Member Info for extrader

Seb posts

hxxps://www.ambito.com/economia/el-gobierno-habilito-prestamos-us5000-millones-jurisdiccion-tribunales-nueva-york-n6291302

The Government allowed debt issuance of up to $5 billion under the jurisdiction of New York courts

Through a decree published in the Official Gazette, the Executive Branch authorized financing operations with international financial institutions backed by multilateral credit organizations. The measure includes the extension of jurisdiction to U.S. courts for potential litigation.

According to the regulation, the goal of the measure is to reduce the financing cost for the National Treasury.

The Government authorized financing operations of up to $5 billion with international financial institutions and allowed for contracts to include the extension of jurisdiction in favor of state and federal courts in New York City, United States. The decision was formalized through Decree 478/2026, published this Friday in the Official Gazette and signed by President Javier Milei, Chief of Staff Manuel Adorni, and Minister of Economy Luis Caputo.

AI comment : The decree shows Argentina is preparing to re‑enter markets without settling the YPF case

This is politically important:

It signals that the government believes it can raise external financing even with the YPF judgment outstanding — because multilateral guarantees insulate lenders from sovereign litigation risk.

Ho hum

The original advised timetable (10 Feb 2026 RNS) was :

Timetable and next steps

ZIOC and RAM have agreed on the following timetable:

· By 31 May 2026: execution of the definitive long-form transaction documentation, including the JVA

· By 30 June 2026: convening of an EGM for shareholders to vote on the Transaction.

In the 6 May 2026 RNS, this was updated to:

"The Board is pleased with the continued progress of the proposed strategic investment by Red Arc Minerals announced on 10 February 2026, with a number of key conditions now satisfied or well advanced. Based on the current timetable and subject to the satisfaction or, where applicable, waiver of the remaining conditions, the Company and Red Arc Minerals continue to work towards finalisation of binding transaction agreements and completion of the technical due diligence. Finalised transaction agreements are now targeted for completion during July 2026.

Once the binding transaction agreements are entered into, completion will be conditional upon shareholder approval and any required regulatory approvals. A shareholder circular containing further details of the Transaction, together with a notice convening the EGM, will be published in due course following the execution of the definitive documents..."

So - even if RAM and ZIOC had kept to the ORIGINAL dates - RAM funds wouldn't have been available in time to meet the $1.6m drawdown 'urgently' needed, hence the emergency fundraise announced A WEEK LATER :

.."The bulk sample activity has a budget of approximately US$1.6 million and requires the mobilisation of contractors and the procurement of fuel and associated services, with FUNDING PLANNED TO BE DISBURSED IN MAY 2026 to enable objectives of ON-SITE ACTIVITIES DURING JUNE 2026."

On the face of it, this suggests extreme incompetence on ZIOC's part, wouldn't you agree?

Either it miscalculated its cashflow requirements/contractual commitments OR it didn't take the commercially sensible precaution of taking a meaningful 'earnest money' deposit from 'unknown quantity' RAM as a sign of good faith/basic solvency. Au contraire, all the concessions made were BY Zioc TO RAM.

So the entire rationale given for the 'emergency' placing on 14 May 2026 doesn't stack up, does it?

But- to a cynic - it does if you look at the outcome: $1.6m raised for the stated purpose, $7.7m overall opportunistically raised in a 33% OVERSUBSCRIBED placing - by invitation only - at a bargain-basement price (see my earlier comments about how unwilling management has been to deliver 'good news' in its gift).

Note the kick in the teeth, btw : The available, cheap, ad-hoc fundraising Shard subscription mechanism was concurrently 'suspended until further notice'.

ZIOC management seem pretty adept at generating their own bad publicity, on the face of it.

You have to wonder why.

Well, maybe some of us do.

.."Mick Davis committed $350m of Xtrata capital and is proposing to commit another $150m from the concert party. He's also arranged the crisis placing of $7.2m to keep the lights on..."

I'll have whatever you're smoking.

The only 'commitment' is for 3 x $5m...and RAM haven't delivered on that.

