Member Info for eagle1234

@Happydays43 The most recent RNS says with regard to LWP "Jubilee has agreed with a potential project partner to commence with a large scale trial on the stockpiles and tailings to confirm final proposed commercial terms. The trial is expected to be concluded during Q3 FY2026."

So if you have a genuine expectation for news this month, then that would like be misguided.

Hi ActuaryBoi,

I posted a few days ago with the title, "Module" Capacity - Clarification Required? - I had similar questions about interchangeable use of the word "module" in the annual report and interviews, ranging from 1,440 tonnes a year to 4,500 mentioned by Leon, and amounts inbetween. No solid answers on that, but perhaps it will be clarified in future, or if not I'll write and ask directly.

@Chatmandu

How the ~$77m is arrived at for those who might benefit from seeing the calculation:

The 7.32% mentioned is the "discount rate" and can be calculated in different ways but a common way is market interest rates. As we're in Africa the used discount rate will be slightly higher due to risk etc

If we got $90m in cash today at 7.32% in 5 years time it would be worth 90 * (1.0732)^5 = $128.1m.

Similarly we can calculate what the $90m over 5 years is worth in today's money at the 7.32% discount rate, as the amounts are different in each period and there are fixed and variable payments based on voltume it's slightly more involved:

Payments:

Year 0 (Now) = $25m / (1.0732)^0 = $25m

Year 1 = $15m / (1.0732)^1 = $13.97m

Year 2 = $10m / (1.0732)^2 = $8.68m

Year 3 = $10m / (1.0732)^3 = $8.1m

Year 4 = $10m / (1.0732)^4 = $7.54m

So for these fixed payments in the future totaling $70m, have a present value of $63.3m.

Royalties and Variable Payments:

"US$5/t for each tonne of chrome concentrate production exceeding 1.5Mt and US$70/oz for each ounce of PGM production exceeding 36 000 oz"

"Minimum aggregate royalty payable annually, calculated using US$3.50 cents per ton of chrome concentrate produced, Maximum additional royalty $3m"

I can't be bothered to assume production so I'm going to say this $20m will paid equally over five years (as five years mentioned below) from Year 1 (1 year from now) to Year 5:

Year 1 = $4m / (1.0732)^1 = $3.73m

Year 2 = $4m / (1.0732)^2 = $3.47m

Year 3 = $4m / (1.0732)^3 = $3.24m

Year 4 = $4m / (1.0732)^4 = $3.02m

Year 5 = $4m / (1.0732)^5 = $2.81m

So for these payments in the future totaling $20m, have a present value of $16.26m

Adding the two together: $63.3m + $16.26m = $79.56m

Obviously there is a slight difference here, and that will be due to where my assumptions differ from those of JLP. (Obviously their assumptions will be better than mine). If OneChrome hit large production levels then we may see more cash earlier, and then the full impairment won't be needed on some of the variable cash, but accountants are supposed to be prudent and don't necessarily assume best case scenarios

@Chatmandu When trying to get this deal over the line and subsequently talking about it, JLP have said we are selling $90m of assets (+ some trade finance debt) for $90m of cash. However that cash is to be received over a period of 4-6 years so in finance we have to consider the time value of money (TVM) and discount the future cash payments to get its present value.

So I expect Sirboring (although I wouldn't want to put words in his mouth) thinks the communication of this fact has not been to his liking and should have considered the time value of money. He might see it as wrong to say we are receiving $90m cash for $90m of assets when anyone with finance and accounting knowledge can see that it's ~$77m when TVM is taken into account. Indeed by JLP's own accounting, they recognise that we are only receiving $90m over time and they have had to discount this in line with accounting principles.

See next post for Calculation.

Great thank you Seis. Will do some more research.

Mikie, I saw in the annual report mention of potentially acquiring Chambishi copper smelter

From p13 of the most recent annual report:

"Partnership potential with local and international stakeholders, including possible acquisition of existing plants like Chambishi for further scale"

Does anyone know anything about it? A quick google makes me think it would be too expensive for us, unless JLP are referring to another plant in Chambishi other than the large Chinese owned one?

