Member Info for eagle1234

Two further observations to you Chatmandu:

You voted against all the proposals without understanding at least the first of the resolutions. If you are a shareholder here the first one is clearly in your best interest. The other two are debatable but will give management flexibility - anyone who actually doesn't trust management to use the should probably divest. I do think any options that are granted need to be done on a performance basis and from higher base than 3p, otherwise they're just getting rewarded for getting the share price up to a sensible par value from a low base of their own creating (if you think the assets are probably undervalued as many do).

Your erroneous post below got 2 "recommends"... So either there's a few people who don't understand the first resolution (which is fine, we're not all accountants), or you have multiple accounts and are recommending your own. The latter wouldn't surprise me as there are two other accounts I can think of with postings that are always highly negative, and sometimes outright lies, no matter what news we hear.

Chatmandu, it's just an accounting adjustment to make distribution of the reserves legally possible, currently they are in share premium and they'll move from there to distributable reserves . It has nothing to do with cash, so your suggestions are not even close to correct. That's fine, as you're not an accountant. I suggest maybe putting the circular into an AI to help understand it.

Issuing shares at 4.48p only to buy them back at 3.3p immediately would be a master stroke from JMK haha....

(Obviously I'm joking, and would rather my investment hadn't lost 25% of it's value)

Reported Sirboring and nevertogiveup for false/misleading information as speculating like they are facts. I hope others do the same.

nevertogiveup: "It is 0.5% of the size of tier 1"

Sirboring: " operating loss from core operations come out on 30 March."

"Under the terms of the Large Waste Project Purchase Agreement, the sellers have elected to receive" perhaps the agreement says they can choose shares or cash, and although JLP said the strategy will be non-dilutive strategy this optionality might have already been baked in before that?

"200,000 tonnes of copper per year"

"$300m-$600m per year revenue"

So which is it? 200k copper implies revenue of $2.4bn (200k * $12k)

All that is to say: I would stop attaching much weight to AI generated stuff.

This time next year Rodders(2)!

Thanks @bobbill and @Sumoskier - hopefully that means realised by JLP to the market, not released to JLP and then not released to market!

If you heard that then it would be good for you to provide the source (i.e. the time stamp of the place in the interview) so it can be verified.

I don't remember anything being mentioned about next week, but it was a relatively long interview so I might be mistaken.

@Batterseafish respectfully, might just be me but what you've written makes little sense to me. Have you used AI?

You mention 1.3-1.5 billion shares, but there are 3.15bn shares in issue.

@nevertogiveup "No cash left by November this year. Too many projects requires funds and maintenance cost of current infrastructure is ballooning" - surely this is just purposely false and misleading. Unlikely to happen but, I'd love it if you were sued.

They're at the African mining conference in Capetown. I think someone mentioned they said the next release would come after that.

(I'm not saying that this justifies it or not, just saying what we know).

Obviously (or maybe not to some (axial, justgiveup)), not necessarily all just about production (but obviously that would be great if it goes up significantly).

If they can update us soon on the specifics of LWP composition / JORC on Molefe then as copper rises then the value of our assets rises too and so too should share price (theoretically - if the market trusted JLP, hopefully we've turned a corner on that with JMK on board).

LWP 240M tonnes, sold 10M for $6.75m = $0.675 per tonne of raw material. If this can be extracted economically (the partner continues to take the material, so I expect it must be economical to process otherwise they'd just stop?) then the market just needs to be told that it can be processed, then you can essentially value that 240M tonnes at 24 * $6.75m or there abouts = $162m / £118m or 3.8p in terms of share price. In April 2025 copper was about $9900 tonne if you think higher prices will be sustained then LWP could be worth the current market cap. Obviously can apply a weighting for risk etc. but you could also imagine a world where that material, or parts of it could be worth $1.50 or £2 a tonne.

All depends on them proving that the material can be processed economically and giving the market a definition of what is there.

Thanks Seis. Images for "chalcopyrite drill core" don't look dissimilar.

"Chalcopyrite is a brassy, golden-yellow copper iron sulfide mineral, the most abundant and important ore of copper, known for its metallic luster and often mistaken for gold or pyrite" from the web.

Probably a false alarm then! Although still mentioned on roast.