What part of '"Tranche Two investment of US$125 million via a cash payment to ZIOC (at RAM's option).." don't you understand?

What you describe as a crisis placement was 'needed' to raise an urgent $1.6m for metallurgical testing, something evidently not anticipated by the geniuses 'negotiating' on our behalf, who somehow forgot to take any 'earnest money' from a newly-incorporated shelfco with no track record or financial backing.

The fact that ZIOC then CHOSE to raise more cash 'for general working capital' - and welcomed oversubscription 140m shares vs 103m 'needed' tells you (or should) all you need to know.

This from the people who at Investor Meet TWO MONTHS PRIOR told us solemnly/piously that raising $25m @ 30% dilution [ whilst retaining 100% of the Project] was 'too high a price to pay'.

You may be right about one thing though, when you suggest that Sir Mick's calling the shots.

Pretty impressive for someone without a formal, declared interest in this stitch-up.

Have a nice day.

.."extrader - your last email is clutching at straws and makes no sense at all! Surely "any serious potential bidder" would've ignored all the RAM-shenanigans and made an offer regardless - money talks! "

Theoretically, you're right: if someone were to offer cash equivalent to NPV, for example, any sensible person would accept : bird in the hand; time value of money; execution risk/market risk/country risk, etc etc.

THAT, obviously, isn't going to happen.

So, work down from that.

In practical terms, any bidder has to offer a premium to what the present situation is....without having the detailed inside picture that the current shower have.

Think of a number, (almost) any number and 'do the math'.

One caveat: if the present incumbents dally too long in moving things forward - and/or don't address in some way their regulatory failings- the risk of expropriation 'for cause' becomes more likely.

They'll know better than anyone else how serious their failings are...and what risks (including the above) they're running...which then becomes part of the risk/reward equation.

As to the 'known, quantifiable' risks - there are several irregularities that we think are 'GIS equivalent' in terms of gravity, which could be variously career, reputation or business-destroying.

A lot depends on (a) who each affect and (b) who calls the shots.

HTH

PS Your 'burnt offering' duly noted ;->

Any serious potential bidder would have looked at

- the 'concert party' - undisclosed but 'hidden in plain sight';

- the incomers' 53% reshaping of parent company register;

- the undisclosed but evident overlap of interests Greymont consortium /new shelfco RAM;

- the punitive 'break fee' terms;

and on balance likely been seduced by the argument ' if you can't beat them , join them'.

Creatively re-interpreted as AT's InvestorMeet comment that 'no-one wanted to lead, so someone had to step up to the plate'.

RAM brings nothing to the party that ZIOC couldn' t have - and SHOULD have - done itself.

This is a 'black swan' open goal: feel free to come back with any evidence or argument to the contrary.

GLA and ATB

...even more tersely: how have we gone from 100% of NPV (Sir Mick/Elphick 2012) > 33% of NPV (Sir Mick/Elphick 2025) > less than 3% of NPV (Sir Mick/Elphick 2026)?

Someone's 'avin' a larf.

GLA

Some Kind Person read this note and wrote that it could be restated as:

(1) In Nov 2012 Xstrata/ CEO Sir Mick Davis and ZIOC /Non-Exec Chair Clifford Elphick agreed that .."per Nov 2012 Presentation p 15: .." Post Feasibility Study, Xstrata has a ONE-OFF RIGHT TO ACQUIRE ZIOC STAKE IN THE PROJECT FOR CASH AT 100% OF NPV.".

(2) In Mar 2025, the Greymont 'concert party'/Sir Mick immediately joined a newly-formed Technical Committee and got its representative Phil Mitchell on the ZIOC Board.

All parties endorsed ZIOC's subsequent year-long pursuit of 4 x 'value enhancing opportunities' targeting a $ 4 Bn NPV-based increase in ZIOC's eventual value for sale.

The policy of an NPV-based sale approach - referenced in RNS's throughout the year- was reiterated as late as the Dec 2025 Presentation.

