Member Info for G_G_G

Millerston, Greymont paid £12.05m for 28% of the company. They were given 20% Marketing and Offtake rights on top. That's the way it should be viewed. Trahar has tried to dress it up as something else because the company received no economic value for the rights, which were consistently presented as an 'allocation'. And it's the first time we heard it's a signed agreement. And that GIS is "affiliated" with Greymont. So we still don't know 'who' is behind GIS, in the same way as we don't know "who" the 'leading mining industry veterans" happen to be in RAM. Makes you wonder just how much else we haven't been told...

As for where do we get the other $125m from? Where does every Tier 1 project get its financing from? A multitude of ways. Just for starters, Ivanhoe received $700m for market priced pre-paid offtake in the DRC. Solgold did a 20% streaming deal for $750m in Ecuador. Port, power will be through things like toll agreements and paid from Opex. Royalty. Debt.... the list goes one. All pretty standard.

ATG, your comment on how RoC was almost made out to be uninvestable in the interview was another one of those bald faced lies. It's so bad the 'who's who' of mining descended like a plague of locusts alongside PE, Gupta, and an unknown Saudi investor to take Glencore's share. And now RAM is going to invest $150m to effectively take full economic control of the asset, because it's such a 'risky ' environment? Makes as much sense as the Royalty they agreed with RAM as part of rinsing PIs, but it couldn't be used to fund the final stages of development to FID. And how all these 'mining luminaries', who have raised funds for mines all over the world, couldn't secure the maximum $25m needed to have this shovel ready? I suggest folks go back through statements by our Chairman when they descended and how this consortium was going to use their relationships to advance 'financing and offtakes'. Sir Mick Davis is even promoted in the company materials as someone who has raised over $35 billion, and been involved in over $120 billion in transactions. The reality is that they have most of it lined up already. They just want nearly all the asset, before they start announcing deals.

And then the statement that our audited NPV is no longer a good guide of value. Not to mention the point about how they are not expecting a great deal of change post value enhancements, when they have publicly stated an expectation of greater than $4bn being added. This is also backed up by AI if you plug in all the values they have provided. Our NPV10 is also post-tax, with a Tier 3/African discount. Even when you look at the current audited NPV, the offer is less than 3%. Unheard of across any peer comparisons, which their own materials promote.

It's a brazen and reckless asset grab by related parties, just before the final stages of development.

Oh Jiving, I see you are being hysterical again. You went from making up the 'sky was going to fall and the mining license revoked' and got called out on it being nonsense. Then you tried to back it up saying that I was speaking 'gibberish' even though my posts are rooted in facts.

So now let's unpack your latest little hysterical outburst.

'This is the only way forward'. Absolutely false. And you still haven't answered the Royalty contradiction, nor did Trahar. Explain how RAM & Company can agree a Royalty for a set value and not apply it in a proportionate manner with the same partner, even for the modest $25m that is the maximum investment required to get us to Construction? This speaks directly to fiduciary duties. How about explain why supplier funding wasn't used for FEED when we have used it in the past? What about the Offtake we gave away, that the board is on record in RNSs stating it's value, and yet we effectively gave away 20% of it to an 'affiliated' party with Greymont. First, we'd heard that it was a signed agreement by the way. And there was no economic consideration to the company for something that is worth hundreds of millions. And what about the other 80% they could have agreed (and perhaps have already) over the past year?

And then there's the multitude of African listed miners who have raised development capital at even earlier stages than FEED in these manners. I even gave a list of them previously. It is 'the only way' is as ridiculous as your made up 'mining license' story.

Then we have 'suspension, legal challenges, license being revoked'. Same extreme statement. Do you know how many steps are required before something like that will happen? Do you think these guys would let it get this far? And why are you worried about such a thing if you believe everything is kosher? You still haven't explained that yet as well? Is it because deep down you know there's a lot of things that need explaining?

As for AT answering all questions - did he? Did he tell you who RAM was? You know, the related party vehicle attempting to take almost complete economic control of our 100% owned asset? Pretty f@cking important thing to answer. And the fact they haven't released such information speaks directly to Rule 13. And the fact he said 'we'll need to ask RAM', is a major red flag for shadow directorship. And no, they cannot side-step that with a 'confidentiality agreement', read up on it. And tell me, why are they keeping it from the market who these 'leading mining industry veterans' happen to be? Give me your view on this.

Did he tell you exactly who GIS is?

