Member Info for Jiving

These were the two trades totalling 7,547,609 around 12.26 that started this whole thing rolling:

27-Aug-25 12:27:47 0.0792 3,769,034

27-Aug-25 12:26:50 0.079 3,778,575

And then we get at 14.06 a single trade for exactly 7,547,609, followed 3 minutes later by another dump of 7.5m;

27-Aug-25 14:06:36 0.082 7,547,609

"Cutifani"

Hi Ex, thats an excellent piece of research. It just illustrates that whilst the Glencore exit has been a clear positive from the offtake angle, the picture is way more mixed when it comes to the new equity (voting) ownership. Before Elphick had a reasonable path to 75%+1, now I don't see a clear/obvious way for him to do that, the Glencore shareholding seem to be quite widely dispersed among various people/groups.

The fact we cant identify Cupitani or Mick Davis's shareholdings is perplexing, are they really under 3%? Mitchell's holding of just a couple of million surprised me, are the rest of the mining bigshots also only in for a couple of million each? Why did they have to put share sale restrictions on Elphick, was he so clearly unhappy with the deal that they feared he might exit abruptly?

Shaun, what posters discuss on the ZIOC discussion board is entirely up to them provided it is related to the company & in line with LSE policy. You, like me, Extrader & MM are simply individual posters - it’s none of my business what you post on the board & it categorically none of your business what I post on the board. To clearly spell it out: n-o-n-e o-f y-o-u-r b-u-s-i-n-e-s-s.

If posters want to discuss the possibility of their company being taken private that is entirely sensible and indeed is a critical issue affecting all shareholders. The change in ownership with Glencore’s exit & replacement by a disparate bunch of new shareholders, significantly increases the possibility of both the company being taken private (IMO from circa 10% before, to closer to 30% now). It also dramatically increases the possibility of a takeover bid based around our bombed out share price rather than a deal based on the fantasy NPV (IMO going from 10-20% before, to 40-50% now). In the course of the next couple of weeks I will be posting my detailed thoughts on these and other related topics, feel free to comment.

In case you and other self appointed Negativity Net Nanny’s have missed it, I think you will find MM on the other board is in severe breach of your negativity guidelines, specifically his posts of 31 July and 16 August.

All I see are ZIOC investors discussing developments affecting their company, exactly what the LSE forums are specially designed for. If posters aren't happy with this style of forum, maybe they should look elsewhere at other forums or start their own.

I would love there to be some mechanism whereby our ever inflating fantasy NPV, could be translated into a practical mine investment at even a few % of fantasy NPV. But is the GIS & its 20% offtake really it, maybe wrongly I attributed it to a value grab by our new cornerstone investor "'cause they could". Which they then dumped into a purpose built shell - GIS - to be monetarised at some later stage, but specifically for their financial benefit & not anybody else's including ZIOC. And BTW if it comes to pass that all along GIS has been a secret ploy to get a strategic investor finally involved, then hallelujah, but I would like to see a bit more substantive evidence than we possess now.

StarBright good email the other day. Regarding Phil Mitchell as I posted to Ex recently we do have the figures as he is a Board Director: "Phil Mitchell which in the RNS of 09.04.25 gave the figure as 2.42 million." But are these just the shares registered specifically in his own name and are there others as part of his holding in Greymont Bay?

Ex, regarding the individual holdings of the mining bigshots, we do have the figures for Board Director Phil Mitchell which in the RNS of 09.04.25 gave the figure as 2.42 million. Which is not a huge figure for a bigshot & it makes me wonder if the rest of the gang have similarly sized token personal holding of a couple of million each? Which would explain the lack of disclosure statements, and also raises questions about the extent of their 'skin in the game'.

Sorry I meant Q2 - we are so far behind I loose track.

Is that our long awaited Q3 update? Underwhelmed if it is.

"This was written with zero input from AI"

This is getting to be like ‘What Have The Romans Ever Done For Us?' Focussing on the minor footnote of the 20% marketing issue ignores the infinitely more important & critical elements of the Greymont Bay deal. So here is the case for 'What have Greymont Bay Ever Done For Us?'

1. Glencore - we are finally shot of Glencore & all their shenanigans. Not least of which were the 100% of ore marketing rights they grabbed for themselves in November 2022, as part of the merger deal that was agreed by Elphick & the Board and which received shareholder approval on 24.11.22. The stranglehold this gave them on the critical issue of ore marketing rights is likely to have been a major factor in deterring strategic investors. Now we are shot of them, we have a way better chance of a deal.

