Member Info for JuniorLassonde

Good post NS..

Molefe is much more than a JORC resource story; it is an operating template. The Phase 1 expansion and infill drilling confirmed shallow, high-grade oxide mineralisation suitable for Sable, while Phase 2 drilling is already under way with Galileo to extend the eastern strike and support a formal resource estimate - the latter I am not particularly fussed about to be honest. Project G is the cookie-cutter replication of that model: an already operating open-pit asset, majority controlled by Jubilee, ramping over six months toward 3,000 tpm pre-concentrate and potentially 20,000–25,000 tpm ROM through further drilling and on-site upgrading. The real value is portfolio repeatability: if Molefe proves the geology, mine plan and Sable integration model, and Project G repeats it, then each additional JV/open-pit opportunity becomes less speculative and more like another modular feed source for the same copper hub. The ability execute robustly on Pillar 2, and the $$ are what will count. The JV looks strong and appears to be delivering. There appears to be a sense of urgency about it which is great to see. Both companies will benefit enormously if it is executed efficiently.

Why spend money on a JORC?

They are already in production, do not need to raise funds to mine (which would require a JORC), and they are getting it done with the JV.

They are expanding East through phase 2, and looking at the Geophysical anomalies map they will likely head south East - in the direction of the Chinese Mine - post Phase 2. All good as far as I can see.

There are plenty of companies with a JORC but no mining plan or production and no means of getting into production. A JORC might help a tad, but the real acid test is how much $$ the mining plan is expected to bring in etc etc

The question I would put to management before they show the presentation is alonng the lines of

Given Molefe already has a published mine plan, active mining and copper being delivered to Sable, could you please show one slide that links the next 12–18 months of Molefe ore tonnages, grades and contained copper to your group copper guidance, so investors can see near‑term production growth . And as part of that, can you confirm that the Molefe mine plan and existing operations underpin a path to at least 4–5 ktpa of copper within the current funding envelope, and commit to updating that slide each results period so we can track delivery against the plan?

The Phase 1 drilling results RNS (24 March 2026) states: “The updated expanded mine plan, incorporating the latest drill results and developed in partnership with Galileo, is expected to be published on the Company's website within the coming three weeks.” Counting three weeks from 24 March points to mid‑April 2026 (around 14 April), so by then, shareholders should reasonably expect to see the full updated mine plan document online, unless the company later issues a delay/update. Molefe has already been mined and is feeding Sable: Q1–Q2 FY26 show 181,890 tonnes of copper reef mined and 9,130 tonnes dispatched to Sable, with 1,543 tonnes of saleable copper units produced in H1, up 8.7% year‑on‑year.

A JORC resource will add another level of confidence. Agreed. But they have a defined pit, I would expect a a 12‑month mine plan with waste/ore schedule, current production data, and a stated ramp to 60 kt/quarter of ore and >15 kt/month to Sable. If management can’t show on one slide how Molefe’s mine plan takes us from current H1 copper to, say, 4–5 ktpa in the next 12–18 months, then the criticism is valid – but that’s exactly what we should be insisting they present. The mine plan is far more than a JORC.

BHP Return: https://www.africaintelligence.com/southern-africa-and-islands/2026/04/07/mining-giant-bhp-prepares-for-return-to-southern-africa,110698839-art

On a positive note, https://www.livecharts.co.uk/MarketCharts/copper.php and with Molefe et al Pillar 2 Projects ramping up, the pillar 2 2trategy looks to be a very strong financial pillar.

Great post Shuvlin.

$12,300 per tonne spot, great for -GLR’s Molefe interest.

I agree BU, he’s a decent guy for sure. Answers queries, is helpful and a good sense of humour. Molefe, its expansion, plus additional JVs likely with GLR will drive a massive rerate IMO.

