Member Info for extrader

Hi millerston

.."In your eagerness to trash this deal, you are willing to embrace loss leading and over invoicing..."

I'm experienced enough to recognise that it's a fact of life, I don't 'embrace' or do it myself, but I'm not so naive as to refuse to believe that it happens.

"Further, your happy with associates and affiliates getting a cut of the offtake at concessionary rates and transfer pricing !@

See above, 'happiness' has nothing to do with it.

"That's a p!!s poor deal."

Yes.

"It's a deal rooted in dishonesty..."

I guess you're seeing for the first time how a sausage is made.

Mining has notable ESG challenges and is not for the faint-hearted.

I'd suggest you stick to your investments in GSK, but they have their ethical issues too.

My view FWLIW is that - generally speaking- it's usually 'less bad' to have a major, semi-accountable Western corporate involved in mineral extraction than 50,000 'artesanal' (wonderful word, sounds like my baker's work) semi-slaves doing hard manual labour in semi-medieval conditions.

HTH

Hi Moneyman64,

pm me on advfn, extrader for a chat re that other co.

Cheers

Ttps://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/thousands-chinese-boats-mass-sea-

..."Thousands of Chinese fishing boats have been massing in geometric formations in the East China Sea, in coordinated actions that experts believe are part of Beijing's preparations for a potential regional crisis or conflict.

Monitoring ship-tracking data on Christmas Day, Jason Wang could tell something "unusual" was underway as fishing boats swarmed into two parallel inverted Ls,each about 400 kilometres (about 250 miles) long.

Wang could see the roughly 2,000 fishing boats among the many thousands of vessels that ply the busy waterway through their automatic identification systems (AIS) -- a GPS-type signal that commercial ships use to avoid collisions.

The vessels, which were as close as 500 metres (1,640 feet) to each other, held their positions for about 30 hours in near gale-force winds and then suddenly scattered......"

GLA

.."They couldn't square an NPV of 400p with a share price of 6p..."

I struggle to believe that they tried particularly hard. And it can't help that they appear to have shot themselves in the foot in the process.

See below.

As recently as Dec 2025, ZIOC was pitching an NPV10 of £ 9.47 a share, with 0.3x Kami read-across at £ 2.84

https://www.zanagairon.com/documents/corporate-presentation/, page 37

What feedback from his engagement with strategics over the last 18 months was MK sharing / not sharing with AT and the Board, to 'manage' their and our expectations? At some point , there must/ought to have been discussions about 'hypotheticals' 'What if...? How would you feel about....? etc

Until Dec 2025, everyone seems to have been happy to play along - and indeed, promote- 'our' valuations as realistic or , at least 'ballpark'.

I have an image of Wiley E Coyote belatedly discovering the existence of gravity.

As to the disparity between an NPV-based price and the offered price, let's say between the Kami price (284p) and the offer price (?12p eventually). That'd be 2.7% of the 'ask':

- absent independent validation of the promised Feb 26 numbers, Kami falls to 104p ie no accounting for value enhancement initiatives. The price agreed rockets up to....... 11.7% of the 'ask'.

So our negotiators either (i) never believed what they were promoting in the first place...and folded at the first challenge; or (II) seem to have voluntarily lowered the 'opening price' substantially. ....and STILL folded at the first pushback.

Neither is a good look, IMO.

And -even if you/we/they accept 104p as a starting point, to settle on 12p 'because the current price in the market is 6p) is a bit pathetic, wouldn't you say.

It's a very Chinese practice, so I've heard : If you want 100 (as seller), they'll offer 5 or 10, as buyer. If you 'meet halfway', they've paid only 50% of your ask.

In this case, ZIOC has accepted max 12% of an already heavily-discounted ask, which it justifies by a short term market perception of value.

'Value is what you buy; price is what you pay'.

GLA

Hi shauny86

(1) "The major shareholders only own 42.51%.. of that 5.77% is under Gupta (been selling down - could show he's not a fan of the deal)..."

The Mar 2025 2 stage transaction introduced via private placement 416,860,475 shares to the register, which currently stands at 832,379,996 shares.

A private placement managed by Shard (based on earlier subscription model) is likely to have been 'by invitation only', would you agree? They have 'form' as gatekeepers, as several shareholders who tried to 'mystery shop' the earlier subscriptions found out : 'by invitation only'.

Leaving aside the HeeneyCapital - managed folk (who have declined to produce TR-1s (and not been persuaded to do so by Co or Nomad) and Gupta, we have no idea of the identities/quantum of exposure of the remaining subscribers, who in aggregate are just shy of 50%.

Gupta may personally have sold down, but potentially to 'friendly hands' that are below the disclosable 3%. So I don't think its safe to draw the conclusion you have.

