Member Info for extrader

Hi Jiving

From the 10 Feb RNS

.."Red Arc Minerals Inc ("RAM"), a private investment company backed by leading mining industry executives (note plural) and focussed on the development of strategic-scale high-grade iron ore assets....

then the bit you quote about Heeney Capital's 25.26%

Sir Mick is name-checked in despatches:

.."RAM is backed by, AMONG others, certain individuals (note plural) and groups who participated in ZIOC's fundraising in 2025, including Sir Mick Davis and Heeney Capital...."

So on that basis, I think you need to add , at the very least, SirMick's +at least one notables' + at least 2 x group's holdings to the RAM party.

If all of those TOGETHER have less than 5%, then you're right.

Wouldn't you want to check, though?

How much do you think they hold? I don't know...but I think we should be told.

And we shouldn't have to be having this discussion in the first place, we should ALL know clearly and unambiguously what the position is.

"The Nomad hasn't objected, so it must be OK " is a pretty sticky wicket to bat off, IMO.

As to reliance on Panmure, well this would be the same Nomad who

- failed to insist on the TR-1s for Graymont and Regatta in the first place;

-doesn't seem to have checked out- or been aware of? - the affiliated GIS relationship with Graymont and/or its ownership and credibility as a suitable counterpart for a formal marketing and offtake agreement, with (to a shareholder + offtaker) a significant economic value (I said $ 650M, we can argue about the detail); and

- has failed to pick up on a number of other issues of concern.

As I said the other day, 'incurious' is the mildest of descriptions, AFAICS.

On another matter, do you agree my interpretation of the handling of GLEN's marketing and offtake rights relinquishment?

It's the only explanation, AFAICS, that makes commercial sense.

But I'm open to persuasion, if I've misunderstood something.

Cheers

Africa Intelligence: 13 March 2026

Congo

Unable to get paid, Swiss multinational SGS exits the country

Global specialist in inspection and certification Société Générale de Surveillance is withdrawing from Congo-Brazzaville. This is due to repeated difficulties in obtaining payment from public authorities, such as with the Société Nationale des Pétroles du Congo. ...

Cameroon

Paul Biya favours Transatlantic D for Douala Port

The Cameroonian subsidiary of Swiss company SGS has lost its battle to keep control of goods inspection at the port of the country's economic capital. This shift is linked to struggles and rivalries at top levels of government.

29.01.2026

Not a good look for either country.

Importers (cough smugglers) will be pleased, though.

PS

Case in point: "We KNOW that the RAM concert party has under 30%."

And your evidence for this is...?

GLA

Hi Jiving, ATG,

I think you're approaching this from the wrong perspective:

(1) The offtake issue:

When ZIOC 'acquired' GLEN's Jumelles holding and future production, it made sense for GLEN - as a miner- trader to have offtake and marketing rights.

ZIOC's hotshot lawyers (copyright:AT) are sure to have contemplated a situation where GLEN might later exit. They'd have been remiss not to.

Allowing GLEN to exit ZIOC whilst retaining offtake and marketing rights - either for itself to exploit or to pass on to third parties - would leave ZIOC literally with 'no route to market': it could produce as much ore as it wanted , but all sales, cashflow and profit would go to outsiders.

That's clearly untenable.

On GLEN's exit, its offtake and marketing rights MUST have lapsed and reverted to ZIOC. Nothing else makes sense. Maybe there were conditions attached, who knows?, but the basic argument must hold.

(2) Possible concert party issue:

You start from a de minimis position: this is what we've been told...and it adds up to less than 30%, ergo everything's hunkydory, because ...rules.

My starting position is that the Mar 2025 incomers arithmetically took 50%, in a private placement, invitation only, gatekept by Shard.

Given the opacity of various shareholdings, it's up to ZIOC Board and Broker to make sure (in its own interest and on shareholder behalf) that there ISN'T a regulatory breach, with a top-down approach, ie excluding progressively those shareholdings that are at least prima facie unconnected and working down to get under the regulatory threshold.

The Board and broker seem profoundly incurious (I use the term advisedly) about this and a number of other regulatory issues.

(3) I guess our different perspectives are a function of life experience- The Germans say that ' a child who's been burned is afraid of the fire'.

I've been burned on the stockmarket a few times, maybe you haven't. In which case, I envy you your fortune.

My early mentor in banking, James was ex ANZ Grindlays, before doing a spell with us in the Gulf...and then getting 'promoted' to head up our regional Small Business office in the West Midlands.

