Member Info for Fukurokuju79

For the record I'm not advocating a new CEO, the resignation or removal of Ben.

My points are made from a strategic/project standpoint.

BCB

I'm still here so I clearly believe in the assets and the investment.

I agree the tide can turn as again I wouldn't be here otherwise. I also believe Ben has a strategy, albeit not shared ATM. Any constructive personal feedback given in my post isn't driven from throwing toys out the pram on share price drops. It's part of the market we're in etc.

Yes it's true apples can be saved for a rainy day but my point is now isn't (IMO) the time for acquring said apples. Do that when we've had more success doing what we're doing. When we've progressed the in flight activities we have raise the cash for. Ben has said himself they are a small team/company. They've clearly got a maximum resource capacity, both people and financial. I don't think they've the bandwidth to do more and the current base full justice.

I'll caveat my view on a new asset with unless the deal really is too good to miss!

I like Ben. However I preferred the Ben that was laser focused on progressing our assets before snippets of JVs, acquisitions, data rooms etc etc

I think they just need to independently drill B1 as a top priority and keep on at the KCB without the going down rabbit holes..

I'm sure Ben does read these boards. I'm not disrespectful towards him and happy for him to read my opinions as a long term investor. I think many feel the same but ultimately as I've said before he has the benefit of the full picture that we don't and so I'll wait to hear what that is...

Atb

Also to add one we've had some level of success on the current asset base and have a stronger foothold then by all means buy more apples from a position of strength, not weakness.

Every right to your opinion on Ben. As we all do so no issues there.
I accept a lot of your concerns although I don't share the same overall view.

No one can disagree with dilution being a value killer and generally I dislike warrants for those very reasons. They can be however a useful mechanism. To be fair I think a lot of the strike prices for the raises have been decent. I don't mind dilution for executing a clear strategy but the trouble ATM imo is I think the strategy, or clarity thereof ATM, is lacking. What I do hear about JVs, spin offs and more assets I don't particularly like.

Just semantics here but warrants aren't a death spiral finance in themselves. Death spiral financing is a bit different.

If Ben simply layed out a clear roadmap on the current assets and didn't get sidetracked with deals and acquisition I think many would be a lot happier. In Ben's mind his strategy is sound as assets are available on better terms ATM due to the economic environment. But if I had 12 apples and can only physically eat 10, I don't need more apples just because they are cheap.

Make a plan to spend what we have wisely on the current asset base, share that with shareholders and commit to avoid unnecessary dilution going forward and I think the market will react favourably.

Atb

Personally I liked PW. However my perspective will be different as I was positioned here at 3-5p range before it went towards £3. I didn't sell at the top though was a tough hold into the £s.
I can understand the different sentiment to mine of those here from £'s down to 3p.
If nothing else he was charismatic and engaging with shareholders.
Albeit I'm not here to argue the pros and cons of it. Hopefully the stand in and eventual replacement do well for you all.

Atb

Hi Major Tom,

Fair enough, it doesn't need mutual consent and we've all got our views.

Although when you say 'However, i personally still believe this was a bad negotiating tactic.'

All I'm saying is that at the point the deal was negotiated they weren't in the exclusivity. Also whatever they didn't wouldn't have been too harmful as they nailed an incredible deal.

Anyway, it was just a post for context as it came to mind. Wasn't a snipe at you, although I think you know that.

Atb

It's likely the court cases were a factor in the lengthy negotiation process . However at the time of the exclusivity lapse the company said the deal had to be on the right terms (not a direct quote).
Besides, if you're saying the exclusivity lapsed because of the legal case, I think that's very unlikely. The rns supports what I've concluded more (discussions with other interested parties and the terms needing to be right), secondly I'm convinced given the choice AA would have wanted to retain the EA.

But it's a winless debate so I'll take your comment 'allowing the EA to lapse may have got a better result for Arc' as it's basically the same thing.

Atb

I recall someone the other day said something to the effect that it makes no sense to maintain exclusivity to AA as it reduces the inventive for AA to conclude the transaction (or words to that effect).

Personally I understood the argument but disagreed on the basis that the delays are IMO not a lack of will by AA to complete the JV. It's more around the broader process with the cadastre etc.

Anyway I've been reflecting on this more and lots also worth noting that it was NvS' smart use of the exclusivity that I believe managed to get the JV and such great terms.

Prior to the formal announcement of the commercial transaction AA had exclusivity for a fair time but hadn't provided a sufficient deal for NvS to agree to. So in July 2021, after previous extensions with AA, NvS decided to let the exclusivity lapse at it's end date. An RNS was released to say this and that other third parties were interested and would have discussions.

This was his hardball move to get the eventual deal on the outstanding terms he managed to get, before re establishing the exclusivity. I'm sure having the exclusivity again would have been a condition of the offer while finalising DD etc.

Just thought this context was worth sharing and being aware of. I can understand that exclusivity may seem a disadvantage but in this case it was used very effectively to our benefit. I think NvS and the team need to be acknowledged for that.

Atb

Yes indeed cleverthoughts, as effectively after the JV is completed AA will become the operator of the areas. They will decide everything around the exploration, which isn't a bad thing. ARCM will clearly feed into the discussions but not be the ultimate authority anymore.

NvS has previously said they are keen to get going and I'm sure they (AA) won't want to wait a year before drilling.
I'm hopeful (almost certain) they've used some of this time and gathered sufficient understanding to formulate some sort priority drill targets. Logistics may take a while but AA have the resources and clearly need to spend a vast amount on exploration to retain control (as per the terms).

One other aspect previously discussed was that if AA are operator how will ARCM ensure they can provide the market with regular communications. NvS acknowledged this was a valid point and that AA will understand the need for investor updates. These mechanisms and details are being or have been thrashed out in the finer details of the JV.

