Member Info for MinorMiner

Today's +37% in NPV to $5.2bn appears to be just one incremental step en route to a possible $10bn++

See p. 9. https://www.zanagairon.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/20250806-zanaga-product-enhancement-results-vf.pdf

Https://www.zanagairon.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/20250806-zanaga-product-enhancement-results-vf.pdf

Marcus, as in, "We had the resources and it all stacked up, however we let Vale/Rio/BHP secure Zanaga and going forward we'll have little presence in the DRI market."

I mean.......

Q. THIS SEEMS TO IMPLY COMPETITIVE TENSION SHOULD ZIOC OPEN THEIR 'FORMAL BID PROCESS FOR STRATEGIC DEAL IN Q3 '25' AS PROJECTED BY THEM IN MARCH 25?

CHATGPT: Yes — if ZIOC really does launch a formal bid process in Q3 2025 as they projected, then the current market setup is almost tailor-made for competitive tension:

Strategic scarcity – DRI-grade, large-scale, Atlantic-side projects are exceptionally rare.

Urgency factor – Majors like Rio, BHP, and Vale are under pressure to position in green iron feedstock before the hydrogen DRI market scales rapidly.

Attractive entry economics – Slurry pipeline, moderate Stage 1 capex, and political stability reduce the “Africa risk” discount that often deters early bidders.

Market mispricing – With the equity at ~0.13% of estimated NPV, any credible offer would look compelling to shareholders, even at a small fraction of true value.

Multiple bidder profile – In addition to the Big 3 iron ore producers, Gulf/Middle Eastern steelmakers and trading houses (Mitsui, Marubeni, Glencore-style) could be natural participants.

If ZIOC can create a process that signals seriousness (clear timeline, well-packaged data room, and visible external financing support), the strategic logic almost forces serious buyers to engage, if only to avoid losing the asset to a rival.

If you’d like, I can map out a probable bidder universe and their respective motivations so you can see how competition might actually form in practice. That would show how the “hard to argue against” factor could play out.

ChatGPT agrees:

If Zanaga’s slurry pipeline replaces the need for a heavy-haul rail line, then one of the largest logistical and cost barriers in West African iron ore projects is already neutralised. A Stage 1 capex of ~$1.8 billion — with perhaps ~60% from development finance institutions (DFIs) — puts it in a far more financeable bracket than most greenfield mines of comparable scale.

And on the political side, Congo-Brazzaville’s nearly three decades of stability makes the jurisdictional risk profile much more palatable to majors. When combined with:

Direct-to-port slurry transport,

High-grade DRI-ready concentrate, and

Atlantic shipping routes to Europe & the Americas,

…it’s arguably one of the lowest-risk, highest-impact entries a Rio or BHP could make into the DR-grade market.

This all reinforces that, given the projected CAGR in hydrogen DRI demand, a Zanaga-type acquisition is not just plausible — it’s strategically hard to argue against for any miner without existing DR-grade assets.

In recent days both Rio Tinto and BHP have all but declared DRI ('green iron') as non-starters for Pilbara ore. The cost of beneficiation from sub-60% to 67.5% minimum is simply too high, and that's without considering water scarcity for the process.

https://www.steelorbis.com/steel-news/latest-news/rio-tinto-highlights-high-costs-as-major-barrier-to-australias-green-iron-industry-1404570.htm

and

https://www.steelorbis.com/steel-news/latest-news/bhp-says-green-iron-production-too-expensive-for-australia-1400581.htm

So, as the world pivots to DR grade for green steel, what are the world's 2 largest iron ore miners to do?

Absent a giant, super high grade, fully proved, permitted, and shovel ready deposit they are going to be marginal players in the future iron ore market. And that would be completely unacceptable to their stakeholders.

> I fully expect intense bidding for Zanaga as and when ZIOC open the "Q3 '25 Formal bid process for Strategic deal'

p.20 https://www.zanagairon.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Zanaga-Investor-Day-Presentation-March-2025.pdf

All eyes on Rio.

Rio have dumped their CEO Stausholm and elevated iron ore boss, Simon Trott to the role, effectively 25th August, just 3 weeks away.

