Member Info for MinorMiner

Yes, the lock-in agreement announced by Zanaga Iron Ore Company Limited (AIM: ZIOC) on September 29, 2025, involving major shareholders (representing ~34.86% of issued share capital) is likely relevant to the missed deadline for releasing the half-yearly interim results by September 30, 2025.

Here’s why:

Relevance to the Interims Miss:Timing and Strategic Focus:The lock-in, covering major shareholders like Guava Minerals (9.60%), Greymont Bay I LLC (18.28%), and Regatta HCRP I LP (6.98%) for six months until February 26, 2026, was driven by a potential strategic investor engaged in ZIOC’s ongoing partnership process for the Zanaga Iron Ore Project. This suggests active negotiations for off-take, funding, or port development, which are critical for the project's advancement (6.9Bt resource, 2.1Bt reserve, 30 Mtpa potential).

Such high-stakes discussions often require significant management and board attention, potentially diverting resources from finalizing the interim financial report. The complexity of integrating recent developments (e.g., updated feasibility metrics or funding impacts from the March 2025 US$21.5m raise) into the interims could have delayed audit or disclosure processes.

Due Diligence and Reporting Overlap:

Strategic investor talks typically involve due diligence, which may include detailed reviews of ZIOC’s financials, project economics (e.g., NPV8% of US$2.7bn at US$80/dmt), and operational updates (e.g., August 2025 metallurgical test results confirming DRI pellet feed quality). Preparing these materials for external parties could have strained resources needed for the interim results, especially for a pre-production company with limited staff.

The lock-in announcement itself required coordination with major shareholders and regulatory filings (RNS), likely consuming board-level focus just before the September 30 deadline.

Market and Regulatory Context:Under FCA DTR 4.2, AIM companies like ZIOC are expected to release interim results within three months of the half-year end (June 30), i.e., by September 30. Missing this is not a statutory breach but can attract regulatory scrutiny if prolonged. The lock-in suggests ZIOC prioritized signaling stability to investors and partners, possibly deferring the finalization of interims. Historically, ZIOC has released on September 29 (2023 and 2024), so this miss is unusual and aligns with the lock-in’s timing.

No formal delay notice or AIM suspension has been reported as of 8:06 PM BST, September 30, 2025, indicating the miss may be short-term and tied to these strategic activities.

Who demanded (and received) the lock-in? Might it have been Nippon steel?

"....Under a new joint venture, Kami Iron Mine Partnership, the companies will advance a feasibility study for the project in Newfoundland and Labrador, which is under consideration for development.

The project's iron ore is a high-grade, scarce resource suitable for producing direct reduced iron, Nippon Steel said.

Direct reduced iron, along with high-quality scrap, is needed for the production of high-grade steel from large electric arc furnaces, which Nippon Steel aims to build to reduce carbon emissions.

The Japanese steelmaker, which has recently acquired U.S. Steel, has been expanding stakes in coking coal and iron ore mines to ensure a stable supply of essential raw materials."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/nippon-steel-buys-30-stake-of-canada-s-kami-iron-ore-project/ar-AA1NApeK?ocid=finance-verthp-feeds

Recall that Kami were very specifically detailed as a value comparison in ZIOC's March presentation, p.22:

Champion Iron’s Kami Project transaction provides a compelling value comparable for Zanaga

Dec 2024: Champion Iron sold 49% of its ‘Kami’ Iron Ore Project to Nippon Steel and Sojitz for US$245m, an Enterprise Value of US$500m for the Project.

Zanaga provides larger production scale at lower capex intensity, significantly lower opex, and attractive proposition – only DRI potential remains to be confirmed

https://wp-zanagairon-2025.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2025/03/Zanaga-Investor-Day-Presentation-March-2025.pdf

Couldn't agree more, Catbert.

Fair enough! but the lock-in does prevent anybody securing the 75%+ necessary to push through a major corporate transaction.

Either way, we are in play!

One thing that also occurs, is that Guava, Greymont and Regatta must consider the standing of the 'inward investor' and the likelihood of a deal sufficiently high and strong to have agreed to be locked-in.

We shall see, of course, but it's the Interims tomorrow and news cannot be far now.

3 things

1. The 75/25 %-age thresholds are clearly the driver here. Guava, Greymont and Regatta have agreed to be locked-in (and "fully restricted" at that) at the behest of an incoming investor. By every analysis they will be an industry name of standing and clout. Their concern is that when their name gets out a substantial bid will be made by a competitor in an attempt to secure a 25% blocking stake. The lock-in makes that impossible, for the next 6 months.

2. On the subject of "6 months" today's RNS gives it to February 26th - which is a little under 5 months from today. Perhaps the lock-in has been in force for a month already? Who knows, but a deal is that little bit closer.

and.....

