Member Info for Major-Tom

Seis / WB, I do not seek to suppress the share price. I also do not seek to bring negativity to the board. I am simply conveying my honest opinion.

I have been super bullish here in the past. However, I now have what, IMO, are valid concerns which prevent me holding Arc stock at this time. More fool you if you think those concerns are outrageous.

Anyhoo, I can see that I am having a negative impact therefor I will leave you to your own WORK, shutting down anyone who is 100% convinced or dares to have an alternative opinion to yours.

Look Seis, I really do not want to get into this tit for tat with you. I look at both side of the argument and respect other peoples point of view. However, since you keep prodding me with the closing lines of you posts I feel I must reply.

To answer your question "how do you reconcile your comments with the RNS?"

NVS was quoted in the RNS stating that "Arc continued to make good progress in the negotiation of a transaction with Anglo American" My take this? Good progress is being made however negotiations are in fact still ongoing.

"We are also pleased with the progressive reforms being undertaken by President Hakainde Hichilema's administration and the Ministry of Mines." Everyone is pleased with the reforms. No real bearing on thevlikely of completion of the JV or it terms.

"I look forward to moving swiftly to signing all the final agreements and to updating shareholders shortly." So do we all! Nothing definitive to suggest that signing is assured.

Nothing within NVS comments or the RNS make my opinion that AAZ COULD either be planning to go it alone or use the threat of going it alone as a negotiation tactic with ARC and Kopara unreasonable to consider.

Now we have done the tit lets move to the tat.

As I answered your question can you please return the gesture and answer this question for me. Why you have continually focused on the positives from this RNS rather than balancing the positive and the less positve information within it?

Like

"The parties are currently closing out remaining due diligence, technical and structure issues which are expected to be concluded in the next few weeks." IMO this confirms that due diligence is not complete yet and that there are some sort of technical and structure issues!

IMO it was a very contradictory RNS which of course was all caveated by the good old backside covering boiler plate statement.

"Until the signing of definitive agreements, there can be no guarantee that Arc Minerals or any company in its group will complete any commercial transaction in relation to its Zambian assets."

And, why, considering the above points do you feel the RNS makes the signing of the JV any more likely after its release than before it?

Seis, I was reassured somewhat by NVS comments in that RNS. However, I will still play safe for now.

Fulmar, I say again. I genuinely hope my fears are unfounded. But, what I wrote is not calculated and is not unreasonable to consider.

F79, I agree that AA would not do anything underhand or corrupt and that the new Gov would not accept anything underhand and corrupt. However, I personally do not see anything underhand or corrup in AAZ applying for licences.

Fulmar, I am not stupid enough to think that I can influence anyone. Anything I post on here is 100% my honest opinion. I look for downside risk in everything and anything I invest in. Over the years I have missed out on some profit but at the same time this strategy has also saved from a lot potential losses.

I do not take offence when people, yourself included, post opinions contrary to my opinion. I take these opinions onboard and if valid give the due consideration. FWIW I genuinely hope my fears are proven wrong. N3cause, once the JV is confirmed I will be able to start rebuilding my holding here.

F79, I understand why AAZ applying for these licences can be seen as confirmation that they the JV is still very much on. However, to the contrary AAZ applying for these licenses on their own could easily suggest they are keen on the licences but may be considering going it alone.

Similarly, Arc applying for the LMLs could be seen as a positive move to secure the long term rights under Arcs name. However, to the contrary it could also be seen as a counter move to Anglo trying to take over licenses and go it alone.

I can't work out the cadastre changes. And, I must say, Arc applying for LMLs without the JORC / 43-101, feasabilty study or EIA required leads to play it safe. Therefor, I will sit on my hands for now.

Seis, I am sure all will become clear with regards the LML applications and how they fit in to the JV / JV negotiations in due course.

If not and if I am invested again by time of next conference call I will certainly pose the question.

The whole cadastre saga does not make any sense to me. It is the only outatanding red flag I have that is preventing me re investing. Although, having said that, at this particular moment in time the technicals I use for opening / holding long positions mean I would not be holding any stock at this time in any event. For that reason I am more than happy to wait and see how things develop here.

I agree Ella. When you look at the requirements for a LML application it is hard to understand how Arc could fulfill them. IMO, the pertinent question that follows is why woudl Arc apply?

Requirements for LML copied directly from https://www.mmmd.gov.zm/?page_id=1097

1.Duly completed Form I with geographical coordinates of the area of interest which should fit the predefined cadastral grid.

2. A Compressive Statement of the Mineral Deposits in the area over which the licence is sought (Should include details of all known minerals proved, estimated or inferred, ore resources and mining conditions).

3.Feasibility Study for Mining Operations (Should include forecast of capital investment, the estimated recovery rate of ore and mineral products, and the proposed treatment and disposal of ore and minerals recovered).

4. Approved Environmental Impact statement (EIA from ZEMA).

5. Details of expected infrastructure requirements.

6. Proposals for employment and training of citizens of Zambia.

7. Proposals for promotion of local business development.

8. Detailed geographical report on the Area’

9. Pegging Certificate.

10. Valid Tax clearance certificate (Issued under Income Tax Act Cap 323).

11. Plan of Proposed Mining Area.

12. In the case of Gemstones, a Plan for Cutting, Polishing and Faceting of Gemstones in Zambia.

13. Statement of duration for which licence is sought (should not exceed 25 years).

14. Articles of Association, Certificate of Incorporation, Certificate of Share Capital.

15. NRC/ Passport copy (ies) for all Shareholders.

16. Any other information which the Director of Mining Cadaster may require.

Why wouldn't they Fulmar? What is the incentive for Arc to sell up before end of phase 3 of JV?

