Member Info for Jiving

I am trying to bridge the gap between those of us - obviously including myself - who see the deal proceeding on a valuation based around the post-EPC enhanced NPV. How does that work in practice - how does the new JV partner/consortium proceed - maybe they buy/own a direct stake in the mine - quite possible - but I have set out how it might work in practice with ZIOC shares (esp given the provisions passed at the December AGM).

StarBright - clearly I am floating theoretical balloons here. But frankly I dont see that is would be of much concern to the project finance/debt providers, IF their equity commitment requirement is met by the $600m, their focus should be on that and looking beyond to the creditworthiness of the primary shareholders. It is far more likely to be of concern to the buyers of the 20% stake. Here I would argue by both driving the share price to their in-price it soothes concerns that they 'overpaid' vs the ZIOC pre-deal share price, and it simultaneously mitigates some of the dilution from the actual raise.

99icecream. I think the announcement of a 20% sale at an NPV of $4b would propel the share price towards that in-price (or indeed beyond as the pre-development NPV would be replaced by a higher 'funded' development NPV). But that rise might be a lengthy 'natural' process of several months, that would be accelerated by a share buyback programme - which would itself be value enhancing for all shareholders ie buy shares at £1/2/3 that are really worth north of £4. This is just a theoretical possibility, the key issue as well all know is to raise the key equity component of Stage 1 with as little dilution as possible. If it took 20% at a $3b valuation to kickstart it, so be it.

This is how I see it 'might' pan out, Duster:

1. Stage 1 initial costs to get to 12mtpa were historically quoted as $2.2b.

The Chinese EPC is attempting to lower costs by up to 20%.

So lets now call Stage 1 costs = $1.8b.

2. Equity will likely be 1/3 of that, with project & other bank/debt finance making up the other 2/3. (Really helps the credit profile if our core JV partner is the Saudis).

3. Working on a midpoint pre-development valuation of $4b, ZIOC can immediately sell 20% with BoD approval to a new JV investor raising $800m. (this 20% pre-emptive deal was authorised at the December AGM)

i. Divided $600m into the initial equity for Stage 1.

ii. $200m for a share buyback programme that will play a part in driving the share price up to the NPV in-price whilst simultaneously enhancing shareholder value. ie a significant part of the 20% dilution would be essentially cancelled via the share buyback programme.

4. The JV partners could increase their stake via secondary purchases from Glencore - who I believe are equity sellers at the right (NPV) price.

Incidentally remember the Saudis listed their prime oil asset - Aramco - on the stock market, thus allowing in institutions & PIs. They saw the advantages in terms of asset flexibility in that arrangement, so they are clearly not averse to holding strategic stakes in the form of listed vehicles. If they found that acceptable for their key strategic asset why not ZIOC?

Nibj. One mechanism I believe could come into play is the share buyback provision authorised at the AGM. This allows the Company to buyback in the market up to 15% of the then share capital ie circa 95m shares. If the company raises more funds that is necessary for the equity portion of Stage 1, they could use those surplus funds to buy back shares up to the NPV price paid by the JV investor. Thus PIs selling pre-emptively at less than NPV would be bought out.

It is up to Glencore & the Elphick group (as a clear majority of the ZIOC votes) to determine the structure of the deal - if they wish ZIOC to continue as an independently listed vehicle then it will continue to do so.

I used to favour a straight buyout, but now I dont see that as likely or desirable. There was always a division among shareholders between those who wanted a buyout & those who wanted a JV that would allow them to hold. A buy-in in the form of a JV based around NPV would give both camps what they want - the market price would rapidly move towards the investor NPV in-price allowing PIs to exit around NPV, & the launch of the JV would allow those wanting to hold to do so. Depending what is on offer I would be tempted to go 50:50 between the two.

Also the recent appointment of a CEO also points to a deal coming soon.

The valuation of the Zanaga project essentially has nothing to do with the share price, Glencore & Elphick between them own a clear majority of shares & Glencore have 100% off-take rights - any interested parties have to negotiate with them directly. Its all about the project valuation & the old NPV of $2-4b has likely been superseded by an improved NPV reflecting higher lifetime revenues & lower initial costs, likely conservatively pushing a pre-development NPV toward $3-5b.

The 2010 IPO valued 100% of the Zanaga mine at approx $1.4b. The share price high of 222p in 2011 valued it at approx $2b. These are actual market defined valuations - the IPO was primarily placed with institutional investors, capable of independently analysing & determining the value of ZIOC shares & they found 156p acceptable.

Thats good thinking 99, calculating that as a single trade. Whoever they are hopefully they will be sticky LTH & those shares are out of the free float. Ideally they would be with an institutional investor - at the time of our IPO back in Nov 2010 the majority of shares were placed with institutions @156p & only a minority with retail. The institutions included mining focussed funds, when they come back in we really start to move.

Assuming thats Shard, they will have raised quite a chunk of money in a hurry. Thats more than just legal fees & flights! Well we will find out shortly what its all about, but its clearly a sign things are moving to a climax in real time in Riyadh!

