Member Info for extrader

I assume that the right of first refusal cuts both ways...? ;->

.."according to website nr 2 shareholder has less than 4%.."

From memory, a lot of 'friends' over the years have dropped just below the disclosable 3 %....
It seems that
Seritza (Howarth) dropped below 3 % (but maybe just by parcelling out?), cf Leganes ?
Keith Everitt appears still to have 5.62% - 17.3 million.

FWIW

Hi Peterfal,

I think your numbers are based on 307m shares - but if you value the Zanaga asset at £ 500m, ZIOC's (current) half would 'only' be worth £ 250m ie abt 80p per share... and (after the event) there'll be roughly 2 x as many shares in issue, for the whole asset, ie again abt 80p per share.

Still 'worth getting out of bed for', though!

;->

The real free float of ZIOC is probably pretty low: under 20m new shares were sold at IPO, with another 20m sold concurrently by founders/promoters - and there's been thankfully/commendably little dilution since - so not much more than 40-50m, say in 'unsticky' hands...

And re earlier possible sale of ZIOC's 50%-1 stake in Zanaga, GLEN had right of first refusal.

Hi nibj,
I'm not that versed on UK regs, but presumably the Company's Memo and Arts will also apply.

But isn't this a red herring? The situation you describe (Clifford hypothetically joining Glen to steamroller something through@ 15% + 48%) is actually weaker than the existing situation (where Clifford @ 30% could do the same with GLEN at 50% +1), no?

And that's without taking account - in either scenario - of the 'friends of Clifford' + 'friends of Michael', many of whom would vote 'along party lines', I imagine.

AFAICS

'Where is there any extra value here?'

AIUI, ZIOC will have a majority shareholding stake (ie the opposite of now) and majority on BoD, so in theory calls the shots.
By the same token, GLEN is (formally) lowering its profile/involvement, which for GLEN-related reasons probably suits it.

Either or both of the above MAY make Zanaga a more attractive proposition to a prospective suitor.

IMO

307m per the stats at top of page.

Hi nibj,

Thanks for this.
Even at 1-2% royalty, GLEN would make serious money, provided the agreement was binding on 'successors and assigns'.
AFAICS

.." Sapro has a 15mt/year offtake agreement in place with Glencore..."

(1) AFAIAA, this was claimed by Obambi at a conference - and just not refuted at the time by a GLEN representative in attendance. I haven't seen a statement from GLEN itself - or anything similar- supporting this, if you have, pls share !

(2) OTOH, if Sapro IS in the frame, that might explain the curious inclusion of 'other similar infrastructure' in the Marketing Agreement....

Ho hum.

PS Today's (coincidental) news re GLEN's disposal of its Cabar mine has some interesting 'compare and contrast' bits, obv. at a very different life of mine stage.

https://uk.advfn.com/stock-market/london/glencore-GLEN/share-news/Glencore-PLC-MAC-Glencore-agree-to-acquire-Cobar/89620529

ATB

"Perhaps more clearly - Its a Royalty not an Off Take?"

Per the RNS it's a Marketing agreement for the sale [by NewZIOC] and purchase [by GLEN] of ALL (my caps) future iron ore production from the Project or any other of their or their Affiliates' assets USING SIMILAR infrastructure [interesting qualification, btw] in the Republic of Congo.

So that bit looks like an offtake arrangement to me, esp given Elphick's comment quoted already.

My understanding is that 'royalty' can cover both a fee on production and/or a fee on revenue, chargeable by the host government.

What I'd be looking for is for its usage here to mean 'royalty finance'....

'Dum spiro, spero' - while I breathe, I hope.
;->

Hi MM

You've cribbed at 'the revenue that creates the value' but overlooked that this deal is essential for the project to get underway in the first place, by priming the pump (to coin a phrase).

Elphick comment: " entering into the Marketing Agreement with Glencore International now provides COMFORT TO INVESTORS AND FINANCIERS [my caps] that the Project's future production is underpinned by one of the largest iron ore traders globally."

ATB

"Why have they kept an interest ?"

Like Tesco (snaffling up development sites in cities where it has no intention of expanding), to block the competition/keep one's options open. At negligible cost, in GLEN's case: remember, they inherited Zanaga as an incidental of the Xstrata takeover.

IMO

Hi Mitch984,

"Similarly financing of the mine by another mining company is probably out too."

This looks to be moving more towards the arrangement that GLEN has with Champion Iron in Canada, where it has a minority stake, with an offtake agreement and has provided supportive finance.
See https://newsroom.championiron.com/index.php?s=2429&keywords=glencore

The transaction seems to give GLEN something akin to an option - lots of rights, without some of the attendant, inconvenient obligations !

Re possible investors, how about Vale/Brazil, for a South/South tie-up covering monetisation of iron ore, fertiliser and rain forests ;->

ATB

Hi 99icecream

"Is this a way that Glencore holds less that 50% of the equity, but gets more than 50% of the sale proceeds ?"

Looks like it - in the same way as an oilco can get more than one bite of the cherry if it runs downstream operations as well as upstream, AIUI.
I'm wondering whether/how they've prepared C-B for this - the original concession agreement would surely have an exchange of control provision ?
Lots of moving parts and imponderables - but the move has livened up a somewhat damp day, at least.

ATB

I'd normally leave you to stew in your own (evidently rather toxic) juices, but the kinder thing to do is suggest that you ask the moderators to pull this thread and save you further embarrassment.

ATB

"Just pure speculation, with no research, I mean why would you spin out a separate CO from your own, call it POLB then own nothing in it, as your fact post suggest "

See Admission Document 19 July 2021 https://www.poolbegpharma.com/investors/documents/
'Knock yourself out'.
HTH

I don't profess to 'have the answers', but I seem to have got some of the facts right.
What exactly is your question?

.."both CO will make that announcement at the same time, as they do own 50% of the equity here,.."
Shome mishtake, Shirley ?
POLB was spun out of ORPH/HVO, HVO doesn't have any shareholding in POLB.