Member Info for Mitch984

"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.

Hi Extrader,

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.

Paul

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.

Deal?

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:-

https://www.netcompany.com/en-GB

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:-

https://www.netcompany.com/en-GB

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:-

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/KP2/financial-report-for-year-ended-31-december-2019-o2gvbci0mrsap5z.html

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.

Natham - You could just as easily say "why are there rampers"!

No. I was just expressing my personal disapointed at the lasck of progress since Brad was appointed just under three years ago. The government were disapointed too - which is why they sent an official letter to KP2 last December basically telling them to get moving or lose their licence.

I'm not doubting the potential of KP2, and I am here for the long haul. I just have personal doubts about the leadership.

Lets see what the update says when the costing exercise on the DX EPP is concluded in May. That is the important one. If they can't get the DX project off the ground, its hard to see how they will ever find the financing to do the full Kola project.

In the meantime, the occasional spikes on the ASX are more than interesting...

I've been invested here for over three years. Brad has never filled me with confidence, and always seems to me as a CEO who just wants his salary to go on for as long as possible.

I do hope I'm wrong of course, and things finally start moving. However I have always been puzzled as to why it took them so many years to start costing an EPP, when it was clearly an obvious option several years ago when the huge cost of the main project was finalised.

The total lack of dealings in this share just prior to a scheduled update just shows how interest has totally fallen away recently. Even a year ago, there would have been a host of speculative buys leading up to the RNS hoping for positive news.

However after so many can kicking RNS' and AT's total silence the past 4-5 months, we are further below the radar than we ever have been.

Let's hope we do at least get the promised update tomorrow. KP2 are also supposed to update tomorrow too on their EPP, but today's letter to the ASX about the share price rise on the Oz Exchange seems to indicate they will not be ready to update.

I do hope the management of ZIOC is not descending to the quality of KP2's. Both are exciting and enormous resources that need strong leadership to realise their potential.

The ASX rise was probably because news was supposed to be due by tomorrow on the costings of the EPP.

Brad's letter to the ASX seems to indicate the update will not be ready, which is typical of KP2. Huge resource and terrific prospects, hampered by poor leadership.

"Due to the current COVID-19 situation, the Company will be unable to post its annual audited accounts"

The question should be asked - "why".

With no revenue in the year in question, the cleaning lady could have prepared the accounts. They are hardly complicated after all.

Absolutely no legitimate reason why they could not have been prepared and submitted in time. Beware.

ZIOC are also updating this week on the Zanaga iron ore project. With elections out of the way, lets hope both companies have some positive news for investors and the country.

Having said that, KP2 are not the best administered company, so it wouldn't surprise me if they miss their own update date.

Excellent research on the articles, Extrader. Good to see at least some references to Zanaga and Glencore in press reports coming out of the country, even if they are short on direct information.

"You can't sell stuff that you're not producing....unless you have an off-take agreement in place." I still think that is the big stumbling block - Glencore want an offtake agrreement to go along with any proposal. Potential buyers do not.

As reagards CODIC potentially taking a minority interest in ZIOC, I have a feeling that is what is being worked on by AT. That is, developing the mine rather than an outright sale.

I don't recall AT or an RNS mentioning at any time that we have had any direct approach to buy ZIOC. Everything has always been about approaches to invest.

Hopefully next week's update will give us some positive guidance on where this is all going.