This really made me laugh at your cluelessness, this is a negligible volume share not a trading share, entirely dependent on a corporate event (buyout/buy-in) - all your chartist gibberish is irrelevant & just means you are stuck in a share you dont have a clue about. No wonder you are so desperate, so sorry for you losses!
Danny - as ever incapable of posting anything other than abuse of others posters who actually contribute to the board. Never seen you add anything remotely useful to this investment forum. You dont like my posts its easy to block them, a child could do it - so if you need help you know where to turn.
Shaun, I do not take it as a sign of anything happening soon that he does an interview visiting investors in China/Japan, if there were detailed negotiations with them he wouldn't be going public. Only a month to go before we find out about 2024-25, then we will find out about future financing & whether the final part of the outstanding loan needs to be repaid end July. And no I did not find Marty's interview remotely inspiring - perhaps you did, you wont find me criticising you for it: because this is a discussion form not a propaganda channel.
Ex, I am getting lost here who is Livov and what role might he play in this?
Mitch I am in agreement with most of your points. Regarding ZIOC & the Saudis the communication I was thinking of primarily was the tweet of 20/12/23 that specifically linked MK to Saudi strategic talks: "Pleased to confirm that #ZIOC’s CEO, Mr Marty Knauth, and other members of the ZIOC team will be at the #FutureMineralsForum in Riyadh from 9-11 Jan 2024 to progress engagement with strategic partners".
The 2024 FS reveals a stunningly attractive project that is hitting the market at exactly the time major global players are gearing up for green steel. My sole issue with the current project structure, is that I view the Marty start-up as being completely unrealistic for a project of this scale. Strategic investors would prefer/need a major global mining company with experience of working on vast projects in the developing world. A global miner brings two things, first a corporate commitment to getting the project done ie its putting its reputation on the line. Second bringing with it a wealth of institutional knowledge & experienced management teams that have worked together on similar projects. It also begs the question that if a strategic investor coughs up the equity finance why doesn't Glencore step up for this role as it would not involve any financial commitment beyond dilution?
The Marty start-up seems to be a gambit to get the project details in front of the key players in the hope of getting an attractive buyout offer (or ideally competing offers). The successful buyout team then bring in a global miner as developer/operator & I agree with posters on both boards that Vale looks to be the ideal company to play that role. Crucially it has excellent relations with the Saudis, Chinese & Japanese. The Chinese may wish to go it alone & make the entire project Chinese operated from mine to port - a possible reason why there is no port MOU announcement is to keep that role open. So in summary its a very attractive project hitting the market at just the right time, which will hopefully draw in serious buyout offers.
Not sure it speeds things up ATG, rather the reverse, IMO they are seeking multiple competing bidders.
The sceptic in me thinks this message from Marty is not primarily aimed at us but the Saudis, to let them know the proposal is being given to major Asian players. Similarly the Twitter message around New Year that the ZIOC team were in Saudi, was primarily aimed at the Chinese/Japanese & not for our benefit.
I also see the slippage of the strategic partner MOU end Q1, as being due to external factors but that could also be due to other bidders entering the field thus complicating the process. Something that is positive for us, the whole FS was tilted towards China, they have the power MOU & they could certainly do with (all) the ore. We simply don't know the cause of the delay or indeed whether the end Q1 target date was specifically designed to draw out bidders by signalling the end game.
As we approach June we are certainly running on fumes, three ways out: T3 ; an investor announcement; or use some of the headroom they have on the loan ($1.8m facility but just over $736k outstanding). Per Driving the loan has indeed been extended twice, but each time that was accompanied by a substantial repayment - $463k by end December & then another $700k by end March, leaving a balance of only $736k currently outstanding.
Indeed I estimate approx 55% of T1 & T2 went on repaying the loan, which is odd as of course that means it was repaid via dilution which affects Glencore's stake. The pattern of the two prior extensions was substantial repayment coupled with extension, such that only $736k is outstanding, an amount similar to the last repayment. I would hope if we are in the final stages of a bidding or haggling contest, Glencore are reasonable & cut us some slack; but whatever 'something' has to happen in the next few weeks regarding company finance.
