Member Info for Muck165

Last ditch efforts here by the company.

For anyone taking comfort from the various reassurances in the Chairman’s letter, be reminded that every reassurance he gave in his letter seeking a headroom raise last year proved false.

Just one other observation/clarification to add into the mix, which is that the incorporation docs were actually filed electronically with companies house on 19/1/24. So IF it has anything to do with us that would fit in time like this;

Monday 15/1 - notice of GM without the headroom request.

Friday 19/1 - Synergia Energy Limited incorporated in U.K.

Monday 22/1 - RNS update confirming meetings held the previous week

Thursday 25/1 - GM amendment to include headroom request.

Why? As it stands, the company has nothing to do with us. If the theories are right, it’s just been set up to be used if and when the deal completes. That’s when you’ll get the RNS.

Agree - often the case that a new entity is set up for a JV. But I’m not wholly convinced this has anything to do with us at all and certainly don’t want to be accused of intentionally initiating a P&D!

I still think the JV agreements will be executed shortly. I do think the headroom authority is linked to the JV, but I don’t think there will be an immediate raise.

I posted details of the new company because its name, the timing of incorporation, the Director residency, and its activities tweaked my interest, but to be honest I think the the evidence we’re seeing of a link between us and them is a little thin.

First, we don’t know that the F Koh in the LI profile is the same person as the Director of the new company. That said, there are indications. 1) They’re both in Singapore. 2). The Director was born in 1976, and the LI profile say they started O level studies in 1989, which would tie in.

Second, we don’t know they’re involved with us, but again there are indications. 1) what they do for a living, and the region they work in might support the theory. 2) if the person in the LI profile is the same as the Director, then the fact they incorporated the new U.K. entity, calling it Synergia Energy Ltd, slap bang in the final stages of our ZJV negotiations, would strongly suggest a link.

If they are involved then it bodes well for JV completion

But there are a lot of ifs, buts and maybes in the theory as it stands!

This may well be nothing linked to us at all, but I see that a company called Synergia Energy Limited was incorporated in the UK on 24/1/24, the only director and shareholder being a resident of Singapore - Ms Frances Ping Ping Koh. Timing is interesting, being a couple of days after our 22/1 update, so are its listed activities;

46711 - Wholesale of petroleum and petroleum products

71122 - Engineering related scientific and technical consulting activities

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/15431167

Any thoughts?

Yep, that will be the traders who successfully spread FUD this morning, trying to get back in.

One side to a negotiation is never just going to roll over and agree to everything the other side wants. That’s just the nature of negotiations. Both sides will naturally be trying to get the best deal they can for them and their shareholders, and it’s often said that the right deal is one where neither side comes out perfectly happy. I think we must ultimately remember that both sides have already put a lot of time and energy into discussions and will want to complete a deal.

Well as far as I can see, these are the reasons it may fall.

1. Fear that this potential JV episode maybe a ruse to get new headroom authorised, and then a raise away. I don’t buy that. The new headroom request is normal, sensible, and routine, and would pass in any normal circumstances regardless of the potential JV. Given the timing of the GM amendment, I think it possible the headroom request is linked to negotiations, but I think it’s just so SYN can demonstrate an ability to raise, not that they will, or must raise, to get the JV over the line.

2. Fear that there’s some problem that may lead to the deal collapsing before execution. That is of course possible, but I don’t buy it. If there were problems then I doubt Roland would be issuing tweets/RNS indicating imminent execution of the paperwork.

I think the reason we’ve not seen execution yet is most likely the simplest and most obvious one - the parties are just hammering out details in documentation that will define their future relationship, and it’s taking a little longer than Roland thought. I think I’m right in saying that SYN, or Oilex as was, have been burned by aJV partner in the past and so it’s little wonder they want to make sure the deal agreements are clear and unambiguous. The perceived delay brings fear, however, and allows some to stoke that fear for their own reasons.

I think far too much is being attributed to the “delays” here.

