Member Info for JuniorLassonde

Levi, for all the (justified) frustration about pace, Luansobe open pit still has a clear strategic role: IMO it’s one of the most obvious candidates to become a spoke feeding higher‑grade material into the Sable hub over time or another processing unit - copper oxide etc. given the price of copper. The geology is known, and it fits the “multiple sources into a central plant” model that Sable is being built around - and presumably other hubs in the region.

Where I’m also optimistic is on the optimisation side. With sensible ore‑sorting and mine planning, you don’t need to ship every tonne of rock to Sable (or elsewhere) – you focus on upgrading what you send so that the run‑of‑mine feed grade into the hub improves. That kind of pre‑concentration can makes a big difference to the economics, even at relatively modest tonnages. We would own the lions share of that asset. Maybe JLP will even buy into Luansobe from the Molefe FCF - I can see a share of the wider Molefe district for a share of Luansobe swap. Maybe. That would be massive.

So, the way I see it is Luansobe just needs to be developed intelligently as one of several reliable spokes, with ore‑sorting and grade control used to make its contribution to Sable or a.n.other hub.

PR is poor as we know - and that is why we are unaware of the progress and thinking going on behind the scenes - but PR do as their told and that is CBs responsibility to resolve.

Levi - a small percentage - 23.75% - of a potentially very big monetised pie. That's the way I see it. We own 75% Luansobe.

MM - the debate for me is about being hard nosed on the decisions from here onwards. I see great assets, monetisation on a large pie :-) , and saleable assets.

To be fair Levi, JLP has an investor lined up with $1.5m, and a further $10.0 m ringfenced for Molefe. That is great independent validation from an industry expert who has helped grow a small company into a Mid Tier in South America. The investor will have shares in JLP if it passes an EGM, whereas we will have 23.75% of the Molefe asset that the money is going into - nice for GLR. The Phase 2 results, and potential is worth a serious multiple of the current market cap - other assets are equally attractive. We need an update from CB to calm the horses :-)

MM, many LTHs will also have sold out many moons ago or averaged down. 7.38p - I would be happy with that, and it is achievable IMO.

Next week I reckon.

Some good Buys this morning. Ready to turn Blue again with just a few more.

Forest, I am voting Yes. There are far more positives than negatives. The JLP:GLR JV is working. An experienced, highly successful industry investor is now coming in. Discussion is over on the vote topic for reasons I have outlined previously. All good. I am now looking forward to reviewing the Molefe presentation which should arrive soon.

I don’t think it’s right to say what happens now “doesn’t matter” or that Molefe funding is just gambling. Molefe is not some vague future concept – it’s a defined project, tied into Sable, with a partner already earning in and a clear intent to turn it into a meaningful feed source. The structure and pricing of any capital going into this asset will directly affect how much of that future cash flow ends up with existing shareholders versus being given away.

If Jubilee takes money on poor terms, with loose wording around Molefe and no clear milestones, then yes – that’s destructive and deserves to be called out. But if they secure project‑linked funding on sensible terms, ring‑fenced to accelerating Molefe’s drilling, mine development and connection to Sable, that is not “irrelevant”, even if the share price doesn’t immediately re‑rate. It brings forward production, de‑risks the asset and increases the chance that Molefe actually becomes the Pillar 2 cornerstone copper story people have been waiting for.

So the real issue here isn’t “capital raise = bad” or “nothing will change for 12 months”. It’s whether any money raised now is tightly structured around Molefe, with clear deliverables and transparency, so that when the asset does step up, the benefit flows through to the people who are already carrying the risk.

Fourteen trades and about 3.8m shares changing hands is noticeable, but not especially heavy in the context of how this usually trades. The price reaction is positive, so there is clearly some buying, but overall volume doesn’t yet scream “stampede”. That said, the single 2m buy is interesting – it suggests at least one account is prepared to take a meaningful line ahead of the Molefe presentation, perhaps on the assumption the Molefe presentation could land as soon as next week? If that deck delivers and the copper backdrop stays supportive, that’s the sort of early positioning you often see before the shorter‑term money that’s just exited the other CB names starts looking for where it can try to bag again. As Einstein supposedly said, compounding is the most powerful force in the world – some investors clearly prefer to start that process before the crowd arrives rather than after. GLA.

I’m with you that the communication and reporting are a core part of the problem – without hard data on production, projects and costs the market is always going to default to a heavy discount. Where I’d disagree is on dilution being “irrelevant”. A potential 10%+ issue on weak terms very much does matter to anyone already holding, because it changes the value per share. If they raise at a (ongoing and increasing) sensible price, with funds ring‑fenced into value‑accretive projects such as Molefe and the Molefe district, that can help; if they dump cheap paper with a vague story, it destroys value.

That’s exactly why Molefe is so important. It’s one of the few, IMO, genuinely strong Pillar 2 stories in the portfolio – close to Sable, scalable, and with the potential to underpin a proper copper hub – but it only creates value for us if it’s funded on decent terms and explained properly to the market.

On disclosure, I completely agree we should be pushing for proper producer‑level reporting: production volumes, realised prices, AISC, capex and project milestones at least every half year, ideally quarterly. If management are serious about cost control, capital discipline and making the most of assets like Molefe, they should have no problem putting those numbers in black and white. If they won’t, then shareholders are entitled to question both the real state of the finances and whether the current team are the right people to run the asset base. Personally, I think JM-K is a key guy, straight shooter, for the job. He appears to be getting his ducks in a row. Any investor who pushes for this type of transparency is more than welcome.

