Member Info for sadako

And a 1.1m share buy 10 mins ago

So, NDAs signed with majors

They have shifted from ‘spend to prove’ to ‘ partner to unlock’

Which is the whole point of Michael Spencer’s direct involvement

(that was a reply to downbutnotout’s comment btw)

Doesn’t follow at all. This was trading at up to 67p a year ago when WTI was around $60

Been doing a bit of digging after I saw the mention here of the Alaskan acreage auction last week

Seems it was the first major lease sale there since 2019

The last one raised $11 million

This one raised $163 million

There were 430 bids

ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Shell and Repsol all bid

So, strong interest and competition from industry major players

MM please could you comment on how extrader’s statement about submissions having been made should be seen, given your posting on Feb 15

Thanks

sadako

Multiple 50k AT sells - they have the whiff of Gupta.

But then there is someone accumulating on the other side, soaking them up..

The RNSs on 30 Dec, 6 Jan and 12 Jan and the use of Indaba to announce and present do fit a theory of very public signalling to RoC of progressing the project and securing investment in order to avoid any challenge/threat over sitting indefinitely on the licence.

The RAM deal timeline is clearly intended to flush out any strategics dragging their feet on a deal, removing any complacency over the asset still being stranded, whilst at the same time displaying an action plan to RoC. Use of an SPV to do so is nothing out of the ordinary.

You know them.

In order.. denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance.

I say this with genuine feeling, not to be glib or flippant or patronising.. and I am as unhappy as any of you at the price being where it is today.

Whether or not you accept the reality that this is the only deal on the table right now, you can shortcut through to acceptance and decide to soothe yourself by detaching from the drama. Maybe average down if you think the deal will go through or that other bidders will come out of the woodwork.

Whatever, I wish you peace of mind and if intellectually you cannot approve of this deal then take what action you feel works for you, but with calmly and dispassionately as it will be all the more effective for that.

As I say, I do not intend this post to be in any way patronising and I understand the pain many people are in

The project equity component of construction funding requirement is estimated at circa US$1bn. 12.5% of that is US$125m, which of course matches the Tranche Two cash. So, the structure is engineered so that ZIOC can fully fund its 12.5% without raising new equity. If ZIOC tried to retain 25% it would need US$250m equity etc. There isn’t really a path for a £60m AIM company to raise that without catastrophic dilution. So the 12.5% isn’t an arbitrary ‘steal’ per se.. it’s a realistic stake that can be funded internally under this structure. You may not like the headline number but this has been a stranded asset for a long time and if this deal progresses and execute then patient shareholders will realise significant value relative to this level. Will other bids be flushed out? Maybe. RAM have set a baseline and set themselves up nicely if other bids do come in. People are getting hot under the collar about the fact that RAM is a new entity. But in mining finance is it not commonplace to form a new SPV, capitalise it for one transaction and ringfence liabilities and governance?

Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not trying to be an apologist for RAM, just contribute to balanced debate and introduce some pragmatic thoughts about why this has been done the way it has!

ATG I am a PI but have been investing for 32 years now and happy to play the long game, as long as I understand it and believe in it.

I think all the hand wringing and woe is me stuff today is understandable from those who are looking at what the proposed deal does for them in terms of the next few weeks, but in reality the deal gives shareholders the opportunity to participate in value realisation on a project that many, including industry professionals, thought would never see the light of day.

Could a different deal have been possible? Is a different deal still possible? I don’t know but this is not an easy project to structure and fund and the patient among us will still benefit.

What would’ve been really grim for us as PIs would’ve been a take private at current price type arrangement. Others have said this was never realistically on the table, but the voting structure made it feasible.

So I don’t agree that PIs have been shafted, traders may have been but those of us who have participated in this very long game, some for a long time already, can actually see a path to the project happening now - so that’s sort of step forward

By the end of May, if the market sees the binding term sheet becoming a full legal agreement we should see the price in the 10-15p range. Then we should get the EGM and commencement of tranche one, so by the end of the year with a credible FID pathway we should see 20p to 25p, especially with FEED progress.

Then next year, if everything stays on track and the 12.5% option and the royalty start to get priced in, we will start to move up more towards 50p - and beyond if tranche two hoves into view.

Hardly chicken feed for the patient who are continuing to hold or for new investors at this level

I agree. Not sure where all the negativity coming from:in the short term, the binding term sheet establishes a negotiated contractual reference valuation of 15p per share, effectively underwriting value.. in the medium term, if Tranche Two is exercised, ZIOC would receive US$125m of cash while retaining royalty upside and optional equity, a structure that reasonably supports a 25p–50p range as FID is reached and execution risk reduces.. and in the long term, if the project is fully financed, built and producing, ZIOC’s option to retain 12.5% of the project shows as ~US$250m per annum of attributable EBITDA, or 22p per share per year, together with the 1% NSR royalty.. so supporting valuations in the pounds rather than pence

£1+ per share is therefore no longer theoretical but driven by straightforward project economics

It is logically possible that Eagle Eye once held 10% and later reduced that holding - and today only 6.17% remains with Mr Gupta personally. But if that had happened, it did not happen in the period this TR-1 is addressing and this RNS is not the disclosure of such a sale. If there had been a recent disposal of that size, there would have been a prior TR-1 from Eagle Eye showing a reduction. We do not have that in this document. The only conclusion supported by the text of the RNS is that the market had an incorrect understanding of who the reportable holder was.That has now been corrected. Mr Gupta personally controls 6.17% of the voting rights.

