Member Info for extrader

Hi all,

I’m posting in my capacity as a member of the Zanaga Investor Action Group.

A small group of us have been working hard to understand exactly what the RAM transaction entails, how it came about, and what the outlook for small shareholders is.

Our basic research is done. The push-back has already begun …and we are now ready to expand.

What we’ve done so far

We’ve engaged the Board directly with our concerns, to explore whether a strategic realignment of the RAM proposal was possible, to avoid escalation: most of us have been invested here for years. We want to see the Zanaga Project developed transparently and fairly, for the benefit of ALL shareholders.

Regrettably, we’ve had no meaningful response.

So we’ve proceeded as we told the Board we would:

• We’ve sent formal submissions to AIM Regulation and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), requesting urgent supervisory review.

• Media briefing packs have been prepared and will be going to appropriate contacts shortly.

All submissions rely exclusively on publicly available information - RNS announcements, company presentations and similar disclosures. Every irregularity listed is grounded in the Company’s own published materials.

The facts, taken from Company sources, speak for themselves:

• The valuation reflected in the RAM Offer bears little resemblance to the Company’s own published project economics.

• The structure used involves opaque shelfcos, overlapping interests and interconnected parties.

• There are extensive, material Conflicts of interest across Company personnel and funds that appeared on the register during the March 2025 dual admissions.

• Available industry-standard non dilutive development financing options - royalties, streaming, offtakes, supplier finance - have not been pursued.

• The proposal attempts to secure near total economic control of the asset IMMEDIATELY BEFORE milestones that typically drive major valuation re ratings.

• All of this when the Company itself has shown that $15–25m is sufficient to take the Project through to FID.

In plain terms: a cluster of individuals, shelfcos and funds — many of whom arrived barely a year ago — are manoeuvring opportunistically to capture FOR THEMSELVES the vast majority of the economic upside from an asset that long term shareholders have supported for a decade or more.

That is why we are acting.

Note:

The current worst case scenario is that the deal slips through regulatory, legal and public interest scrutiny unchallenged and unchanged.

PI’s hoping for a ‘white knight’ to emerge providentially with a better offer are deluding themselves: There Is No Alternative, under the Offer terms.

The only realistic hope - and the outcome we are working toward - is that the Offer is pulled; materially revised; or replaced by a fair proposal from a credible party.

Continued.....

Continued...

How to join the Zanaga Investor Action Group:

If you want to help us bring about a fair outcome, the process is simple:

Go to ADVFN and pm me, ‘extrader’.

I’ll vet you, ask for some corroboration; your shareholding; and whether you have any relevant financial, legal, media, political or regulatory contacts.

We’ll need to do this basic vetting before we can safely start to share materials and updates.

Given what’s at stake and the ‘reach’ of the individuals now involved, we need to know who we are working with.

Very little will be asked of you, but numbers matter. And if we do ask for help, it will be something straightforward — sending an email, making a

submission, lobbying. We will provide appropriate briefing material, if needed.

The pushback against this Offer is underway.

If you agree that long term shareholders deserve transparency, equal treatment and a proper valuation for this amazing Tier 1 asset, please join us.

You have nothing to lose and - potentially - a lot to gain.

Not least, the knowledge that you stood up for your rights.

See you on the other side.

As ever, GLA and ATB

Continued...

How to join the Zanaga Investor Action Group:

If you want to help us bring about a fair outcome, the process is simple:

Go to ADVFN and pm me, ‘extrader’.

I’ll vet you, ask for some corroboration; your shareholding; and whether you have any relevant financial, legal, media, political or regulatory contacts.

We’ll need to do this basic vetting before we can safely start to share materials and updates.

Given what’s at stake and the ‘reach’ of the individuals now involved, we need to know who we are working with.

Very little will be asked of you, but numbers matter. And if we do ask for help, it will be something straightforward — sending an email, making a

submission, lobbying. We will provide appropriate briefing material, if needed.

The pushback against this Offer is underway.

If you agree that long term shareholders deserve transparency, equal treatment and a proper valuation for this amazing Tier 1 asset, please join us.

You have nothing to lose and - potentially - a lot to gain.

Not least, the knowledge that you stood up for your rights.

See you on the other side.

As ever, GLA and ATB

Hi all,

I’m posting in my capacity as a member of the Zanaga Investor Action Group.

A small group of us have been working hard to understand exactly what the RAM transaction entails, how it came about, and what the outlook for small shareholders is.

Our basic research is done. The push-back has already begun …and we are now ready to expand.

What we’ve done so far

We’ve engaged the Board directly with our concerns, to explore whether a strategic realignment of the RAM proposal was possible, to avoid escalation: most of us have been invested here for years. We want to see the Zanaga Project developed transparently and fairly, for the benefit of ALL shareholders.

