London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

And, pivoting back to the opening Rio, we have this :

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/emirates-global-aluminium-says-guinea-wrongfully-terminated-deal-2025-07-09/

.."Emirates Global Aluminium said on Wednesday that the Guinean government had wrongfully terminated an agreement with its subsidiary, Guinea Alumina Corporation, after a year-long dispute over the construction of an alumina refinery.

Guinea's military government suspended GAC's bauxite exports and mining operations as part of West Africa's military-led states' increasingly aggressive push to extract greater benefits from their vast natural resources.

The junta which seized power in 2021 in the world's second-largest producer of bauxite, the primary ore used to produce aluminum, had demanded that miners present plans to build refineries in order to generate capital for the country.

EGA, equally owned by the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund Mubadala and Dubai sovereign wealth fund the Investment Corporation of Dubai, said in a statement that it plans to pursue remedies through international tribunals.

"These actions have made the continuation of GAC's operations and the development of an alumina refinery impossible," Abdulnasser Bin Kalban, chief executive officer of EGA, said in the statement.

GAC will move ahead with the necessary process to make significant redundancies, which will initially affect more than 2,000 employees and contractors, the company said in the statement.

Despite Guinea's stricter regulations, bauxite exports jumped 36% to a record 99.8 million metric tons in the first half of 2025, driven by robust Chinese demand..."

As per my earlier post

.."Not a time, perhaps, for the lower ranks to by making/taking bold initiatives...until they see the lie of the land..."

GLA

Thanks!

Seb's take ...and some local colour:

(1) 20 mins ago 🛑Argentina didn’t wait for Judge Preska to decide on motion to stay and has appealed the turnover ruling.

(2) 4 hours ago : hxxps://www.infobae.com/economia/2025/07/10/juicio-por-ypf-el-gobierno-se-prepara-para-otro-fallo-adverso-de-la-jueza-loretta-preska/

Argentina digs in its heels.

.."Javier Milei's administration is furious with what it considers ‘domestic vultures’, says it will not negotiate with Burford and will ask for official support from the US. How the strategy continues.."

This may be 'playing to the gallery' and seeking to nobble Kicillof.

..""They're hand-feeding the vultures. Argentina will not renounce its right to defence. We will exhaust all judicial instances to defend the interests of all Argentines", promise sources close to the President.

Milei doubled down on his challenge to the [provincial] Governors and this afternoon there will be a key session in the Senate.

They point to recent statements by Axel Kicillof, governor of Buenos Aires; and also to former officials, private law firms, analysts and even companies that, they claim, could insidiously try to do business in Vaca Muerta taking advantage of a YPF that, although it is outside the case, could be affected.

In addition, as part of the general strategy, the state will ask the US government for help in the case, as already happened last year, when Joe Biden was President..."

It's complicated :

.."While the nature of the impending ruling is not yet clear, there are several parallel issues on Preska's desk. In the next few days she will have to decide whether to suspend the ruling on the delivery of the shares.

The options could be: she may call a conference with the parties in her chambers (or virtually) to further hear arguments; she may suspend the ruling pending outcomes of related cases; or she may accede to Argentina's request to suspend the ruling so that Argentina can appeal directly to the chamber, whether or not it requires assurances to do so.

If the court takes either of those two decisions, Argentina will go to the appeals court to ask for that benefit.

All these tensions could eventually end in contempt of court for the country, if the plaintiff requests it. It could also force the country to provide a guarantee, which, if not fulfilled, would also be a direct contempt of court..."

Second article already overtaken by events.

GLA

Per Semafor.

C-B doesn't make the cut, it would seem.

.."The first African leaders’ summit of US President Donald Trump’s second term will be held next week in Washington, with five heads of state from Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, and Senegal expected to be in attendance. The news, first reported by African Intelligence, was confirmed to Semafor by a person familiar with the plans.

The July 9-11 meeting, which Trump will attend, is likely to focus on US economic opportunities in West Africa’s critical minerals sector as well as regional security, areas that have emerged as priorities for Washington in its engagement with the continent.

The meeting comes as something of a surprise as plans are still being finalized for a wider US-Africa summit due to take place in September in New York. The timing could be strategic, with US officials potentially trying to capitalize on a period of intense US-Africa diplomacy, following a US-brokered ceasefire between DR Congo and Rwanda signed last week at the White House..."

The rationale appears to be Country-Specific Mineral Potential

Country Strategic Minerals & Assets Why It Matters to the U.S.

Gabon Manganese (world’s 2nd largest reserves), iron ore (Belinga) Key for steelmaking and battery cathodes

Liberia Iron ore (ArcelorMittal, Ivanhoe), potential rare earths U.S. firms already active; strategic Atlantic port access

Mauritania Iron ore (SNIM), copper, gold Stable governance, gateway to Sahel, and growing mining sector

Senegal Zircon, titanium, phosphate, gold Emerging mining hub with strong governance and U.S. ties

Guinea-Bissau Bauxite potential, untapped mineral base Frontier market with strategic location and diplomatic value

C-B ticks the iron ore and strategic Atlantic port access /hinterland (CAR etc), but wasn't included.