I expect there is a balance to be struck about how much information you release when you're still trying to acquire more land and exploration rights. Otherwise you're just telling the owner of those rights to jack up their prices. In time you'd expect JLP will release this information when the scale tips and it is no longer a strategic advantage and becomes a tool for demonstrating company value.

The Galileo Resources website actually is a good example of putting the rights, exploration and drilling information out there in a clear way with maps etc. I expect JLP aren't naive in that doing that is best practice and will do so when it becomes sensible to do so.

I think you'd be mistaken if you think Harmprof is doing anything more than uncritically churning out AI written drivel, all whilst irritating most on this board. They are the case for active moderation on these boards, they erode its value enormously.

Final sentence got cut off, should say:

"Nothing built in for LWP, Project G or further Molefe expansion and the annual report mentioned a Sulphide circuit at Roan"

Thanks Seis. The new annual report has a lot of information in it. Page 43 has an Operational Overview of Zambia. It would be good to see your table with the expected tonnes per month from the different stream again when you've digested everything Seis.

When you start adding up the expected annual run rate of production from July 2026 for the different initiatives it quickly adds up to a company worth a lot more than the current market cap. i.e.

Current Roan - 3,668tpa (917 actual production x 4, at 30k throughput per month - company mentions 900-950 per quarter in report, and we know 384 tonnes of copper units achieved in July 2025)

Uplift for filtering 780tpa (65tpm *12) (RNS 21st Nov 2025: "Roan set to increase copper concentrate deliveries to Sable refinery on the back of a 30% expansion of the current filtering capacity to incorporate the fine copper concentrates currently stockpiled on site at an approximate rate of 65tpm of copper contained in concentrates")

Uplift for leaching circuit? Not sure about this and guessing it's distinct from filtering?

= 4,448t for Roan (Annual report mentions 5,000)

Molefe /Sable:

When they get to 8500tpm of concentrate to Sable by "FY26 Q3", so lets say the end of Q3... Apr 2026 = 200tpm = 2400tpa

On site processing plant which Leon said in Roast Interview would be operational by Jul 2026 = 120 tpm = 1440tpa

Molefe/Sable = 3,840tpa

Expected Running Total 8,288 tpa run rate as of July 2026.

This is with nothing for Project G, or the LWP, or expansion of Molefe, or further modules at Molefe (Leon mentioned 1,2,3,4 etc could be appropriate eventually) which could start to kick in in FY27 (the Jul26 to Jun27 financial year), increasing the total amount for FY27 (with muted effect as will only be producing at new run rate for part of the year) and also the annual run rate.

So we might see production guidance of around 10k copper per year for FY27 (July 2026 to Jun 2027) if some of this extra stuff materialises over the year.

Potential Valuation = tonnes per year * [(copper price USD * discount incase we don't get the full LME price for whatever reason) - copper cost of production USD] = revenues in USD /1.34 = Revenue in GBP * Choose a Multiple between 6 and 10 = Potential Valuation.

8,288tpa * [(11,500 USD/t * 85% (made this up)) -5500 USD/t cost] = USD 35.5m /1.34 = £26.5m

X 6 = £159m /3.146 bn shares = 5.05p Indicative Share price

X 8 = £212m = 6.74p

X 10 = £264m = 8.4p

Other assumptions:

Cost of Head office etc unknown but hopefully included in my conservative assumptions, or can be handled by a lower chosen PE Multiple.

Price of copper stays at 11.5k USD, could go up or down, and maybe we only get 85% of the LME price for whatever reason, like it needs to be transported etc)

JLP do what they say, which I feel we have turned a corner slightly on with JMK on board.

Nothing built in for LWP, Project G or further Molefe expansion and the annual report ment

AI helpful here: "In mining/metal producer reports, a “copper unit” (Cu unit) is usually just a standardised way to express how much copper metal is contained, independent of what product form it’s in (sulphide ore, oxide ore, concentrate, cathode, etc.)."