Regrettably, we’ve had no meaningful response.

So we’ve proceeded as we told the Board we would:

• We’ve sent formal submissions to AIM Regulation and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), requesting urgent supervisory review.

• Media briefing packs have been prepared and will be going to appropriate contacts shortly.

All submissions rely exclusively on publicly available information - RNS announcements, company presentations and similar disclosures. Every irregularity listed is grounded in the Company’s own published materials.

The facts, taken from Company sources, speak for themselves:

• The valuation reflected in the RAM Offer bears little resemblance to the Company’s own published project economics.

• The structure used involves opaque shelfcos, overlapping interests and interconnected parties.

• There are extensive, material Conflicts of interest across Company personnel and funds that appeared on the register during the March 2025 dual admissions.

• Available industry-standard non dilutive development financing options - royalties, streaming, offtakes, supplier finance - have not been pursued.

• The proposal attempts to secure near total economic control of the asset IMMEDIATELY BEFORE milestones that typically drive major valuation re ratings.

• All of this when the Company itself has shown that $15–25m is sufficient to take the Project through to FID.

In plain terms: a cluster of individuals, shelfcos and funds — many of whom arrived barely a year ago — are manoeuvring opportunistically to capture FOR THEMSELVES the vast majority of the economic upside from an asset that long term shareholders have supported for a decade or more.

That is why we are acting.

Note:

The current worst case scenario is that the deal slips through regulatory, legal and public interest scrutiny unchallenged and unchanged.

PI’s hoping for a ‘white knight’ to emerge providentially with a better offer are deluding themselves: There Is No Alternative, under the Offer terms.

The only realistic hope - and the outcome we are working toward - is that the Offer is pulled; materially revised; or replaced by a fair proposal from a credible party.

Continued.....

Hi RIDER&%,

Yes.

There may be some overlap with Binding Solution's technology, which I'm following for other reasons.

Rather than clutter this board, let's talk on the advfn zioc board, which is moribund.

Feeks,

If you're that interested , why are you asking this board...and criticising my well-intended comments..when you can ask the man himself in a couple of days?

Unless the InvestorMeet is 'pulled'.

There- sorted!

GLA

Hi guys,

As I pointed out earlier, most of this 'consultancy conflict' issue HAS been disclosed (bar the precise consultancy fees involved). It's a bit odd/precious to be agitated about this, now, when it's common knowledge - or should be- that AT's been working with Sir Mick and Vision Blue since 2021 or so. You don't even have to go to the VBR website (have you done that ?) to see the connection...it's there on linked-in.

'Time spent on reconnaissance is seldom wasted'.

With hundreds of millions, nay, billions of $$$ at stake, 'nickel and diming' over consultancy fees is an odd choice of focus.

If you want to look at the deal from a regulatory perspective , there are definitely 'meatier' areas to explore, both within AIM Regs and elsewhere.

;-<

Meanwhile, DYOR etc

GLA

..and if you want a safer jurisdiction, there's this:

https://www.mining.com/how-canadas-biggest-iron-project-is-almost-unknown/

It claims 68% grade (ZIOC 68.5>69.1); 1.4Bn tonnes reserves (ZIOC 2.1BnT) ; 30 year mine life (ZIOC ..100+' AT) ; NPV8 CAD$ 5.24 BN (ZIOC NPV10 USD 9.2BN+); Capital Costs CAD $ 14.2 BN (ZIOC USD 3.7BN) ; IRR 13% vs ZIOc 26+ %......

Also proposes a long-distance slurry pipeline.....(how does that work in Canadian winter, hmmm....?).

Still conceptual, likely decades away from happening..

TINA.

Hi all,

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/china-tightens-pressure-traders-over-001900970.html

...."Australia’s dominance in iron ore exports had created a strategic vulnerability for China, given Canberra’s deepening security alignment with the United States through AUKUS and other regional initiatives. ...China wanted to guard against the risk of iron ore supplies being disrupted if access to Australia were restricted or banned in the event of conflict.

“China’s mitigation strategy combines foreign investments, scrap steel adoption, and economic coercion, reflecting its broader ambition for self-sufficiency and leveraging its structural power in global markets,” she said.

“Given that neither Australia’s relationship with the United States nor China’s threat assessment of the international environment will likely change, China’s mitigation strategies will continue, even in the absence of a conflict. The result will be downward pressure on iron ore prices and restrictions on growth for Australian exporters.”