IMO there is no incentive for BOD to sell up.

*without exposing myself to that risk.

F79, I didn't take the post as sniping. Apologies if I gave the impression I did. I respect your points of view. They are mostly in line with my own.

Fulmar, I do think that the JV deal will complete at some point. However, I am not 100% sure and suspect AA may delay / stall again and again Therefore I do not want to be exposed to the doubtless negative impact on SP / valuation if Arc need to end the EA again without a conclusion. My investment timeline here will likely be 5 to 10 years albeit more. Over that period I will trade in and out at most opportune times so will have plenty of opportunity to build a position with exposing myself to that risk.

F79, it was me who suggested that the EA was a bad move from the Arc BOD. I understand and respect your reasoning to the contrary. However, i personally still believe this was a bad negotiating tactic.

I genuinely hope AA do not see any benefit in prolonging the negotiations further and conclude by the end of the new extension date so that I can start rebuilding my position here.

Seis, very original. Funny how you only decide to raise your long standing "bad feeling" about me now. Any how, I don't do codswallop and I don't do bickering on BBs. So, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and refrain from any tit for tat with you.

F79, thank you for the polite, constructive response. I understand the history and geology and I am very bullish on the license. As I've explained a couple of times over the last couple of weeks I am unsure about the licence applications / potential changes and how these fit into the agreement / JV. In all honesty that is what is stopping me reinvesting at the moment.

With regards Anglo I don't see them as bad partners. However, I do think the Kabwe case could delay them committing serious funds in Zambia until it is cleared up. I am sure it will be cleared up but I think it could be a long drawn out case. On a positive note I dont think there is a better exploration manager than DW to lead up the exploration campaign. I just hope Anglo see it the same way and Dave is willing to move back to AAZ. I just believe that with ARC pinning everything on AA, AA are in now in the driving seat in terms of timing, newsflow etc. etc.

Any how, not long now to see the outcome of latest EA extension. Maybe then I will be able to re-invest.

F79, Dave Wood apart, I honestly do not see what sets Anglo apart from other potential partners. Anglo have well known, historic, but ongoing issues in Zambia with the Kabwe case. Could that be what is stopping them concluding on the deal? I dont know.

I personally do not understand the requirement for exclusivity agreements in this transaction. I think it has been one of the biggest failings of Arc in the negotiations with Anglo / alternative partners.

The EAs only benefit Anglo and have left Arc beholden to them. Arc want the JV formed and exploration to ramp up ASAP. However, Anglo apear in no rush to push on. And, the lack of competitive bidding / interest due to the the EAs means that there is no real inventive for Anglo to proceed at a pace that suits Arc or any other alternatives for Arc to explore.

Although I'm not holding at the moment genuinely hope they can get this signed off before the 8th so everyone can move on with some clarity of the way ahead. However, IMO, DWs comments make this look less likely.

I never understood why Arc and Kopara would alow Anglo to take control of the licences that would form part of the JV before the JV was formed.

The licences Arc / Kopara hold under thier subsiduaries Zaco and Handa are the only real assets of interest to Anglo and the only bargaining chips Arc and Kopara have in present and future JV negotiations.

What happens to the licences if:

Anglo are succesful in their application, take control, but do not complete on JV transaction?

Anglo are successful in their application, take control, but, do not satisfy the earn in / retain spending?

Given Kopara and their share of the licences have never been mentioned I expected:

Arc and Kopara to relinquish and renew the Zaco Licence.

Arc and Anglo to form a new JV company.

Arc to transfer their shares in Zaco and Handa to new JV company.

And, then Anglo buy into new JV company under the terms detailed in pre agreement RNS.

I have been watching closely for signs of this activity with a view to buying back in. However, I have not seen any such activity. And, the Cadastre activity so far, IMO, does not seem to fit with the licences being transfered to a new JV company.

So, I will wait a little longer until things become clearer before re-investing.

May live to regret it. GLA in the meantime.

This just keeps getting more and more confusing. Is there a risk of Anglo going it alone here? I cannot understand why the applications are in the name of Anglo not in the name of the new JV company. If Anglo end up owning the rights to all these licenses what would they need Arc of Kopara for?

Seis, don't worry about me I have not missed the boat. Not yet atleast. I sold out of my Arc holding around 5p in May 2022. Holding my cash and will redeploy when time is right. Hopefully redeploy below 5p and increase my holding. If not then so be it. In all honesty I should have reopened my position by now. However, the uncertainty in the wider markets and now this licence conundrum I prefer to play safe.

Fuku, agree that the deal represents a big investment from Anglo and this will see the licences explored properly and at pace. That's got to be good for Arc. There are some aspects of the deal that IMO could have been better. However, that wont stop me investing in Arc as I am big believer in the licences and the geology. I am sure there will be plenty of upside once things become clearer.

I don't understand these Cadastre updates and how they fit into the JV.

As far as I am aware Arc's license were held under Zaco and Handa (Formerly Zamasort).

The Zaco licence expired 26/08/2022 and is now under application by Anglo Exploration Zambia Limited.

The Handa licence was still live, for another 2 years I belive, however, it has now totally disappeared from the cadastre.

What am I missing here?

As of today what active licences can we see that Arc hold in Zambia?

It is clear something is happening. However, it's not what I expected to see in terms of restructiring for the JV. May become clearer once we see what happens with regards the Handa licence area.