Zanaga Iron Ore Share Discussion Threads

[petebarnes1] 01/3/2018 21:11

thanks fox , hope it goes well for us all peter

[1fox1] 01/3/2018 19:48

Nice one Pete. Love the Zanaga website bit too. Let's hope it's on-wards and upwards from here. Looks like your resident troll didn't get the message first time around. He was obviously out to spoil it before it began. Here's to a great month ahead.

[petebarnes1] 01/3/2018 19:08

there you go to prove i have monitoring capabilities the resident ADVFN plank has already gone

[petebarnes1] 01/3/2018 19:05

Welcome to the new, professional , monitored thread, hope we all have a long and fantastic time here.

[petebarnes1] 01/3/2018 19:04

VOX PODCAST 01/03/2018

[1fox1] 01/3/2018 18:56

Good idea Pete

[whatthedunce] 01/3/2018 18:52

shut up you goon.

can charting predict a £500m funding or a takeout at 14p-15p?

Can chart get new 10 new boyfriend tomorrow night?


what else does the chart show or chartist predicting good weather this sunday?

[spawny100] 01/3/2018 18:50

Please do pete

[petebarnes1] 01/3/2018 18:49

i am going to create a new thread as a blue poster i can monitor it for all

[petebarnes1] 01/3/2018 18:47

53p is next target here with stop at 25p first according to chartists

[aja5] 01/3/2018 18:20

2014 you do know it’s 2018??
Pre PFS
Licence application and extension
Reserves upgrade
Environmental permit awarded

Oh and they have all sat around doing nothing for the best part of Four years and all third parties have worked for nothing.ZIOC have spent circa $20 million since then so I assume glencore have spent nothing and defaulted on the contract ??
The accounts on the report you again mention clearly state Jumelles/zioc spend at 2014 was circa $230 million there were some impairment charges in 2006-2008 which I will relocate just for you!
Jumelles nor Zioc can put another companies costs on their own balance sheet,that’s basic accounting.....

Anyway we are where we are........

[extrader] 01/3/2018 18:12

Hi aja5,

When I refer to Hawsons as a 1st world project and later that ZIOP will have some costs higher, some lower, I assumed (my bad !) that the average reader would understand...basic labour and tax (10%) lower in C-B, H + S and tax (30%) higher in Oz, etc...

Leaving aside the geographic issue, which was a crude attempt to arrive at a cost of a pilot project, the main point of my note was to look at what the mechanics of funding it might look like and the implications for current shareholders .

As to total spend , pls refer to hxxp://www.zanagairon.com/pdfs/ZIOC_Investor_Presentation_May_2014.pdf, page 4

where the timeline dating back to 2007 ' exploration licenses granted' says clearly '> $ 330 million spent on the project'..... Mostly money spent by Xstrata, the rest by ZIOC and its previous incarnations.

The cost of acquiring Jumelles licenses and of progressing the project pre Xstrata buy-in is included in that figure, you're double-counting if you think otherwise.

ATB

[aja5] 01/3/2018 17:23

And to give balance the NPV figure (10%)they use will be higher than you would apply here due to the geographic differences
A 30-50% discount should be applied imho...although interestingly the original deal between Jumelles and Xstrata allowed Xstrata the option of buying the zioc 50% on a figure calculated from the NPV and didn’t mention any discount

[aja5] 01/3/2018 17:20

The spending on ZIOP don’t confuse the two...
Glencore have spent that has have Jumelles/zioc prior to 5he Xstrata option being taken up ! If you did as I said yesterday and read the admission document that you posted it’s all itemised in there (2 Jumelles entities not just the one) !!! They don’t include some impairment charges but it’s still almost there.....
Regarding the project economics you don’t seriously think that is a fair comparison do you??? Without the PFS those are Johnny ball numbers firstly the extraction costs are 50% higher on 5hose figures which would be fairly obvious labour rates and health and safety would be big contributors to that!

[extrader] 01/3/2018 16:58

Hi aja5,

You're the one who seems to be comparing apples and oranges....

If you look at what I wrote, it was about project economics and funding structures.
Costed in current 'money of the day'.

The timetable is irrelevant. As is your point.

Mind you, you persist in stating a spend on ZIOC of $ 800M when the promotors themselves only claim $ 350 M, so in that context, I suppose your mistake this time round is minor.

ATB