3. Now much more certain that the recent larger and late blocks have been our incoming investor securing whatever supply they can, which, by my thinking, is supply warehoused by Shard since the March deal for just this purpose.

>> Very comfortable with today's news, and a little bit excited to be honest. It's been a long wait and the end is in sight - surely!!!

*cannot be loaned or pledged etc.

Super-indicative that a hard deal is now being thrashed out.

Rockets? Could be!!!!

In short, For ZIOC there is a 75% threshold for major corporate deals (activities etc).

Having the 25%+ combined holdings of Guava, Greymont and Regatta locked-in for 6 months means that a 3rd party cannot acquire 25%+ to frustrate/carpetbag our incoming Strategic.

note the conditionality in the RNS:

· Lock-in type: Fully restricted

Those shares can be loaned, pledged or otherwise

MM: LOOKING AT THE HOLDINGS OF GUAVA, GREYMONT AND REGATTA THEY CROSS THE KEY 25% THRESHOLD FOR ZIOC CORPORATE DECISION MAKING

ChatGPT:

Exactly — that’s an important governance point.

On AIM (and under general UK company law), 25%+ of the shares effectively gives a “blocking stake” because:

Special resolutions (things like major asset disposals, changes to Articles, certain financings, takeovers) require 75% approval at a shareholder meeting.

Therefore, anyone controlling >25% can block such resolutions.

What this means for ZIOC with Guava + Greymont Bay + Regatta (≈34.9% locked):

Strategic Influence:

Together they can block anything they don’t like — no major corporate action can pass without their agreement.

This ensures that any incoming strategic partner must structure a deal acceptable to them.

Alignment via Lock-in:

By locking their shares, they are signalling alignment with the process and willingness to cooperate with the potential new investor.

It also gives the investor comfort that this influential bloc won’t “derail” the partnership after signing.

Negotiation Dynamics:

Since this bloc is aligned, ZIOC management can negotiate from a stronger position — i.e., the prospective partner can’t play divide-and-rule between shareholders.

However, it also means that smaller shareholders have little say — they’ll effectively ride along with the deal terms.

Market Perception:

The market will see this as stability and alignment at board/shareholder level, which reduces execution risk.

But it also highlights that the true control group is small, so minority holders are price-takers.

So you’re right: the >25% threshold is crucial. This bloc effectively controls the company’s strategic direction. The lock-in amplifies that because it ties their hands until February 2026 — giving the potential strategic partner confidence that governance is stable during negotiations.

ChatGPT reacts: "...it suggests a serious prospective investor is progressing with discussions"

This news is likely to be taken as positive for ZIOC’s immediate share price, though the effect may be modest. Here’s why:

Positive signals:

Investor-driven: The lock-in was requested by a potential strategic partner, which implies advanced engagement and due diligence. That suggests real interest in a deal.

Alignment of major holders: Nearly 35% of the share base is locked for six months, showing major shareholders are aligned and not planning to sell into strength. That reduces supply in the market.

Confidence optics: The Chairman is indirectly tied to one of the locked-in holders, signaling board alignment with long-term value creation.

Potential negatives (though less dominant):

No deal yet: This is a procedural step, not confirmation of a strategic partner investment. The market may treat it as “necessary but not sufficient.”

Limited duration: Six months is a relatively short lock-in, which might cap enthusiasm.

Net effect:

The market usually interprets lock-in agreements in the context of upcoming corporate developments. In this case, it suggests a serious prospective investor is progressing with discussions, which could boost speculative buying. The immediate price reaction would more likely be upward rather than negative, though the sustainability of gains depends on whether a formal partnership or financing follows.

29 September 2025

Zanaga Iron Ore Company Limited

("ZIOC" or the "Company")

Execution of Share Lock-in Agreements with Major Shareholders

Zanaga Iron Ore Company Limited (AIM: ZIOC) announces that, following a request from a potential investor engaged in ZIOC's strategic partner process, lock-in agreements have been signed between the Company and a number of its significant shareholders, representing approximately 34.86% of the Company's issued share capital.

The details of the arrangements are as follows:

· Lock-in type: Fully restricted

· Lock-in period: Six months until 26th February 2026

· Shareholders involved: The combined lock-in accounts for approximately 34.86% of the Company's issued share capital. The shareholders subject to this arrangement are:

1. Guava Minerals Limited: owning 9.60% of the Company's issued share capital

a. Mr Clifford Elphick, Chairman of ZIOC, continues to be a potential beneficiary of a discretionary trust that has an interest in Guava Minerals Limited

2. Greymont Bay Consortium, including:

b. Greymont Bay I LLC: owning 18.28% of the Company's issued share capital

c. Regatta HCRP I LP: owning 6.98% of the Company's issued share capital

Https://www.investegate.co.uk/announcement/rns/zanaga-iron-ore-co-ltd-di---zioc/execution-of-share-lock-in-agreements/9135981

Was he obliged to sell his remuneration shares? Positive if so.

