Is this official tweet from Kore Potash accruate:-
"A transformational week for Kore Potash. We have signed an MoU and completed the fundraise needed to bring the world class Kola potash project into construction, and then production. This is huge progress for the Company, all our stakeholders and shareholders."
Have they actually " completed the fundraise needed to bring the world class Kola potash project into construction, and then production." ?? I thought they still had to go out, via the MOU partnerships, and raise the actual finance.
Can anyone offer any clarification?
"I was just trying to answer another poster's query as to why KP2's share price didn't go through the roof yesterday."
---- and now we know why.
No kidding! KP2 is the leakiest company on AIM. This happens time and time again. A total opposite to ZIOC.
"The last three RNS should of been all rolled into one giving everyone clarity not just the select few who no doubt have made a fortune on the ups and down in the share price. Something stinks, ASX asked them Why (we don’t know) bull ,the man is playing with peoples hard earned"
Absolutely agree. This is one of the leakiest companies on AIM and people in the know have made money like this for years. Despite my praise of Brad after the MOU, I have zero respect on how he runs KP2.
Definitely agree that its a huge positive step for KP2. I was just trying to answer another poster's query as to why KP2's share price didn't go through the roof yesterday.
Typically KP2 is down 16% today, most likely day traders cashing in gains from yesterday. I don't see a huge rise in the share price until more news comes through.
And, yes - I wouldn't mind a similar financial MOU for Zioc. In fact I wouldn't mind anything positive!
I was thinking more of Sangha as being the second project that has had recent "positive news", although we know the logistical issues with Sangha are probably even greater than Simandou, despite the paper talk of exports beginning in 2023.
There was also the gold mine near Zanaga, that was issued a licence.
Overall, other projects that will enhance the country's economy seem to be moving along so I'm sure Nguesso will be looking for some progress from Zioc.
"In terms of share price appreciation after the KP2 deal announcement, it seems a little underwhelming at some 30% - for the deal they have been waiting for X years!"
Its only a MOU at present - an arrangement with potential partners to look for finance after a costing exercise that will take the next 9 months, so nothing will be confirmed until 2022. That may explain the slightly underwhelming market reaction.
Its a step in the right direction though, and KP2 have given more information about their potential path to funding and investment in one RNS than all the the last three years of Zioc's. All we have had from Zioc are vague mentions of possible strategic investors.
That has to change soon. - the government will insist on it That is now two projects in the country that have leapt ahead of Zioc this year as regards defining their pathway.
I think its worth stressing that KP2 is still a long term play.
We have 9 months before the optimisation study is completed for Summit, and then Summit have to tie BRP Global down on the financing proposal, so nothing concrete will happen until 2022.
I think their intention is still to report on the costings of the DX smaller project. They are a long way down the line with that anyway, with the costings following drilling etc scheduled to be finished next month.
I think therefore that KP2's only additional financial commitment is their $900,000 share of the optimisation study that Summit are insisting on before they go further? As they had $5,555,000 cash as at 31/12/20, then as you say, the going concern qualification is not really a factor.
Even if it is, a small additional share issue, which will be gobbled up my the main investors, would take care of it.
As you say, there does seem to be a shift away from the quick EPP of DX to the full Kola project, but DX still makes sense to me to get production underway while the Kola project is developed.
I'm no expert though as I haven't read fully all the various project technical descriptions.
Good to see, with KP2 and ZIOC, some positive movement for the country as a whole.
"Who gives a toss about a meaningless re-costing exercise anyway??"
I think today's MOU RNS from KP2 shows how potential financing of any project depends on having current costings. I am still hoping for a sale sometime this year, but I have a feeling we will be moving towards a JV development of the mine.
"Will stay away from this fake spike." "why did they not mention that in the last rns"
Why is this a fake spike?
The last RNS was a report on the accounts for the year ending 31/12/20, so I'm not sure why you think a MOU - which had not yet been signed - should have been included?
As others have said, this is massive news. Kola is a huge and vastly profitable resource. Yes, it will be 9 months before we know for certain if the project will be financed, but this is the biggest step forward in the history of KP2.
I had serious doubts about the management of KP2 prior to today's RNS, but if they pull this off it will show how totally wrong I was.
Yes, the MOU on financing RNS today from KP2 is I think very significant for ZIOC, if only because the government had been pushing KP2 to get moving - and will now be putting pressure on ZIOC and Glencore to do the same.
The details of the planned financing are also interesting, as a similar format could well fit Zanaga too.
That has always been my main concern. Why would China want Simandou AND Zanaga?
Yes, they could definitely and ultimately use the ore from both, but developing Simandou alone would go a long way to resolving their shorter term reliance on Oz.
However I have never been able to underand, and still don't undderstand, why China have got so heavily involved in Simandou instead of Zanaga - when Zanaga is a cheaper and quicker solution in every way.
"What I don't really get or appreciate is the people who seem to hang around to post constant negatives under the sanctimonious pretext of it apparently being somehow for the greater good."