Again, all parties incl Greymont concert party members Sir Mick and Phil Mitchell agreed with ZIOC Board /Elphick on an NPV- related sale benchmark, albeit based on a Kami Project-related IMPLIED valuation of 0.3 x NPV.

The Presentation implied a read-across 'worth' of 142p to 284p a share.

(3) The ZIOC BoD instead quickly agreed the RAM Binding Offer.

This ignored the NPV-based approach used for the previous 15 years.

The price was 1/10th of the recent implied 'worth'.

Its sole 'justification' was that it was a slight multiple (1.5x ) to the THEN prevailing share price.

(4) In defending this abrupt volte-face, Andrew Trahar said at Investor Meet :

.."We used it [the Kami Project] as a comparable to explain to our shareholders — and to signal to potential strategic investors — that we believed we should be valued higher.

We communicated that value expectation to strategics and to our shareholders. But after disclosing those comparable numbers, OUR STOCK CONTINUED TO TRADE at 7.5 to 8 pence.

So we believe we did EVERYTHING we could to attract strategic investors at the highest valuation possible."

Really?

This is pretty lame: the number of circling potential strategics (into Feb 26) are hardly likely to have all independently -and suddenly- rejected an NPV-based approach simultaneously...and at the first inkling , the obvious defence against a low-ball offer would be for ZIOC to BOOST the shareprice any way that it fairly could.

Fortunately, it had options available :

(i) disclosure of the EPC contractor's identity (promised Q2, unexpectedly withheld) would have helped sentiment;

(ii) clarification of the status of the potential strategic who'd requested a (still operative?) key shareholder lock-in - ditto;

(iii) release of the confirmed financial impact of the value enhancement measures - ditto.

Yes, even the later much reduced but still material NPV numbers....

Instead, the Board accepted with alacrity an 'opportunistic' offer made in an environment where relevant information had been withheld and normal market workings were distorted by the murky key shareholder lock-ins.

Not a good look, IMO.

GLA

Oh! look:

https://a2mp.com/portfolio/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-11-21/a2mp-secures-300-million-from-afreximbank-for-african-minerals

DYOR etc etc.

From Semafor Africa

"Spiro plans Africa manufacturing

African e-bike manufacturer Spiro will begin producing the majority of its components on the continent by next year, CEO Gagan Gupta told Semafor.

The Dubai-headquartered company’s current supply of EVs comes from the assembly of parts imported from different countries, but it aims to make 90% of components in-country by the first quarter of 2027, Gupta said.

Spiro has deployed more than 100,000 electric motorcycles and 2,500 battery swap stations in seven East and West African countries, and raised $215 million this month to expand into new countries, beginning with DR Congo and Ethiopia."

Your man doesn't hang around, does he?

ATB

At the time of IPO, ZIOC’s 2 major shareholders were its promotors.

Elphick/Guava Trust with 88.8 million shares had 31.64%, Michael Howarth's Garbet Trust was the senior partner/promotor, with 115.7 million shares or 41.5%.

In April 2017, the Garbet Trust and another connected shareholder were broken up and distributed as follows:

"The Company has been advised by Garbet Limited ("Garbet") that it has transferred its entire holding of 115,671,186 ordinary shares in the Company representing 41.49% of the Company's entire issued share capital to its shareholders and the underlying shareholders of its parent, Strata Limited ("Transfer").

As a result of the Transfer, Garbet ceased to hold any shares in the Company; Strata ceased to hold the shares of the Company transferred to it and the following persons acquired an interest in shares representing 3% or more of the Company's entire issued share capital:

Name Number of shares %

Salamanca Trustees (Jersey) Ltd (YR) 13,629,127 4.89

Leganes Limited 12,513,469 4.49%

Artemis Trust Limited (Hardwick) 11,916,534 4.27%

Accuro Trustees (Jersey) Ltd (YR) 13,664,465 4.81%

AI Holdings Limited 8,706,621 3.12%

60,430,216 subtotal, meaning 55,240,970 Garbet-related but now undisclosed.

