Member Info for HarmProf

Apology and the inbox is not accepting more line and even not part 2.

Let me try again.

Chrome .. continuation and from previous

Short-term profit: ~$5m (01 July 2025 - 31 December 2025)

Estimated sale value: ~$40m (Chrome plants, etc. removing the Jubilee headache)

$15m prepaid amount offset immediately (from $40m)

Additional calculations

Total Value (10% Rh Base Case)

PGM (3 years): $183m

Chrome profit: $5m

Chrome sale: $40m

Total: ~$228m vs $79m under current deal (trade finance debt ... not 100% if this should be added, once processed it will turn into profit).

My Recommendation

Do not submit transaction for approval before or on 31 December 2025

(Audit passed and was marked as clean, nothing outstanding.)

Retain Inyoni for three years

Sell chrome plants separately

Transfer Inyoni to One Chrome post-PGM extraction

Conclusion

The proposed restructuring delivers ~3× the economic value, improves strategic flexibility, and better aligns with shareholder interests.

Business is business! One Chrome outfoxed Jubilee first round, let Jubilee outfox One Chrome this time. Of course One Chrome could request a profit sharing mechanism to take the chrome depleted tailing ... Any contact can be renegotiated, it all depends how the cards are played.

Financing risk should not be negatively affect imo.

Transport cost impact: immaterial (

Why should Jubilee cancel and update the sale of SA units. A bit of calculations an short summary in the email assisted by AI

Transaction Review: One Chrome Sale vs Retain Inyoni

The One Chrome transaction materially undervalues Inyoni at current market conditions and sacrifices significant near-term cash generation.

Key Numbers

Headline sale value (June): $90m

Audited present value (Dec): $79m

Discount applied: 7.32%

Value erosion: ~$11m

Inyoni Economics (Fully Paid-Off Plant)

Annual PGM output: 36,000 oz

Processing cost: $604/oz

Remaining tailings: ~3 years

Rhodium % Annual Profit

8% ~$53m

10% ~$57m

12% ~$61m

➡️ One year of profit > sale value

3-Year PGM Profit

Rhodium % 3-Year Total

8% ~$170m

10% ~$183m

12% ~$195m

Transport cost impact: immaterial (

Why should Jubilee cancel and update the sale of SA units. A bit of calculations an short summary in the email assisted by AI

Transaction Review: One Chrome Sale vs Retain Inyoni

The One Chrome transaction materially undervalues Inyoni at current market conditions and sacrifices significant near-term cash generation.

Key Numbers

Headline sale value (June): $90m

Audited present value (Dec): $79m

Discount applied: 7.32%

Value erosion: ~$11m

Inyoni Economics (Fully Paid-Off Plant)

Annual PGM output: 36,000 oz

Processing cost: $604/oz

Remaining tailings: ~3 years

Rhodium % Annual Profit

8% ~$53m

10% ~$57m

12% ~$61m

➡️ One year of profit > sale value

3-Year PGM Profit

Rhodium % 3-Year Total

8% ~$170m

10% ~$183m

12% ~$195m

Transport cost impact: immaterial (

Ardbeggar, interesting — and you seem very confident in your assessment. Jubilee Metals appears to be in a position to negotiate improved terms for shareholders (my opinion and based on influencing and shaping context relevant for negotiation). The royalty fee structure, which currently excludes any benefit from upward PGM price movements, is a material issue. Jubilee is clearly aware of the profitability within its Platinum Group Metals (PGM) operations. The company is also capable of adjusting its PGM recovery modules and processing costs to manage the higher levels of oxidation present in certain tailings (if needed). Encouragingly, the newly added tailings are not expected to be significantly affected by oxidation, which should help maintain stable recoveries and margins. For the first six months, assuming an average PGM basket price of US$2,050 per ounce and a processing cost of US$650 per ounce, Jubilee’s PGM operations could generate profits in excess of US$24 million. PGM prices are expected to continue rising over the foreseeable future, supporting robust earnings momentum. One Chrome could be the potential buyer of the chrome processing unit when Jubilee put it on the market for sale and will benefit from royalties which include the upward price movement and volume and with the intent to mothball the chrome processing unit. One Chrome could partner with another company to process the chrome etc.