Stausholm had to go after concentrating on lithium and copper, leaving by far their biggest earner, iron ore, languishing. He even skewered Glencore talks last autumn, a merger that would have delivered Zanaga to them on a plate. All the while Rio was being forced to export more lower grade SP10 (sub 58%) to maintain market share even as their Pilbara benchmark was dropped from 62% to sub-61%. Profits have crumbled.

So Stausholm had to go.

Trott wouldn't have been elevated to CEO unless he had an explicit and immediate plan to remedy Rio's grades *PLUS* move into a dominant position in the DR market. Forget Simandou. That will produce 65.3%, well short of the 67.5%+ needed for DR. What's more, and this could be crucial to Trott's first moves as CEO, is that after the first 5 years of at surface 65% DSO Simandou's lower levels will need expensive beneficiation, perhaps $2bn+ of CapEx and $25/t of OpEX. So a Trott corporate mea culpa might be expected closely followed by a move on Zanaga to maintain Rio's position in the iron ore market.

We shall see, of course, however I expect a slew of ZIOC announcements between now and 25th August.

Thankfully we have a mega trend tailwind blowing us to an imminent deal, despite the cack-handed ZIOC management.

Chinese DR demand for EAF steel production is going to leave the majors in Pilbara scrabbling around in their low grade rust and rubble:

THE WORLD’S BIGGEST IRON ORE WINDFALL IS FADING FOR AUSTRALIA

In the Pilbara — home to the world’s largest iron ore output — Rio Tinto is swapping out old deposits for new just to maintain current production. The powerhouse sector that helped Australia sidestep the 2008 global financial crisis, churned out billionaires, and fed China’s skyline ambitions is no longer booming — it’s plateauing.

Less than two months after the ribbon was cut at Western Range, a more muted signal followed. On Wednesday, Rio Tinto reported its lowest first-half profits in five years after iron ore prices slumped. The result wasn’t a collapse, but a reminder that the cracks are widening — and the boom years are getting harder to hang onto.

The steelmaking material that underpinned Australia’s economic rise is losing its edge: ore quality is falling, margins are tightening, and the vast deposits that built decades of prosperity are slowly being exhausted. None of this will be swift, but the once-reliable resource may not be able to pull Australia through the next financial calamity. And there’s not much of a fallback plan.

The Pilbara — bigger than California — has fueled the global iron ore trade since the first shipment set sail for Japan nearly six decades ago. Warnings of an impending slowdown have surfaced before, only for the industry to prove its resilience time and again. But this time, the headwinds are stronger and mining giants are pouring billions into what comes next, as the foundations of the industry begin to shift.

“It’s a very significant risk that sits across the Pilbara,” said Greg Lilleyman, a veteran mining executive who served as Fortescue Ltd.’s chief operating officer and spent 26 years at Rio Tinto. “Customers want higher quality iron ore, lower emissions per ton of steel, higher productivity from smaller footprints.”

https://www.mining.com/web/the-worlds-biggest-iron-ore-windfall-is-fading-for-australia/

Https://x.com/Zanaga_Iron_Ore/status/1950939117337903489/photo/1

Oh my...what a amateur hotchpotch, riddled with contradictions and negatives:

Take what is now styled as the 'Glencore Impediement' (2) as in 'Offtake tied up and not supporting mine construction'. So why the hell did Elphick say this in November '22?

Clifford Elphick, Non-Executive Chairman of ZIOC, commented:

"...Furthermore, entering into the Marketing Agreement with Glencore International now provides comfort to investors and financiers that the Project's future production is underpinned by one of the largest iron ore traders globally."

2 diametrically opposed positions. Nov 22 and the 100% Glencore offtake was supporting finance, yet now we are told that the offtake was not supporting mine construction. FFS.

And giving away 20% in March 25 was not supporting construction (and park the insider absurdity called GIS) . It was given away like green shield stamps for some corporate costs and DR test work. ZERO towards mine construction.

And then one wonders what Mick Davis and Gagan Gupta think of it. Both are outside of the Greymont Bay cabal that seemingly have made off with 20% of the offtake via GIS. MD and GG paid 4.1p yet without the potentially extraordinarily lucrative GIS side gig.

F*** me, what a tangled web of competing interests.