Copper is screaming North: https://www.livecharts.co.uk/MarketCharts/copper.php

Everything is in place for a massive re-rate IMO.

Some chunky transactions going in. Nice to see.

HG. CY, that’s exactly how I see it as well – you’re positioned ahead of the next news not chasing it.

If the joint Molefe presentation does what it should, it will do two important things:

1. spell out the scale and phasing of Molefe in a way the market can actually model, and

2. make it much clearer how value is shared between GLR and JLP.

Once people can see tonnes, grade, capex and ramp‑up on a single slide deck, it becomes much harder to ignore how big Molefe is likely to be.

You’ve averaged in before that re‑framing, which is where the asymmetry is: limited downside at these levels if expectations stay muted, but real upside if the presentation credibly underlines that GLR’s carried interest and future cash flows are larger than the market is currently pricing in. IMO. All good.

Now bring on some asset Sales as well Colin and that will be an exceptional re-rate.

I agree the copper price backdrop makes the lack of visible progress at Luansobe even more frustrating. When the macro finally lines up, you want to see projects clearly moving through milestones, and right now the communication around that is nowhere near good enough.

For me there are two separate gaps. One is pure project delivery: getting permits, studies, funding and execution lined up in a disciplined way. The other is explaining that roadmap to shareholders in a timely, specific manner. Both are weak, and the silence just feeds the perception that nothing is happening.

That’s also where the PR side is really letting the company down. The underlying work may be inching forward, but if all the market sees is vague wording and long periods of nothing, it quite reasonably assumes drift rather than progress.

I’ve long thought the answer isn’t CB trying to be deal‑maker, project manager and front‑man all at once. He clearly has a knack for putting deals together, so let him focus on that. But alongside him they badly need a strong project delivery lead whose sole job is turning those deals into executable on‑time, on‑budget projects and reporting progress properly to the market – supported by a PR function that can communicate that story clearly and consistently.

Sirboring, There will be dilution at JLP PLC level rather than Asset Level. The funding is also for Molefe and Molefe district level funding. JLP does not yet have a district - those licenses - presumably under option - need to be bought. You are voting No. I am voting Yes. Simple as that.

Price per lb Price per metric tonne

$6.00 $13,228

$6.50 $14,330

$6.64 $14,639 - current Spot

$7.00 $15,432

Kalan,

I think it helps to separate three things that are getting blurred together here: the CB history, the current governance, and the specific economics of what Jubilee is now doing in Zambia.

Nobody who has been around a while is denying the track record of dilution, over‑promising and poor communication. That history is exactly why sentiment is so fragile and why people default to assuming the worst. It is a genuine risk factor and should sit in any serious investment thesis.

But it’s also a fact that CB is no longer on the board and hasn’t been for some time. The company today has a different chair, the same CEO, and a strategy that is now centred on Sable and Zambian copper rather than the old, sprawling South African story. That doesn’t wipe the slate clean, but it does mean it’s no longer accurate to analyse every current decision as if we were still in the CB era.

On that basis, your approach of trading the sentiment and chart rather than trusting the company is perfectly valid if you’ve concluded the equity is structurally uninvestable long term. Where I part company is that I think individual moves – like securing capital for greater Molefe – are still worth judging on their own terms: does this funding accelerate drilling and development, are the terms proportionate to the risk, and does it strengthen the Sable‑centred copper district case.

You can acknowledge many years of scars and still hold two thoughts at once: governance and communication have been poor, and some of the current, asset‑backed decisions in Zambia may nevertheless be rational and value‑accretive. Whether someone chooses to just trade the volatility or to back the longer‑term copper story is up to them, but it seems more constructive to critique what Jubilee is doing now rather than relitigating CB every time.

Chatmandu

let’s at least stick to what’s actually been said.

In this case Jubilee hasn’t waved around some anonymous “Tier 1 partner” – they’ve described an investor team linked to the build‑out of Mantos Copper and the merger into Capstone Copper, i.e. people with a very real track record of scaling copper assets. That’s a long way from generic PR about “strategic partners”.

You’re right the RNS stops short of naming the counterparty outright, and investors should always be cautious when full names aren’t used. But equally, it’s not credible to dismiss this as pure marketing fluff when there is a clear pointer to a specific class of investor with known history in the copper space with £.

If you want to argue against the deal, do it on the real questions – valuation, terms, alternatives, governance – not by pretending that an identifiable copper growth team with money on the line is just some made‑up badge of external validation.

Sirboring.

A direct Molefe carve‑out wouldn’t be “no dilution”, it would just shift the dilution from the share count into Molefe itself – JLP would own less of the mine, permanently. If you genuinely believe Molefe is going to be “worth an incredible amount”, giving away a big project chunk too early could cost more than issuing a controlled amount of equity to fund it properly.

The CLN structure keeps Molefe in JLP, ring‑fences the cash for the greater Molefe area, and aligns the investor’s upside with the district thesis rather than a single‑pit coupon. You can still vote however you like, but let’s at least be honest that the alternative you’re pitching isn’t magic “no dilution”, it’s just a different – and arguably worse – type of dilution.

Correct NS. And the % the new investor will get in JLP - subject to vote - is in JLP itself - not the JV asset.