In my experience hammering out the fine details in agreements after heads have been agreed takes time. Whichever side produced the first draft skew it for their benefit before sending it to the other. Lawyers for the other side will review, discuss with their clients, amend the draft, and send it back. This to and fro continues until you end up with an agreement. There is nothing nefarious about it, but it takes time, time which Roland appears to have mid-judged. That is his only error as far as I can see.

I also dont think the headroom request at the GM is something to be concerned about. The request is pretty standard and I just don’t think eyebrows would be raised at all if it was being done at an AGM. It’s just routine stuff.

Not unusual to reset headroom each year. Should have done it at the AGM but didn’t. More likely they just need to demonstrate an ability to raise finance than to actually raise.

Just seen yours Steward, and you maybe right. Issue for me there is that the easy to get diamonds have gone, and costs of digging down and getting more will be higher. Does that cost merit the generally low value of Marange diamonds?

My two-penneth…

I think;

- There is a parcel in the RBZ.

- That parcel originally contained diamonds we mined, but may also have contained diamonds we bought from locals. Gem quality percentage MAY therefore be higher than is normal (why buy grit).

- I have doubts that what’s in the parcel now is the same as what it was when originally confiscated. That’s because Mpofu had his mitts on it illegally for a few weeks early in 2010, before contents had been properly catalogued by RBZ.

- Nobody knows the parcel value. Best current indicator was AP suggesting in interview that our 4.9% of the Aprelevka tailings would be worth more than the diamonds. Based on figures he gave, our 4.9% entitlement in those tailings worked out about $12m if I recall.

-AP said the parcel value would be “sufficient for our needs”. Personally I think by that he means enough to satisfy Alpha.

So all in, I think ASI is more likely to be closer in his appraisal. But then even a $4-5m shot in the arm would do wonders for Vasts SP.

I’m hoping for an RNS just saying we have the diamonds. The SP will soar on the hopes of some that it’s worth tens of millions, and I’ll get out on the spike.

Longer term, if Vast can get on the right footing now then it would seem to present a decent investment case to me given its assets and potential.

Genuine question ASI (or anyone), but do you think diamonds recovered in the initial period of the claim may have been higher grade than industrial? I ask only because of various interviews I’ve read that that our CEO gave at the time and in the few years thereafter.

AP has blamed his inability to discuss the diamonds because of political sensitivities in Country. That could just be excuses to hide lack of progress, but if true then I’ve wondered what’s so politically sensitive about it and, if it were so sensitive, why did the Zim gov not maintain their court challenges rather than roll over and allow a default judgment.

Just throwing it out there, but for me any negotiations/agreements allowing us to go back in Country, perhaps in some way linked to the parcel negotiations, would be much more sensitive.

Likely rubbish - musings really.

Candle, you say “ My thinking is the JV will include conditions around minimum cash levels held by SYN.” That’s plausible I think.

But one observation I have is that headroom levels, at least in my experience, are normally a standing agenda item at an AGM. SYN didn’t do that at the Nov AGM, so they may just be rectifying that now.

And I think it equally plausible that the Farminee simply needs comfort that we can raise capital (by demonstrating that we have headroom) rather than requiring us to raise and hold it now.

Others will know better than me, but feels like they're fishing for stock now...

Which Roland has already said is something Syn has experience of, is a formality, and won’t delay progress should the deal be done.

Agree DVH, and weirdly I think the “delay” may well owe to Roland fighting our corner in the last knockings of negotiations, when in my experience hardball is played over the finer details. Both parties really want this deal I think, but both will equally want to show their respective stakeholders that they’ve got the best deal they can.

Gordon, I ‘d normally agree except here they issued the GM notice and then a little while later amended it to include a resolution asking for more headroom. If I were a CEO asking for that I’d feel more comfortable doing so if a major milestone I’d said by RNS was expected by end Jan, then early Feb, and then tweeted about, had actually completed.