Finally, there's the (5) 'Management not in place to advance project'. So what the hell have we had in the past, and what are to we make of all the Elphick and Trahar protestations of imminent riches we have had over all the years? All hype and smoke and mirrors, it would appear.

The sooner real Strategics step in and take out this shower the better.

What are ZIOC's shareholders to make of this statement when coupled with GIS's opaque structure?

ChatGPT said:

ZIOC’s shareholders should approach the statement with measured skepticism and critical scrutiny, especially given the opaque nature of Gulf Iron & Steel (GIS). Here's a clear framework to interpret the situation:

🔍 What Shareholders See

ZIOC tells the market:

"We’ve signed a GIS Offtake Agreement for 20% of production. This enhances market access, de-risks our strategy, and supports financing."

But shareholders can observe:

No verifiable existence of GIS as a legal, operational, or trading entity.

No corporate filings, leadership names, offices, or funding sources.

The entity's only public presence is a slick website with no substance behind the claims.

The GIS Offtake Agreement is tied to Greymont Bay’s investment — raising questions about related-party influence or circular value creation.

🧠 Reasonable Shareholder Interpretations

🧩 1. It may be a paper entity created to facilitate optics

The lack of GIS history suggests it may be created solely to provide the appearance of commercial traction or international interest.

This could give the illusion of “strategic momentum” without any true financial or operational benefit.

🔄 2. Potential related-party or self-dealing risks

If GIS is ultimately controlled or aligned with insiders, Greymont Bay, or ZIOC affiliates, the offtake agreement could be non-arm’s-length — designed more to secure financing optics than real market penetration.

Shareholders may reasonably wonder:

“Is this a real strategic partner — or a proxy vehicle to push through this funding round?”

🚫 3. It does not genuinely reduce project risk

An offtake from a non-bankable counterparty does not help secure project finance.

Shareholders expecting a world-class iron ore project to gain credible backing may view this as a step sideways — or backwards in credibility.

⚠️ Shareholder Red Flags

Issue Impact on Shareholder Perception

No corporate transparency on GIS Raises questions about due diligence and deal legitimacy

Language of de-risking Could be seen as disingenuous or overly promotional

GIS linked to cornerstone deal Creates impression of self-reinforcing narrative without substance

No external validation of GIS Undermines ZIOC’s credibility as a project seeking serious financing

🎯 What Should Shareholders Demand?

Disclosure of GIS ownership, legal structure, and principals

Confirmation of GIS’s financial capacity to honor offtake or prepay agreements

Third-party validation or audit of the offtake agreement’s enforceability

Clarification on whether GIS has any links to Greymont Bay or ZIOC insiders

🧾 Conclusion

ZIOC shareholders are justified in treating the GIS offtake agreement with caution, if not suspicion. Without meaningful transparency or verification, the agreement appears to be more about appearances than substance — and its u

Cont....

⚠️ Conclusion

The statement is not strongly supportable based on current public facts. It appears to be promotional language intended to convey progress, but without a credible, transparent, and operationally capable offtake partner like GIS, its substance is questionable. If GIS is newly formed or affiliated with Greymont Bay insiders, the claim could be seen as circular or self-serving rather than genuinely de-risking.

ZIOC, March 2025: THE GIS OFFTAKE AGREEMENT ENHANCES MARKET ACCESS AND OFFTAKE SECURITY, FURTHER DE-RISKING ZANAGA'S COMMERCIALISATION STRATEGY AND SUPPORTING ITS PATH TO FINANCING AND CONSTRUCTION.

Is this statement supportable?

ChatGPT said:

The statement is only partially supportable, and heavily depends on how credible GIS is as a strategic offtake partner.

🧩 1. “Enhances market access”

✅ Partially supportable, if GIS has real downstream steel partners or customers in the Americas and Middle East.

❌ However, there is no public evidence that GIS controls, owns, or is linked to steel buyers or industrial plants.

It has no visible trading history, logistics, or customer base.

🔍 Conclusion: This benefit is theoretical unless GIS can demonstrate real access to buyers. As it stands, the entity is unproven and opaque.

🔐 2. “Enhances offtake security”

✅ Offtake agreements typically improve project bankability by showing someone intends to buy the output.