Michael Haworth, a non-executive director of the Company, is indirectly interested in

13,629,127 ordinary shares, representing 4.89% of the issued share capital of the Company by virtue of his interest as a potential beneficiary in Salamanca Trustees (Jersey) Ltd (YR)."

Disposal RNS's followed

30 Aug 2017 Artemis Trustees (Hardwick Trust) > 10,816,534 or 3.88%

27 Nov 2017 Artemis Trustees (Hardwick Trust) > 8,060,038 or 2.89%

28 Jan 2019 Accuro Trustees (J’sey) Ltd (YR) > 8,494,127 or 2.99%

16 Apr 2019 Artemis Trustee (Ark Trust) > 16,971,041 or 5.99% > PKC Capital Ltd*

16 Apr 2019 KULCZYK INVESTMENTS S.A. > 0% Leganes Limited Cyprus

4 Sep 2019 Artemis Trustee (Ark Trust) > 13,275334 or 4.69% > Seritza (BVI)

19 Sep 2019 Artemis Trustee (Ark Trust) > 0 (prev 5.99%) >PKC Capital Ltd.*

3 Jan 2020 Artemis Trustee (Ark Trust) > 11,312,318 or 3.95% (prev 4.69%) > Seritza (BVI)

10 Feb 2020 Seritza (BVI) > ‘Under 3%’.

* something odd here that I didn't understand

Footnotes:

(i) Julian Higgins’ last reported 11,400,000 (18 Oct 2019), may have been sold after his demise.

(ii) Keith Everitt’s last reported holding 17,02m (27 Nov 2017), then 6.01%, status unknown.

Post GLEN acquisition, would have fallen below disclosable level anyway.

(iii) An unidentified member of the Guava consortium unbundled 8,477,805 (then 2.99%) on 31 Aug 2018 for ‘tax-planning purposes'.

Conclusion: The ‘unbundled’ Garbet/Guava shares – total 124,148,991 (= 12.5% of the current total shares 991,101,694) - if still held, may reasonably be considered as ‘aligned’ with the original Project promotors and likely to vote accordingly.

E & OE,

GLA and ATB

Continued...

Then 2 things happened:

(i) The iron ore market collapsed 2012 to 2019; and more specifically

(ii) A 'merger of equals' Glencore/ Xstrata, announced Feb 2012 was disrupted by Qatar Holding in late 2012; 14 months later Glasenberg ('the dealer') became CEO and Mick Davis (the digger') was out.

Six months later 13 Sep 2013, GLEN and ZIOC 'agreed' a revised, phased development plan and .."also agreed to jointly explore funding options with a view to attracting THIRD PARTY DEBT and equity financing for potential project implementation..."

ZIOC drifted the next few years, occasionally enlivened by:

- the Garbet trust break -up), more anon;

- exploration of an Early Production (1-2mtpa pilot)Project;

- exploration re feasibility of a small-scale cold pelletisation process, involving BSL;

- EPC contractor selected and 3 tonnes of material sent for study;

- framework agreement with CIODIC, a Chinese parastatal consortium;

- floating port concept 'floated' and Shard Facility ('rolling placement' financing) announced;

- (Sept 2021) 'approaches continue to be received from a number of strategics... interested in investing in the Zanaga Project..' ; then:

(23 Nov 2022): ZIOC acquires GLEN's 50% + 1 share in Jumelles, issues 286,340,379 shares as consideration (=48.26% holding) , also enters into the Marketing Agreement whereby ZIOC will grant GLEN an offtake over 100% of all future iron ore produced by MPD, ZIOC or their respective Affiliates in the Republic of Congo..."

(28 Dec 2023) Chinese EPC partner (PSEI?) continues FS update, identifies 'value engineering opportunities'.

(28 Mar 2024) FS update completion April and FEED phase preparation underway.

- MoU's in late 2024 and Feb 2025 re port (ARISE) and power (CMEC)

(2) GLEN Buyback and Private placement.

- 'Control consortium' arrives, taking net 53.6% of the Company share register at 4.1p, a significant discount to the prevailing market price = correspondingly greater dilution : Pre-placement shareholders effectively diluted by 832.4m/675.8m = 23%...And lose 20% of offtake rights.