We met up a while later when I was on leave, I asked him how things were going?

He laughed ruefully and said : It's challenging: I've dealt with the Lebanese in Nigeria; the Parsees in HongKong; and the Kuwaitis in Kuwait; but for sheer duplicity, cunning and deviousness, I've never seen anything like the small British businessman..."

There's a lesson in there somewhere. There was for me.

OPM = Other People's Mistakes

Differences of opinion are what make a market.

Best to you both.

If you're still around...and fancy a chat re Elphick's co, PM me on advfn, extrader

Hi glenmorangie,

If you want to swap notes re Elphick's other co, pm me on advfn, extrader

Hi Vet10,

If you're interested in swapping notes on Elphick's co, pm me on advfn, extrader

Hi atg,

If you care to swap views about Elphick's co, pm me on advfn, extrader.

Even a disgruntled ex-shareholder is entitled to complain!

Hi Rebster,

If you want to swap notes on Elphick's co, pm me on advfn, extrader.

Hi Catbert,

If you're still in Elphick's company and want to share views, pm me on advfn, extrader

Lots of coverage, all saying pretty much the same thing:

-https://www.dw.com/en/republic-of-congo-brazzaville-presidential-election-dennis-sassou-nguesso/a-76365354

-https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/15/republic-of-congo-votes-in-election-that-could-extend-sassous-42-year

-https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/article/congo-brazzaville-votes-with-president-set-to-extend-rule/

-https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/congo-republic-votes-election-expected-000501551.html

-https://apnews.com/article/republic-of-congo-president-election-a7e32fea3127f90dabfc838eedd83d21

This one's a bit different:

https://issafrica.org/iss-today/congo-brazzaville-s-predictable-election-masks-a-brewing-succession-battle

.."Though he will likely remain in power for the foreseeable future, an extended incumbency or a family succession may be problematic. Reports reveal that International Cooperation Minister Denis-Christel Sassou Nguesso – the president’s son who has struggled to win the hearts of the party’s leadership – is probably next in line to rule.

Other party members, including Jean-Dominique Okemba and Sassou-Nguesso’s cousin Jean-Jacques Bouya, are most likely to challenge the president’s son. Instability could emerge from political divisions within the ruling party or the mobilisation of the opposition.

Despite a potentially predictable election outcome, the state must maintain an open process by facilitating African Union-coordinated external observer missions to ensure a minimum of credibility.

Beyond that, the country needs an expanded political space that guarantees meaningful participation by opposition parties and civil society actors. This must include the immediate release of all political prisoners and detained journalists, reaffirming respect for fundamental freedoms and the rule of law.

The government also needs to diversify the economy to reduce poverty and unemployment. This requires bold investment in infrastructure development without increasing public debt and dependency on foreign aid..."

An election without too much suppression of the opposition is probably a box on everyone's countdown checklist.

IMO

Sigh.

(1) The asset had been written off/down in GLEN's books in 2022.

.."Iron ore Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves have not been re-estimated since 2015 (refer earlier Glencore reports). Glencore is no longer an active participant in the previously-disclosed Zanaga project. The remaining iron ore projects are not financially material to the Group and are, therefore, not reproduced in this report."

https://www.glencore.com/.rest/api/v1/documents/static/a53e27b1-6025-4ef2-9be8-f3be543dfb26/GLENCORE-Resources-and-Reserves-report-2023.pdf

I am not a tax expert, but I imagine they'll have milked the writedown rights for this asset that they picked up 'for free' when they acquired Xstrata and ITS spend on the mine - $ 300M plus, IIRC.

(2) GLEN was an unacceptable counterpart for C-B because of unsettled (and unsavoury) pre-export finance loans that it was 'badgering' C-B to pay in late 2024 (Africa Intelligence)

(3) GLEN has been fined in multiple jurisdictions for (alleged) corruption. It's paid the fines (which tells you something) but still has DoJ on its back, it's believed to want a US listing and doesn't need the inspection risk.

(4) GLEN (under Glasenberg) was the ring-leader of the miners controlling - and up-pricing- spot trader sales into China, the Chinese have woken up to this and established CMRG as a 'single desk buyer'. You'll have read that CMRG has currently got BHP in its sights.

All in all, I think you'll find it was a case of 'willing seller ...and certainly willing buyer'.

AIUI, DYOR etc etc

Hi JIving.