I remember all the optimism we shared this time last year - which was also then (unlike now) reflected in the share price. With hindsight it's now clear we have been delayed around a year, by the production of the 2024 FS, but with the resulting NPVs being set some 80% higher our hope must be that is reflected in the final price. I also share Drivings take that the end result is now more likely a buyout rather than a buy-in, but at the end of the day I will be happy with either.
Good to hear people are increasing their ZIOC holdings Bear, hopefully it will prove a good way to recycle profits.
Hopefully the KP2 boom will result in some capital flowing back here. Congratulations to anyone who successfully traded between ZIOC & KP2 & ended up boosting their ZIOC holdings - thats what markets are all about - unfortunately its a trick I never mastered.
Driving, an arithmetic twist. If the project is trading at around 0.7% of it's NPV. Then 100x that would be 70% of NPV, which tallies neatly with JackShaft's analysis, which suggests a project at our stage should expect to fetch around a 30% discount to NPV. However you examine it, the share price does not reflect the reality of either the theoretical NPV or the sequence of events that have taken place over the last 18+ months.
Thanks JackShaft, that a highly relevant background. Any thoughts on whether any discount to NPV would be based around the 12m or 30m figures for ZIOC?
i was also a City analyst for a while in equity capital markets. My very limited mining finance experience came when I worked for an Asian venture capital fund. We were attempting to finance a potash mine in N Thailand being promoted by 2 experienced mining engineers, it was to be a start-up with no mining co behind it. The project was too big for us on our own so we approached two (US & European) venture capital firms we regularly co-operated with, to jointly finance it. Both of them categorically rules out participation on the basis that major mining projects needed to be undertaken by large experienced mining co with depth of management & relevant greenfield experience. They were happy to contemplate a buyout of the project & then JV with an existing mining company (accepting lower returns btw). Their reaction is something I have always considered looking at the viability of the Marty start-up proposal - & Zanaga 1 + 2 is around 10x the size of that potash project.
Thats good stuff JackShaft, is it from the Internet & if so do you have a link?
We would be around stages 2-3, all permits & permissions are in place. The type of FS they are undertaking with the Chinese is intended to lead to an EPC contract which would suggest that project finance is likely essentially in place subject to the crucial $600-800m of equity finance being provided. So discount to NAV around 30%. But a couple of but's & if's.
i. Which NPV is likely to be the basis for negotiations Stage 1 @ $3.7b or Stage 2 at $7.4b - quite a difference! Also should any allowance be made for the unexplored 40% of the Zanaga mountain range which might make a Stage 3 production level up to 60m pa plausible?
I could see an argument that a buy-in partner would expect to buy a stake based on Stage 1 NPV - then all parties benefit from the future development equally at Stage 2. But a full buyout that leaves no interest behind for existing Zanaga shareholders, there I could see a rationale for basing negotiations on Stage 2 NPV.
ii. Are we in a competitive situation, with potentially two or more entities engaged in a de-facto bidding contest (a scenario that obviously requires time & patience to see through to the end), which could drive an eventual deal towards a minimal discount to NPV, so maybe a lot less than 30%?
The thing is Ex, that Elphick was a brilliant stock salesman back in the day - he sold his projects on NPV++. The GEMD IPO was at around 1100p (now 13p been lower), ZIOC IPO at 156p now 6.6p (& the IPO was sold primarily to mining funds who thought they knew what they were doing). In his day he was clearly a brilliant salesman/negotiator we just need him to pull that magic off one more time.
Interesting you say that Mitch/Shrewd because surely Elphick is in the same situ - he has sat on his big stake for 13+ years since listing and seen the share price go from 222p to 1.4p in that time & now at a majestic 6.6p. My biggest concern historically has been that Elphick/Glencore would be too pushy & greedy with potential investors but I am hoping both parties see that whatever the price on offer it's now or never. Also at least as far as Glencore is concerned they desperately need capital for all the big corporate M&A moves taking place (not least they have to pay up for their big Teck coal deal next quarter) they don't want greenfield projects so take the money & go elsewhere.