Member Info for Jiving

And response came there none. These are all entirely fair & appropriate points, that are exactly what an investment forum exists to make & debate. They categorically should not be drowned out simply because, rightly or wrongly, someone has an alternative agenda that they actually dont want (or can't) defend against legitimate criticism.

The reality of our situation is surely that - from the company's own RNSs & commentary - we are in the very last stages of detailed negotiations with one or more strategic investors, that are anticipated to close at the latest by end March. Its not any longer about green steel for or against; the value of high quality iron ore; the attractiveness of West African resources - it all (hopefully) revolves around the final haggling & contractual detail between the key decision makers.

The single most cringeworthy post I have ever read on an LSE forum. You have an embarrassingly inflated view of your value & that of the various links from Google & Twitter you regularly post. Literally anybody searching Google with the obvious keywords - Zanaga, Saudis, iron ore, green steel, Congo etc - would come up with the identical articles. This categorically does not, in any sense constitute “..high quality research that guides and strengthens the ZIOC investment case.." It's articles from Google with the occasional comment, that you are usually unable & unwilling to defend from legitimate criticism - that's all.

Of course on any LSE forum - you MM - are free to post what you deem useful & comment on its relevance (subject to the LSE forum rules & moderation & not any individual poster's). But so does everyone else - be that Extrader, me, anyone. We are also free to comment on any of the other posts on this forum - your's or any other - that's how the LSE forum system works. You are just another LSE poster, nothing more or less, understand reality ".. you certainly don't call the tune."

Got binned at Small Pharma in the summer, so he lasted about a year after leaving NFX. From 05.07.23 announcement:

"As part of the Company’s ongoing exercise to enhance operational efficiencies and focus efforts on achieving key value-based milestones, the Company is implementing a headcount reduction of approximately one-third. Dr. Alastair Riddell will also leave his role as Chief Operating Officer (“COO”). Ms. Marie Layzell, the Company’s current Chief Manufacturing and Development Officer and previous COO, will assume the additional responsibilities of COO alongside her current role."

Interesting deal structure from our perspective - GLEN sell equity stake in mine but gets offtake agreement, a Gulf strategic investor steps in to finance mine's development. Key points from Reuters article:

1. "Zambia has selected United Arab Emirates' International Resources Holdings (IRH) as the new strategic equity partner in Mopani Copper Mines, the miner's owner ZCCM-IH (ZCCM.LZ) said late on Thursday...The new investor is also expected to "reset" Mopani's existing relationship with Glencore (GLEN.L), ZCCM said."

2. "Zambia has been searching for a new investor for Mopani since it took control of the assets from Glencore in 2021 after agreeing to pay the Swiss commodities giant $1.5 billion in a deal funded by debt. As part of the deal, Glencore retained off take rights for copper from Mopani."

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/zambia-selects-uaes-ihc-unit-new-partner-mopani-copper-mines-2023-12-01/

I'm with Marcus on this one, that the kind of share price area I would expect JV or buyout terms to end up (pre production 12m @ NPV = $3-4b). IMO negotiations with strategic investors are taking place centred on project value (NPV mainly but also IRR), and not market value. Simandou blocks (unlisted) have changed hands in the $b+ range historically, and the ownership structure is a mess, the crazy long railway wrecks NPV & they have just had a coup. We are literally oven ready as far as permits are concerned (a lengthy process from scratch) & now with current Chinese costings - I hope we are in a competitive situation & are essentially taking bids.

Thats an interesting link Yogi & ties in with Vet10's recent find regarding Denis junior's recent visit to Japan seeking closer trade links. Japanese interests have shown interest in Zanaga in the last few years, and must be extremely concerned about arch-rival China grabbing so many key mines around the world. That Nippon Steel has recently concluded a large scale JV with Glencore gives them easy top level access, one more 'possible' strategic investor.

Song remains the same MM, what we need is an actual investor who finances Stage 1. All the general meetings & plans over the last 13 years have still not produced that. ZIOC in the November presentation is clearly pointing to China, I certainly see a rationale for the Saudis being interested in ZIOC & I dont frankly cares who finances it.

African infrastructure hopes & plans are plentiful, what we need is a real strategic investor into ZIOC after that the rest falls into place.

There was a possibility - other things being equal - MBS & the Saudis might have wanted major 'green' news during COP28, (but it is really a UAE based event anyway). Now my hopes are they would preferably like something big before their Riyadh based Future Minerals Forum on 10-12 January. That would make a splash in their own backyard in front of the key players they intend to be doing 'future mineral' business in the future.

Thats interesting stuff Driving re-Japan. All credit to the Nguessos they are going out of their way to build close diplomatic & economic links with all the likely major players. In the last, say some 9 months, they have done this with the Saudis, Emirates, Brazil, China & now Japan. At a state-to-state level they are ready to run with whoever turns up as strategic investor/operator.

Always, exactly, the article cites the $533m deal signing with African countries - which is a drop in the ocean, it's a bad week in AUS or CAN mining to get that little investment. This really marks their intentions:

“PIF is looking at Africa with great interest and I believe they will be in due course making some game-changing announcements about their intent to invest in Africa,” he said, adding that Ma’aden and PIF’s joint venture – announced in January – is going to “invest in the critical minerals in Africa.”

Driving, I think the same way, we are either mega-right or just plain wrong & I put every month's surplus income into ZIOC shares - for better or worse, we will shortly find out.

Just to clarify, I see the 'year of haggling' beginning in January 2023 when the new ZIOC structure was formally in place. The Chinese updated figures mean we now have everything in place for a current Zanaga project valuation to be agreed between ZIOC & one or more strategic bidders (the essential basis for either a JV or a buyout). Thus I think Nov/Dec are the key finalisation months for a deal. The 29 Sept RNS gave end Q1 2024 as the target date for a strategic investor to be chosen, so according to their timetable we still have some 4 months, but if its a full buyout I expect an earlier decision.

