Member Info for extrader

Hi Veteran 10

Yes, as things stand.

I don't see the Chinese as being allowed (at this stage) to lead a deal and have control of ZIOC.

In banking syndication terms, I think of the Gulf SWF's as the Arrangers (connections/credibility), VALE as the Agent (project management) and the Chinese as Managers (participant, with special expertise in slurry and plant +. participant, with special expertise in port/new mineral port construction]. Someone has to run with the power (Korean ? Russian?) Maybe GLEN would figure there also (marketing/distribution) for anything not destined to the 3 x 'green ore 'plants. ....Though I'm not sure how that would square with VALE..?.In which case, GLEN invokes the royalty mechanism and goes crying all the way to the bank.

What the SWF's have said is that this is strategic/political and about being involved all along the value chain, I can't see them leaving the mineral asset in Chinese hands.

Let's see what happens in the next few weeks.

ATB

Hi Jiving,

.." I just hope they haven't been too sniffy about any buyout offers that may have come in..."

Me too!

It's a complicated one , AFAICS

We may think that TINA applies to the 'consortium' (they need ZIOC), but equally, ZIOC needs them (your point re Saudi/AD showing ZIOC (with the jet taxi service) that they have Big Den in their camp.

ZIOC is no doubt convinced the project is worth a hell of a lot , which might resonate with the number-crunchers in Abu Dhabi/Mubadala Mohamedbin Zayed , which are said to be a successful 'conventional' SWF, but less of an argument with PIF, which isn't always driven by rational, commercial considerations , and is much more MBS's plaything, as it's shown in some of its high profile (commercially questionable) 'statement' investments eg Credit Suisse (via SNB); Lucid Motors(EV); NEOM future city; SoftBank Vision ; and UBER. PIF owns over 50% of the entire Saudi quoted stock market....

Where ZIOC's best chance may lie is that both MBS and MBZ appear to attach great importance to appearances and domestic/global politics, though, hence the 'green-washing' and 'sports-washing' that we've been seeing..and pressure to have something in place re 'green ore' (whether with all the details worked out or not) in time for the big set-piece events later this year (BRICS meeting and COP28) may be ZIOC's strongest [short term] card...until the optics matter less.

The August seasonal exodus from the Gulf of decision-makers isn't too far away, better get cracking, guys!

.."what is more likely ? ZIOC developing a 30m tonnes per annum mine or regime change in RoC..."

Que?

This is a false choice : most people seem to think that ZIOC ISN'T going to develop the mine; OTOH, Big Den -although sprightly- is in his 80's and therefore regime change is a racing certainty.

So, however unlikely, the logical reply is that (a) is more likely.....

Again, shome mishtake, Shirley ?

;->

.." A bigger problem could be seizure or sanctions by the US if they do not want this asset controlled by BRICS members..."

Well, that would certainly be out of left field. The US can be pretty high-handed, but I think that might be 'abridge too far' even for them. And , if it were BRICS-specific would surely accelerate a collapse of US hegemony...

Shome mishtake, Shirley?

Can you point to a (peacetime) precedent, pls?

TIA

Hi millerston,

I'm on record as saying that the lack of volume is a concern....and that you'd expect more 'informed' buying by this stage, so I'm with you there.

It's got a pretty limited free float and irregular news flow, with a great honey-pot as a prize, so perhaps inevitably it's been the subject of a number of P + D's over the years....and peeps are jaded/cynical.

You either believe that 'this time is different' or you don't.

On balance, I do, which is why I remain invested. If I couldn't make a reasoned case, I personally would cash in my chips and move on.

Or, of course, it could be just a bad case of FOMO !

ATB whatever you decide

See this for what a host government might reasonably expect the concessionaire to do :

https://www.businessnews.com.au/article/African-mining-concessions-How-a-balanced-deal-delivers-an-enduring-relationship

We may joke about the steady stream of 'initiatives' that are promoted each year, but there's a pretty serious intent behind them : in the event of any threat to the concession, they've got a thick dossier to show that they've been doing their best to move things forward. And last year's restructuring is pretty compelling, I'd say.

AIUI

.."I have some sympathy with the get the asset auctioned off comment..."

I do too. But the minute ZIOC says it has no interest in seeing this through to completion, it's inviting Big Den to (lawfully) terminate the concession. And without compensation, since ZIOC hadn't met concession terms.

'Use it or lose it' in common parlance.

AIUI

.."Get the company auctioned off..."

I think that's being a bit simplistic, tbh,and speaks to your frustration.

Can you point to an example of how that might work?

Have you been to an AGM - at either co- and spoken with Elphick about this?

Genuine question.

ATB

In the interest of full disclosure, I have shareholdings in BUR , because of the Argentina case and its wider merits as an 'uncorrelated investment'; and in OCN (Ocean Wilson's), which is Brazil's largest port operator, currently (possibly) in informal talks with MSC, who bought Bollore Africa Logistics last year (double discount to TBV and a global logistics realignment play).

NAI, DYOR etc etc.

NAI, DYOR etc etc

Or, in this case, the 'green ore?

(1) Thanks to Jiving for the Economist 2014 info re Exxaro>Sapro Mayoko's substandard resources at Mayoko Lekoumou, which makes it unlikely (famous last words) that they're the intended primary target of the 'Gulf consortium's attentions.