.."China Mineral Resources Group Co (CMRG) has indicated in recent discussions with both domestic and international traders that it intends to tighten enforcement of the curbs, according to people familiar with the matter. Although the organisation does not have formal regulatory authority over Chinese steel mills that ultimately buy the ore, its strong political backing means its directives are widely treated as mandatory..."

A bit of a dilemma for the Aussies, another reason to diversify..

GLA

Hi Feeks,

ZIOC has been quite correct in its description of AT's position, stating openly (at the foot of the 10 Feb 2026 RNS):

.."About RAM:

RAM is a private investment company focussed on the development of strategic-scale high-grade iron ore assets. RAM is controlled and founded by Sir Mick Davis and Heeney Capital, and other leading mining industry executives and experienced investment professionals. Its team has extensive technical expertise in large-scale project financing and development, along with a proven track record of project delivery, including specific iron ore expertise.

Andrew Trahar acts as Corporate Development & Investor Relations Manager of ZIOC, pursuant to a consultancy arrangement with ZIOC. Given Andrew Trahar's extensive Project expertise, the ZIOC Board has consented to him also providing consultancy services to RAM, to assist RAM in its subsequent engagement with strategic stakeholders."

and describing his skillset here

https://www.zanagairon.com/about-us/#leadership

AT has himself been equally candid in describing the nature of his consultancy services:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-trahar-13901849/?originalSubdomain=uk

Much less clear to me (again, from the above sources) is where this recent appointee to the team - Cozmo Kampanaos - fits into the scheme of things:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/cozmokampanaos/?originalSubdomain=uk

and the nature of his role at ZIOC

https://www.zanagairon.com/about-us/#leadership

His particular skillsets are described on the Company website as "[leading] lender engagement and project completion" adding that 'he brings significant early stage expertise and is highly experienced in managing transitions from project phase to commercial operation. ".

ZIOC/Elphick have always had a (commendable) 'lean and mean' approach to staffing up to now, on the face of it an appointment of this calibre, at this time, doesn't make sense...unless my speculation (Questions? @ 15:33) - that the Project may be more advanced than we've hitherto understood - has legs.

Which in turn raises a number of other questions.

I hope there'll be a good attendance. at InvestorMeet..a lot of good questions..... and - hopefully - a lot of good answers.

GLA and ATB

HTH and DYOR etc

.."They think we're all stupid"

Well if so, we're not alone: there's a few of us think - actually, know - that ZIOC Board and management, along with the NOMAD, are open to challenge on a number of fronts.

It's not just a mine that gets bigger, the more you dig.

GLA

And a PS

.."If they don't take up Tranche 2, etc...."

That leaves the fate of MY investment at THEIR discretion, doesn't it?

Hi ZanaRam,

.."They can't do Tranche 2 for the 67.5% part of Jumelles until Tranche 1 sub-tranches have been completed. We're looking at Q2/Q3 in 2027 until Tranche 2 comes into play."

Not necessarily so, AFAICS. Read the RNS, lots of wiggle -room there:

.."Tranche One is PROPOSED to be funded in FIVE sub-tranches of US$5 million each, with each sub-tranche representing 4% of the outstanding Common Shares. The first sub-tranche is expected to CLOSE AS SOON AS REASONABLY PRACTICABLE following completion of long form transaction agreements, final due diligence, and securing of ZIOC shareholder approval [LIKELY BY 30 JUN 2026] SUBSEQUENT sub-tranches are EXPECTED to be completed over the following 18 months in accordance with the definitive documentation, with sub-tranches 1A, 1B and 1C being BINDING on RAM, sub-tranches 1D and 1E will be at RAM's option, AND RAM HAVING THE RIGHT TO ACCELERATE THE TIMING OF SUBSEQUENT SUB-TRANCHES".

So - as I read the wording - RAM only commits to 3x tranches...and it can accelerate these : I suppose it could - at least theoretically - subscribe the 3 x tranches over a few days.

'Plan according to your opponent's capabilities, not according to their [stated] intentions'

And -for the avoidance of doubt - I DO now, sadly, think of these people as my opponents. They are NOT acting in my best interests as a shareholder, from what I can see.

If you believe - as a number of us do - that ZIOC is potentially a lot nearer 'oven-ready' than we've been led to believe, then that'd put a different perspective on a number of things, wouldn't it?

Who are 'you', btw? If MM, welcome back! If A.N.Other, absent a posting history, could you say a little more about yourself?

Cheers, ATB .....and GLA

.."this is a mechanism to try and flush out any serious bidders before Jun..."

Read the RNS:

ZIOC has agreed to EXCLUSIVITY provisions until 30 JUNE 2026 (WHICH MAY BE EXTENDED) AND a Break Fee of US$1.5 million payable to RAM, AS WELL AS an Alternative Transaction Fee (= 10% of any counteroffer) within 12 months after the exclusivity period, if applicable.."

