Member Info for Jiving

Add in the pelletisation & they are stating $6b additional value, which is stunning. So more than doubling March 2025 NPV. So a stunning per share valuation under almost all circumstances.

Thanks guys, that was the one BIG question I had. Spending too much time posting here rather than reading the presentation.

Q3 2025 IMO is great timing & a 'formal bid contest' is best of all as it guarantees competing bids & also implicitly that the company accepts the winning bid - whatever it is (in relation to NPV). Everything I am seeing/reading is tops!

Always, any sustainable rise may well be dependent on whether analysts & fund managers are attending the presentation. If they are, & we once again become an institutional stock we could see serious ongoing appreciation. Worth remembering that at IPO in 2010 some 90% of the shares were placed at 156p with institutional investors, valuing 100% of Zanaga at $1.4 billion.

Approximately when does the company envisage they will be approaching strategic investors to actually commit to investing in the project? Will it be via a bidding contest?

"Four key workstreams have been identified which have the potential to result in high impact value improvement outcomes for the Zanaga Project. The combined impact from these workstreams is targeted to increase the Net Present Value (NPV) of the Project by more than US$4 billion."

So that would be from their 3 March stated NPV of $5.7 billion to a potential $9.7 billion. In other words a 70% NPV increase for an approx 20% dilution - this is why Elphick went ahead with such a substantial dilution on 3 March because the payback was so huge.

If you work on eventually realising my conservative valuation of 50% of stated NPV this then becomes GBP4.42 per share.

4. "Or do we still have those dreaming of £2-£5 levels.." Asset valuation in these circumstances involves a combination of theoretical & market valuations. First off & the basis for all mining asset negotiations - theoretical NPV values, ideally derived from industry standard BFS’s ie like ZIOC’s 2024 BFS. The company currently quotes (03.03.25 RNS) an NPV for the project of $5.7 billion.

Second, you seek historic ‘comparables’ ie the market price achieved for similar high quality iron ore projects in the past. The closest in terms of quality, size & jurisdiction are Simandou in Guinea & Minas Rio in Brazil. Minas Rio was purchased pre-FS by Anglo American for $5.5 billion in 2008, & is the one I have long quoted as the nearest asset to our own. A view incidentally shared by the Anglo CEO who saw the project through to fruition & is now a major ZIOC shareholder: Mark Cutifani, who states about ZIOC “ Its low operating costs and integrated slurry pipeline logistics mirror the efficiency and infrastructure-driven advantages seen in assets like Anglo American's Minas Rio, which successfully scaled into a leading global supplier."

Finally, you look at current market transactions. Here we have seen stunning valuations placed on Nippon Steel's minority investment in the greenfield Kami iron ore project in Canada, & also Mitsui's $5.3b investment in the greenfield Rhodes ridge project in Australia.

So an expectation that any buy-in or buyout investment into Zanaga would be priced around at least 50% of the stated NPV of $5.7 billion, or GBP2.60 on a fully diluted basis, seems a minimum realistic target.

BOTS_PROJECTS. Regarding your post:

1.  “…wrap their heads around the building blocks needed to nail down costs…”. As genuine investors know this lengthy & exact process was accomplished with the publication of the 2024 Feasibility Study results on 30 April 2024. This nailed down costs to the exacting standards demanded by a Bankable Feasibility Study, which as they explained involved the 2024 BFS being “…updated to current market pricing using Chinese major equipment and contractor pricing for both phases…”

2. “… identify final partners…”. This as genuine investors will know was undertaken by Marty’s 5-6 stop marketing trip in May-June 2024. This was where he gave detailed presentations to equity/debt, partners/investors in various global financial centres including Beijing & Tokyo.

3. “…understand the financing needs and then go to market to raise the (probably syndicated loan) finances…”. The company & genuine investors actually already ‘understand’ how greenfield mining finance works. And as in comparable mining projects, it’s specifically via 'project financing' that involves equity investors initially committing, which then draws in debt participants via project finance. If you have examples of vanilla syndicated loans being raised for comparable Greenfield mining projects please provide details & links.

Always, I am also not 'current' on exactly how insider dealing rules play out. My take would be they are deliberately not yet at deal signing stage - my longstanding position is they are keeping multiple potential strategic investors active to create a competitive situation. They likely need circa 3+ months to secure the key pelletisation plant input/figures & also for finalising an EPP element to Stage 1 - both of which would substantially boost NPV (IMO by 15-20% to $6.5-7.0b). Then they can produce a v detailed & exact development plan, that would be the basis for receiving bids for the Stage 1 construction consortium from the group of strategic investors already contacted & potentially others (& would also be the last chance for buyout bidders to make their best bid).

One other element that might indicate we are going to get a substantial update is the embargoed Shard research report of 3 March. This will have been paid for by the company, but crucially this is the first sponsored research report they have had produced since August 2014 when they released the last Edison report. These sponsored research reports essentially allow management via the 'researchers' to extrapolate the company's prospects beyond the limits imposed by the RNS regulatory system.

Always, that is also my best case scenario, that we are getting a substantial corporate re-launch, targetting City funds & analysts, as well as possibly the financial/mining media. (Alternatively it will be a nothing burger) If so, then any RNS would be as you suggest after hours or 7.00. am tomorrow.

Actually the best indicator of where we currently stand, has been the recent scramble by mining big-shots & ZIOC management to load up as many shares as they can. Whilst the Trahar's can likely access finance from the family trusts, Marty is coughing up a big chunk of his hard-earned savings to get his stake. This is the guy who has done the face-to-face presentations with the strategics & is handling the critical follow up news flow re-port & power etc. IMO follow the insider money flow.

In Greed We Trust.