Atb

Don't fear winding up anyone Verger.
You may be right, and we may now see a rise ahead of the deals conclusion, rather than after signing.
It seems for the main part any interested investors that haven't already invested have desired more confirmation/confidence. Will have to see if yesterday's RNS was sufficient to them.
For some it will be but for others who didn't invest before this latest RNS I suspect they'll wait until signing.
Either way, this should be valued much higher on this deal.
So if it's before signing, after signing I don't mind. As long as it eventually reflects it eventually.

I feel that signing with details of a drill plan for this year would be most effective in budging the value here. A robust drill plan announcement I suspect will push this higher than the JV confirmation itself at this stage.

Atb

I may recall this wrong but I think BT may have referred to discussions on possible JVs in a recent interview.
Also I agree a major being involved at this stage on the ksz is very unlikely. Again, I seem to recall Ben saying as much in previous interviews.
Given this I would certainly prefer to avoid a JV and simply just crack on and drill the conductor (s) they've found then take a mediocre JV with a smaller partner if needed after.
They've had ages to work the data from the last drill. At some stage you have to trust yourselves, once double checked, and go for it.
It feels Ben may be paralysed for fear of another failure when actually what I really liked about Ben was his cautious but get it done approach.
Atb

Ella. I also read the DW comments out of context originally until Seis pointed out the context.

It was a bad sentence but basically DW was saying they have a deal going on with ARCM but no discussion with anyone else outside of Zambia, across Africa.

The terms was referring to the context of African nations, rather than the ARCM deal.

Any residual doubt I had, which I didn't to be fair after reading it again a couple times, was dealt with in the official company RNS this morning by Nick's comments I shared with you earlier.

If anything it this being the only deal they have in Africa, and the deal terms themselves, is a testament to how much AA want the deal/licences.

Atb

Sean I agree people do get shot down on here, when they have a valid point or frustration.
Although some clearly also comment in a way as to cause fear, uncertainty and doubt to others when they don't genuinely have any concerns. Or even a position here to have worries over.

That being said, if people want to feel frustrated they can. Its a given that people would have preferred the completion RNS but at least this provides certainty for those that had some concerns over the deal status and any potential renegotiation of terms. It's currently still happening and on the previously announced terms.

Regarding delays it's not really the fault of NvS or AA IMO, who I'm sure want this finalised themselve ASAP. The cadastre changes are still being progressed and will be critical to signing. The government timescales can be encouraged but they can't do much to force that through quicker.

Atb

Ella, you know you're twisting the commercial terms thing, the statement by DW. If there was any contextual doubt by the poorly worded article / quote yesterday by DW then it's clear in the RNS today.....

'Arc Minerals, has substantially progressed negotiations with Anglo American, including the terms and conditions of a Joint Venture Agreement and associated definitive agreements. All substantive commercial terms of the proposed Joint Venture remain unchanged from those previously announced.'

All substantive commercial terms remain unchanged as previously announced. Not the finer legals we knew they had to work through...

It's bad enough here most the time without. The prodding.

Atb

Yep, small extension is fine as per post yesterday.

Atb

Major Tom -

No problems. From whatsbive looked at on the cadastre changes (which you've probably seen here,) I think it's all very positive. In fact it's what's giving me the most optimism, and I've covered this in recent posts here. That being said, it's the right thing to wait if you're personally not sure for whatever reason.

I can understand your thinking regarding kabwe but in my mind if it was the case that this would prevent AA from committing serious funds to the region for servers factors. 1. They engaged into discussions with ARCM forv the licences. 2. They've agreed a seriously impressive JV to arcm for serious money 3. Zambia appears to be the only place in Africa they are actively doing anything according to DW.

We've all got different strategies, risk tolerances etc. But those are my musings on your points.

Atb

Major Tom

Regarding
'F79, Dave Wood apart, I honestly do not see what sets Anglo apart from other potential partners. Anglo have well known, historic, but ongoing issues in Zambia with the Kabwe case. Could that be what is stopping them concluding on the deal? I dont know.'

I'll decouple the points with the first being not sure what sets Anglo apart...
The second being could that be what's stopping them concluding the deal.

So first, what sets Anglo apart here is their history and knowledge of these assets. Plus their desire to regain control of the assets and offer such favourable terms. It's why we secured these outstanding terms and their knowledge of the assets will unlock the exploration much faster than other majors imo. I won't rehash the history of the assets. I'm sure you've read it before but if not it's on the ARCM website.

Regarding the second point, Anglos history in Zambia isn't stopping anything being concluded. I say that as the ministry of mines and HH were very supportive and encouraged by AA returning, and this deal. What's stopping the conclusion is the legals (finer detail terms which should be done you'd think, due diligence (such as paperwork for renewals etc) which was delayed by the cadastre closing for months and months.

Atb

I think we realise that clever thoughts lol.

It was why the sentence quoted by DW made little sense.....hence the context clarification and the wtf on first reading it (out of context). With the context it promotes a very positive view on how good the deal is for ARCMs assets, and their prospectivity, rather than a potential negative view that could be inferred/interpreted.

Atb

Major Tom as Seis said I think we misinterpreted its context.
As for the EA I don't think we'd get a better partner anyway, and certainly unlikely to have gotten better terms.

If anything having the EA enabled the eventual deal that transpired (subject to signing)

Atb

Ah right. Missed the context.
So they'd like to invest broader in Africa, beyond Zambia, depending on the 'commercial terms ' they can land. However at the moment they are not in live talks with any other assets in Africa (outside of ARCM).

Some important insight right there. Just Zambia, just ARCM.....for now at least