Demand, incoming Strategic/s

Supply, Shard from the March deal

Being held on the clutch here at 7.50p.

Green light? Well.......

Hello

A further 4m and 2m shares 'bought' Tuesday afternoon

Recent Share Trades for Zanaga Iron (ZIOC)

Date Time Trade Prc Volume Buy/Sell Bid Ask Value

23-Sep-25 15:54:21 7.55 4,000,000 Unknown* 7.50 7.78 302.00k O

23-Sep-25 16:21:23 7.51 2,000,000 Unknown* 7.50 7.78 150.20k O

A 1m 'buy' at 7.40p from Monday posted after hours yesterday, and

That 4.4m 'buy' at 7.50 of yesterday itself. This was an 'A' trade (Auction) and was reported in real time (as would be the case) along with others making almost 5.25m in under an hour. Someone/thing stepped in and took out all the supply the bookies could collectively find (at least on the day). This breaks the pattern of the recent larger trades which have been done between quietly and then reported late.

All eyes on the open for any follow through.

ACTUALLY ZANAGA'S FULL RESOURCE COULD BE 3X THE 6.9B TONNES CURRENTLY DECLARED

That is correct, Zanaga does have significant potential beyond its currently declared 6.9 billion tonne Mineral Resource. The claim that its full resource could be three times that amount is based on the fact that only a portion of the total identified orebody has been drilled and fully defined.

The basis for Zanaga's resource expansion potential

Partially drilled orebody: The 6.9 billion tonne resource was defined from drilling less than half (only 25km of the 47km) of the identified mineralised orebody.

Geological footprint: The magnetic footprint of the entire deposit is even larger, implying a much more extensive mineralised area than has been confirmed through drilling to date.

Exploration upside: This implies substantial exploration potential along the known strike of the orebody, which has not yet been included in the official resource estimate.

Position as a world-class asset: Based on its potential, ZIOC has consistently marketed Zanaga as one of the largest undeveloped iron ore resources in Africa. The current 6.9 billion tonnes already make it a world-class asset, and further drilling could confirm its scale and long-term potential.

Implications of resource expansion

If Zanaga were to successfully prove up a significantly larger resource, it would further enhance the project's economics and strategic value in several ways:

Extended mine life: A larger resource base would extend the mine's potential lifespan beyond the current 30-year plan, providing even greater long-term security for investors and customers.

Increased financial viability: A larger resource could make the project more attractive to potential investors and strategic partners, potentially lowering financing costs for the required infrastructure.

Phased expansion: The current plan involves two stages to reach a production target of 30 million tonnes per year. A larger resource could potentially support additional future expansions beyond this level.

Current focus and path forward

While the exploration upside is significant, ZIOC's current focus is on developing the known resource and securing funding to move the project into production.

The project recently received a significant re-rating following metallurgical test work confirming the production of a premium, high-purity concentrate suitable for Direct Reduced Iron (DRI) production.

The company is actively seeking strategic partners to help fund the estimated $4.7 billion capital expenditure required for both phases of the project.

The current strategy, which was supported by a new investor group including former mining executives from Anglo American, focuses on leveraging the high-grade DRI product to secure project financing.

Therefore, while the massive exploration upside is a key selling point for Zanaga, the immediate focus is on proving the viability of the known resource to attract the investment needed to bring

That’s a sharp question. It’s not crazy at all to think CMRG (or another Chinese state-linked vehicle) could end up with exposure to Zanaga, directly or indirectly. Here’s how it looks:

WHY CMRG MIGHT WANT ZANAGA

Mandate fit: CMRG was set up by Beijing to secure supply, reduce reliance on the “Big 3,” and gain pricing leverage. A high-grade (68.5% Fe), modest capex project like Zanaga ticks those boxes.

Grade premium: Zanaga’s ore quality is directly aligned with China’s push for low-emission steelmaking. CMRG has publicly said it wants more access to high-grade resources.

Diversification from Australia/Brazil: Africa (Congo, Guinea, Gabon) is strategically appealing because it reduces reliance on politically sensitive suppliers.

WHY CMRG MIGHT USE A PROXY

Political optics: A direct Chinese SOE acquisition of Zanaga could face political risk in Congo (local nationalism) or in Western capital markets (where Zanaga still has investors).

Financial flexibility: Using a proxy — e.g. a consortium of Chinese EPCs (like CMEC, already MoU partner on power), traders, or private equity funds with Chinese state ties — allows Beijing to backstop the project without putting CMRG’s name on the deal.

Deal structure: They might fund via offtake agreements, project financing, or joint ventures with infrastructure developers, rather than an outright equity purchase.