Sorry to hear that ATG, I know you have been in this a long time. Elphick is the one I watch, if a dilution is satisfactory/necessary to him, then other things being equal it is to me as well. This has been his baby since 2007 and he has historically kept dilution to a minimum. If he felt an approx 20% dilution was needed now, IMO it is because it was necessary to get this over the line at a good price. Also the funds used to accelerate & complete the pelletisation study may add a decent slice back in terms of further enhancing the overall NPV.

4kandles, well one thing I suspect we can all agree on is that many ZIOC company statements are ambiguous - at best. Furthermore we are sometimes promised specific news that is then not delivered - in the 07.11.23 RNS we were promised a Strategic Partner MOU by end Q1 2024, that didn’t occur by 31.03.24.

The tweet of 7 February set out two, not one, related updates to be “announced in advance”:

1. “Strategic partner process” - note 6 weeks ago he was promising not the ‘identity’ of the strategic partners but very specifically the ‘process’ for obtaining them;

2. “Project development strategy” - clearly related to 1 & not covered in the 3 March RNS.

The differing interpretations partly revolve around the fact we have a variety of investors/entities that play different ‘strategic partner’ roles. For example, the entities providing port & power are key strategic partners, but they may or may not participate in the actual consortium financing & building the mine. Similarly here the mining bigshots who provided the funds on 3 March are certainly ‘strategic partners’ in many senses, but they do not represent the ‘process’ referred to in the 7 February tweet.

All along the key/critical strategic partners are the investor(s) who are going to provide the crucial equity component needed to kickstart Stage 1 - in the 2024 FS that would be some 30-40% of approx $2 billion, so $600-800m. This will be achieved by bringing in the strategic partner/investors at a price related to the project NPV (stated now as $5.7b) & not related to the current share price - a critical distinction from all shareholders perspective. The 'process' for obtaining these critical strategic partner/investors has not been set out.

So I maintain we are still awaiting news on the two issues set out in the 7 February tweet. The first ‘process’ I see Marty alludes to in his 3 March statement "We will now launch a formal process aimed at assembling a project funding and execution consortium." Given ZIOC’s record, as mentioned in the first para, of promising specific news on a given date & then not delivering it, we may not get the two critical news items tomorrow. My expectations are sadly very low & seemed to be shared by the market.

MAJWandCo - see above. The information & entities mentioned on 3 March do not correspond to the two news items promised on 7 February.

MAJWandCo you surely realise the strategic partner in this context refers specifically to the entities who will be funding the actual project's funding & construction. The investors who came in on 3 March took out Glencore's holding at no cost or dilutive effect to shareholders, & also provided the key funding (dilution circa 20%) that enables the project to obtain the strategic investors on the best terms in the near future.

They process by which they will be selected has yet to be laid out but we know it is forthcoming as CEO Marty Knauth spelt it out in the RNS of 3 March: "We will now launch a formal process aimed at assembling a project funding and execution consortium."

"...underwhelmed and have more questions than answers..."

That neatly summarises my experience over the last 6 years as a ZIOC shareholder.

NewKOTB, that could well be the case in order to cover themselves regarding info releases during the presentation. Will we also be given teh full new Shard research report?

Interesting that the Shard report on ZIOC is dated 3 March, ie the same date as the RNS release on the Glencore sale. As Shard reference that transaction & base their per share valuation on an implied 800m shares outstanding, I assume they had advance notice of the transaction. Tantalisingly only 4 pages of a 20 page report were released on twitter on 4 March. As well as giving a per share theoretical valuation of 600p, they then apply a 90% haircut to give a target price of 60p.

The Table of Contents sets out topics to be discussed including 'Valuation & Relative Valuation'; as well as 'Risks' which covers: iron ore market; execution & funding; country risk; and energy constraints. https://x.com/Rafaley/status/1896921978709446678

Ex, your questions are all sensible & cover the main issues. I have been holding back comments & questions until I see the key updates on the strategic partner process & project development strategy, which we were promised in writing we would receive in advance of Tuesday's meeting. This was the tweet sent from the company account on 7 February:

"Look forward to seeing you at #ZIOC’s investor event on Tues 18 March at 5pm.

Strategic partner process and project development strategy updates will be announced in advance."

Like a number of other investors I will be unable to attend the Tuesday meeting in person. I have emailed AT suggesting the Tuesday meeting is streamed and/or recorded & released as a youtube or proactive video.

Why are you expecting anything at the AGM? It is usually just an annual corporate housekeeping exercise.

If there were any important news it would be RNS'd when it happened. This was last year's AGM, unexciting: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/NFX/result-of-agm-73ae1e2psmejjdy.html

But what news would you expect from the AGM?

They are usually just administrative annual shareholder permissions, here is the link to last year's: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/NFX/result-of-agm-73ae1e2psmejjdy.html

Following this morning’s fundraising announcement, #ZIOC is now backed by a highly successful and experienced investor base. Learn more about some of the key investors here

https://x.com/Zanaga_Iron_Ore/status/1896545872827318460

At the moment in the 2024 FS we have a Stage 1 (12mtpa) NPV of $3.68b; & we have a Stage 2 NPV (30mtpa) of $7.36b.

Well here we are with a new third NPV from today's RNS: ".. a globally significant, US$5.7bn NPV, 30Mtpa staged development iron ore project..".

That figure is almost a halfway point between the Stage1 & 2 NPV's (50:50 Stage 1/2 = $5.52b for reference), something I have argued before could be rationalised as a weighted NPV full buyout price. And given this is an RNS that is going to make waves across the mining world, it is quite possible that this new $5.7b NPV is indeed a signal/indicator of the ZIOC target price for a full buyout bid.