Member Info for StarBright

Performative diplospeak…

Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has unveiled an audacious plan to transform global trade, boldly proposing an “Indian Ocean–Africa economic zone” that officials confirm will be constructed entirely from warm words and PowerPoint graphics.

The initiative, which promises to link Africa with India, the Middle East and anyone else within a 5,000-mile radius, has been hailed in diplomatic circles as “the most ambitious piece of imaginary infrastructure since China built the Silk Road out of buzzwords.”

Aides say the project will deliver unprecedented prosperity, cultural exchange and unicorn exports, provided no one asks how, when, or indeed why. “It’s a paradigm shift,” explained one official. “In the sense that we’ve shifted the paradigm from reality to fantasy.”

The announcement was met with polite applause from African delegates, many of whom reportedly passed the time by calculating how much real investment they might have received had Japan’s bold new vision contained anything resembling money.

Economists predict the plan will create “countless opportunities,” though these are expected to be confined largely to consultants hired to produce glossy brochures and animated maps with glowing arrows.

Meanwhile, Ishiba himself remained upbeat. “This is a historic moment,” he declared. “A future of shared prosperity lies ahead — just as soon as we finish inventing it.”

@Max111 - you are right, there were actually 3bn shares in issue when 100% of the mine was acquired. So the dilution is ~90%, not 99% as in my earlier post.

Yep. Someone is buying. Watch/wait for a TR1.

“Non-dilutive value creation”….!

This company used to have 300m shares in issue and 100% of the mine didn’t it…? Nearly 9bn shares and 30% of the mine today. I make that 99% dilution. A shareholder today owns roughly 1% of what they used to own.

You must be having a giraffe @Max111. I don’t know how you keep a straight face!

RM Funds view: https://rm-funds.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/RM-Funds-Statement-EGM-Result-vFinal.pdf

My view is that there is nothing for the company to celebrate here. The votes against the chairman (in particular) are a huge blow to both its legitimacy and its leadership. Like Helge Lund at BP, the chairman should read the room and resign.

Buyers taking the plunge here, I see...

Https://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/0847T_1-2025-7-29.pdf

The meeting is tomorrow at 1pm.

The results of votes on resolutions like these are typically released on the same day. Whether we'll get them within market hours tomorrow, or via a post-close release is hard to say.

It will be highly instructive to see the level of shareholder dissatisfaction revealed by the votes. While it is perhaps unlikely that the resolutions proposed by RM will achieve the 50% of votes cast necessary for them to declare a clean "win", material votes in favour of the removal of the Chairman and NED will be torpedoes below the waterline.

The NAV's are calculated by looking at the cashflows from the underlying assets (solar farms etc) that make up the portfolio, and adjusting for cashflow items like dividends. The principal reasons for the falling NAV here - as elsewhere in the sector - is that expectations for power prices achievable in future periods are being reduced, and dividends continue to be paid.

Buy recommendation from Peel Hunt….

Trying again…

I asked ChatGPT to summarise @Ex’s note, interpolating/guessing where necessary, so this is very E&OE….

Firm (disclosed / verifiable)

Holder Shares (m) % of issued Basis

Greymont 152.1 18.3% Website / TR-1

Gagan Gupta 83.3 10.0% Website / TR-1

Regatta 58.1 7.0% Website / TR-1

Guava / Clifford Elphick ~80–87 ~10% Declared 'unchanged' holding

Directors & Mgmt (options + shares) ~37 4.5% Company statement

Probable (reasonable basis, but less certain)

Holder Shares (m) % Basis

MK (new NED) 7.5 0.9% Indicated

Mitchell (NED) 2.5 0.3% Indicated

Saudi downstream investor n/k (

That - evidently - didn’t work…

Sorry!

I asked ChatGPT to summarise @Ex’s note, interpolating/guessing where necessary, so this is very E&OE….

Firm (disclosed / verifiable)

Holder Shares (m) % of issued Basis

Greymont 152.1 18.3% Website / TR-1

Gagan Gupta 83.3 10.0% Website / TR-1

Regatta 58.1 7.0% Website / TR-1

Guava / Clifford Elphick ~80–87 ~10% Declared 'unchanged' holding

Directors & Mgmt (options + shares) ~37 4.5% Company statement

Probable (reasonable basis, but less certain)

Holder Shares (m) % Basis

MK (new NED) 7.5 0.9% Indicated

Mitchell (NED) 2.5 0.3% Indicated

Saudi downstream investor n/k (

@Jiving: “But is the GIS & its 20% offtake really it, maybe wrongly I attributed it to a value grab by our new cornerstone investor "'cause they could". Which they then dumped into a purpose built shell - GIS - to be monetarised at some later stage, but specifically for their financial benefit & not anybody else's including ZIOC.”

