Member Info for Jammer1

From the information released this morning, the very tight timelines set in the licence conditions seem to have removed any final negotiating power from BMR. It is tacitly saying to BMR go ahead with Jubikee or lose the licence and effectively lose your company. BMR management will have little choice but to finalise the joint venture on Jubilees terms which will involve both management and board changes at BMR. I would not surprise me to see fairly shortly that officially at the executive level Leon will be in total control of everything relating to the Kabwe project, and as well as Colin there will be one or more new BMR board appointments agreed by Jubilee and probably in the background the Zambian authorities. From previous posts I have stated my belief the positions of the current key directors at BMR are untenable after the non disclosure to Jubilee of a material fact about the risk to the licence.

The detailed explanation of what happened in the run up to losing the licence does not cover up the fact that the directors at BMR have concealed a material fact from Jubilee during the due diligence process and from their shareholders prior to a placing. And now they talk about rogue factors within the Zambian mining sector. Are they talking about government officials?This sort of statement is hardly going to help getting a licence back. If by some chance the licence is restored the existing key BMR directors will have to go, and go quickly.Their position is untenable.

If Jubilee walks away from the Kabwe project the loss is likely to be a lot more than the �200K to �300K Leon was talking about. He was referring to the project cost to date alone. Don't forget the corporate transaction we entered into to buy near to a 30% shareholding in BMR. That cost �500K and a transfer of 4% of Jubilee's shareholding if I remember correctly. At the moment without the license we are invested in a company that may well be liquidated if the mining licence appeal turns out not to be favourable.

JLP are the only significant shareholder in BMR. They can effectively control the company and the Kabwe project without having to take the group over. If they have to they can get an EGM to remove any BMR board members and appoint board members they want, as well as any board members for the important operating companies that control the operations at Kabwe. Jubilee already has the right to appoint the key senior manager for the Kabwe project as I understand matters. If an EGM is required there will be few if any BMR shareholders voting against the removal of their current directors Indeed after the non disclosure of the material information about the potential removal of the mining license, there should be automatic resignations of board members at BMR once the licence situation at BMR is resolved one way or the other.

Whilst some of the criticisms regularly made on this board are justified, those that relate to the strategy adopted at DCM are in my opinion way off the mark.The business rescue opportunity at ASA which enabled the company to get into chrome production was a god send. The nimble change in strategic direction has resulted in positive earnings from chrome quarter by quarter for very little initial investment, and the recent third party ROM ore deal has set the foundations for an extended project life not only in chrome earnings but PGM ones as well. The delay on the PGM production side means we should be able to have a larger and presumably more efficient PGM plant ( now looking at target PGM ozs of 10k to 15K p.a) increasing the returns from the PGM production. What would have happened if we had merrily gone down the original route of producing PGMs from the off? First of all we would have had to borrow something like an additional �4m at a rate of 20% p.a, when any spare cash available was being used to build and ramp up Hernic. The only way this could have been funded, was through placings and I hate to think what the critics here would have said about more dilution. The timing is now right for the investment in the PGM plant at DCM. The improving cash flow expected from both Hernic and DCM chrome, and the completion of the debt and interest payments on the Hernic borrowings, should enable the company to not only meet the interest payments without further dilution, but also meet a relatively short repayment period as well, before steady state production is achieved probably in the latter part of 2019. And maybe with luck we will be selling the PGMs at a much better price than what we would have been over the last couple of years as well.

atc40 just go to the brr media (www.brrmedia.co.uk) website and you will find it on the first page of their latest broadcasts.

What a business like webcast that was today. I thought Leon was impressive. No waffling, no ducking the difficult issues and thank goodness no silly promises or projections. He was absolutely on top of his brief..Let's hope that the webcasts in the future continue in this way and as has already been said, keep Colin and his blue sky visions away from talking to shareholders through this medium. In the latter part of April I am looking forward to see how the two producing projects have improved their earnings during the 1st quarter 2018, and if the Kabwe appeal outcome has been favourable by then, the unbelievable and in my opinion over the top negative sentiment impacting the share price at present should start to turn for the better.

Sorry for typo. The debt interest cash cost in the 2nd half of 2017 was �204,000.

�204 of the negative operational cash flow in the 2nd half of 2017 was presumably the interest cost on the Hernic debt. Hopefully the remaining debt has been gradually reduced throughout the 1st quarter 2018, and if all of the debt is repaid by the end of March as indicated by Leon, the interest cost will be less than a �100K during the 1st half of 2018. There was also a �383K cash operational cost not accounted for in the project earnings. Anyone know what that was for? My best guess it was the cost of developments at DCM to enable efficient processing of the 3rd party ROM ore, which is to be capitalised in the accounts.

It is quite correct that in the 2nd 6 months of 2017, there was a negative cash flow for the operations of �579K. But why was that so when there were positive earnings reported for the two operational projects? The main reason is that the expenses of running the operations, especially at Hernic, have to be paid much earlier than the revenue being received. So during a ramp up period like we had at Hernic cash has to be used as the working capital needed increases. This is clearly what has happened here as around �2m in cash was consumed in working capital. If Hernic had been operating at the same level in the first half of 2017, and not being ramped up in the 2nd half of 2017, most of the additional �2m cash would not have been required for working capital and a positive cash flow from operations of around �1.4m would have been reported.