If the whole 36m Shard tranches have been placed, I reckon the total share capital will then be around 676m shares (incl 7.4m options to be exercised)

Exactly my thoughts Extrader. But it seems quite likely there are say 80%+ spoken for from those figures. Then there are all the PIs who have accumulated over time, there seem quite a few in the 3-6m range on this board alone, many of whom I suspect are holding for serious gains & not a quick trade.

So when we actually get news investors - retail & institutional - will be scrambling to buy from a 10-15% float. Which pretty much guarantees spectacular upward share price movement. The next week is going to be very exciting & rewarding for us all.

Nibj, this is a very important topic. The concentration of ownership is what may get us a raise around project NPV rather than based around share price.

Also you should add into your total the shares remaining from the disbanded Garbet syndicate which in 2016 had 116 million shares - these were the original 'insiders' who invested alongside Elphick's Guava company. I believe they were mainly JP Morgan bankers led by Michael Haworth. If many of them retained their holdings they could be assumed to be in the Elphick camp.

There are other honest, useful contributors on this board whose views I am interested in who post here. Whatever - it remains none of your business.

It took you 48 hours to come up with that feeble response?

As ever MM, I will post where I want, when I want, within the LSE rules & its none of your business - as ever.

Its frustrating as a LTH (now in 6th year) to see this dilution taking place, potentially days before momentous news. But what if its related to that news? We are hoping they are finalising the critical strategic investor (s) that will, as well as potentially with the Port & Chinese EPC. These are going to be very complex contracts & the counter-parties we will be dealing with: Glencore, the Saudis, maybe UAE, Vale, Nippon Steel etc will all be using prime corporate lawyers. So of course ZIOC will have to do the same, Linklaters partner (s) & legal staff flying around the globe (plus possibly local counsel) comes at a hefty price. Also the AT tweet said the 'team' would be in Riyadh possibly putting on a show of strength/expertise to our new JV partners. Again all the flights, hotels, consultants fees have to be paid. Aside from the Glencore loan the only means of finance the company has to pay bills is by equity issuance.

Looking at the prices the 100k blocks are going for, Shard seem to be placing mid market. Obviously trying to get as close to the Offer as they can. Frankly I think IF they are having to raise funds in a hurry - see above - they are doing a reasonable job. If you go into the market for 100k shares you could likely get some off Shard, last time we thought Shard were selling I collected 2x 100k blocks myself.

I certainly hope we are further along with 004, as a deal would potentially put us in a stronger position with 002. If we began the BD efforts in Sept, I honestly didnt expect any results until Q2 2024. If anything comes before then great, but these pharma deals can have a long gestation period

I am also with IB & had something similar a couple of months ago. I dont read anything into it, except I believe they may have widened the number of stocks available for shorting. I have no interest in either assisting shorting or having any risk whatsoever in losing my shares for reasons unknown.

"However, it is the Directors' reasonable expectation that the Group has adequate resources to continue to operate as a going concern for at least twelve months from the date of the approval of the accounts. In forming this assessment, the Directors have prepared cash fow forecasts covering the period ending 31 December 2024 that take into account the likely run rate on overheads and research and development expenditure and the prudent expectations of income from out-licensing rights to its programmes or a fundraising. "

Challenging deception is not disruption, except in the eyes of the deceiver.

Caught out deliberately attempting to deceive again MM, not the first time you have selectively quoted from articles to give a an entirely false impression of the authors intent. To spell it out step by step:

1. Your teaser - "What could Saudi Minister for Mines and Industry, Bandar al-Khorayef, possibly have in mind?"

2. You then intentionally quote only the first part of the sentence "He hinted at a significant announcement at the Future Minerals Forum next month,..."

3. Deliberately missing the second part out, which makes it clear the 'significant announcement' relates to a new estimate of domestic Saudi mineral deposits & leaves absolutely nothing 'in the air' except your probity: "..where a new estimation of mineral deposits, previously valued at $1.3 trillion, will be disclosed."

From Extrader on the other board:

Missing from that message :

.."He hinted at a significant announcement at the Future Minerals Forum next month, WHERE A NEW ESTIMATION OF MINERAL DEPOSITS, PREVIOUSLY VALUED AT $ 1.3 TRILLION, WILL BE DISCLOSED."

From 2 years ago:

https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/3449261/saudi-arabia-says-has-13-trillion-worth-untapped-mineral-deposits

These are domestic mineral resources, so not ZIOC...or anything else outside the KIngdom.

Unfortunately.

Also missing was the sentence immediately beforehand :

.."The minister announced that the Kingdom’s geological survey program has yielded promising results, allowing for a reevaluation of mineral deposits. .."

So, doubly unfortunate.

Thats my take as well, extending a loan until only 31 March would make no sense unless you were extremely sure monies would be flowing in to cover it by then. So in the next 7-10 days I am not expecting simply a MoU but an MoU+ that leads extremely quickly to actual transactions (maybe requiring EGM but thats 2+ weeks) that results in a funded Stage 1 project.