Did he explain why they are raising $150m when we only need $25m to get us to Construction, and how they are effectively side-stepping the value infection stages prior to this?

'I hope that any approach will be made public even though, as Marty and Andrew stated it needs to reflect full value for shareholders.'

NKOTB, you shouldn't need to 'hope', but that's the position we are in. I think what they meant to say is 'it needs to reflect value for major shareholders'. And therein lies the problem, given the number of things that have not been presented, advanced, or disclosed, in order to present this proposal. Do you think if a take private landed for 30p it will be disclosed? It's a huge profit for ALL SHAREHOLDERS. How do we know what has been presented already? We still don't even know who RAM happen to be, which they are deliberately keeping from the market. This itself is mind boggling.

Serious question. What sort of bid would be required for them to disclose? There's a very big issue here. Because for RAM atm they get 85% of a $5.2bn NPV10 (huge discount), for $150m. Regardless of what they have now said about not expecting a big difference from the delayed value enhancement that they have publicly stated more than once would provide a minimum $4bn NPV10 uplift.

So the reality (based on previous RNSs and presentations) is likely to be +$9bn for $150m. So what needs to be presented for ZIOC/RAM to present a competing offer to the market? And the statement about only allowing investment at the subsidiary level is something that warrants investigation. That's a clear distinction from a takeover of the PLC, which is what we want. The only way it can be guaranteed to be made public is a hostile takeover.

Another way for it to happen is with some public scrutiny. If the deal gets shown up for what it is, you get a Regulatory spotlight, and it gets pulled. You also have mgt put in a position where any deal of a reasonable return must be presented to the market. That's where you get competing offers, because majors and strategics know the asset is 100% up for sale. Atm there's no guarantee of anything because if RAM pull this off, they will have an asset worth a minimum of $4-8bn. So what would need to be offered to 'reflect value for major shareholders'?

Either way, they have presented a proposal that is 100% discretionary. And favours related parties. So it's the related parties who will get to say how much, unless it turns hostile and the offer is made public.

Stas, first of all welcome back to trading here with Sushi and Maverick. Secondly, the action group did reach out to the company. I think you'll find that the Nomad and brokers didn't pick up or return calls. And an email went unanswered to company and Nomad. As for investors feeling entitled - what exactly do you mean? If you're trying to argue against the central tenet of all shareholders being treated equally, then you may want to brush up on the fiduciary duties of directors.

Julian, I see your 'license being revoked' reasoning has turned out to be 100% incorrect. So now we have your other opinion of this 'being the only option'. Care to answer the Royalty contradiction? It's a puzzle isn't it? RAM has the money. RAM has agreed a Royalty, but in them being greedy have added the ability to buyback 50% of it for $50m (terrible economics for us btw). Now, if they have the money and want exposure, why was the same Royalty not applied for the benefit of all shareholders? You see the whole 'only option' doesn't wash. And all we need is $25m for completion of the final elements of development pre-Construction.

Also, we effectively gave away 20% Marketing Offtake rights to a 6.9 billion tonne resource. This is worth hundreds of millions, and Greymont picked it up for free, alongside 28% of the company at a deep discount. Crazy. Still leaves open the question of the other 80% though doesn't it? Also, we have used supplier funding for development stages in the past - why not for these final stages? THIS IS 100% NOT THE WAY MINING PROJECTS ARE DEVELOPED, and certainly not Tier 1 projects that are advanced to FEED. Look at pretty much all African miners listed on the lse. Seriously, look at how they have funded development. Go and look at Andrew Trahar and Sir Mick Davis' Vision Blue for how they have raised funding for their other projects. You've got the 'who's who' alongside Gupta, Saudi's, PE and this is the only way they could raise funds. The Royalty contradiction. The supplier funding contradiction. The lack of Offtake deals (that we know of). And over a year to do this. Just $25m to Construction. The argument simply does not sit with the facts.

As for Trahar saying they are open to bids. It's not like he can say they are not. And they're hardly out there pushing this now, are they? He works for RAM now ffs. And the exclusivity agreement, 10% fee, $1.5m fee, are all designed as a 'stay away' sign. To be clear, I'm not saying we cannot be sold. I am saying they have made it harder, and if a take-over should occur, they still win at our expense. For what exactly? An orchestrated, related-party deal?

And then the really big one. They still don't want to disclose who RAM happen to be. Pretty big thing to not have disclosed already, given it's near total economic capture of a Tier 1 fully permitted, highly advanced project. Especially when it's already a related party transaction.