I suspect this is exactly what GIS is, or will be. If it’s somehow for the bona fide benefit of all shareholders, I’ll be happy to be proved wrong. I’m not expecting to be wrong…

Never ascribe actions to altruistic “4D-chess” style planning where narrow self-interest is a credible explanation!

I will send the email below to the company secretary today.

Subject: GIS and Related-Party Considerations

Dear Company Secretary,

I refer to the RNS dated 3 March 2025 (“US$21.5m Private Placement & Proposed Buyback”) in which an entity referred to as Gulf Iron and Steel (“GIS”) is named as receiving marketing rights over 20% of the Zanaga Project’s production.

From the information available, GIS’s ownership, governance, and financial contribution have not been disclosed. This raises questions about potential related-party interests.

Under AIM Rule 13, any related-party transaction above the relevant thresholds must be announced with confirmation from the board and Nomad that the terms are fair and reasonable. Under FCA DTR 5, beneficial ownership interests must be disclosed promptly to the market. The board is responsible for ensuring compliance with both.

Accordingly, please confirm:

1. Related-Party Status – Has the board established beyond doubt that GIS is not, and is not connected with, any related party as defined under AIM Rule 13?

2. Ownership Links – Do any directors, substantial shareholders, or new placing investors have a direct or indirect interest in GIS? If so, has this been disclosed under DTR 5?

3. Due Diligence – What steps did the board take to satisfy itself that granting GIS 20% of production is in the best interests of all shareholders?

4. Safeguards – What measures ensure GIS’s role cannot divert economic benefit away from ZIOC shareholders without full and fair value in return?

Yours sincerely,”

The company (still) has a largely undrawn “green” credit facility does it not?

@Catbert, sorry but that’s a whole truck-load of AI-generated nonsense…

To pick one KEY point, your text references “GIS’s network and market reach…”. But no-one knows anything about GIS. It doesn’t (yet) exist in any observable form. It certainly does NOT have a network or market reach. That’s classic AI-generated wishful thinking…

If you want to own and operate some BESS assets in the manner described in the article, because you are a trading business and you have skills and capital to apply, is it better to buy or build the assets you need? Buying them at a discount massively reduces risk (eg around grid connections) and shortens timescales. It doesn't just save £££...

The UK-listed BESS funds may offer a golden opportunity to a group of buyers who notoriously impatient, deep-pocketed and deal-prone. Ideal...

Not sure about that @Louise88. Directors invested in the placing - my guess is that they were "optimistic" regarding approval.

If you think the MESH project is interesting in the longer term, then today is the day to buy in at a 35% discount to the last placing...

@tomhuk2000 apparently owns 2.5% of EPP, supported by extensive research.

It would be interesting to hear his view on the announcement, and on what might happen next.

Https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-08-13/vitol-trafigura-bet-on-batteries-as-eu-power-prices-swing-wildly?sref=v9DhbdG5

This very interesting article (sorry if paywalled...) speculates that commodity trading firms like Vitol and Trafigura might buy their way into battery storage assets. These guys have v deep pockets...

"Three years ago, Castleton Commodities International analysts huddled in their London office to discuss how to make money from a growing phenomenon in the European power market — negative prices.

The dislocated markets and sharp price swings they saw are exactly the type of conditions that commodity traders like CCI thrive on. But the problem is that storing electricity when it’s not needed and selling when prices are higher is much harder than for other commodities like copper or oil.

It’s a situation only becoming more widespread, as renewable output far outstrips demand at times during the day, sending prices below zero and causing excess supplies to be wasted. Then hours later, a drop in wind or the sun going down can see prices jump back up.

CCI found a solution: It decided to get into the battery business.

While the company was an early mover among commodity traders, it’s one of a growing number of firms including heavyweights Vitol Group and Trafigura Group that are investing in utility-scale batteries. After making fortunes hauling oil, gas and metals around the world, the traders are turning their attention to opportunities buying, storing and selling energy back into grids — especially in Europe, where capacity is set to rise sevenfold by 2030."

Some good observations in this thread today.

Yes, the boundary between the board and the manager is “indistinct” (to say the least).

Yes, we know little if anything regarding why the proxy advisers have taken their reported position. It may be procedural, or based on inherent bias to following company recommendations. If it were based upon a detailed assessment, I’d have expected the company to be quick to share such a favourable endorsement. It is perhaps instructive that nothing has been shared.

And yes, some of the language in the various RNS is - at best - vague and readily subject to one-sided misinterpretation.

I think I’ve made my views clear! If you hold shares, please contact your platform and organise for them to be voted. Even if you’re going to vote the opposite way to me; it’s really important that shareholders engage actively when opportunities like this arise.