A potential strategic move could see Jubilee issuing a notice to sell its chrome processing unit, with Once Chrome as a potential buyer. Once Chrome could then partner with another company to continue chrome processing. Jubilee would benefit both from the sale proceeds and a royalty arrangement on future chrome revenues.

Several scenarios can be modelled for PGM output, though the cost of processing the new tailings should not significantly impact overall processing capacity. The Inyoni plant currently operates at a capacity of approximately 620,000 tonnes per annum, and over the past 18 months, 1.3 million tonnes of tailings have been added — equivalent to about two years of feedstock, supporting the production of roughly 36,000 ounces of PGMs. Projected profits are expected to exceed US$50 million over the next 12 months, with a likely outcome of around US$55 million. The following year may see conservative profits of approximately US$45 million. Thereafter, profits may taper but should remain at healthy levels, supported by sustained strength in PGM prices. Overall, the PGM market outlook remains positive, and Jubilee’s modular processing capability, coupled with the prospect of a profit-sharing clause with the new chrome plant owner at Thutse, could provide a balanced path forward — combining capital realisation, recurring income, and continued exposure to PGM upside. Bottomline: Jubilee must work hard to increase shareholders wealth. They have the advantage to model future profits for PGM better royalty arrangements.

Ardbeggar,

(shotgun against their head approach).

Breach of contract intent will be announcement by Jubilee with the message that :

Jubilee will prioritize PGM tailings and mothballed after it is not profitable anymore, the chrome processing unit will be put in care and maintenance with immediate effect. It means Jubilee withdraw from the chrome offtake and One Chrome will loose access to the stream. This should compel them to reconsider their position and remain open to renegotiation. Royalty agreements must be structured to allow for upside participation in chrome and PGM prices, ensuring Jubilee benefits from any future recovery in these markets. PGM tailing profit tailing will exceed sale price according to me. PGM basket price exceeding 2,400 USD and profit north of 1600 USD per oz. With increase cost by 15% a year the profits will exceed the discounted sales price. The absence of upside price participation in a royalty agreement is a material issue and must be tabled as a crucial issue.

I am happy that you are honest about that One Chrome outfoxed Jubilee. That was also my opinion. Is there a need to find another chrome supplier? Not really. Jubilee to focus on PGM profit and exit. Running a PGM unit alone with significant profits First 12 months could even be north of 60m USD per annum. 1800 x 36,000 (high range) 64m USD and low range (1600 x 32000) 51m USD. If you extrapolate low range 50m + 40m + 30m --> 120m USD.

Christmas preparations in progress! Merry Christmas!

All is redined -

Project Elephant — that ever-expanding marketing marvel promising 150 million tonnes of copper somewhere over the rainbow — is apparently “in full swing”, capturing every conceivable element and molecule of optimism along the way. We turned the corner. Molefe and Project G with symmetrical developments and the production spreadsheets came before the geology, both to produce 26kt of copper per annum. both have inital 8 year life span.

Jubilee will have 25,000 hectares x 2 to drill, and within a year we’re assured that every copper asset in the district will be revealed to the public, complete with glossy diagrams and confident timelines. The long-awaited large waste project will finally “see daylight”, and an impressive list of new joint ventures will no doubt materialise in CY 2026.

Project Mole (Tatje) , of course — we’ll be going underground in SA, naturally, and using those theoretical copper profits to dig our way to Tatje, or perhaps to treasure.

As for shareholders dreaming of dividends or buy-backs — perish the thought! Every penny must be reinvested in the noble cause of “expanding the footprint”.

Mining Royalties!

The board should reopen negotiations on the royalty clause, as it’s difficult to see how such an omission could have been anything other than an oversight — to put it politely. The agreement reportedly includes only volume-based increases, while excluding any linkage to price movements — or what the industry would recognise as total revenue participation. In the mining sector, it is standard practice for royalty fees to reflect both volume and commodity price. This ensures the seller benefits from market upswings — particularly in cyclical metals like PGMs and chrome, where prices can rise sharply within a year. By omitting price-related adjustments, Jubilee has effectively given away the upside from any rebound in PGM or chrome prices. Even Eagle noted this gap, and rightly so. It’s a serious issue that deserves focused discussion rather than being glossed over.

Do I see or interpret above issues incorrectly? Kindly let me know.