Jiving, gibberish is a bit rich coming from the man who made up that the license was going to be revoked as a reason for this proposal, with related parties who joined the register in March last year. But of course, we don't even know who all the related parties happen to be yet, or do you know this?

1. Not going to answer on a public billboard, but a researched investor would know some of them.

2. 'Dirty laundry' was your language. You know, when you were channelling your inner 'Chicken Little' about what could come out and screaming suspension. Re-read many of the posts here since the proposal was made public. There are plenty of things already mentioned that warrant scrutiny, but it appears you're finding it difficult to understand anything atm. Maybe you should get that sleep.

As for everything else, as I said, that is 'my guess'. But again, there's enough that has been published (and not published) by the company, which provides a lot of avenues that may warrant investigation by the appropriate Regulatory bodies. You also keep talking about suspension. If you think this deal is kosher, and there is nothing to answer from regulatory and public interest standpoints, then why are you so worried about this?

As for motives, are you serious?

Folks, here's a really simple question for you. Just one of many surrounding the structuring of this proposal with a related party. If a Royalty mechanism of 1% with a buy-back of 0.5% for $50m (terrible economics for us btw), was part of THE AGREED PROPOSAL BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND RAM, then why hasn't the royalty mechanic been employed with RAM to secure the necessary funding, be it the modest $25m to FID, or the full $150m? Same parties agreed. RAM only bring finance to the table, and they have offered those funds to ZIOC. So why hasn't management offered 0.25% Royalty for $25m, or 1.5% Royalty for $150m, with the same 50% BB clause and valuation? How can terms be proposed and accepted as part of 87.5% project level economic capture by related parties, instead of 1.5% proportionate economic dilution across all shareholders, and easily stand up to fiduciary duties scrutiny?

As I said, I think whoever is advising the Board and RAM should seriously take a step back and consider their position. About the only thing that I can agree with Jiving on is that this proposal has introduced a lot of risk for them. And that's not because long-standing PIs are rightly questioning and challenging it. It's because there are so many holes in it, and so many questions that would need to be answered, before even getting near a vote.

Anyway, enough from me. I'm in for the Action Group. I would also say to long-standing holders that you should hold onto your shares, as imo the safest route for whoever is behind RAM is to go down the take private route. And for that, I think they would need to offer above 25p based solely on what has been offered for 87.5%. AIMHO GLA

Before I provide my other long post, I want to redefine 'stacked by over 50%' statement. By no means am I stating they are acting in concert, however I do believe this is something that may warrant investigation by the relevant regulatory body based on the entry of a group of investors in March 2025, where they picked up over 50% of issued shares :) Absolute slip of language here and fully retracted :)

cont'd.

2. ram is the only deal they have been presented with since 2010. you do know we were a stranded asset until march 2025, right? but that also reinforces how long some investors here have waited for the deadlock to break and the standard manner of developing this project to start taking shape. this is not the standard manner of developing a tier 1 project! and as a consequence, you need to ask why? why have no non-dilutive mechanisms been employed? we need $15-25m to get to fid. that's it. and the deal is structured how? massive dilution of the asset's economic base chosen for related parties at the expense of minority shareholders, just prior to final development re-rate stages, effectively locking in economic upside for them at a depressed valuation. as for the gis offtake you implicitly refer to. why has no value been publicly stated for this? why does no-one know who gis happens to be? even though shareholders have asked for this info? do you have any idea how much this is worth? you like to use your ai, use it for this. and then ask yourself why the other 80% that has not been 'allocated' for development costs?

and no-one is attempting to deny you of voting for this ****ty deal. if the vote goes ahead, you can use yours and go for it. but that won't be needed. you know why? because the vote was stacked by over 50% when this group of vultures arrived at the table. you don't even seem to grasp how this has been engineered. or why it has been structured at the project level for the 50% clearance and the side-stepping of regulatory and legal hurdles if done at the plc. astounding ignorance for someone with so much to say.