But what about the people who post constant positives quoting blatent mistruths? Are they also apparently posting "for the greater good"?
This is a forum to post views on a particulat AIM share. Views can be positive or negative, but if you only allow positive posts then the forum just becomes a vehicle for ramping.
Its like the many posts on here this past two months claiming that CTEA are serious contenders for an ninternational travel app - without evidence (or even a statement from CTEA) to back that up - or any mention that there are dozens of other international passport apps already being trialed. Surely I (and other supposed derampers) have a right in an open forum to point that out and provide a link (as I did) to an article detailing all those other international vaccine apps?
Why should that not be allowed or be considered deramping, when a wildly inaccurate posts that CTEA are at the forefront of the international vaccine passport race be allowed to go unchallenged?
You are clearly very realistic with your investment in CTEA and realise it is a total gamble. However there have been angry posts on here over the past few months from inexperience investors who bought into the ramping hype, and have lost money. There would be even more of those if negative views were not allowed.
Its very easy to decry a negative post with "he's deamping", "he's getting people to sell so he can buy at a lower price", "he's not invested here" etc etc. Less easy to come up with positives about CTEA to counter those negative posts.
And I do have my reasons to post about CTEA. I have not randonly alighted on this board. If you check back in my posts going back several yearss to the Milestone days and though the blockchain days and the music industry days you will see why I comment on CTEA.
I have absolutely no problem with anyone taking a gamble on this share. As you rightly say "higher risk, higher reward". However I do post when I see a blatent mistruth being posted to ramp the share - like the statement that CTEA are in consulation with the government, when all they have done is contribute to an open forum.
I have said many times over the past year that investors can make money from ZIOC. It has always been a pump and dump share. Make your 40% and sell. However what you cannot deny is the CTEA have supposedly had a Covid app ready to go for over a year, and have not sold it to anybody, and that is why it is not a long term hold in my view.
All will be revealed in the next month anyway, as it will be clear by then which domestic covid passport apps will be approved and which international travel passport apps will be used by airlines and government borders.
I will quite happilly congratulate you then if you are right and CTEA announce a contract - as long as you also concede you were wrong if they still have not sold anything to anybody when the UK/international vaccine passport decisions are announced.
Sharebel - "CTEA are a British company and consulted by U.K. GOV Dept of Health " is totally misleading.
CTEA was not "consulted by" any goverment department. As DG73 says below "It was an open consultation. CTEA weren’t specifically asked personally, all companies in this sector were asked to participate."
I am not talking CTEA down. There may be a market for their app with private companies. However all these posts connecting CTEA with countrywide/government passport apps, whether domestic or international, is just pie in the sky.
"According to the Telegraph Michael Gove is in discussions with a Danish company about the development of a covid app to be ready by September."
This will be Netcompany:-
and is an example of the type of large established companiy every government will use for a domestic vaccine app. Netcompany are already tipped to be the supplier of the EEC app.
CTEA will not get anywhere near any government contract. Imagine the negative press if such an important app did not work correctly and it had been awarded to a company like CTEA with no offices, no income, and no experience of operating any app for more than a few hundred people in their tests.
Why do you think CTEA can beat Netcompany to the vaccine passport app market?
Have you seen one single press article or release to say that CTEA specifically has a "vaccine passport app" ready to go? I haven't.
And do you seriously think CTEA, an AIM company with no signficant staff or offices and no revenue producing contracts, can compete with a company like Netcompany:-
or with the UK NHS app, which is already being worked on to become a vaccine passport app IF the UK decides it is needed.
As regards an international travel passport app, CTEA are not in the running for that anywhere. Every major airline in the world is already adaptingand testing their own online check-in apps to securely hold vaccination and/or test result details, plus paper copies will be accepted as a back up anyway.
CTEA's only hope for any contract related to vaccine apps will be with private companies who want secure admittance to their offices for their staff. But companies will not adopt anything unless they are legally obligated to, and there are many offices that already have staff back working in them without using any admittance apps.
CTEA were ahead of the market on this a year ago, but basically did not have the selling skills to get anywhere with it.
I think you are correct about another can kicker, but it may have more detail in it than previously.
As per AT's email to Marcus yesterday " If it isnt released today then it will be soon. They are finalising the technical update."
So its technical details that are holding it up, rather than (it appears) negotiations with anyone.
"The calls for board resignations will also be deafening..."
Difficult when the Chairman is also the biggest shareholder, but I take your point completely.
Either something is brewing, or it is appalling shareholder relations. The latter is surprising, as AT has always been very good at that.
If its any slight consolation, exactly the same paragraphs were in last year's annual report too:-
KP2 have had to raise money in each of the last few years. 2021/22 will be no exception. Fortunately they have major shareholders willing to add to their holding each time, although that of course dilutes us small shareholders.
They are definitely not "in trouble" however. Unless Brad and the board drag things out even longer, and the government take away the licence! May's costings report will decide that.