CURRENT SIGNALS

CMEC MoU: Zanaga already signed an MoU with China Machinery Engineering Corporation on hydro power, showing Chinese EPC interest in enabling the project.

Investor group shift: With Glencore exiting, a vacuum opens for a new anchor offtaker or strategic investor. That’s precisely the kind of situation CMRG or a proxy could exploit.

GIS marketing rights: 20% of output has already been allocated to Gulf Iron & Steel for marketing. That leaves room but also signals that ZIOC is happy to carve up the pie via offtake slices.

RISKS / CONSTRAINTS

Financing scale: Even with “modest” $1.8bn capex, it’s not small. A state-backed investor is almost certainly needed, but they’ll want iron-clad offtake security.

Competition with Simandou: China has already sunk billions into Simandou (Guinea). They might not want to over-commit in West Africa until Simandou proves itself.

Geopolitics: Congo is politically volatile; Beijing usually prefers to move through big SOEs or “third-party” private proxies to manage risk.

📌 MY READ:

CMRG (or a sister SOE like Baowu, Chinalco, or CITIC) could well end up with exposure to Zanaga, but most likely via a proxy route — either EPC firms like CMEC providing finance-for-offtake packages, or a trading company acquiring an equity stake while CMRG guarantees long-term offtake. Direct outright purchase by CMRG is less likely, but indirect control through funding + offtake is very plausible.

Would you like me to scan for recent Chinese corporate registry filings / media hints about CMRG or CMEC activity in Congo? T

Looking perkier this morning, and we have the interims before month end.

I reckon the company will have wanted to complete a cycle or two (test/studies plus reporting) before then.

Final paragraph, same question: From where is their DR grade to be sourced?

Naveen Jindal’s €4bn play for German steelmaker Thyssenkrupp

Naveen Jindal has made a nonbinding offer for the German industrial company Thyssenkrupp’s struggling steel unit. The financial details of the bid have not been made public, but Jindal Steel International has committed to invest about €2bn to transform Thyssenkrupp into Europe’s biggest producer of low-emission steel. 

The company says it plans to use the hydrogen-powered “direct reduced iron” plant that it is building in Oman to provide supply security for Thyssenkrupp’s steel mills, and accelerate the shift to low carbon solutions. The German conglomerate, which has spent many years trying to be light and nimble, is “carefully” assessing the offer and weighing its long-term viability as well as its effect on the 25,000 or so jobs in its steel division. The shares of Thyssenkrupp AG rose nearly 8 per cent on the news. Jindal’s bid for Thyssenkrupp is significant since the EU’s planned imposition of carbon tax on imports kicks in from January 2026.

Thyssenkrupp’s steel division, which has a storied history going back to 1891, has in recent years battled low demand, high energy costs and a flood of cheap imports from Asia. These struggles forced the company to write down the value of the unit by €1bn last year, following another impairment of €2.1bn in 2023. In 2019, Tata Steel had made an offer to create a 50:50 joint venture with Thyssenkrupp, but the deal was struck down by regulators because of antitrust concerns. Crucially, Naveen Jindal’s surprise offer — which could be as high as €4bn according to some Indian brokerages — was made through his privately held company, Jindal Steel International and not the listed entity Jindal Steel. In the past couple of years, the tycoon has been pursuing a strategy of building an international steel empire of sorts through his private investments, and this is his biggest play yet. In 2024, Jindal Steel International acquired a 100 per cent stake in the Czech Republic’s Vitkovice Steel. Earlier this year, it tried but failed to buy Italian steelmaker Acciaierie d’Italia. Jindal also owns mines and factories in the Middle East and Africa.  

Jindal’s global ambitions are laudable, but he shouldn’t neglect decarbonisation efforts in India. Jindal Steel is only in the first phase of commissioning a low-carbon facility at its manufacturing unit in Odisha. More sustained and significant investments in reducing the company’s carbon footprint domestically is the need of the hour, especially since the demand growth in India will be much higher than in the European market, where Jindal will also have tough competition from manufacturers in China and other Asian countries.

https://www.ft.com/content/99dcb6c4-2f9b-4dd1-8110-e025b0a60fd8

The question is, Who was this tweet directed at? PIs perhaps, the ones who are listening? Unlikely. They get it. If you ask me it's directed at those who aren't listening. ZIOC are laying a paper trail. It reads, 'You can not say you weren't told'.

Anyway....

"In June, ZIOC confirmed that product test work results from both hematite and magnetite orebody lithologies at the Zanaga Iron Ore Project met stringent DRI quality requirements that are vital for the rapidly growing low-carbon steel sector.

The environmental and cost-related advantages of low-carbon steelmaking via electric arc furnaces gives projects that can deliver DRI grade pellet feed concentrate a key competitive advantage that enhances their underlying value."

https://x.com/Zanaga_Iron_Ore/status/1968605887360094292