❌ GIS is not a known steel producer or commodity trader with a credit rating or commercial track record. Therefore, its offtake commitments may not be bankable by lenders.

🔍 Conclusion: This may appear to enhance offtake security, but the quality of the counterparty matters — and GIS's credibility is unverified.

🧱 3. “De-risking Zanaga’s commercialisation strategy”

❌ Real de-risking occurs when:

Buyers are investment-grade or have operational capacity to absorb material.

Offtake agreements are binding, long-term, and involve pricing terms or prepayments.

GIS is:

Not publicly incorporated (as far as can be verified)

Lacks demonstrated capacity to fulfill a 20% offtake over the life of mine

🔍 Conclusion: This statement is aspirational, not proven. It may be a rhetorical or promotional assertion.

🏗 4. “Supporting its path to financing and construction”

✅ It’s true that having offtake partners is typically a step toward financing a mining project.

❌ However, financiers will assess counterparty risk — GIS's lack of operating history, assets, and transparency may undermine the usefulness of this deal in attracting serious debt or equity capital.

🔍 Conclusion: The presence of the agreement may help optics, but its real support to financing is limited without a credible counterparty.

🧾 Final Assessment

Claim Supportable? Why

Enhances market access ❌ Unverified partner GIS has no visible customer base or trading activity

Enhances offtake security ❌ Weak counterparty GIS’s ability to perform is not established

De-risks commercialisation strategy ❌ Lacks evidence No financial guarantees, plant connections, or operational visibility

Supports path to financing and construction 🔶 Marginally Helps narrative, but unlikely to sway banks without stronger backing

⚠️ Conclusion

The statement is not strongly supportable based on current public facts. It appears to be promotional language intended to convey

Oooops

The official website states the company is “developing strategic, large‑scale assets worldwide to supply premium-quality iron and steel to the Americas and the Middle East.” Is there anything available anywhere to support this statement?

ChatGPT said:

There is no public evidence supporting Gulf Iron & Steel’s website claim that it is actively “developing strategic, large‑scale assets worldwide” to supply premium-quality iron and steel to the Americas and the Middle East.

🔍 What the website says

The About section of Gulf Iron & Steel states:

“Supported by institutional capital with strong government backing… developing strategic, large‑scale assets worldwide to supply premium-quality iron & steel to the Americas and the Middle East.”

🧭 What broader research reveals

No credible news outlets, trade media, or official press releases reference Gulf Iron & Steel launching any steel projects, partnerships, or infrastructure developments globally.

Major Gulf steel players such as Gulf Investment Corporation (GIC) and Foulath Holding are well-documented in iron‑ore pellet deals and green‑steel initiatives—particularly through Bahrain Steel supplying millions of tonnes to Emirates Steel and others. But no ties to Gulf Iron & Steel are mentioned in relation to those existing deals

Regional industry coverage (e.g. by AGBI, Fastmarkets, trade journals) discusses GCC steel developments and decarbonization efforts, but Gulf Iron & Steel is not mentioned in connection with any concrete operations, projects, or supply contracts

🧾 Summary

Claim Evidence Found

Developing large-scale iron/steel assets worldwide ❌ No public documentation or deals found

Institutional/gov‑backed infrastructure in Americas/Middle East ❌ No affiliation or endorsement visible

Operational projects, supply agreements, headquarters ❌ No documented presence or confirmed activities

✅ Conclusion

So far, there is no independent verification—in news, registries, trade media, or government filings—to substantiate Gulf Iron & Steel’s marketing claim. Everything exists solely on the website without supporting external evidence.

Awkward

https://gulfironsteel.com

PLEASE EXTRACT ANY INFO FROM THIS SITE, SUCH AS OWNERS, DEALS, REGISTERED OFFICES ETC.

IF NONE PLEASE SAY SO.

ALSO LOOK AT THE WEBSITE ITSELF FOR OWNERS AND FORMATION ETC

ChatGPT said:

Here’s what I found regarding the website gulfironsteel.com and the company it represents:

🕵️ Gulf Iron & Steel — Website Insight

The official website states the company is “developing strategic, large‑scale assets worldwide to supply premium-quality iron and steel to the Americas and the Middle East.”