Elphick + BoD and Nomad seem to have been unusually deferential/incurious about the identities of the 'on-boarders', including Sir Mick, in contrast to the historic tight control of the share register as seen in the Shard Subscription Facility terms.

(3) The RAM Binding Offer borrows selectively from the Xstrata playbook:

- targets control (shareholding and governance) at Project co level - but 87.5% i/o 50%;

- already enjoys influence, if not control, at topco level, through overlapping 'concert party' shareholdings;

- offer is priced off current shareprice, NOT NPV.

Note: the Sphere Minerals CASH offer price A$ 2.50 was a 61% premium to last traded and a 73% premium to 30 day VWAP.

OTOH, it also agreed to 'no court' and a $4.4m break fee.

Elphick, Trahar and Panmure Liberum are constants throughout the ZIOC story.

GLA

It was 'a mystery' how "Mr Clifford Elphick......... acting in [his capacity] as Independent Directors for the purposes of the related party transaction, [was able to] consider, having consulted with Panmure Liberum Limited, the Company's Nominated Adviser, the terms of the Buyback Agreement to be fair and reasonable insofar as the Company's shareholders are concerned...", given:

- the lack of disclosure re Greymont/Regatta ownership, along with that of the subsequently disclosed 'concert party', incl Sir Mick Davis;

- the lack of disclosure re GIS ownership;

- the 'gifting' to a 3rd party, for zero evident consideration or benefit to ZIOC shareholders , of an economically (and potentially transactionally) valuable asset.

So I thought to look at the Elphick/Davis interactions over 3 phases of ZIOC's history : Xstrata; Greymont/GLEN buyback; and the RAM Binding offer.

(1) Xstrata: The relationship must have been a close one, since ZIOC was an Elphick / Howarth* speculative promotion until it gained legs and credibility with the reputational endorsement and financial backing of Xstrata from ca. 2009 onwards.

*Elphick/Guava Trust with 88.8 million shares had 31.64%, Michael Howarth's Garbet Trust was the senior partner/promotor, with 115.7 million shares or 41.25%.

More on Garbet later.

Note: together just shy of 73%.

Xstrata, growing rapidly under Mick Davis's leadership and keen to diversify into iron ore had just concluded its first takeover, of Sphere Minerals in Mauritania. The market was 'hot' - around the same time Rio teamed up with Chinalco at Simandou...and Sundance entered C-B at Mbalam-Nabeba.

Structure: Xstrata invested at the Jumelles Project level: (8 Feb 2011): .."Xstrata will acquire a 50% plus one share interest in Jumelles in return for a commitment to fund a Feasibility Study to a minimum of $100 million..."

Control: .."The principal business of ZIOC will comprise managing its 50% less one share interest in the Zanaga Project, which will be controlled by Xstrata at both a shareholder and director level,.."

Follow-on work included a 'value engineering exercise' and a pipeline optionality study.

Tentative search for Strategic Partner announced (31 Oct 2011): "Xstrata and ZIOC wish to explore whether there is a suitable strategic partner who can further enhance the long-term value of the Zanaga Project, INCLUDING OFFTAKE ON COMMERCIAL TERMS, ACCESS TO CONSTRUCTION FINANCING AND CONSTRUCTION EXPERTISE.... Xstrata intends to fully retain its interest in the Zanaga Project. "

The market WAS hot: a month later (21 Nov 2011), Guava/Garbet signed share lock-ups over their combined 73% ZIOC shareholding, ..."however, Xstrata intends to fully retain its [50% + 1 share] interest in the Zanaga Iron Ore Project."

Per Nov 2012 Presentation p 15: .." Post Feasibility Study, Xstrata has a ONE-OFF RIGHT TO ACQUIRE ZIOC STAKE IN THE PROJECT FOR CASH AT 100% OF NPV."

Continued...