Eagle,

I understand your point — but if Jubilee truly had a gun to its head and was forced to accept the unsolicited offer at that price, then perhaps it’s time to place that same gun at One Chrome’s head and make it clear that the deal could well be off unless certain terms are revised. The most obvious change is the royalty clause. It should never have been tied solely to volume. Royalties must reflect both volume and price — otherwise the seller loses all upside when commodity prices rise. If Jubilee agreed to a structure that excludes price participation, then it effectively sold its exposure to any recovery in the PGM and chrome markets for nothing. That’s what makes this deal so puzzling. It’s hard to believe the board didn’t model upward price scenarios — which suggests either pressure to close quickly or deliberate understatement of value. I’d be happy to be proven wrong, but excluding upward price adjustments from a royalty framework is unusual and, frankly, poor practice in a cyclical commodity environment.

You posted the following:

"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.

Seis, what exactly are you defending here? No one disputes the logic of prioritising copper — that strategy stands. What is in question is the manner and motive behind how Jubilee executed the chrome and PGM sale. You’ve once again sidestepped the key fact: there’s a substantial PGM-bearing tailings stockpile at Inyoni, large enough to sustain profitable production for 3 years, even if processing costs rise. At today’s metal prices, that stockpile alone could generate enough margin to repay the entire SA (PGM and Chrome) asset sale over the 3 year period. So, why the rush to sell at what many view as an unsolicited, undervalued price? Investors have every right to question whether the so-called “cap” on royalty fees was conveniently structured to depress the valuation and justify the disposal. Let’s not ignore the Thutse Chrome JV either — barely mentioned in disclosures.

And if you think this stops with chrome, think again. Copper producers across Zambia are moving to vertically integrate, just as chrome miners have done, to capture full processing value. That means Roan (currently running on ROM alone) and future copper JVs could face the same feed-supply risk that crippled the chrome segment. So no, Seis — defending this transaction with selected and limited information is not helpful. It looks more like and interpreted by many as a e a reactive sale under pressure, dressed up as strategy. The Board should engage One Chrome to renegotiate some aspects of the sale and a delay in signing of the deal will result in additional PGM profits. Royalty fee must include price appreciation of PGM and or Chrome.

Jolly1, Jubilee’s board could, in theory, “technically cancel” the One Chrome sale if contractual obligations have not been met or if market conditions justify renegotiation. The rationale would be to recover undervalued assets and strengthen cash-flow resilience, especially as its Zambian copper projects remain in heavy development.

The handling of this One Chrome deal will indeed be the litmus test of whether Jubilee Metals is governed as a shareholder-centric enterprise or a management-defensive organisation.

Biobbil, Jubilee’s Zambian copper strategy (including Molefe and Governor) is operationally sound but timeline-stretched. The company’s communication is optimistic and high-level, and while not misleading, it requires careful investor interpretation to understand that full 25 kt copper output will take several more quarters, not months, to materialise. This must change in the future (JMK is the one that committed to improve investor communication).

Sirboring : The board didn’t “confuse” or "mislead" investors in a legal sense — but they did emphasize the headline value instead of the realistic economic value. The true cash worth of the sale at June 2025 was US $79 million, not the nominal US $90 million, because part of the payment was deferred and discounted. Note: TheJubilee way is to publish everything optimistic and to remain silent when targets not met.

Nevergiveup, my expectation for Q2 is 1,263 tonnes of copper, with production increasing quarter-on-quarter thereafter. This is my own estimate.

I believe patience is required while we wait for the quarterly results. The H1 results for PGM, and hopefully for chrome as well, should translate into meaningful profits. In my view, the broader picture should become clearer over the next 6–12 months. I sincerely hope that future updates will include a clear production breakdown for Project G, Molefe, Roan and Sable, together with the associated operating costs for each unit. Until then, I would encourage a more measured and constructive approach (from all). Excessive negativity serves little purpose when progress is still unfolding. The past is the past and we cannot change this.

"The project plan for Project G targets to expand the existing open-pit operations to achieve an initial mining rate of 10 000 tonnes per month by February 2025. Project G includes an on-site upgrading facility capable of pre-concentrating the mined ROM material with an immediate capacity to produce 3 000 tonnes of copper concentrate per month, containing 10% to 15% copper. The lower grade copper reef will initially be stockpiled at source for future processing through the targeted regional processing hub." LC Oct 2024

Gotreal! Sure they stockpiled a considerable amount of ROM on site! Why no update on this officially communicated production target for Governor mine! Did they stop all to drill the open pit? The announced a temporary halt in production for Molefe.

