Member Info for Jiving

On a small company like this there can never be enough research, and the more sources the merrier. All focus on securing a prosperous New Year via ZIOC in early 2025.

Never met a welder before who described themselves as 'lowly'.

Still there is always a first, like your first post today after 4 years as a member.

Sure we will be hearing from you on the other board soon....

PS remember: 1 account = 1 VPN

Sorry Wilfysafc, typo should read of course today's date - 13 Dec 2024.

See you give ZIOC a Strong Buy just like MM & the late departed Eddsy .

And a warm welcome to Wilfysafc who joined LSE on 17th Nov 2020, and waited all this time to make his first post at 15.55 on 13th Aug 2024 on the ZIOC.GB board.

Does beg the question at to why Eddsy's entire posting history was also obligingly removed at the same time, and why his profile is still awol.

Excellent info 99icecream, that clarifies the critical port situation very well.

Interesting 500k trade in the final auction yesterday, well over the 16.30 offer price (by over 6%).

Mitch I totally agree with you that MM provided useful research & its a pity he left. For the record I didn't report him via the LSE mechanism, he essentially self-immolated. (But he is no Thích Quảng Đức)

On the matter of his 2 accounts, unfortunately he used those 2 accounts as a mechanism to drown out posters he didn't approve of and/or so called 'negative' issues he didn't want discussed. Nobody else on the ZIOC boards behaves like that, & its simply not acceptable for one person to set himself up in that fashion & misuse the system in that way. It is also an irrational nonsense: suppressing people & issues on our little boards has no impact in the real world where the actual players (mining companies, mining investors, steel companies, governments, etc) are only too aware of the key issues.

Yesterdays events were him abusing the system in the worst way - the first post he made after the RNS landed, was not about the RNS, but an attack on me for daring to discuss Extrader's (ie not even MM's!) post on the key issue of land appropriation. An issue incidentally I immediately dropped the moment I read the RNS which was company critical news, except to defend myself from his/Eddsy's incessant attacks. The more I focus on the issue of land appropriation the more I realise it is, & has been, a critical issue hanging over the project. This is to do with the Brazilian experience where the major ore pipelines from the interior to the coast were subject to lengthy landowner protests & expensive delays. Theoretically ZIOC has that critical issue dealt with by a 'process', but the importance of Nguesso's speech is that he essentially said RoC has a similar land appropriation issue to that in Brazil & he & the legislature need to get their act together & address it. Well yes, but if I was a strategic investor in RoC I would want this issue/problem clearly & realistically addressed before I invested. Given that everyone in the global mining industry is aware of the 'Brazilian problem' I wonder if this is the (or one of) the key factors that have left us rotting on the shelf for so long. Whatever, Extrader & I didn't invent this issue - in the real world it exists - & attempting to suppress discussion of it on our little board is frankly nuts & for MM/Eddsy it backfired.

I have always thought/hoped we were heading for a buyout. But the importance of the Port announcement, together with the prior Power announcement, substantially de-risks the project as AT points out. IMO that means ZIOC potentially going it alone becomes viable, with say a 20% equity partner or doing an Xstrata type deal & going ahead with 50%-1 structure.

If, if, its the case that a serious player like the Saudis (in desperate need of green iron ore to kickstart their entire green steel industry) have been left out, then they have the financial wherewithal to launch a full buyout bid for ZIOC. Which because of our concentrated shareholder structure: with Glencore/Elphick alone clearly owning significantly over 51%, & likely with the remains of the Garbet holding possibly closer to the magical 75%+ - means a bidder would arithmetically 'have' to negotiate a buyout deal/price with them based on an NPV formula. Today brings that possibility into play.

Not at all Shaun - as you can see from my extensive posts on the RNS on the other board I actually have a lot to say about the news - all of it positive.

The sole reason for the dispute with MM/Eddsy was MM not accepting other posters having an opinion which he does not approve of - he actually initiated the dispute after the RNS had landed, so why did he not focus on that rather than abusing another poster? MM as Eddsy has been an abusive & offensive poster for some time on both boards - all completely & totally unnecessary, who else maintains 2 accounts just for that reason?

Marcus, here is a copy of the entire post which you replied to at 10.52. Remember it now?

Eddsy Premium Member

Posts: 270

Price: 5.25

Strong Buy

Today 10:40

Hi Mitch - Veteran10's interaction is most useful and telling. Correct, I have had some comms with the company, and AT's work load confirmed my insight.

FWIW I think AT's and MK's 'flat out' involves the cordination and synchronisation of messaging from ourselves ***AND*** incoming Strategics. A huge flow of info is required between the 2, all of which has to be consistent. Plus there's the messaging that accompanies announcements (from Presentations and projections to RNSs and interviews). All has to be agreed. Oh, and timing. If, for example and this is my current favourite option, we have Anglo/Australian, Chinese and ME involvement then that is clearly a complex timing issue.

Anyway, that's my 'flat out'.

ALso, and FWIW again, I think today's MoU provides us with optionality over mine development strategies and associted Strategic involvement. Esssentially it is belt and braces that would allow ZIOC to go it alone, retaining executive control until later in the project, perhaps after FEED. This would very significantly enhance our NPVs, perhaps by 30% plus. Also for Arise building out the new mineral port is potential very luractive, at $5-8 per tonne.