Https://x.com/Zanaga_Iron_Ore

Zanaga Iron Ore Company

@Zanaga_Iron_Ore

·

1h

At Zanaga Iron, collaboration with experienced regional and international partners is central to how we approach project delivery, from infrastructure planning to our energy strategy. These agreements reflect our commitment to working with the right partners in-country to support a resilient, efficient and scalable Zanaga Project...."

GLA

Https://fdwcapital.substack.com/

Two of the Greatest Investors Alive Just Bet on an Argentine Oil Company, But Why?

The 13F filings are in. And buried inside them is one of the most interesting macro calls of 2026.

GLA

Hi jv123,

I think it would be fair to say that we're nearing the short strokes, have reached the stage of awaiting input from others.

This isn't being deliberately cryptic, it would be wrong to say more.

'Patience, grasshopper"

HTH

GLA and ATB

Continued

(7) Perception:

The Board allowed ZIOC to be diluted twice 'on the cheap':

(i) Equity dilution (Greymont Bay’s 26–28% stake for ~$12m net) - bad enough.

(ii) Asset dilution (20% of life-of-mine marketing given to GIS, worth far more on a DCF basis), with no corresponding quid pro quo or benefit in kind for ZIOC shareholders.

(iii) It also approved a deal structured between a now acknowledged 'concert party member' and several other 'concert party members' that granted Greymont /Anthony Trahar et al - economically valuable offtake rights via the granting of offtake rights to a belatedly acknowledged connected party, GIS.

The question for the Board - and to a lesser extent the Nomad, Panmure - is the classic one : What did they know...and when did they know it?

Quickly followed by ...and - in light of what has subsequently been disclosed - how were they, "Mr Clifford Elphick, Mr Clinton Dines and Mr Johnny Velloza, [per the RNS], each Non-Executive Directors , acting in their capacities as Independent Directors for the purposes of the related party transaction, [able to] consider, having consulted with Panmure Liberum Limited, the Company's Nominated Adviser, the terms of the Buyback Agreement to be fair and reasonable insofar as the Company's shareholders are concerned..."?

As Geoffrey Rush says a number of times in 'Shakespeare in love'

'It's a mystery'.

GLA and ATB

Continuing my ruminations:

(1) The recently acknowledged 'concert party' includes Greymont/Regatta, Heaney, Anthony Trahar, Andrew Trahar,, Sir Mick Davis and Phil Mitchell. I've added Gupta, Cutifani and O'Neill, for what seem to be valid reasons.

(2) 'Greymont' has emerged as the beneficiary of ZIOC largesse : ZIOC ceded to it 20% of the 100% offtake rights that reverted to it on cessation of the GLEN Marketing agreement when Greymont made this a pre-condition of its subscription.

(3) The granting of 20% offtake rights to newly-formed and background absent GIS was originally described as an 'allocation', it was only a year later at Investor Meet that this morphed casually into a 'normal marketing and offtake agreement' with what was matter-of-factly described as 'a Greymont - and Greymont only- affiliate'. The extent of affiliation- partial ownership through to wholly-owned subsidiary - remains unclear to this day.

(4) The economic value of these rights has never been disclosed.

Here's a stab, based on discounted cashflow:

Assume a 10% Discount Rate; 4 years of development (26-29), first production 2030; 5 years at 12mtpa, then 25 years at 30mtpa and a current 68% ore grade price of $130/t rising to a projected $180/t over the next decade.

Take GIS interest as 3% of the retail price (a low estimate within the typical 2-10% range).

On these assumptions, the NPV10 of the GIS 20% offtake rights (3% fee on retail sales) is about US$ 146 million .

Had ZIOC marketed the 20% to a strategic itself, it might have raised $70-80 M - more if Chinese( lower discount rates), enough to significantly de-risk early development and cover initial capital costs.....and setting a benchmark for the valuation of its remaining 80%.

(5) Reality check: in return for providing $12.05m (post Gupta adjustment) of cash NOW (for which they received 28.1% of ZIOC), the Greymont Bay consortium have also gained an asset worth c.$146m at current prices, i.e. the GIS off take deal.