Au contraire : The US Ambassador visited Big Den on 4th July to announce his departure, at least a temporary downgrade until when/if a replacement is announced.

Hi Vet10,

My thanks also for taking questions - and I note the caveat restricting answers to matters 'in the public domain'.

My 2p's worth are raised by the RNS, so will hopefully be addressed.

(1) TIMING: You said I believe rightly that ' not as simple as holding an auction. That can't happen until the DRI, pipeline, pellet plant, tailings study etc are all done."

Pls ask your contact to reconcile :

Comment: The DRI results delivered with fanfare are evidently 'labscale' only - and not the bulk 'pilot-scale' that has an END OF YEAR TIMELINE.

The NPV valuation uplift implications are promised 'shortly', but there was no follow-through re timetable for proceeding to 'pilot-scale'.

EVERYTHING ELSE called for in the timeline provided barely 3 months ago was a 'miss' - pelletisation study/pellet plant; 30mtpa slurry pipeline upgrade; and 'dry tailings' study - all (necessarily?) linked AIUI to 'reveal' of the EPC contractor's identity.

[ I for one was looking for confirmation that it's PSEI, which would add significantly (IMO) to credibility re timeline adherence and meaningful engagement.]

Q : How much serious engagement will or can Strategic or Potential investors realistically show, until there's a bit more 'meat on the bone'?

(2) Re FUNDING, the Chairman's statement says:

.."Following completion of the 2025 Fundraise the Company is in a significantly improved financial position. Based on the current cost base at the Zanaga Project, the board of directors of ZIOC believes that the Company and Group will be adequately positioned to support its operations going forward IN THE NEAR FUTURE...."

[This then somehow morphed into]

.. The Board is satisfied the Company and Group will have sufficient funds to meet its own working capital requirements UP TO AND BEYOND TWELVE MONTHS FROM THE APPROVAL OF THESE ACCOUNTS."

Comment : Twelve months BEYOND AGM approval, on past form, means 'to December 2026'....

Really?

The March 2025 inflow of $8.0 million is down to $3.9 million 3 months later. Simple extrapolation suggests it's unlikely that there's enough cash to cover outgoings to December 2025, never mind the stated December 2026 date.

Hopefully it's an academic point!

Meanwhile, the [important] FEED timetable and related financing requirement hasn't been addressed/is at best opaque :

From the RNS:

"Next Steps : Throughout the REMAINDER of 2025, the Project Team will focus on ENGAGING with our selected partners to COMPLETE the FEED phase for the Stage One of the Zanaga project...[Ed.: how much has already been DONE - by %age completion or by $ value? And HOW PAID FOR, if at all?]

Q : Pls reconcile Chairman's statements with the above known (and unknown) outgoings to Dec 2025 (never mind 2026).

PS Given the choice, I'd prefer MK to AT to answer, if only because I'd like a project engineer's assessment rather than a deal-maker's (no disrespect to AT, just 'horses for courses').

Thanks again!

ATB

Continued...

Government officials told fixed-income investors earlier this year that they want to wait until yields on sovereign bonds edge below 10 percent before exploring a global debt sale. The legal conundrum has threatened those aims because uncertainty around it risks affecting how much Argentina would have to pay to borrow money abroad.

“Having that large claim hanging over the government would impact the cost of capital for them. They have to clear it at some point,” said David Austerweil, emerging-markets money manager at VanEck in New York. “Given they don’t have that much money, they have to pay with bonds.”

Currently, some of the country’s notes yield between 10 percent and 12 percent when measuring yield-to-worst, a metric that assumes several scenarios but not a default, according to pricing data compiled by Bloomberg.

It’s plausible Economy Minister Luis Caputo could assuage investor fears over the Burford spat by saying “something charming” even without a resolution, Austerweil said.

But the politics of the saga may provide another strong motivation to talk. YPF’s nationalisation was carried out under former president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, a standard-bearer of the Peronist political establishment Milei has blamed for Argentina’s litany of economic ills.

It was led by then-economy minister Axel Kicillof, who as the current governor of Buenos Aires Province poses one of the biggest threats to Milei from the left now that Fernández de Kirchner is serving a jail term under house arrest.

Before the Burford ruling, Milei had been on a winning streak heading into October midterm elections that will serve as a referendum on his shock therapy policies: inflation has slowed, the economy is growing and the government is producing primary budget surpluses on a monthly basis.

There are no shortage of risks associated with negotiations, especially given Argentina’s need to shore up foreign reserves to meet the terms of its latest deal with the International Monetary Fund.

But they also provide Milei another chance to score a victory, Adcap’s Gandara said, “by sitting down and declaring: ‘I can put an end to the problems I’ve inherited.’”

https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/economy/investors-see-way-for-milei-to-end-fight-over-state-oil-company-ypf.phtml

HTH

There is a silver lining for Javier Milei in a multibillion-dollar US judgment targeting Argentina’s main oil producer: at least some investors see the La Libertad Avanza leader as having a shot at finally putting an end to a long-running legal saga.