OTOH, nobody would want to 'bid blind', would they? ZIOC (= AT and MK as drivers) committed to:

30 December 2025 RNS:

-Project development strategy update (FEBRUARY 2026)

o Process plant Front End Engineering & Design ("FEED") results, including UPDATED capital and operating cost estimates based on a DRI flow sheet developed through 2025;

o Fully integrated project development plan, including economics of ALL project enhancements assessed to date;

o UPDATE on logistics and infrastructure solutions required to support the development of the Zanaga Project;

6 Jan 2026 (7 days later), they doubled down, with

Updated project economics: a combined, updated assessment of Project economics WILL BE RELEASED IN FEBRUARY 2026 (see below)...this then repeated the 30 Dec commitment.

Since which time, zip, nada, zilch.

My chaser to AT, cc Panmure reminding them of this hasn't been acknowledged, much less actioned.

My thoughts now: Has RAM been given access to/the benefit of this information?

ALMOST CERTAINLY.

Have any other potentially interested parties?

ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT - see exclusivity commitment.

And - even IF these third parties HAVE been given the info...

When will WE - as PART OWNERS of the business - get to see the info that we, one way or another, are paying for/have paid for?

Not least so we can properly weigh up the 'merits' of THE PROPOSAL WE'RE EXPECTED TO VOTE ON ? !

AGAIN, IF NOT, WHY NOT?!

Disgraceful, IMO.

And Panmure Liberum - clearly about as much use as a chocolate tea-pot - has a LOT to answer for in this sorry saga: a complete abrogation of its responsibilities as NOMAD, IMO.

GLA

PS

AT really needs to make clear which hat he's wearing: he's namechecked on the tweet and RNS as Corporate Development & Investor Relations Manager, ZIOC, but hasn't appeared on the list of ZIOC contacts since the 12th of Jan 2026 RNS.....including today....

Any investor with a Q is invited/expected to contact MK himself.

Ho hum.

.."Clearly someone at ZIOC reads this BB as my suggestion the other week about using Investor Meet has been taken onboard..."

Indeed! And the invite has even (just now) made it onto ZIOC's own twitterfeed:

.."Zanaga Iron Ore Company

@Zanaga_Iron_Ore

·

20m

👥 Zanaga Iron is pleased to announce that CEO, Martin Knauth, and Corporate Development & Investor Relations Manager, Andrew Trahar, will host a live presentation and Q&A at 10:00 GMT on 12 March 2026.

For details of how to register and submit questions, please read the full announcement here ➡️ https://londonstockexchange.com/news-article/ZIOC/investor-presentation-and-q-a/17492712..."

Let's hope they're quicker at responding in the Q and A....

Ho hum.

Hi Driving, alwayshoping,

PM me on advfn 'extrader' if you want to chat.

Hi technician,

PM me on advfn 'extrader' if you want to chat

.."Deliberately designed that way to keep most shareholders in the dark and to avoid awkward questions?"

In the words of the blessed Francis Urquhart of House of Cards fame..." Some people might say that. I, of course, couldn't possibly comment".

;-<

Seriously though, this might be a rare opportunity to hold folk to some account, maybe as much by seeing the choice of questions they DON't answer as by those that they do.

PI's are entitled to feel perplexed or bemused (definitely not amused !).

Things have played out in a way that AFAICS runs counter to all reasonable expectations, encouraged as they were by the Company's consistently bullish messaging. Noting, incidentally, that non Exec Chair Clifford Elphick has NOT signalled his support for this deal, unlike in March 2025, indeed he doesn't appear to have commented at all. Which is pretty noteworthy in itself and deserving of an explanation, preferably by the man himself.

However, as the folk who were so fulsomely praised by Elphick last time, AT and MK should know - and be able to tell us - what's different this time?

AT and MK should be encouraged to explain how it is that they have NOTHING to show for (i) their assiduous 18+ month wooing of 'a number of potential strategic investors and partners' and (ii) a steady 'good news' stream of successful value-enhancing initiatives [detailed results of which were promised end Feb 2026 , still not forthcoming btw]. Why have ALL of the potential strategics fallen away, what didn't they like? What weren't we offering, etc?

And the share-price is (deservedly) in the doldrums. Consensus view seems to be that the RAM deal sucks.

I'd encourage everyone who's unhappy at the latest developments to 'turn heat into light', register with InvestorMeet...and sharpen your pencils.

There's at least 3 questions straight off hidden above, btw.

;->

GLA

Hi Dustfilter,

Could you post link/details, pls?

I agree it could be spicy, not so sure about your (Freudian?) quiet, though.

;->

GLA