise precaution- a few million shares at a generous offer to dampen things down backed by some "A" trades should do the trick especially for a little known and thinly traded stock like this.

If the market makers were nervous we'd see a big spread and yet the current spread is thin by usual standards.

My guess is that the rerate has two steps;

Step one is to prove that the asset is no longer stranded. Step two is to show that this no longer stranded assest has a serious player ready to fund it.

Step one might see some more adventurous sorts such as ourselves pay heed and buy in.

Step two is when the herd arrives and we can content ourselves by posting rocket emojis, sharing wine tips and enjoying the general bonhomie.

We've waited long enough.

GLA DYOR

Good points Cyril.

My guess is that the MRE is going to represent a complete reset for Landore and getting the battery metals deposits nailed down will be a part of this.

Another couple of weeks is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things.

I'm also harbouring a concern that the insiders know they have a seller (active for some while (I suspect it's Rick Rule who is on record as stating that he's reduced his gold exploration exposure by 80% although I have no evidence of this applying to any holding he has in Landore) whomever the seller is they would probably exploit any situation they can and a delayed release of an MRE without a suspension would be just the ideal exploitable situation for this type of investor to play the cad.

Secondly any Canadian holders might be looking to sell pre 31st December as they can off set tax losses against gains there which creates an unusual end of year market distortion as Canadian stock holders typically trade the end of the year to mitigate any tax issues thye may have. The suspension therefore could serve a dual purposes in addition to the issue of preventing anyone taking advantage of leaked information.

Consequently the suspension may serve several useful purposes all of which are beneficial to holders even though suspensions themselves can also indicate problems.

I remain optimistic. The language of crystallising value is hopeful.

GLA DYOR and Happy New Year to all holders.

I'm not sure what has happened to Kefi's comms but I would suggest that an urgent RNS is required given the video statement made over the weekend by a person who says he has comepeted the finance for TK and that he's also bought £1m of Kefi shares.

I'm not sure what if any rules this guy plays by but at as a guess he makes his own.

Let's suppose that eveything he says is true. In this case he has bought the share using inside information and is now pumping them whilst disclosing what should be confidential information. This is the sort of information which should be notified to the market by Kefi through the RNS system and in an orderly way.

Sure it's great new if what he says is true and that TK is now fully signed off on finance however what I would prefer/ like is that Kefi themselves get ahead of the news and publish with immediate effect an updated RNS either confirming or denying the statements made over the weekend.

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKDi6ym3Ny0&list=RDhKDi6ym3Ny0&start_radio=1

Hi NicetoMichu,

Here's what my AI says in answer to your question.

So is withholding the MRE “permitted”?

A short, justified delay in publishing the MRE, combined with a temporary suspension pending its release, is clearly within the AIM framework and is exactly what Landore has done.​

Using the MRE in confidential corporate‑transaction discussions under NDA while it remains inside information is also contemplated by MAR, provided the company maintains proper controls and plans for eventual disclosure.​

What would not be permissible is an indefinite or strategically prolonged suppression of a price‑sensitive MRE purely to facilitate a transaction at a misinformed market price, or any delay that is likely to mislead the market; that would risk breach of AIM Rule 11 and MAR (Market Abuse Regulations) and expose the company and directors to regulatory sanction.​

In practice, AIM Regulation and the company’s NOMAD will expect Landore either to:

publish the updated MRE in the near term and return the shares to trading, or

couple the MRE disclosure with any firm transaction announcement, so that shareholders are not kept in the dark about a clearly price‑sensitive resource update while a deal is executed.

If it's the latter that would be hugely positive news indeed.

Who are these new holders announcing a stake in Kore?

Group-wide, assets under administration for Utmost Group PLC increased further to “over £100bn” with 465,000 customers as at 30 June 2025, reflecting its enlarged footprint across 13 locations worldwide. For 2024, Utmost reported operating profit of about £190 million with a net Solvency II embedded value of around £2.4 billion.

It's encouraging to see an investor of this calibre building a stake at this point in time. Certainly a "smarter than the average bear" type.

They must like what they see.

I'm not going to be able to attend the AGM this Friday although I would like to.

Is anyone on here going as I'm sure we all have a bunch of questions we'd like answering (not that the likes of AT are terribly keen on answering questions and in all probability we'll get answers which are a mix of contempt and obfuscation as we did back in March - especially if the GIS ID subject or similar comes up).

Nonetheless we still need to put a flame to the various feet to see what we do get (even if it is more contempt and obfuscation).

The BOD has done a remarkable job of avoiding almost all of the commitments they made in March.

Behind the scenes it may be different but investor comms have been opaque and infrequent this year and the sole notable achievement since March has been the lab tests. I'm sure most here had far greater expectations particulary given the plan set out in which a number of deliverables were set for q2 and q3 and all of which have now been shunted into a fast expiring q4.

Is anyone going?

My guess is that the gold in the Gabbro is the major theme in the next MRE.

Geologically, the Grassy Pond Sill (Gabbro) is a thick (100–500 m) intrusive, but the gold is confined to tabular zones within and adjacent to it, not the whole thickness; company and government descriptions emphasise that mineralisation is closely tied to shearing, alteration and sulphides, implying that large volumes of relatively unaltered gabbro are only weakly anomalous or barren.​

A reasonable working inference from the reported channels, trenches and re‑sampled core is that, along the mineralised corridor, perhaps something like 10–30% of the gabbro thickness in the key structural panels shows consistent anomalous to ore‑grade gold, with the remainder acting more as host/engineering rock than as economic mineralisation at current cut‑offs.

The interesting point to note however is that because the mineralised part of the sill is laterally continuous for kilometres along the shear, even a relatively small fraction of the total gabbro being gold‑bearing can still translate into substantial tonnage and ounces once modelled into tabular zones.

Some AI estimates follow;

Low case: 10 Mt at 0.9 g/t → ~290 koz contained Au.

Base case: 15 Mt at 1.0–1.1 g/t → ~480–530 koz contained Au.

High case: 20 Mt at 1.0–1.2 g/t → ~640–770 koz contained Au.

This is just within and around the BAM resource and is based on assumptions which exclude any modelling for higher graded intercepts or for an extended pitshell to Felix and Carrot Top which may not have had enough drilling to validate a resource but which nonetheless had good ground test indications of gold and significant drilling into the Gabbroic units which were historically untested for gold as the old view was that gold was only hosted in the metasedimentary units.

In theory we mght have an MRE which is something of a quantum leap in size but which also delineates a series of high value drill targets which could add significantly to the prospect both in terms of tonnage but also in terms of the scale of viable pitshell designs.