Monetisation of just 10% of the 'free' offtake would cover the cost of Greymont's stake in ZIOC.

(6) Consideration :

(i) It was suggested that the GIS Offtake Agreement [would] "enhance market access and offtake security, further de-risking Zanaga's commercialisation strategy and supporting its path to financing and construction..." No such benefit has been announced, much less realised.

(ii) It was misleadingly suggested by Andrew Trahar at InvestorMeet that .." the value received for the 20% marketing offtake agreement ...was a fantastic outcome. We removed Glencore’s 100% offtake and secured 80% back for ourselves without paying anything. That is why it was so value accretive.".

Fact check: he 3 March 2025 RNS clearly states that .."Upon all of Glencore's current 290,843,718 Ordinary Shares being repurchased, the Relationship Agreement ..will terminate and the Glencore Offtake Agreement ... will also be terminated."

Continued...

Another SRT MDA application that hasn't been mentioned - Search and Rescue....

hxxps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/crashed-us-army-helicopter-pilots-rescued-by-sea-drone-near-strait-of-hormuz/

Two crew members of a US army helicopter that crashed near the Strait of Hormuz on Monday were rescued by an American sea drone, US officials have told CBS News, the BBC's media partner.

It was the first such operation carried out by US forces, the officials added.

US Central Command (Centcom) earlier said the two "soldiers were safely rescued within approximately two hours and are in stable condition" after their AH-64 Apache helicopter went down "near the coast of Oman while patrolling regional waters".

GLA

It was the 'lees' I could do.

ATB

.."Unfortunately, even rumours of a trading halt will lead to a slump in the SP* but it's up to individual carpetbaggers..."

* AT would doubtless argue that THAT makes the RAM offer (framed as 'relative to the then-prevailing S/P' ....8p, you may recall) EVEN better now !

Mind you, a number of his InvestorMeet comments haven't aged well.

This one, for example:

(i) Andrew: “David — you asked whether this transaction removes any future requirement for a placing and further dilution.

The USD 25 million allows the project to be fully funded through to a construction decision WITHOUT ANY DILUTION TO SHAREHOLDERS AT THE LISTED COMPANY LEVEL."

Or this one:

(ii) Question — Does the USD 25 Million Include Contingency?

Andrew: “Yes — the USD 25 million includes full contingency, as well as buffer capital that we wanted from RAM to allow us to complete the project financing process.[ Ed.:which they didn’t agree , since only the 3 x $5m are binding]

It effectively fully funds AT LEAST the next two years of work after FEED, including project financing advisers and asset retention costs.

So yes — the USD 25 million includes a decent buffer.”

The InvestorMeet was on 12 March, the 'emergency fund-raise' was 'needed' by the 14th of May, barely 2 months later. Raising US$ 7.7M against a stated 'need' for US$ 1.6M.

(i) The s/p is slumping quite (un) satisfactorily (a)under its own steam/(b)'benign' neglect /(c) as intended (take your pick), thank you ;-<

(ii) A suspension would at least have the benefit of stopping that ;->

(iii) And suspension for the right reasons would (likely, AFAICS) be beneficial ;->

Two out of 3 ain't bad.

On a more serious note, I approve your choice (if not quantity) of wine.

I prefer a Sancerre in a white, and La Gitana to Barbadillo.

If you like your manzanillas, a trip to Sanlucar de Barrameda is a 'must' : the city planners deferred to the vintners in locating all the bodegas so they'd benefit from the salt air you mention (which even I, who have little 'palate', can discern; the sea -food accompaniment is first-class; it's a destination mainly for the Spanish; and is particularly 'tipico' when they hold horse-races (usually in August) along the beach* : the ladies in traditional dress and the kids manning the 'taquillas' or betting booths: maximum stake 1 x Euro, max payout 5 Euro.

* the exact dates vary each year depending on the tides, as the races take place on a natural beach track formed by the receding tide.

Access to the nature reserve of Donana is a short boat-ride across the estuary.

One of our favourite places.

Thanks for the reminder!

ATB