So, who else is there?

(2)That article also mentions Equatorial Resources' project at nearby Mayoko Moussondji, which appeared to be still viable then (2014).

ER obviously feel they have something worthwhile, since they've JUST STARTED litigation, taking "its investment dispute with Congo to arbitration at the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), in the US, claiming that unlawful measures had been taken against its Mauritanian subsidiary EEPL at two of its investment projects in Congo. " ie Badondo (upcountry, near Belinga) and Mayoko Moussondji.

See

https://www.miningweekly.com/article/equatorial-resources-makes-11bn-claim-against-congo-2023-03-16

"The Congolese government has until August 2023 to respond to the claims."

Furthermore .."Equatorial has meanwhile told shareholders that the company is evaluating the merits of a litigation funding agreement, which would provide the company with non-recourse funding to cover the legal fees and other costs of the arbitration against Congo.."

This would probably be Burford Capital (BUR), a specialist funder that has just won an award (final size shortly to be determined , USD 4Bn to USD 8 Bn) against Argentina, also for expropriation.

It only takes on abt 10% of the cases offered to it, where it sees a high chance of success, it's key yardstick for declining a case is

"Your motivations are insufficiently economical."

(3) Burford is behind the other big 'known' iron ore deposit in Congo, Sundance Resources (as was) at Mbalam-Nabeba, up-country, straddling the border with Cameroon.

https://www.miningnews.net/politics/news/1409378/sundance-attracts-legal-funding-backer-for-case-against-congo

Sundance are seeking US$ 8.76 Bn damages, for cancellation of permits (and handover to a Chinese company).

Quite apart from the logistical issues, I can't see the 'Gulf consortium' taking the commercial and reputational risks of getting involved with (2) or (3), when there's 'live' litigation in progress.

And not a good look for Big Den/Little Den, if they're trying to attract foreign investment later this year.....

So, unless there's another deposit out there (pls advise !) ZIOC = TINA, IMO.

AFAICS

GLA

Hi NOZ 85,

Point out a factual error and I'll be happy to do so.

Until then 'I stand by my story'.

Best of luck over there.

Shares in GEMD in 2017 141m, today 142m

Shares in ZIOC in 2017 275m, 'today' ie pre RTO 307m

Hardly 'watering down' by AIM standards. And staff compensation is still AFAICS (have to look at AR detail) share-based, not cash.

Point taken re ski-slope re ZIOC, we know the reasons for that. No idea re GEMD. Are you 'less than gruntled' because of losses there, as well?

Re FS, I think it's a smokescreen and agree it will be 'out of date' because overtaken by events : ZIOC evidently can't pay for its implementation...

AIUI

.."As a result of such transactions, as at 28 June 2023, all of the 21,000,000 ordinary shares in the Company had been placed and the Company had received the aggregate net sum of £1,318,126.12..."

Hi guys,

Yes, my bad!

I'm just working my way through the results RNS, where the proceeds are spelt out more clearly.

Shoulda gone to Specsavers !

Apols to one and all for being a 'duff gen merchant' , as my late father used to say (not always to me).

ATB

Fully drawn in 2022, buried in the results RNS

"§ Total proceeds of £1,318,126.12 were received from the facility, following the placement of the final 7,000,000 tranche shares by SMC in 2022."

So av. price = 18.8p.

Not bad, from ZIOC's pov in the circs. And not obviously 'mates' rates', either...as things have turned out.

;->

Hi NewKOTB,

If anyone were minded to top up (Cliff's friend or not), if you go through Shard at least you would know that the money (95%) was going to ZIOC's coffers and not to a (likely) short term trader...

Jes' sayin', like.

;->

Well, something of a curved ball....good for those who cautioned re over-exuberance. Let's see how 'irrational' the exuberance turns out to be.

Re Shard, as others have said it satisfies any 'going concern ' issue ...and the facility structure replicates the earlier mechanism ('cut and paste' in fact *) with all the dilution minimisation measures that shows Elphick keen to protect the value of HIS holding.

* AT still involved ;->

Only niggle : if there's signalling involved, ZIOC could (presumably ?) have taken/GLEN offered a top-up /extension to the current small loan facility exp 31/12, thereby avoiding ANY dilution. But they didn't.

Why not ? Not wanting to be further beholden? Or signs of ZIOC/GLEN not being totally aligned ? As it is , the 31/12 longstop still stands.

GLA

There's no cash involved (yet), just IOU's and offsettables against future business (if any).

AZ, via TAG, is (finally) providing a modicum of support to SYME, less credit than the funds raised from the pledged shares deal that never materialized...and a lot less than the £ 40m taken out by the TAG consortium at the time of the RTO.

.."This is not something TAG were obliagted to do.." Well, here's the thing, I think TAG was, in order to buy TJ/JC's co-operation. After all, TAG has provided a Vendor Loan of £ 2m agst shares 'worth' " 1.3m. TJ/JC have got rid of shares they don't want and have avoided a larger cash settlement.

That's how it looks to me, anyway : they legged SYME over on the way in and they've done the same on the way out.

Life would be dull if we all thought the same way.

ATB

To spell it out : they have got rid of ALL their SYME shares.

Alles klar?