1 copper unit = 1 tonne of actual contained copper

I think we might need either some clarification or a standard way of talking about the "modules", always mentioning throughput (20ktpm or 50tkpm) as I'm a bit confused by a few sources of information. If the modules are actually not identical and have nuances depending on the pillar then we can't just talk generally of modules, but it sounds like the modules are thought to be equivalent from what Leon has said on the Roast interview.

On the Roast Podcast :

Question (not the clearest of questions): "The first module, what sort of throughput will that have at Molefe?"

Leon says: "What we've guided the market on is each module adds roughly 4000-4500 tonnes of copper a year to our profile, each module"

In the new report on page 16: https://jubileemetalsgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Jubilee-integrated-annual-report-2025.pdf

Large Waste Project Expansion: "two modular units potential 5,500t copper per annum" , then it depicts and references "Illustrative modular unit (potential 20Ktpm– 50Ktpm units)". As we aren't told the specific size of the two modular units that gets to 5,500tpa, we can't infer the throughput from one module of a specific throughput.

Then under the Sable Pillar it says "Molefe Mine 20Ktpm modular unit (capacity 1 440t copper per annum)".

If you scale the 20ktpm up to 50ktpm (2.5x) you get 1440 * 2.5 = 3,600 (So still a bit different from what Leon mentioned on the Roast interview)

Then on the final pillar is says "Roan 50Ktpm modular unit (capacity 5 000t copper per annum)" which is more consistent with Leon's answer on the Roast Interview.

I may well send an email to the company to get some clarification should anyone on here not show me where I'm obviously getting something wrong, but thought I'd throw it out here first.

The annual report is still saying "14,000 tonnes" capacity for Sable and "13,000 tonnes" for Roan Operations (Modular unit and Sulphide recovery), so I'd be interested in seeing what the assumptions are behind that, i.e. what grade of copper at what throughput would actually be required, and what is the actual likelihood of us getting input rock in at those %s and quantities, if it's very low then it doesn't seem like a useful number to so prominently mention.

Please be careful with any AI generated/assisted responses as they tend to butcher anything to do with calculations. Thanks.

(I think some other responses have been posted since I started writing this, so please excuse me if this has already been clarified.)

MT: "where I can only get information from a toxic message board. "

You can also find a new 172 page annual report here: https://jubileemetalsgroup.com/corporate-documents/

I agree, completely absurd that some people know that "There are specific reasons why they went with GLR for Molefe" just because they emailed and some don't.

If you are getting answers then it must be in the public domain by definition, but it appears like it is not.

Just pasting my previous comment from the other board, in case anyone on here might know more:

I presume that the 24% share includes the ongoing work of continued digging it out the ground and delivery to sable after the 8 month programme? Otherwise, if they aren't doing the mining there won't be 200 a month to share around so it's in their interest to dig it up as quickly as possible and at as high grades as possible, keeping a reliable stream going to Sable. Then if they are incentivised to explore to prolong the life of mine, that's in their favour, and if they can increase the extraction and throughput, that's in their interest also.

I haven't thought it through but if the above is vaguely true then could be thought of as meaning our operating cost of mining and delivery is essentially 24%. That's not clear from the RNS though, so I may be wrong! I'd love some clarification from an RNS or Leon on usual "podcast" of choice.

No.

JL, I agree with you.

You can safely ignore "I'm not a de-ramper" nevertogiveup.

Given we are completely speculating, my guess is Leon is focusing on the disposal of SA operations and once 100% done he will appear again to update us on the copper strategy which will become his sole focus. You’d expect he can then talk in more certain terms as he will have certainty over the disposal. My guess is as good as yours.

On the accounts, I expect (and as we have been told in the RNS) they are likely more complex and the much higher accuracy needed for the disposal. There are more statutory requirements and probably can’t be released until met. The risk tolerance of the auditor would likely be higher as they could be liable to the new owner for material differences discovered versus the version of truth presented in the accounts.

3) You’re publicly misinterpreting the situation in a way that fits your agenda.

Hopefully those questions are coherent unlike whatever you've written here.