Bloomberg and analysts at Sightline Climate have said that nearly half (estimates range 30-50%) of the US data centres planned to come online in 2026 are facing delays or cancellation. Main culprits are shortages of critical electrical gear (transformers, switchgear, batteries) needed for both the centres and grid upgrades, plus power constraints and some local opposition. Copper price looking good. https://www.livecharts.co.uk/MarketCharts/copper.php

Fair points on not pinning everything on the US/Trump — external shocks like tariff volatility and broader metals market jitters can amplify problems, but they rarely create deep structural weaknesses on their own. JLP's move looks like a classic 'fire sale to survive and pivot': they offloaded the South African chrome/PGM ops (which carried heavy debt) and used the proceeds to clean up the balance sheet and double down on Zambian copper (good in my opinon). That's now left them with a net cash position, lower gearing, and a sharper focus on copper expansion at places like Roan, Sable, and the Molefe mine ramp-up (which they're pushing to quadruple output in phases). The one off - extraordinary - costs mentioned in the presentation are now done, and the streamlined asset base and deferred consideration from the SA disposal do give them more breathing room than before. Fingers crossed they execute the Molefe expansion cleanly - for me this is the one that could really change the game completely for JLP and GLR.

Ammunition uses a lot of copper. Re-building requires a lot of copper. The AI requirement for copper is accelerating.

Thanks for the link. I am looking forward to the Molefe presentation ! :-)

Is there a link BU to the presentation ?

BU, the plan target has moved significantly upwards to 60,000 t per quarter within the next 12m , and with on site ROM ore sorting, grades will be very good IMO and Sable will, even then, still have sigfnificant spare capacity to take more - which is good news for Molefe , Project G et al. The bluesky potential within the license, and other collaboration ventures (not a done deal but why change a winning formula) could be the rocket that is required for both parties in the JV. I feel this is certainly a game changer for GLR given its low market cap once the engine revvs up which should not be long.

Harmprof, on the first part, it’s probably not quite right to assume management want to “systematically exhaust” all near‑surface oxides before they even think about drilling deeper. The pattern across Molefe / Project G / wider Zambia as far as I can tell is:

1. Near‑surface high grade oxides and shallow open‑pit tonnes are the immediate focus because they feed Sable quickly, at relatively low capex and with good margins. Project G is likely similar and given the headroom at Sable I would expect increases in tonnage over the recent targets announced.

2. Deeper potential (including sulphides) is likley being scoped in parallel where results justify it, so that any larger system at depth can be built into future mine plans rather than only being looked at once oxides are gone.

3. So a more accurate read is: fast‑track the shallow oxides into production to underpin cash flow and Sable feed, while doing enough deeper work to understand what’s sitting underneath and how it might be sequenced later.

On the second question, nothing public I have seen so far at least says “we will definitely sell or JV any sulphides”, but the strategy is very clearly built around low‑CAPEX, surface‑accessible material and integrated processing rather than becoming a capital‑heavy underground miner. If a sizeable deeper sulphide position does emerge, the logical options would be things like:

a. bring in a partner/operator with the right underground skill‑set on a JV basis,

b. farm out part of the project in return for a carried interest, or

c. structure some other deal that lets JLP keep exposure without taking on all the development risk.

In other words, oxides and shallow open pits are the core near‑ to medium‑term business, that plays to the JV strengths, and any big underground piece would most likely be done with a specialist rather than JLP trying to turn itself into something completely differentn

Given the network that the likes of CB et al have built in Zambia I would think it's reasonable to assume there are other projects in discussion. How many spokes does it take to become a very large operator? It looks like a very good JV to me. All IMO of course.

Hi, stockpiling lower grade whilst they push higher ore sorted grades through to Sable results in more copper units produced per month, and in turn more $$. Pillar 2 will work. Eventually that lower grade stuff, might be blended and if economical will also be pushed through to Sable. It’s standard procedure.

The other two pillars I am not convinced on. Maybe the plan will pivot more to Pillar 2.

You are answering your own questions in your own way. I’ll leave you to it.