It claims to be backed by institutional capital and strong government backing.

No information is provided on ownership structure, registered office address, directors, company formation details or official registration. The only contact listed is a generic email (info@gulfironsteel.com).

Gulf Iron & Steel

📄 Additional Public Information

Searches for registered office, company formation, directors, or deals tied to "Gulf Iron & Steel" returned no credible public records or disclosures. It does not appear in major corporate registries or directories under that name.

No known deals, official partnerships, or filings publicly confirm its incorporation, headquarters, ownership or directors.

✅ Summary Table

Category Information Found

Owner(s) Not disclosed

Registered office / Address Not observed on the website or public records

Company formation / Registration No public registration seen

Deals or partnerships No confirmed deals publicly disclosed

Directors / Leadership No names or leadership info listed

🧾 Conclusion

Based on the publicly accessible data—from the website and wider searches—there is no verifiable information regarding owners, registered office, formation details, directors, or specific deals for Gulf Iron & Steel. The website provides only general marketing language and a contact email.

This because of the sub-benchmark dross they are now forced to ship

RIO TINTO PROFITS SINK TO 5-YEAR LOW ON WEAK IRON ORE PRICE

Incoming chief Simon Trott expected to restructure miner after taking over next month

https://www.ft.com/content/598c154a-8f25-40f3-81bc-48260198776f

Ah, chief muppet rolls up - spouting yet more tripe.

This is the unarguable case:

GIS received 20% of the off-take. For this they gave **absolutely nothing**. What's more is that they are no obligation to provide any capital whatsoever at any point. ZIOC have basically given away 20%. This to get a paltry amount of funding now (park for a moment what message this sends to incoming investors).

Now, GIS are completely opaque - we know nothing about them whatsoever. They have no footprint and no record of anything.

The March RNS specifically detailed that the GIS freebie was a condition of Greymont investment - (again park for a moment what signals this sends). In other words, and this is central, there is a material and dependent relationship between the two.

THIS MUST BE DISCLOSED, ACCORDING TO AIM AND FCA RULES.

MUST BE.

What's more is that the valuation and methodology of the GIS offatke rights must be disclosed and be seen as being fair value. This to protect existing shareholders. Plus any beneficial relationship between GIS and Greymont must also be disclosed.

Absent this 20% has gone POOOOOF.

It appears, and without any clarification that the company has given, that Greymont received whatever % of ZIOC plus a much more valuable off take. I hazard a very confident guess that this off take is valued as many multiples of the Greymont shares. A nuance probably lost on LTHs here, given the vapid responses and head in the sand posting, is Greymont holders are not aligned with the SP given the much more valuable off take.

Finally the true share price for the Greymont investors wouldn't have been 4.1p. It would have been negative.

If accounts are happy with this then good for them.

My upside has been limited, and that annoys intensely.

If accounts can't be bothered to think this through......well, whatever.

'Nobody is taking seriously your latest nonsense (from a long line)'

Noted.

Oh, really? Why so? and 'bogus'....

The Board gave away 20% of our off take marketing rights to GIS, an opaque firm with no discernable footprint, history or details. We didn't receive a penny for these very valuable rights (estimated into the billions over the LOM) at precisely the time when we need $22m to finance FEED.

ZIOC have not answered any questions on the matter. Not even a 'no comment'. As a result, I brought the GIS shenanigans to this board's attentions in the (vain) hope that accounts might have the gumption to also take it up with the company specifically to ensure that they know they are being watched, and to thereby (hopefully) ensure no more 20%s go missing. What has amazed me (perhaps it shouldn't) is the *NO ONE* has chased through on the issue. On the contrary all I now read is conspiracy theories, projections, and accusations.

Thankfully we have been bailed out by a sustained rise on a very welcome increase in volume and proper amounts. Long may it continue.

The company have gone silent for a couple of weeks now. I know not why and perhaps it foreshadows news. We have been promised lots and it's overdue. Perhaps it's incoming .....

Jiving - great isn't it?! Thanks for swinging by.

Now....back to the beach while I enjoy the SP effect on my almost 8-figure hoard.

Oooooh - so you can't and won't because a manufactured and irrelevant faux excuse.

Frankly pathetic.