3. you assume that bidders have not been put off by the 'keep out' exclusivity sign. the poison pill of the 10% fee (for what exactly). and above all, you assume this management team, who have avoided standard practise non-dilutive mechanisms for minimal funding requirements, in order to accept a deal that gives away 87.5% of the economic value of the project, to related and connected parties they brought onto the register, are open to this deal. and if they are, it begs the question, why the restrictions?

the biggest tragedy of all is that the action group is more likely to flush out a deal, or to secure standard non-dilutive financing to move the project forward, and you get to benefit from it.

folks, head to advfn. the work appears to be done. contrary to jiving's ill-informed view, if the worst does occur, then this will be the fault of the mgt team and related party actions, and not minority shareholders. they can change course for the benefit of all shareholders. 'they' (whoever they happen to be) could offer 30p and probably get this over the line. and ironically, would be paying themselves a lot of this anyway. whoever is advising the board and ram right now, i do hope they take a step back and consider the possible implications of a media story, because this is media worthy imo.

folks, get behind this. i am.

jiving, you really do need your head checked. you have said 'this is not the deal we want', but the best on offer. you do know that we don't need to take a d@dgy deal, right? the amount of financing required to get us to fid is next to nothing - do you even know what that means? the re-rating that typically occurs as miners go through these final stages? do you know anything about the array of standard non-dilutive mechanisms that all major mining projects go through and have not been disclosed here? i'll give you a hint because you seem to be so incoherent with how things are normally managed that you seem to be completely devoid of any reason. there's a f@cking royalty agreed for a set value within the stinking deal they have given to us! so to state there are no other options, well, that's fundamentally false on this alone, because there is a standard financing deal that 'they' have agreed with ram.

your whole argument, to put it bluntly, is 'we can't do anything, so just bend over and take it'. where the facts of the matter are that we can do something. and folks are doing something. you're telling everyone to put their hands up and surrender when there are a number of people who are willing to stand up and fight for what is theirs. people who have been in this stock for over a decade. expecting they would be treated equally amongst the group of connected vultures who descended in the last 12 months, facilitated by our conflicted management. there's a wonderful australian show called mr inbetween where the lead character is told 'the world is full of *******s, ray' as a reason for not fighting them, and his response is 'yeah, you know why? because people let them get away with it'.

not to mention you literally made up stories about the mining license being revoked as the reason for this deal most foul. so you have zero credibility based on this alone. as for your numbered points:

1. on a worst-case basis, the dirty laundry is dragged out, and we're suspended. so you agree there's dirty laundry? i'd hope you can at least see this, because there's dirty laundry, but i'm guessing there are trucks full of soiled laundry backed up around the corner. but yes, this could happen. we could get suspended. you know what happens after this? legal action. you know who wins? us. you know what happens to the asset - it gets sold in an open auction. you know what happens to us? we get +£1 a share. or we get damages. you seem to think we get nothing and lose in these circumstances. the reality is they get nothing. not us. this group of shareholders with some b@lls are not 'wrecking this company', that's the whole point of challenging what they are doing. and if you read extrader's post, they did reach out.

Feeks, based on your posting it is clear that you have ZERO idea of how Tier 1 projects are developed. ZERO! The simple fact of the matter is it's an inside job and the guys who PIs thought would take the project to the next stage - and had to stomach their ultra-low entry that they couldn't participate in - are now the ones attempting to appropriate the majority of the value of this asset for next to nothing. Everyting else you talk about is nonsense. Just like the made-up reason about the asset was about to be pulled by RoC.

Stas, I'm going to leave my responding to your ChatGPT posts for a while. Clearly, you have very little understanding of how finance is raised for most mining projects, even for projects worth less than 10% of ours. And you're not even using AI to check whether what they are attempting to do is remotely normal - I'll help you, it's not. I gave you examples. Use your AI functionality to check how many miners have raised far more with any number of non-dilutive avenues FOR ALL SHAREHOLDERS. Most are at development stages less advanced than ours. Many in African countries with greater sovereign risk. Without mining licenses enshrined in law. And on this last point, yes Jiving has been suggesting this was a desperation deal because he believes they're looking to do the same as what happened to Sundance. Our license protection, and any other reason for RoC to even attempt to do the same does not exist. We are covered by license, and have been moving the project forward. Jiving has literally made up a reason for why they are attempting to take 87.5% of the project for 2p on the £. Rather than looking coldly at this as being part of a planned and coordinated asset grab. Their entry, assisted by individuals with extreme conflicts of interest, gave them majority voting power, and board representation, and they are using this to now try and take 35% of the remaining 40% they don't hold. It's really that simple.