2. 80% of marketing rights returned to ZIOC shareholders. Stop focussing on the 20%, & start celebrating the fact we have got back 80%. This gives the ZIOC Board the flexibility to offer critical offtake rights to strategics - like say Manara, who have made it clear it is offtake they want more than mine equity! Would we have been better with 100% sure, but remember even prior to the 2022 deal Glencore owned the marketing rights to their 50%+ shareholding leaving ZIOC shareholders with under 50% of total mine ore marketing rights.

3. World class mining heavyweights as shareholders. Cutifani & O'Neill were the key executives developing & operating the world class Minas Rio ore mine for Anglo - directly comparable to Zanaga in quality & development logistics. Phil Mitchell was the key executive in RTZ's iron ore division & oversaw the Simandou development. These are acknowledged world class iron ore miners with current knowledge & records. Cutifani was Chairman of Vale Base Metals when they negotiated the Manara equity/offtake deal - nuff said. Also crucially, they are largely putting up their own money, which is actually a stunning vindication of the Zanaga potential.

4. Enhanced FS. Related to the above, my hunch is when they went into the project in detail they saw that it lacked key FS enhancements that would dramatically improve the likelihood of securing a deal with strategic partners on attractive terms to shareholders. So these got built into the new 'workstream' schedule & included issues such as Dry Tailings FS which had hitherto not been mentioned. But not only are we going (eventually!) going to get a superior enhanced FS, they also coughed up the money to pay for it!

5. New cornerstone investor. The fact that these heavyweights invested via a corporate structure rather than individually is for various reasons including tax; anonymity; & flexibility in altering/adding shareholders. But the key advantage for us is that it signals a 28.11% block will vote 'as one'. This is critical in the event of a hostile takeover as 25%+1 represents a block on any takeover party assuming complete corporate control of our asset.

This was written with zero input

Nobody is taking seriously your latest nonsense (from a long line) because we can all see that the 20% marketing rights were a necessary condition for Greymont Bay's critical equity subscription to rid us of Glencore. Beardozer helpfully quoted the relevant section from the RNS below, all transparent & above board as both Elphick & AT know what they are doing when it comes to corporate finance: "Key point: "Greymont Bay, as a cornerstone investor in ZIOC, subscribed for equity in the company. As a condition of that investment, ZIOC agreed to allocate 20% of the iron ore production’s marketing rights to Gulf Iron and Steel (GIS)." You are the headless chicken that gives the others a bad name.

Time to give up on your bogus governance issue.

And back to 'Strong Buy', there's consistency for you.

Agree with ATG, no sign of any pump & no sign of the usual pumpers on LSE or Telegram.

We were due multiple news items by end June, maybe we are getting them end July?

Hey MM - seen the ZIOC share price!!

Not like you not to be celebrating a big price rise on big volume.

Last time you posted the share price was 7p, it just hit a high of 9.74p on 8 million volume - nearly a 40% rise!!

What do you think is up - could it be news....

Good luck all holders!

Nasa1 indeed. And this on P5 of the Prospectus of 23 may:

" If no out-licence deal or option agreement is concluded by the end of October 2025, or the revenue generated by such deal does not provide sufficient working capital to meet the Company’s strategy for the full 12-month period from the date of this Document (“Working Capital Period”), a working capital shortfall of circa £360,000 will arise at the end of October 2025 such that the Group’s requirements for the remainder of the Working Capital Period will not be met."

At last a post providing useful info on the company (happens about once a quarter), instead of the seemingly endless alternation of 'Pump & Dump', punctuated by 'Doom & Gloom'.

I highly recommend the second link to an editorial on the (2024) state of inhaled drug delivery for IPF & other interstitial lung diseases. It's current & very positive regarding where NXP002 is positioned in the emerging inhaled treatment 'space'. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17425247.2024.2348659#d1e109

Hi Ex

Your points are all valid concerns. My first take when I saw the aggressive timetable set out in the March presentation was: how was all this going to be delivered with our staff of 1.5 - ie basically Marty & a chunk of AT's time. Given past timetable issues, I added a quarter to the estimated delivery times. I think we will get what's promised, but possibly not on the dates set out in March. Might that potentially have financing consequences, that's always there in the background for an exploration company with no source of income other than equity raises, but then the new investors are financially astute & presumably know their costings?

Overall I think we are getting to where we need to be with a bigger, better project better tailored to the specific requirements of potential strategic investors than the previous FS. I note Vet's comment on his communications with the company "The impression I get is it is not easy to get a strategic investor or takeover over the line.." That is my sense of what has gone on over the last 2.5+ years; getting a strategic investor to bite is turning out to be a 'hard sell' and not a 'slam dunk'.

Also I remember our new cornerstone investors are going to be driving this transaction. Not only did they cough up their own cash to buy out Glencore, they also financed all the value enhancements that are taking place. Given the key positions they recently held & their current knowledge of the high grade iron ore market, IMO they know what they are doing positioning Zanaga in this way.