This was kindly posted earlier and is useful information. There are two pictures in a gallery at the bottom of drillcores of from Molefe, which appear to show a gold material on the first and a gold material and copper looking material on the second. Can anyone confirm if this is likely to be gold?

Gold isn't mentioned on the page, but it was mentioned briefly on the roast interview by the interviewer. Leon didn't really react or speak to the mention of gold (from memory), but the interview is paid for PR so the interviewer must have got that information from somewhere, and could well of been asked to mention it. Could these be two small clues? Of course I could be misinterpreting the picture and happy to be set straight in that regard, or the amounts of potential gold could be insignificant, but thought I'd mention.

https://galileoresources.com/projects-operations/molefe-copper-project/

I expect Jubilee will be updating their website with clear information on the three pillars soon.

My expectation is that all will be revealed when there is not a strategic advantage to keeping that information to ourselves.

One for the AGM, where they might allude to a reason for keeping it under wraps for now.

@nevertogiveup "15% of tax must be paid directly in Chinese currency" - from what I read it's completely optional if taxes are paid in CNY.

"Dr Musokotwane added that looking ahead to 2026, the government expects around 60 percent of mining taxes to be paid in USD, about 25 percent in Kwacha, and approximately 15 percent in Renminbi." https://www.lusakatimes.com/2026/01/06/government-clarifies-use-of-chinese-currency-in-mining-tax-payments/

@Ardbeggar or "whoever" is on about something or another. I clearly didn't say they index stuff in every contract that's ever negotiated, but it's omission was just part of the negotiation. But you can't be bothered to even reply to me by name, so I'll leave my reply there.

"Get it? Got it?" Plonker.

@Ardbeggar Actually in near enough every circumstance, especially running a commercial organisation, inflation/ the present value of future cash payments would always be taken into account when agreeing a sale or any other commercial arrangement.

It's extremely easy to structure the payments to take this into account, or add a clause that numbers will be adjusted by a specific measure of inflation. I do it all the time at work. It'll likely be included in any subscription contract you take out as a consumer.

Just because these things aren't included in the contract doesn't mean that JLP isn't aware of them and how they are normally used. What's probably happened is OneChrome have given an even lower offer and then JLP have said "give me anything that I can describe as $90m" otherwise I can't sell it to shareholders. JLP know it's not a present value of $90m and are happy with $77m. Shareholders should know it's not $90m, it's $77m and this got voted through.

This is being dredged up again due to frustration as we see rapidly increasing PGM prices. A lot of people invested in what they thought was a PGM and copper play and both are soaring. Before the sale management said "we are a well diversified metals company" and then during the sale it turned into "if chrome prices fall a little bit we need PGMs to go up 4x more than the fall for it to be neutral". JLP has fallen consistently and is still at 3p.

The deal starts to look questionable now because it's really hard to imagine JLP couldn't make a profit of $10-12m a year (present value) from these assets at current PGM prices, even with the headwinds of not owning a source of chrome. And if that actually isn't true then the positive rhetoric of management before the announcement of the sale looks misplaced. Of course PGM prices might not stay high, but this deal also includes no upside for potential PGM price rises, it's all capped volume based provisions.

For the record, despite the above I'm still invested here as if they can produce even 8-10k tonnes of copper (and keep head office costs under control) then at 3p this seems undervalued if you believe management can do what they say.

@Happydays43 The close price will just display the last price someone sold or bought at. The spread is high on AIM (i.e. 2.90 to Sell, 3.15 to Buy (about 8%))

So if someone happened to buy just before the close, even just a few shares it would have shown as 3.15 and 4.1% up.

E.g. if you look at Friday 19th December you'll see a few trades for 50 shares, (ADVFN site showing as 45 shares, 35, 50, 50 50 from 16:10 to 16:20, this site only seems to show a couple at 50 at about 16:18/19). This could be someone to trying to manipulate the share price, possibly whilst trying to close out a short for the day. (I'm just guessing here).

Share price potentially unresponsive to copper price as it's not clear where the break even copper quantity is to cover central overheads/fixed plant operations costs etc. This coupled with no medium term expectations on the copper quantities for FY26/27 being shared and the market being untrusting if these were shared anyway. (It seems they are deliberately being cautious about throwing numbers out now).