It's also quite ridiculous to argue that the Board and management team, who have raised billions throughout their careers via non-dilutive means, have even tried to do it with the largest undeveloped Iron Ore project globally, advanced to FEED (partially completed), and only having Funding and FID remaining. They have had a year to do this btw. Do me a favour and and read the December 2025 company presentation alone. Look at everything, from economics, permitting, MOUs, future value drivers, completed studies with full feasibility done... the list goes on. Just read it. Better still, upload it to your AI alongside RNSs and presentations for the past 12 months. Then do some further research and look for all the conflicting statements.

They have had close to 12 months to raise further capital after allowing the consortium onto the register for over half of the company. Instead they have used the capital raised at a deep discount from the consortium to progress the project, run down our cash balance, and then use this as the means to justify an outrageous level of ownership dilution with members of the very same consortium. It's mind-boggling what is being attempted. And you have clearly not done enough research to even know we don't have rail as part of the project, so your AI isn't even remotely accurate. If you knew the project, then you'd know that a 'Full Feasibility' study has been done with the pipeline. That's an immense project and de-risking event there alone.

jiving, you have added 2+2 and come up with 10. absolutely zero evidence. made up. and doesn't even make sense. they're going to revoke the mining license, and these ultra wealthy thieves throw more money at it.

have you been invested in many miners before? do you know how normal it is to raise capital in a non-dilutive manner for all shareholders? the entire board and major shareholders throughout their careers have raised billions in capital via royalties, offtakes and streaming agreements alone. they're even offering a pitiful one to us, which they can elect to halve. they have stated categorically the feed, funding and fid will be completed for $25m, including contingency. so you know it's all going ahead. and the royalty offered to us is an example of how they can raise capital, but instead it's going to us as the tiniest of bones as part of taking 87.5% of a $1tn total resource. they even go so far as dressing it up as 'great value', so why then isn't it being used for feed, funding, and fid? this in turn, would re-rate the company value many times over, as they would know. they've had a year to raise capital in a multitude of ways. and instead they spent the cash, allowed the market to believe a raise was coming, and then dropped this bad joke of a deal that doesn't stand up to the slightest of scrutiny. and why the $125m afterwards? how can they even justify it?

go to ai mining projects in africa, even mid-sized to find many examples - look at kefi, montage gold, allied gold, orion minerals, champion just for startes. also, ask ai if this is the normal way of doing things, especially for tier 1 projects, and if spending raised capital at the huge expense of plc ownership (first value grab), only to run it down, and then doing a cash call for even more, is the done way. seriously, ask if this is unusual. then look at all the individuals on the board and management team and ask if they have done this throughout their career. i cannot believe i'm even having to explain this to someone.

they also still have almost 3 months to raise capital in another way. why not? they have next to no employees, and yet we have a huge board of the 'who's who', plus major shareholders that are even more ridiculously wealthy and connected. if it were about 'move it or lose it', they could have raised already any number of ways over the past year. why not?

stas, what's your suggestion then for shareholders who have clearly been shafted? do nothing and eat ****? really? that 'it's aim', like that's an excuse for mining royalty to do this? looked at the sp for this great deal. have a think about what they get if it goes ahead. and what pis who have held for a decade get. the whole thing is one of the most blatant smash and grabs that i have ever seen.

the project is going ahead regardless of this deal for $125m (f@ck all of development costs). they're just trying to take 45% of the 50% (declared) that they don't have.

Please come across ADVFN and say 'hello'. Extrader or I will be in touch via DM. If you don't have an account, please open one and state it's you. We need to speak.

Jiving, let's unpack your argument.

- License - where on earth does this come from. The Mining License is enshrined in law. And what makes it better protected when the same beneficial owners (who we don't know all of them), own more at a project level than they currently do at the PLC level. Let's assume the vultures own 65% of Jumelles (through ZIOC), they now want 87.5% Project + 7.5% (share of ZIOC's 12.5%), so 95%. It's nothing other than greed. And stating something about the license doesn't make sense and literally just making something up to try and explain their greed as something else.

- Desperation Deal - you could call it this, but not for the reasons you are providing. They have the MOUs signed and ready to be contracts - all reported by them. Everything completed over 20 years at $460m replacement cost except FEED. They are now doing their last grab of the project before announcing what they have been doing in the background. Why haven't they raised capital earlier? Why no streaming, royalty, off-take (big ? there btw), etc. These UHNWI and private equity descended with tens of millions to buy half the company (maybe more), and we cannot raise another $25m that would take us to FID and a sp valuation many times more...? And they have to go after almost all of the project with $125m, which is not going to take us through development, UNLESS THESE COSTS ARE ALREADY COVERED. And they are using current valuations (not post-FEED, Funding, FID) to try and justify $125m smash and grab as "value". It doesn't even stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny, which is why I'm so dumbfounded by the brazenness of it all. I'm honestly struggling to understand how you are not seeing this. The first value grab is bad enough, but the second isn't even required or able to be supported.