However.....I think our future completely hinges on the ultimate size of Zanaga's Resource and hence Reserve. Everyone knows there is huge extension possibilities, nay certainties. These **must** be factored into any deal price and structure. For the Strategics any substantial increase would inevitably necessitate a reworking of the mine plan and schedule and hence also FEED and associated infrastructure requirements - think rapid ramp to 50mtpa and knock-on effects on beneficiation plants, slurry pipes and port size. Globally significant iron ore miners could and can do this themselves - think Simandou.

Thus Arise really are motivated to get on and producer a blinder.

So 'flat out' for me means more news, and soon.

The post has since been removed but I kept copies. As we have long suspected MM also posts as Eddsy. At 10.40 he replied to Mitch as 'MM' (hence "..I have had some comms...") but from his 'Eddsy' account. The was the one Marcus responded to at 10.52 & began in response to Mitch @ 10.06:

"Hi Mitch - Veteran10's interaction is most useful and telling. Correct, I have had some comms with the company, and AT's work load confirmed my insight."

Rebster - Oh I do know you & I know you don't think - as illustrated by your posts.

Rebster - you have nothing to say about the company because you know nothing about the company.

99IC, well spotted. I thought I had seen the name before.

It is an interesting choice, ownership/management does not seem associated with any of our potential strategic investors, this from Google:

"Gagan Gupta is the founder and CEO of Arise P&L, ARISE IS, and ARISE IIP, three companies that specialize in designing, financing, building, and managing infrastructure across Africa."

"A.P. Moller Capital owns 42.28% of Arise Ports & Logistics. Arise Ports & Logistics is a group of shareholders that invest in and operate infrastructure projects in Africa. A.P. Moller Capital is a fund management company that focuses on investments that combine risk-adjusted returns with a positive impact. "

Rebster

You are the one who started a pointless negative 'squabble' about issues you clearly dont understand - not me.

That was your only post after the news - only now do you dub it 'good news' - something I have focussed on since the RNS was released in multiple posts. On a day like this we need to focus on the RNS & what it means for the company's prospects. That is what I will be doing.

That we now have the 2 critical infrastructure projects in place via third party providers (ie no capital requirement on our side) is something the company has spent most of the last say 12 years trying to arrange. It dramatically alters the feasibility & financial attraction of the project for strategic investors. The next big news I would expect is the actual identity of the strategic investor.

Ironically we are in a way better position than we were in 2010 when the IPO was @ 156p or the next year when the share price hit 222p. Then we had institutional investors on board who have since departed (when Glencore took over) if they return - because it is a more attractive project than when they first invested - then the share price could really move.

Rebster

Elphick is still in the Chair - agreed and never disputed. Its more complicated than that see my first response on the longstanding port issue - potentially the port MOU could have been delayed at the behest of the strategic investor, until after they signed whatever deal they will make with ZIOC & they would then determine the port operator - it wasn't & ZIOC remains in control at this stage.

The company has been looking for a strategic investor for 15 years with no luck - beggars/choosers. The strategic investor will have firm ideas about what structure & price they will pay. It is highly unlikely they will want ZIOC as developer/operator & the normal industry structure is for the strategic investor to take 50%+1 - a structure Elphick accepted before because that was what the then partner demanded & he had no alternative. Unlike you, I am clearly open minded on what the end structure will be, that's common sense.

Unlike you who have only posted a negative post after the RNS, this was my positive summary at 7.27:

"This surely must shake up the share price - the two key MOU's - port & power - now both signed.

The key strategic investor (s) funding Stage 1 may well have been waiting for this to fall in place, and now it has."

Eddsy/MM. Not your place to tell a poster what to post on a public forum, so mind it. No surprise that 'Eddsy' repeats the same lame non points as 'MM'. I actually myself referred to the Brazilian example quoted by ZIOC in their 2014 presentation, which they claimed to have solved with a 'process'. The President himself has now suggested that exactly those land issues exist in the RoC - read his words; "...opposition by landowners have been obstacles to the implementation of a number of projects.." So will that be the case for our project - answer we dont know but it most certainly - read what the President just said - has become an issue. It is you MM/Eddsy who are missing the simple point.

Amazing you can waste so much time & space attacking a forum poster instead of focussing on the key news of the day. Both parts of your split personality need to grow up.

Rebster - whoever you, are not many posts on here, acting like an ignorant newby.

The company has been in longstanding discussions with strategic investors for some 2 years, a number of LTH have suggested the port MOU may have been delayed to meet the specific requirements of a strategic investor - ie the Chinese might have want a Chinese operator. The fact that ZIOC finally released the news nearly a year after they promised it, is revealing. Got that?

Nobody except the company knows the structure of the eventual deals -- so a number of long term posters have discussed various possibilities for strategic investors. - 20%, 50%+1, 100%. So to turn your question back on you - explain why you think 50%+1 is unlikely - especially given that is exactly the structure Chairman Elphick has used before for this company - Zanaga.