I feel exactly the same frustration & trepidation that others express, but I genuinely think we are at the end of the process & the company has essentially confirmed that in their timetable in the Sept & Nov RNSs. Incidentally if, for example the Saudi's, wanted to announce a big African mining deal before their 10-11 January Future Minerals Forum they would likely want any deal confirmed by a ZIOC AGM prior to that. Which given the 21 days notice period would mean the clock is really ticking....

"Vale’s story is now “too attractive to ignore” and investors are likely to increase exposure to this stock as the confidence around the iron-ore supply-demand balance builds in 2024, according to Goldman Sachs. The Vale Analyst: Marcio Farid upgraded the rating for Vale from Neutral to Buy, while raising the price target from $12.20 to $19.50."

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/vale-has-unique-setup-goldman-sachs-declares-stock-too-attractive-to-ignore-1032840401

A good backdrop for negotiations, hopefully gives bidders confidence they are doing the right thing.

Characteristically Major Muppet, just like you don't comprehend how the LSE forums works, it doesn't seem to occur to you that many posters are here solely to discuss companies they are invested in & not for any other rationale.

Counter Comment

Major Muppet, it’s sad that after all these years, you still haven’t worked out how the LSE forums work. The forums exist for any member to comment on what they deem relevant on an issue/company, provided it is within the LSE rules & subject to their moderation. It’s not for a single poster to act as a Minor Mussolini, and seek to dictate what is ‘relevant’ & determine who can post in a particular forum.

99, my hunch is that if there is an 'agreed bid' between a strategic investor & ZIOC's main shareholders it will be seen in their mutual interests to pursue the 75% scheme of arrangement style mechanism via its BVI equivalent. In those circumstances I reckon everything will be done strictly by the book, to stop any possible legal challenge or mud being thrown, at say Glencore - who are very keen to clean up their image not drag it in the dirt again!

Any deal that meets with Glen/Elphick approval frankly is 99% likely to have mine & I would happily become part of the 75% to get this over the line. The catastrophic effects of a minority blocking a takeover has just occurred in Australia with the Liontown Albermarle bid. A blocking stake in Liontown was bought by billionaire Rinehart, Albermarle walked & the Liontown share price collapsed, virtually halving.

And the BVI has an analogous mechanism to the UK scheme of arrangement. Elphick, Glencore & all the ex JP Morgan corporate finance shareholders (incl AT), will I am sure be able to effect a similar scheme if they deemed it suitable. Description of BVI equivalent:

"A Section 179A scheme of arrangement is not dissimilar to the English law equivalent and schemes have been successfully used in relation to acquisitions of BVI companies in the past, including Amber Petroleum Ltd’s reverse takeover of AfNat Resources Limited. Under a Section 179A scheme of arrangement, once approved by a majority in number representing 75% by value of the BVI company’s shareholders present and voting at a Court convened meeting and then sanctioned by the Court, the scheme will be binding on all shareholders."

99, like many other AIM listed BVI companies ZIOC has included the takeover provisions (ie "City Code") in its Articles of Association. As confirmed below:

"There are no provisions governing takeover offers analogous to the City Code applicable in the BVI.

The Company’s Articles of Association, however, incorporate provisions similar to those contained in

Rule 9 of the City Code."

I see us in the best position we have been in since I started investing in this over 5 years ago (& arguably since listing 13 years ago). We know there have been active approaches from strategic investors since the Glencore/ZIOC deal at the end of 2022. We are heading towards a year of possible haggling, & the production of the key updated Chinese figures is IMO the final catalyst for getting something agreed this year. Interested parties (possibly competing China vs Saudi; possible co-ordinating in a consortium) know their pricing parameters, the Chinese 2023 figures will produce a project valuation (NPV) as accurate as is humanly possible. So both sides know they have to move to a rational compromise & get on with it, this is what I hope is happening now with the latest Presentation being the final call for bidders.

Once that happens, we could be moving fast, the (delayed) AGM could potentially be used for the shareholder vote on either a JV or a buyout. If its the latter, the concentrated ownership of ZIOC makes it a shoe-in for a 'Scheme of Arrangement' an accelerated means of undertaking a takeover in the UK that requires only 75%+ shareholder agreement, & proceeds then via the court system (under the supervision of the Takeover Panel). Announcement late Nov/early Dec, AGM, court order, cash to shareholders by March - thats my dream!

Perhaps this has been covered before & I missed it. Re-reading the presentation, the wording used is to a degree seemingly contradictory. The opening statements suggest some of the key Chinese FS updates have already have been received as of 07.11.23. Quotes from text from the presentation:

P2. Investment Highlights. Point 1: “Feasibility Study complete”

P4. Introduction. Overview of the Zanaga Iron Ore Project. Point 2: “Bankable Feasibility Study Complete”

A different emphasis can be found elsewhere, i.e. description ‘updating’ & 'updated' as if it's still taking place.:

P5. Recent re-positioning….. Point 2: “Chinese EPC firm updating 2014 FS to current pricing*”

P23. Conclusion. Point 5: "Process underway with experienced Chinese EPC contractor to secure updated FS level costings for construction and operation"

One explanation may be set out in the 3 July RNS which divided the updating process into 2 Phases. Quote:"... ("Chinese EPC Partner") as part of a two stage optimisation process of the Zanaga 30Mtpa staged development project." It's possible we might have received Phase 1, but be still be awaiting Phase 2 which is the less critical iron ore processing update?

Also it occurs to me they may not publicly release the details of Phase 1 of the FS update information. Instead requiring potential strategic investors to approach them for access, & sign NDA's & enter a more formal negotiating process.