Yes, it’s just housekeeping. The 10.01% figure reflected aggregate voting rights:

- Any shares held directly

- Plus shares over which Mr Gupta had indirect control via Eagle Eye Asset Management

- Now the 6.17% reflects only the shares held directly in Mr Gupta’s personal name

- The remaining shares are no longer attributed to him personally for voting-rights disclosure purposes

It is an attribution change, not a disposal.

There are standard reasons for moving holdings from an asset-management vehicle into a personal name, usually one or more of:

• Simplifying disclosure ahead of corporate developments

• Aligning voting rights directly with the individual

• Preparing for situations where personal consent or voting may matter

Yes Zanaga’s long period of flat trading can be explained by a high-uncertainty, low-liquidity regime where serious players are avoiding signalling (one or more of them quite possibly via an OTC bet made with an institution that is happy to take on the risk because the premium is good and it feels it can manage it) and risk is managed mechanically rather than directionally. Pinning-like behaviour, whether from hedging or market structure, is a rational response to that uncertainty and likely reflects simply risk management rather than any view.

From February 10 onward, based on public statements, new public information seems likely and could be expected to break the information freeze, and the late-February lock-up expiry removes the last structural constraint on behaviour. Together, these changes make continued stasis unnecessary and unhelpful, allowing liquidity capacity, volatility and price discovery to return, likely well in advance of any OTC expiry. The key shift is a change in market regime: from inertia to movement.

Spread will naturally tighten at multiple points today

Must say my faith is restored here

Legacy selling into liquidity being mopped up fast and won’t be a factor going forward

Morning beardozer, I think it’s hard to confront the possibility that a share one has held for so very long (like so many here) with so much expectation of patience ultimately being rewarded might not deliver in the end. You have helped me go more to my rational brain - or maybe it’s the other way round, maybe I have gone more to my chimp brain!

Anyway here is how I have decided to approach things:

- it’s possible that one day a blockbuster RNS will come and the shares will be suspended and if I am not holding I will miss out

- it’s possible that incremental RNS releases on progress towards goal (and I do fully believe that Zanaga will be developed) will start to push the price north at last - in which case I will start rebuilding my stake

- it’s possible that a delisting RNS will come one day and the company will be taken private, for the reasons described in previous posts, and PIs will not see the benefit of Zanaga being developed

- a delisting RNS could come with a suspension and no chance for PIs to sell at any kind of reasonable price

I have no idea which way it will go or what the intentions of the million-share block buyer are.

However I do know now that I would rather watch from the sidelines, hope that PIs get rewarded for their patience and maybe that I get a chance to build a stake again with more confidence in the process, than stay in and suddenly find there is a going-private process which obliterates my holding. In short, I would find it less painful to be excluded from delivery of shareholder value at last than I would to be obliterated after such a long wait.

All the great research and insight on this board has convincingly shown what a phenomenal resource Zanaga is and how it is inevitable that it will be developed. I am now unconvinced that PIs will benefit and I can also see what it would be preferable, perhaps even essential, for the conclusion of the plans and negotiations to develop the resource to happen as a private company. I hope I am wrong in that and end up with egg on my face, desperately trying to build a stake again as the price soars. It could happen. But peace of mind is more important on this now to me! So I will follow with interest from the sidelines. One of the most fascinating investment stories of the last ten years. Can’t wait to see how it plays out. Very best of luck to all who are braver than me!

Beardozer your comment about “keep the SP as low as possible if you were planning to take ZIOC private at the least possible cost before selling it for £billions” really set me thinking. With the need for protection of identities (inherent in this but also evidenced clearly by GIS), the sensitivity of negotiations and the high stakes involved etc etc, it really is rather inconvenient to be publicly listed and have even the measly AIM requirements for disclosure in play, plus the attention of a group of motivated and intelligent private investors. It really would be much easier to be private wouldn’t it.. a 75% vote in favour at a delisting EGM would not be hard to achieve and your comment made me think it really is the most plausible reason for the absurdly low share price and the steady accumulation of shares going on. I could be wrong, but AIM history and the previous shareholder comms record of ZIOC - plus the pointless recent tweets - incline me to think otherwise for now.

Well I bought some more this morning (though my trades show as sells). The conflict stopped the modest momentum in the share price that was developing but if the ceasefire holds - and it seems both sides have plenty of reason to stop where they are - then any pause in ZIOC’s negotiations with other parties while they waited to see the outcome will have been brief. Whether ZIOC issue a meaningful update by end June or a few weeks later is immaterial to me. I believe the project will proceed and I agree with comments about the intention of the heavy hitters now involved being to get on with it.