(1) .." it seems likely that the then owner Glencore made the 20% offtake deal with Graymont. ZIOC fortunately got the other 80% of offtake seemingly for nothing.." I don't think it was fortunate, who else could have plausibly taken it, an outsider?

I think the incomers were happy to park the 80% safely - and uncontroversially- with ZIOC, not least because as 50% shareholders they had 50% of the eventual benefit of the 80% as well as the 'affiliate' benefit of the GIS 20%..

Why do I say that? Because AT confirmed during InvestorMeet: "Graymont Bay, via Gulf Iron and Steel, ended up with 20%. "

(2) Pls re-read your later comment in light of the above: .."Your $650m pa valuation (of GIS's 20%) makes sense for the combined future worth for an EQUITY + OFFTAKE HOLDER after Stage 2 but not for offtake alone"

By your own logic, the members of the Mar 2025 consortium, specifically Graymont, would appear to have THAT $650m in the bag, PLUS whatever %age of the remaining 80% offtake benefit that they access as ZIOC shareholders. If they ONLY have 50% of the 80%, that's another 40% or $1.3Bn sales pa that they control. So they'll have - conservatively- nigh on $2,000 million share in offtake revenue.

Allocating ZIOC a 1% NSR (reducible to 0.5% at RAM's option) doesn't look like a big 'win' to me, in context.

(3) "Can you find a FEED, or Stage 1 financing deal for a greenfield iron ore mine in the Republic of Congo - this is the relevant example for ZIOC?"

Well, KP2 is potash , a designated critical mineral for the Chinese, which iron ore isn't (but maybe DRI is?); and it's in C-B; Summit has a Chilean corporate and a Gulf SWF (Oman) backer ($40M capital in 2016, cf ZIOC's £31m in 2010), which we (apparently) lack.

It's nevertheless managed to negotiate various concessions from the Chinese over the years:

"They brought in SEPCO (a subsidiary of Power China) as the mine builder, who have subsequently produced a fully costed development plan, with a Parent (Power China) Guarantee.

Subsequently, Summit have offered a 100% funded finance (part Debt and part Royalty), subject to Kore fulfilling certain conditions (e.g. appointing a firm to manage the operation of the mine).

The funding will be Sharia compliant.

Whilst Summit had the right to offer the funding package, Kore has the right to find its own deal elsewhere.

State-owned Power China would easily get Chinese development banks to provide debt and Chinese firms to do a Streaming deal for the Off-Take.

During the funding discussions with China, they have offered an alternative solution, whereby China buys the Kola Project or the entirety of Kore Potash."

OK, maybe 'apples and oranges', but I think it shows that finance options ARE available, particularly from the motivated Chines.

HTH

Actually, I WILL come back:

.."Tranche 2 is $125m. That's what RAM has offered, subject to the FEED, .."

That sounds familiar: 'You can have this...if you give us that' (the GIS 20% offtake).

The Mar 2025 deal.

Which turns out to be a very different animal than we'd all understood.

Now we have ' You can have $125m in X years's time, if you give us progressive control of the Company (including Board, pretty early on) now."

'I fear the Greeks, even when they bring gifts'

ATB

Hi Feeks,

Thanks for this

I don't keep track of everyone's investment positions, so missed your buy back in. Apols for that.

You think it's a good deal, I don't.

I've shared some of my reasons, I don't agree your interpretation.

I think we should just agree to differ, otherwise it's just a dialogue of the deaf.

ATB

Hi Feeks

.."Somebody has to stump up a very large sum to get this moving.."

$15 million, if that.

.." I sold before the RAM deal RNS precisely because I thought the downside risks were sizeable (and far too great for me to continue holding).

On that basis, (a) you're an armchair warrior and (b) you have completely misread the 'battle' plan.

Got it

Hi MItch984,

I think we're on the same page...and the same age (which to be fair may be influencing my views on a 'jam tomorrow' - well actually, YEARS away- reward).

Pls pm me on advfn, extrader to swap notes.

ATB

.."he's got the thankless task of explaining it to a bunch of clueless buffoons to explain it to..."

My heart bleeds for him......and MK.

These guys (on your telling) have spent the last two years assiduously courting every potential strategic on the planet; have been repeatedly knocked back and told 'we want to base any offer of the current s/p..... like everyone does'; have blithely ignored that repeated comment; have persevered and incurred lots of costs pursuing their NAV- based dream....and are now having to swallow the bitter pill and recognise that they've wasted 2 years of their lives pursuing a fruitless dream.