Thank you all for the inputs and information. I added to my holding today, although only a small amount, which lowered my average once again. I do so with increased conviction that Jubilee will be successful; however, I remain frustrated by the ambiguous information, or in some cases the absence of (updated) information, for example regarding Chambishi or Project G.

Posting on GLR by Gotreal and should be of interest to Jubilee investors, but he did not provide evidence that production was stopped at Project G.

RE: MOLEFE - a New Day is Dawning20 Dec 2025 19:00

Coyote... to put you right, JLP has already done initial drilling to a depth of 80m at Pit 5 (of nine pits and the only one being commercially worked when acquired) and confirmed mineralisation, which starts at only 5m deep, all the way with an unknown depth sulphur body below the oxide layer and "In addition, initial exploration and aerial surveying has confirmed the existence of a significant one kilometre long copper anomaly at surface. This suggests the continuation of the current near surface and exposed copper reef capable of providing Sable with a sustained long term feed resource." GLR are employed to establish a resource estimate and confirm the extent of this potentially very large deposit and develop a mine plan and eventually to explore the further permits which have been acquired surrounding Molefe (now in total 25,000 Ha) although resource definition at Project G, the second open pit mine acquired, will take priority. Despite Birdy's sour/disparaging comments, a life of mine in excess of 8 years for Molefe had already been announced... As for ESG: "Jubilee has committed to various community support programmes which include providing clean water along the Munkoyo Mine Corridor, improving community health outcomes for the surrounding communities, while initiating educational improvements and sustainable sanitation solutions, including solar pump installations and improved ablution facilities at the Kabanga Primary School."

This programme was officially launched on 10 July 2024 at a ceremony attended by the District Commissioner Mr Hasalama Chuunka Francis and other Government representatives, traditional leaders, civic leaders and community members of the Kumpumba Ward in which the communities reside.

Refined UK-English version

Seis, where did he mention Molefe? He worked for Jubilee, so it is reasonable to understand that he was referring to Molefe.

The key issue is funding, which is always challenging for a small-scale miner. To develop and operate a small mine typically requires around USD 4–7 million, and a JORC-compliant resource would be required to secure further funding. Illegal mining another major problem, etc. It has been suggested that Jubilee spent R30 million on a drilling programme. If this is correct, it deserves scrutiny. I know you want to ignore me and branded me as deramper, but the drilling cost for Jubilee at Molefe is what should be released and why were the early results not released?

Nevergiveup, Jubilee clearly owns 65% of Project G, with initial payments of around R2–2.1 m + 500 000 and a further R4.4 m this year, though its purpose is unclear. Governor Mine was producing before Jubilee’s involvement, with ambitious production targets of around 200 t of copper per month from October / November 2024, yet there has been no update since — perhaps a deliberate low profile while expanding licences similar like as at Molefe. The previous owner is unknown. Sirboring’s comments seem inaccurate given the available information regarding the mine. Jubilee is committed to fully developing Project G and will invest more, but we are kept in the dark about progress, although a final target was set 25,000 t of copper per annum. Asking critical questions, as Sirboring has, and others, appears to make one unwelcome (by Seis), even when legitimate.

Correction 19.9m USD. forgot the millions. and smiley should be 🙂Just checked on this and more playful than the other.

Bottomsup, adaptation – that’s it. It is disappointing that JMK is unwilling to provide clarity on this board. A brief explanation would save a great deal of time and lead to a much better understanding. Project G, LWP, Chambisini, modular processing units with different capacity and cost, loan to Horizon Limited (Star Tanganika project & Kitwe Project) US$ 19,9m why price increases where not incorporated in the royalty fees, etc. These matters should be addressed at the AGM, and if the majority shareholders are not concerned, then smaller investors must accept that reality. Money talks. Sometimes one wishes to put the CEO hat back on and simply demand clarity 🙂

Why do I want clarity? For a simple reason: to decide whether this is the right time to top up aggressively. If Project G is on track with a clear, detailed plan ahead, it would strongly influence my decision to invest further before the financial year-end. LWP should make progress in 2026, and it will be interesting to see the concentrators finally put to work.