Member Info for StarBright

Good news for holders….

· Maiden Contingent Resource estimate completed for the Pensacola Zechstein Reef discovery by RPS, a leading provider of CPR services in the UK

· RPS estimates the Pensacola structure to contain gross P50 Hydrocarbons Initially in Place of 326 MMboe, in-line with Deltic's previous estimate of 342 MMboe

· RPS estimates 2C Contingent Resources, net to Deltic, of 21.8 MMboe in the combined case and 15 MMboe in the gas only case

· Based on the two development scenarios assessed, RPS estimates a 2C Post Tax NPV10 of USD$205M net to Deltic (combined case) and USD$199M net to Deltic (gas only case)

· These project NPV10 valuations equate to approximately 169p - 174p per Deltic share

· Subsequent to the CPR work, appraisal well data from the analogous Crosgan Zechstein discovery has been released that supports the potential for thicker, higher quality reservoir across the crest of Pensacola

· Progress continues to be made on both the Pensacola and Selene farm-out processes with a significant level of interest from industry

This is a very interesting story to watch in governance terms, and the RNS today looks like good news for holders. Orion ensuring they are formally represented at board level lessens the opportunity for a stitch-up between parties whose interests reach beyond their existing equity investments.

I suspect (ie can't prove) that any sp weakness here is a result of Rathbones selling. Their "merger" with Investec resulted in them declaring ownership interests of >5% in 48 investment trusts, >20% in 5 of these. Their GSF holding was disclosed at 13.7% on 1 Nov.

See here for background: https://www.theaic.co.uk/aic/news/industry-news/revealed-rathbones-highest-trust-stakes-after-investec-merger#:~:text=Rathbones%20has%20declared%20it%20owns,20%25%20of%20issued%20share%20capital.

These are uncomfortably large %'s, and Rathbones have been selling down many of the double-digit holdings including GSF. They are leaving quite heavy footprints in the market as they do this. My view is that their actions have created downward pressure on the sp since late October. It looks like they have sold >10m shares.

If you believe the valuation case here - specifically the sustainability & growth potential of the dividend - then Rathbones are offering easy liquidity for you to lean into by buying.

You've not been "swindled" out of anything @tichtich. Specifically, nothing will have been rounded as you suggest. Give your platform/broker a call, they'll explain what you are seeing.

I think: hold, collect divis, wait for takeover…

@marcusg71, your post yesterday “It’s down to Marty and the team to get things done today” was nonsense, don’t be so obviously butthurt…

I’ve held a position here for several years, and think we’re nearer to some sort of resolution event than ever. But the content on this ‘board has long been replete with castles in the air, flights of fancy, speculation about flight itineraries, LinkeIn post likes etc. Too many dreamers objecting to realism… Where and when there has been real news, discourse has been better. There are some excellent/knowledgeable posters here alongside the random puffers and pumpers who appear periodically also.

Castles in the sand @Extrader. I can’t see anything to substantiate the idea that ZIOC has anything to do with this. Happy to be proved wrong as always…

But yesterday you posted “Hoping for constructive talks and even an outline deal this week!!”.

You think a deal will be done today, and announced today?

That’s a completely unrealistic view. Just not how it works.

If a deal is “done” today whilst principals are at the conference, we won’t hear about for a while whilst the terms and narrative are finalised.

If anything is announced today it will relate to a deal that was “done” weeks ago.

With the potential sums involved, no-one will care whether such an announcement is made at an annual conference or a couple of weeks later.

To propose that the Saudi’s are under immediate pressure to announce ownership of an iron ore supply that such an announcement must be made before a conference ends, and that it is down to ZIOC’s management team to “get things done today” is a fantasy.

If Marty and the team don’t get things done today, will it be a disaster for ZIOC? Or for the Saudis? Clearly not - it won’t be the end of the road for anyone. This constant invention of critical deadlines is just baseless childlike ramping.

I preferred JOHNRAMBO’s approach…

“It’s down to Marty and the team to get things done today.”

Seriously?

It doesn’t quite work like that @technician..! As I understand it, Rio are committed to spending USD6.2bn of the USD11.2bn total initial CapEx for Simandou.

Unrelated question: Why would Simandou cost nearly 3x as much to develop than Zanaga..?

@Jiving:

- I’ve read the ongoing discussion here about the Chinese EPC and reduced costs. But the starting point quoted was established in May 2014, and the 10 year period since includes an (ongoing!) inflationary episode which always seems to be omitted from discussion. Is it really credible to assume a 20% reduction on the USD2.2bn or does 10 years of inflation (presumably far more than 20% in total) have to be added first? If not, why not?

- Your buyback suggestion is essentially that the company raises equity capital and then uses the funds raised (partially) to buy back those shares on the open market. Is there perhaps a flaw in that as a plan? How would you sell that idea to the providers of the debt component..?

PIF would be a perfect buyer for the Zanaga project! Cash rich, keen on statement/halo projects and short on transparency/accountability over returns. However, these characteristics make them perfect buyers for almost every at-scale asset/project globally, so theirs is a revolving door of greeks bearing gifts.

How might Zanaga be taken over the line, and who might achieve this? This is where the dealmakers we have discussed in the past can make a critical difference. It would be great to see Zanaga associate itself with one or more.

At the risk of (re)stating the obvious, it is in everyone’s* interest for the company to align each tranche of share issuance to Shard with positive newsflow…

* everyone =

1. The company itself (maximises the net funding it receives)

2. Shard (maximises the value of its retained 5%)

3. Existing holders (for whom dilution is minimised)

So no-one should be surprised by the sequence of events seen here since the Shard funding deal was announced.

Whoever structured it looks to have had minimising dilution as their guiding principle. In stark contrast to most pre-revenue AIM miners, the number of shares in issue has been kept on a tight leash over an extended period. I suspect this is principally because of the existence of the small number of large holders. All existing shareholders have benefitted from their confetti-protection shield…😏

Rathbones still supplying the market with shares. Always good to have volume to lean into…

Thanks.

Your first explanation - IBKR thinks it has clients who’ll pay a high(er) interest cost to borrow ZIOC - is the most likely explanation.

A side-conclusion might be that it looks like the principal holders aren’t lending theirs if IBKR are having to tout/spiv around like this.

One for you in return if I may, I’m not great at keeping up with every post here…

Did I read earlier that one or more of the ZIOC team were away in Saudi over Christmas for some reason? What was the source of this info if so?

You hold ZIOC on IBKR and they have approached you directly with this email?

Looks like they (IBKR) have clients wanting to borrow ZIOC if so. IBKR are pretty good at finding loose stock for their lending programme when there’s demand!

Perhaps just not enough interest? Or their PB has included it in their restricted list due to lack of liquidity? Your guess is as good as mine - “commercially unattractive” is probably a good summary as you propose.

If you ring them and say you want an actual position they might offer you a quote. I’ve seen IG do this on securities that are “no new positions” through their automated execution service.

@Extrader - Spreadex won’t be square (ie hedging) ZIOC 1:1 unless volume / position size becomes material to their aggregate book, which is highly (really highly!) unlikely. If they do suspend opening new positions it will likely be because their prime broker is looking to bend them over on funding costs, not because they are worried about having to pay up!