And they're having to row back publicly and admit that they've been leading investors down the garden path all this time.

You can see the remorse and contrition on their faces (not).

GLA

Hi Jiving,

.."Interesting stuff, you touch on two related topics - the financing of other mines & the role of 'China'.

Thanks!

(1) I used the FAR example, not because of relevance re geography or mineral, but as an illustration of a creative financing package: from local bond facility early doors (likely not possible in C-B), to supplier finance pre FEED, house bank finance, eximbank finance/support/sinosure credit enhancement etc.

I also mischievously used this Vision Blue backed deal because Sir Mick's transaction was supported/secured/rewarded (no dodgy pricing, millerston) by a 25% offtake concession.

The deal write-up also states that Tony Trahar was on the FAR Board at the outset, supporting the impression that he was chosen for a brief directorship at BSL as a safe pair of hands'.

Finally, note the sequencing: THIRD PARTY MONEY IN FIRST, SHAREHOLDER EQUITY CONTRIBUTION LAST.

That is, the 'standard' industry playbook, which ZIOC has signally - and I would say egregiously - failed to follow.

(2) The China factor: Totally agree that they're in pole position. I'd add that C-B was first to receive MFN status, with promise of 'early harvest' benfits.

FEED finance isn't just an Asian practice :

(1)Sinohydro – Hydropower Projects Across Africa. Also, representative of Chinese SOE practice.

Sinohydro routinely performs pre FEED and FEED equivalent engineering before financing is finalised.

They do this to lock in design control and secure the EPC contract, which is where their margin sits.

FEED costs are later rolled into the EPC contract value.

(2)China Railway Construction Corporation (CRCC) – Rail & Mine Corridors

CRCC has repeatedly advanced route design, geotechnical studies, and FEED level engineering ahead of mandate.

This is common in mining linked rail corridors (e.g., Angola, DRC, Ethiopia).

The early work is treated as a loss leader to secure the multi billion dollar EPC.

ZIOC’s project includes slurry pipeline + port — exactly the type of infrastructure where Chinese EPC groups front load engineering.

(3) Fluor – Oil & Gas FEED to EPC Transitions

Fluor has a long history of discounted or deferred FEED when they believe they are well positioned for EPC.

In LNG and petrochemicals, FEED packages of $20–40M are often partially absorbed to secure EPC contracts of $1–5B.

Shows that even Western EPCs treat FEED as a strategic investment.

(4)Bechtel – Mining & LNG

Bechtel has advanced pre FEED and optimisation studies at minimal upfront cost to secure EPC on:

large copper projects ; LNG trains; rail/port expansions;

They openly describe FEED as a competitive differentiator, not a profit centre.

(5) Worley (formerly WorleyParsons) – Iron Ore & Bulk Materials

FEED scopes are often partially vendor financed or billed at reduced rates, with the expectation of EPCM award.

FAHAD AL TAMIMI, BELIEVED TO BE OUR SAUDI INVESTOR IS HEAD OF WORLEY'S SAUDI J/V AND BIG IN PHOSPHATE (think slurry pipeli

Hi Jiving,

.." It is not his role to publicly disclose third party shareholding structures..."

Agreed. AT's role is business development and customer relations. He shouldn't have to 'explain' deficiencies in normal compliance matters

If ZIOC and its lawyers and Nomad were doing appropriately rigorous due diligence on the proposed acquirer of 87.5% of the Project, you'd expect this to be in the public domain anyway, wouldn't you? As they must have done - one hopes - to (safely) sign a commercial agreement with GIS for its 20% offtake.

We never got TR-1s for Graymont Bay or Regatta (managed by Heeney Capital) for the earlier deal; Heeney Capital is described as a 'backer' of RAM's approach. All that we've been told is that 'RAM is backed by, among others, certain individuals and groups who participated in ZIOC's fundraising in 2025, including Sir Mick Davis and Heeney Capital' ...the latter 2 are described as RAM's co-founders.

Playing Devil's advocate, that wording would encompass the possibility of the 2 groups -2025 and 2026- being wholly congruent.

Wouldn't you think it right that we as shareholders - asked to evaluate the merits of this unexpected deal - should know the extent of overlap - if any - between at least the major participants in the Mar 2025 transaction and the Feb 2026 transaction?

Especially given that we only learned 2 days ago (a year after the event) that GIS turns out to be a Graymont Bay Group 'affiliate'. What else might we learn about THIS deal, a year down the road?

A case of 'Fool me once, etc...' , surely?

ATB