What if - I accept a big IF- there IS an UNDECLARED (de facto, if not de jure) concert party amongst those onboarded shareholders? Not necessarily 50%, but could easily be 40 to 45%....MM himself (where is he btw?) made the suggestion that a chunk of the subscription may have been 'parked' with Shard as 'currency'.

I don't know enough about the rules to know whether or when the broker is obliged to report/declare a 'trading' position to the stockmarket, in addition to his regulator.

.."That leaves just over 36% of the vote for major shareholders."

See above.

"They will need a whole bunch of regular shareholders to vote 'yes' for the deal to go through."

The question was asked and answered at the InvestorMeet :

Andrew: “Julian — you asked what percentage of votes is required at the EGM for the RAM transaction to proceed. A 51% vote on the day is required.”

AT didn't say that this was the threshold needed at projectco level, at topco level it would have been higher. Which may be why they went this route, if you think about it.

See above why I think they may be closer to 51% than it would seem. If you add Elphick's 9%, they're almost certainly already over. If you then add another 5-10% for 'rump Guava and Garbut (remember them? originally a higher holding than Guava), they're comfortably over.

This is an instance, I believe, of 'the future that's already happened'.

.."But, if the deal doesn't go through, what is plan b?.."

See above.

As things stand, I'm pretty certain it will go through.

Folk may hope for a counter bid, a hostile approach, even a 'white knight'.

'Hope' isn't a strategy...and doesn't give agency.

AFAICS

HTH and ATB

.."The decision to proceed wont be made till FID is complete..."

Nuance : I OTOH suspect that the decision to proceed HAS already been made, there are a number of checklist items that will dictate the rate of progress.

GLA

.."NPV is a meaningless metric at this stage of development..."

Yet it's the one that the Company has been harping on about incessantly for the past 2 years....right up to 10th Feb 2026 , when it's suddenly disavowed ; the twice promised end Feb updates are suddenly kicked into the long grass; and 'compared to the current s/p' suddenly becomes the preferred metric.

Why do you think that should be?

Seriously, I'm trying to understand the 'disconnect'.

Here's a chance for YOU to help ME.

TIA

My own average is under 8p.

My various family members average under 6p.

HTH

.."Plan B is they offer you a 30% premium over the weighted average share price over the last three months..."

For various reasons, I don't think VWAP is an appropriate yardstick.

Not least because it's suddenly become the Company's preferred basis for comparison.

Sometimes it's as important to listen to what's NOT said as to what is.

HTH

Millerston

.."Your putting the cart before the horse, there is no throughput..."

It's a lot nearer than it was in 2014, when people were willing to pay £ 1.56p per share for half of the asset, pre value enhancement, DRI,inflation etc etc..

And this horse is saddled up and - so we're told - ready to move.

HTH.

I think you need it.

GLA

Hi Jiving,

Lots to catch up on...and lots going on for me elsewhere atm, so I'll address your - and others' - various comments in bits and bobs.

First, the '$ 650m value figure' : that's just the throughput of 20% of ZIOC Stage 2 $3,246m EBITDA.

We can talk about what profitability that might mean if GIS were an equity-holder (by read-across from the presentations and RNS's)

• GIS controls 6Mtpa

• Project EBITDA per tonne ≈ $66.7/t

• Economic rent flowing through GIS tonnes ≈ $400m per annum

What's the value to a trader/offtaker on the $650M 'turnover'?

I (well, AI) looked at the typical through the cycle trading margins of GLEN , Trafigura and Vitol.

• Glencore Metals Marketing: 1–2%

• Trafigura overall trading: ~2–3%

• Vitol overall trading: ~2–4%

They range between 1 and 4%, that's $6.5m to $ 26m pa.

I haven't tried to quantify the DRI-grade 'scarcity premium' upside.

Assume an avge $ 20m trading profit, over just 20 years at 10%, that's an NPV10 of $ 160M on the self-serving 3.1x multiple used for ZIOC's NSR.

I then asked: how much finance could GIS raise today secured on the above future cashflows, starting in say 2033? Apply appropriate multiples allowing for commodity risk, execution risk, country risk etc Run 2 x different offtake structures, take and pay...and take or pay.

Bottom line?If GIS wanted to raise money today, it could raise:

• $15–20m under a Take and Pay structure

• $25–35m under a Take or Pay structure

• $50–60m from a trader valuing optionality

alternatively framed:

Financing Capacity Today

Structure Discount Rate PV Today Comment

Take and Pay 23% $17m Merchant risk, banks hate it

Take or Pay 17% $30m Bankable, but still Congo + long dated

Trader valuation 12% $50–60m Strategic, optionality, DRI uplift

Note: these are extracts from a 60 page dialogue I had with AI.

I'm aware of the Garbage In/ Garbage Out risks.

Others are welcome to revisit the numbers and disprove.