3. Scant evidence of doing them anything wrong. Not for me to decide, but for others. And I disagree on just the things that we do know.

4. Stockmarket Bid - All you know here is they have reported ways to try and stop a bid, and to benefit in the event one lands (for doing what exactly?). So to say that any other party can swoop in for hundreds of millions in a project the mgt team and major related parties are trying to lock up is hardly an open door. If they wanted this to happen, they should have no exclusivity or fees. The asset should be marketed fort the stage of development that it is at. Sealed bids. Deadline. Date. As for bids, I think the best chance of one happening is a consortium led "take Private" at 25-30p. And that will only happen if they have enough pressure on them to try and wrap it up differently. But, that would definitely signal it's "up for sale". At the moment, their signals are "we cannot stop it but trying our best". Quite different. Any approaches / bids would want to be made public, that's for sure. Their current move is unnecessarily hazardous.

Guys, here are my thoughts.

Regulatory investigation - If they have done wrong, they will be investigated. Reputations in tatters, open to legal challenges from investors, and the asset marketed for sale. As much as it would be painful, in the long-run PIs do not get shafted. Quite the opposite. The number of things that we are aware of make the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. Imagine everything else.

Jiving, respectfully you have so many holes in what you are saying.

1. It never showed true value. Simple to answer, it was a stranded asset with a majority partner that had full marketing rights and a stated position against developing greenfield. They inherited the asset, and it was good for tax purposes. This is the reason the sp hardly moved for a decade. But ironically, it moved to a higher valuation than it is now on many occasions. What does that say about the deal and true value? Secondly, remember the sp mystery range for months leading up to the "announcement". This board was scratching its head all this time. If you have the more powerful paid up AI functions (with much greater "thinking" capacity") then do a bit of probing on this. It will tell you a lot, and at over 90% probability. I won't say much else on this.

2. "Desperation Deal". Sorry but a ridiculous statement to make. You have a company with less than 5 employees and a BOD plus Major Shareholder Register (declared interest but full beneficial ownership questionable) that rivals Rio Tinto. This is not an exaggeration. A complete deck of Ex-CEOs and C-Suite from majors, African Infrastructure Major (Arise / Gupta), private equity and Saudi investors. And that's who we know of. And they have all descended on this $1 TRILLION DOLLAR Total Asset Value, which has substantial upside as only 40% of the defined tenement was defined (company words). Are you seriously trying to tell me THESE PEOPLE descended, and were let onto the register for peanuts by Trahar and Knauth (conflicts of interest galore), because we're desperate? And now many of these people (we don't know how many) are now trying to take the rest of the asset for $150m. It literally makes zero sense when you scratch the surface.

3. The offer. You need to look at things like someone who is orchestrating a smash-and-grab. It's so extraordinarily d@dgy that it makes you head spin. Let's look at the first $25m. This is literally all the company needs for 'FEED, Funding and FID'. So they have stated this will take us through all of these elements. This is wording in RNSs. So why try to take the rest? If it only needs $25m to formalise all the MOUs signed (remember them over the years), full Feasibility studies completed (mine, pipeline etc), then how can they justify trying to take the remainder of the project for peanuts? The company and project when you get through these stages of development is COMPLETELY FUNDED. So there's no requirement for $125m!!!

Nibj, type into google Zanaga iron ore share chat and the ADVFN site will come up. Open an account and say hi. Ex or I will DM you.

Hi guys, extrader, and I would like to discuss a few things with you. If interested, can you please head over to the ADVFN board and say hi (and who you are). One of us will then DM you.

Extrader and I would love to speak with you about something that we're working on. Can you head over to ADVFN and say hello. We'll DM you to discuss further.

Thor,

No other firm offers on the table. Had lots of interested parties.

- How do you know this? We know they have had lots of constructive conversations with partners and developers, which is why it's so obvious they are taking 87.5% of the project before getting all the partners to pay for it. They dilute everyone else, so they don't get diluted in the development. You do know there's rules against this...?