Milei, they sense, now has no choice but to negotiate a settlement over the future of state-run YPF SA with Burford Capital, a litigation firm representing minority shareholders affected by the nationalisation of the company in 2012.

And although any deal is certain to be painful for Argentina in the short-term, Milei has the chance to win over investors he needs to attract to his country by providing the sort of certainty they’ve long craved.

“There’s now the possibility for Milei to reach a very market-friendly agreement,” said Paula Gandara, the chief investment officer at Adcap Asset Management in Buenos Aires. “That could ultimately result in a lower country risk and a re-entry to capital markets.”

It’s a perhaps rosy view of the dilemma a US federal judge created for Milei this week, when she ordered Argentina’s cash-strapped government to give up its controlling stake in YPF to help satisfy a US$16-billion court judgment.

Still short on foreign reserves and expected to make more than US$4 billion in payments to international bondholders next week, Argentina can’t afford to pay. Milei needs congressional approval to hand over the shares. And the President who has refused to negotiate with Burford since taking office in 2023 plans to appeal the ruling, his spokesman Manuel Adorni said on social media Tuesday.

Argentine assets, including sovereign bonds and the peso, lost value in the wake of the ruling. New York-traded shares of YPF saw its biggest single-day drop since April and failed to recoup those losses since then. Meanwhile, Burford’s shares soared after the order before paring Monday’s gains.

Some legal experts remain sceptical, arguing that negotiating a costly settlement with Burford is at best premature and even potentially illegal.

“Argentina’s budget law impedes the government from reaching an agreement in the absence of a final sentence of conviction, which isn’t the case here because it is being appealed,” said Bernardo Saravia Frias, a former Treasury attorney under former president Mauricio Macri.

But bullish corners of the market nevertheless expect that the order will eventually force Milei to the table, even if it’s unlikely that YPF ever ends up in Burford’s portfolio.

“In the end, Argentina will retain YPF,” said Jeff Grills, emerging-markets portfolio manager at Aegon Asset Management. “Now it’s just one step closer to having to settle this.”

Argentina’s eagerness to return to capital markets by 2026 may provide a major incentive for talks.

Continued...

Hi Jiving,

.."our new cornerstone investors are going to be driving this transaction.."

I hope so! I found the RNS at best curate's-eggish.

Granted, the macro environment hasn't helped (tariff wars; real war; resource nationalism; waning ESG/'green' enthusiasm amidst the West's newfound budgetary realities, question marks over Xi's grip on power, etc) but still :

(1) Why left (again!) to the last minute?

The DRI results delivered with fanfare are evidently 'labscale' only - and not the bulk 'pilot-scale' that has an end of year timeline.

The NPV valuation uplift implications are promised 'shortly', but there was no follow-through re timetable for proceeding to 'pilot-scale'.

Everything else called for in the timeline provided barely 3 months ago was a 'miss' - pelletisation study/pellet plant; 30mtpa slurry pipeline upgrade; and 'dry tailings' study - all (coincidentally?) linked AIUI to 'reveal' of the EPC contractor's identity : I for one was looking for confirmation that it's PSEI, which would add significantly (IMO) to credibility re timeline adherence and meaningful engagement.

How much serious engagement will Strategic or Potential investors realistically show, until there's a bit more 'meat on the bone'?

(2) Point taken re new investors spending their money on the value enhancements. However:

- ZIOC was running on fumes @ 31/12 (cash $ 0.11m);

-there's the obligatory note re 'going concern' - addressed by the March 2025 inflow (net $8.0m)- but we're already down to $3.9m @ 26 June ;

-not much has been 'delivered' - at least to RNS-able level;

-and the FEED timetable and financing requirement hasn't been addressed/is at best opaque : "Next Steps : Throughout the remainder of 2025, the Project Team will focus on engaging with our selected partners to COMPLETE the FEED phase for the Stage One of the Zanaga project...[Ed.: how much has already been DONE - by %age completion or by $ value? And how paid for, if at all?]

(3) What's the realistic cash outlook? Apart from the above (down to $3.9m after 3 months), we're told

.."The Group continues to review the costs of its operational activities with a view to conserving its cash resources. As part of such review, and in order to preserve the cash position of the Group, it has been agreed with the Directors since January 2023 that FEES PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED WOULD BE REVIEWED."

This is hard to parse. What does it actually mean? That it will just continue? If so, why not say that?

The Shard Subscription Facility is still in place, AIUI about 14.4m availed of the 36m ESA. Is this correct?

Let's hope that the new investors are as motivated to minimise dilution as Elphick was/is ...and won't trash the share-price through their actions/inactions.

(4) Possible pointers: There appear (Note 11) to be about 6.1m VESTED options that have a 29 July 2025 expiry date. I hope we'll be notified if/when they're exercised- or lapse.

ATB

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for extrader

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for extrader

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Please enter at least 2 characters

No results found

Search results

Recently viewed

Trending