HTH as something to be getting on with.

I'll come back to other matters later.

Gotta go.

.."If you were underwriting completion of FID with $15M/$25M what would you seek in return ?.."

Allow me.

The Chinese (and others, even Western co's) will often cover the upfront costs to pre-FID as a 'loss leader' to secure the subsequent business. They then recoup the upfront outlay by mutually agreed 'over-invoicing' over the subsequent construction and commissioning period.

In the case of the Chinese parastatals, maybe they or an associated or affiliated SOE ...or even an arms' length company that is another part of 'China Inc'- get a little bit of mineral offtake at concessionary rates or agreed transfer pricing.

https://minexforum.com/2025/11/04/ferro-alloy-resources-secures-major-cost-savings-and-financing-boost-for-kazakhstan-vanadium-project/

Look at the package these guys managed to drum up last year. OK, Kazakhstan and vanadium, less advanced than ZIOC, so maybe not quite like-for like, but still:

(1)The AIM-listed mining company has signed an agreement with China National Chemical Engineering Sixth Construction (CC6) — one of the world’s top industrial contractors — for front-end engineering and design (FEED) work on the project. SUPPLIER FINANCE.

(2) According to the company, CC6 has provided an indicative construction cost of $261 million, cutting the total funding requirement to $311.9 million — about 40% lower than previously estimated in the project’s feasibility study. COST SAVINGS.

(3) Adding to the positive momentum, CC6 has arranged a CONDITIONAL, NON-BINDING LOAN OFFER WORTH $221.8 million from the Bank of Communications (Hubei Branch), covering 85% of CC6’s construction scope. HOUSE BANK LOAN.

(4) Discussions are also under way with Sinosure, China’s EXPORT CREDIT AGENCY, which could provide loan guarantees TO REDUCE BORROWING COSTS.

AFTER WHICH

(5)The company is NOW in talks with POTENTIAL STRATEGIC INVESTORS to fund THE PROJECT'S EQUITY COMPONENT, while CC6’s FEED work — expected to last six months — will be followed by a final engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contract ONCE COSTS ARE FINALIZED.

I've no idea how the Company and its shareholders have fared, but the FINANCING TOOLS used -and the SEQUENCING: THIRD PARTY MONEY FIRST, EQUITY CONTRIBUTION LAST - is instructive.

They appear to have also raised some money via local currency bond issuance; and an earlier funding round by these people helped fund this projects's Bank Feasibility Study.

https://www.vision-blue.com/news/vision-blue-resources-strategic-investment-in-ferro-alloy-resources-limited/

The whole article is worth a read.

HTH and GLA

Hi shauny86,

Welcome back!

Just a nuance, that seems to have been overlooked:

As you say, only 3 x $5Mn is binding... BUT...RAM has the right to ACCELERATE if it wants,per '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...".

That suggests at least the POSSIBILITY that

(a) RAM suspects or KNOWS that ZIOC is further advanced than we've been told .

A cynic - moi? - might speculate that that's why the 2 x promised end Feb results/timeline etc (which might have confirmed that possibility) have been 'pulled'.

In answer to someone's question yesterday on this point, AT indicated likely availability 'in a few weeks'.

I'm not the world champion free-diver.

(b) RAM suspects or KNOWS that ZIOC's required spend is or will be lower than budgeted. Which could be for a number of reasons: if the Project IS now gaining traction thanks to RAM - as AT and MK insist - potential suppliers of goods and services may start to offer conditional credit or deferred payment terms. Stranger things have happened.

GLA and ATB

Hi shauny86,

Welcome back!

Just a nuance, that seems to have been overlooked:

As you say, only 3 x $5Mn is binding... BUT...RAM has the right to ACCELERATE if it wants,per '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...".

That suggests at least the POSSIBILITY that

(a) RAM suspects or KNOWS that ZIOC is further advanced than we've been told .

A cynic - moi? - might speculate that that's why the 2 x promised end Feb results/timeline etc (which might have confirmed that possibility) have been 'pulled'.

In answer to someone's question yesterday on this point, AT indicated likely availability 'in a few weeks'.

I'm not the world champion free-diver.

(b) RAM suspects or KNOWS that ZIOC's required spend is or will be lower than budgeted. Which could be for a number of reasons: if the Project IS now gaining traction thanks to RAM - as AT and MK insist - potential suppliers of goods and services may start to offer conditional credit or deferred payment terms. Stranger things have happened.

GLA and ATB

.."How's everyone enjoying 6p/share on this great deal?"

Funny you should mention that.

By (un)happy coincidence, Tamesis, our new broker introduced with much fanfare 9th December - we all thought this was to crank up the marketing - has produced its first research.