RAM are open to offers. Happy to pass it on / share it.

- How do you know this? If they were happy to share it then why did they not offer to all lth's the chance to participate in the GLEN raise? Instead they offered to insiders, related parties and friends. This gave them control. And now they attempting to take 87.5% for peanuts, andmostlikely paidfor by a side deal with the real partners. Do you seriously think these mining heavyweights have no other routes, whilst minor players do streaming, offtake and royalty deals all the time to fund hundreds of millions of development, including African plays? Tier 1, DFS, DRI, Fully Permitted, 330m spent, $460m replacement cost, +$5bn NPV10, $1 trillion Total Resource Value... the list goes on.

70 people at the presentation including trading houses, steel mills, industry figures etc.

- How do you know this? Were you there?

MD has effectively put up $25 million at 15p...we are trading at 6...

- MD (you know him...?). And no, he has put up $25m for 20% of a scoped $9.2bn NPV10, not counting the many additional stages. So he has put up $25m for $1.8bn worth of Stage 1&2 ownership alone. And 20% of a $1trillion Total Resource Valuation. They have already talked about the engagement of partners for a year. And you think they couldn't find $20m from all their contacts?

Trahar's Dad not part of RAM.

- How do you know? Can you tell us all about who is part of RAM? You seem to know so much.

ZIOC share of 12.5% is non-dilutable.

- False. Re-read what they are doing. They have rights to dilute, and have even stated up to the current holdings. Next you'll be saying that we weren't diluted. Hilarious how they said that and thought private investors wouldn't recognise they can potentially lose 90% of the asset that THEY OWN for peanuts.

If shareholders want to take this forward there is no alternative at the moment.

- They have connection to sovereign wealth funds, banks, development banks, majors, loans... you name it. They are choosing not to borrow or take non-dilutive finance for even $25m, so they can try to take the entire project. Serious question, have you ever invested in a miner before? There are dozens of ways to finance for resources @ less than 1% of our value.

Rewards for shareholders back loaded but still enormous.

- You have ZERO evidence this will happen. We have ZERO guarantees there will not be more dilution. Or a take private for pennies. It's a lot easier to take over a company when it's sp is capped, you own more than half of the company and the board is yo

Feeks, how can we be the greedy ones? Look at the share price. Look at the $330m sunk costs, $460m replacement value, $5bn NPV10 (audited), &9.2bn npv10 (targeted post value enhancements), $1 trillion Total Resource Value, company SP valuations, company peer comparisons, Reserves and Resource value, Fully Permitted (Mining, Environmental), MOUs with majors, Partnership statements. All company numbers. All company statements.

Then look at the 'who's who' that descended on little Zanaga like vultures. Our company employs a couple of people. They are all connected to the board and major shareholders. The board and major shareholders are the same as you find on Rio Tinto- there's at least former 4 CEOs of majors that we know of. Please tell me of one other junior or mid-tier company that has this representation? Cutifani left Vale to come here. Do you think they have descended on Zanaga just for something to do? And when we needed to raise modest cash, they have taken a huge chunk, not offered to Retail (thatwould make it harder to appropriate), or other majors, or streaming, or off-takes...? Anyone who has any idea of how juniors or bigger companies develop their assets know these steps are easily taken, especially if you have the people we have on the board and as major shareholders. Look at SOLG. Wanna tell me why they did it and no Zanaga? Answer is simple, they couldn't do it because PIs had a strong holding, and were protected by majors. We thought the 'Mining Dons" were our "majors".

Aberdeen, ATG, Cat, all I can say is don't sell. First, the sp cannot get much lower. Second, you don't know who you are selling to. Remember how many PIs who couldn't work out what was going on with the sp for over a month...? Third, if things get wobbly there's a good chance they'll go for a "take Private" offer, which would need to be considerably better. Fourth, there's a chance of a counter-offer. Finally, there's a decent chance this whole thing could blow up very badly in their faces. Anyone who has been here over the years knows that value has been contained, either by GLEN, or now by the mining luminaries that have descended to try and take the lot. Also, sorry for dragging some posters here that you haven't seen before, who are trading, talking L2, how it's a great deal.

Glen, Nibj, can you please go to advfn and simply say "hi G_G_G" on the chat board. I will DM you. If you don't have an account, please open one. Wheels are in motion, and I can update you directly on that site. Please only say hi if you are willing to put in a committed effort.