Dated 10th March 2026,

- it puts NPV at $ 5.2bn, so doesn't seem itself to set much store by any of the value enhancement work so heavily publicised over the last year;

- its target price - 11.2p - is pretty underwhelming; and

- it has an odd way of 'promoting' the project, pls see for yourself

https://www.tamesispartners.com/research-portal#/portal/tamesis-partners

If you go to their site you can register directly for free & get a copy.

Hat tip to Jiving .

I never thought I'd say this, but I'm happier with Shard's note, a year ago (before all those enhancements) that discounted everything by 90% and STILL arrived at a target of 60 p.

Shome mishtake, Shirley. .....but who's wrong?

GLA and ATB

Hi all,

Lots to digest from that presentation, still processing, so will post in stages:

GIS :

(1)I for one wasn't aware that GIS was an affiliate or an associate of Graymont, AT used both.

I'm not a lawyer, but this is what investopedia says:

.."An affiliate company is  a business entity with a close, formal relationship with another company, usually involving minority ownership (typically 20% to 50%) or shared control/management while remaining a separate legal entity. They are used for market entry, tax optimization, and risk management. Synonyms include partner, subsidiary (often, but distinct due to <50% ownership), associate, sister company, or affiliate marketer. Investopedia ..

(2) I also wasn't aware that a formal , commercial agreement had been signed between GIS and ZIOC, in fact I remember arguing AGAINST MM's concerns [ where's he, btw?] at the time, by saying that it was an informal allocation, maybe to give some indirect credentialling for the Graymont consortium to reach out informally to third parties, in a non-binding (on ZIOC) way.

ZIOC's Nomad (and lawyers) must have been all over GIS, to establish that it was an appropriate and credible counterpart to be entrusted with 20% of ZIOC's offtake, value $650M (?) pa. Yet AFAICS shareholders haven't been updated on these surely material points. I used to be in banking, the KYC mantra ('know your customer') was baked in....Our lives were made a misery by compliance pushing for due diligence.

Compare and contrast.

It was good to get an explanation re the GLEN unwinding that - maybe- accounts for the lack of disclosure up to yesterday of what the 'consideration' for giving away this economic asset was. It didn't make sense at the time.

Q for AT, Nomad et al : why was none of this disclosed/declared back in Mar 2025?

(3) Follow-on:

We weren't told about this GIS/Graymont 'affiliation' then - which maybe changes my interpretation of quite a few things, I'll have to re-visit ...

[I'm a fan of Julian Barnes, to paraphrase a line of his ...'what you end up remembering isn't always the same thing as what you have witnessed]

What haven't we been told about the ramifications (see what I did there?) about the 'Binding Offer' now on the table?

AT ducked whether Heeney Capital, backer of RAM, had brought part - or all ? of the Graymont consortium into the new deal. How many of the 'notables' might be 'running with the hare and hunting with the hounds?

We don't know.

If ZIOC + Nomad + lawyers were crawling all over GIS for 20% of the eggs, how much more thoroughly will they have vetted 87.5% of the goose?

AT's comment that he'll check whether RAM participants are willing to be identified doesn't cut it in my book. Especially given his own conflicted position as disclosed in the 10th March RNS footnote..

Enough for now.

More to follow idc

GLA and ATB

Apols for o/t , appreciate your advice re that other co.

Cheers

extrader

Hi 99icecream,

You'll presumably have seen this news of Nogeria's Dangote visit to C-B in connection with his own potash project proposal?

https://inquirer.ng/2026/01/27/dangote-potash-mining-project-congo/

He's already got cement interests in-country. Kore gets a mention....

Buses, eh?!

If Catbert or Mitch984 read this, pls pm me on advfn for an exchange of views re t'other project, ZIOC.

Apols to all for o/t.

GLA and ATB

Hi hxulcolrdoh,

Apols for the O/T.

If you're interested in ZIOC action group, pls pm me on advfn , extrader

Cheers

Hi MM,

Good to see you back in circulation.

You look to have been right about the GIS aspect. I sought to defend it at the time as perhaps an indirect way of 'credentialling' our new notables, for indirect and non-attributable 'feelers' with potential offtakers. Time and subsequent developments have shown that to be naive of me.

With that 'mea culpa' over, tell me pls ask:

(a) as you can see, the Group followed your 15 Feb 07:06 advice, unfortunately with the outcome I've described - no engagement, no off-ramp. Does your offer to help indicate that you now agree with our course of action?

(b) what 'changed between the end of 2025 and February 10th' and what did you find out?

(c) do you agree with our TINA assessment and- if so- why? and, lastly

(d) over the years - we go back a long way - you've frequently hinted at some kind of 'semi-insider' status, pls PM me as to what that might be.

We haven't always seen eye-to-eye re interpretation/relevance , but I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that your 'raw intelligence' was useful.

Maybe a good way to help - for now at least, pending the above- would be to resume 'normal service'?

HTH