Member Info for JuniorLassonde

On the mineralisation plan https://galileoresources.com/projects-operations/luansobe-copper-project/ the open pit is well defined.

The green area is along strike from Mopani Mine. The probability of there being significant copper is therefore high in the green area IMO.

Note:

1. A 2008 legacy estimate by ZCCM for the open-pit (shallower) portion: approximately 5.5 million tonnes at 1.6% total Cu (TCu). This broadly aligns with Galileo's JORC (2012) Inferred Resource of ~5.8 Mt at 1% TCu (above 0.25% cut-off) for the open-pit amenable zone, containing ~56,000 tonnes of copper. "

2. A deeper potential resource reported by ZCCM Limited: 65 million tonnes at 2.37% Cu between depths of 100 m to 1,250 m. This is described as a historical/potential deeper zone, with parts tested by Galileo drilling to ~220 m, but much remains unconfirmed hence the drilling required.

The stated plan is to monetise the open pit, which pays for 2) and much more of course. Should 2 prove the ZCCM Ltd estimates then that is a seriously big number! I think the deal is more complex as the appetite for 2 will be high - an extension of Mopani.

Primary sources:Galileo Resources RNS announcements,

A. Mining licence issued for the Luansobe Copper Project" (29 May 2024), which explicitly mentions the 2008 ZCCM open-pit estimate of 5.5 Mt @ 1.6% TCu. "A legacy estimate completed by ZCCM in 2008 disclosed an open pit resource estimate of 5.5 million tonnes at 1.6%TCu. The details of the estimate are unknown but broadly agrees with the findings of this study."

B. Galileo's project page and related updates (e.g., February 2023 resource announcement context), referencing the deeper 65 Mt @ 2.37% Cu potential from ZCCM Limited. "Further, ZCCM Limited reported potential for a deeper resource at Luansobe consisting 65 million tonnes @ 2.37% Cu between 100m to 1,250m depth, parts of this resource have been tested by Galileo to a depth of 220m, but the deepest known mineralisation intersected in a small number of historic holes drilled by ZCCM Limited remains to be tested."

Come on Luansobe!

I agree DC. Galileo's Western Foreland license aligns to the map's western section, and the geological domain that extends into northwestern Zambia from the DRC. It's positioned near or west of the Domes Region (including the Solwezi Dome) and major mines like Lumwana and Sentinel, placing it along the planned Lobito Corridor extension for potential copper evacuation to Angola's Atlantic coast. The area is prospective for Kamoa-Kakula-style deposits, given its proximity to the DRC border (about 160 km from Kamoa). It's a great postcode for obvious reasons.

This makes Galileo's Western Foreland license central to the US-China competition illustrated on the map, as new discoveries could favour the faster Lobito route over the longer eastern one.Galileo also holds the nearby Shinganda Copper-Gold Project in northwestern Zambia (about 30 km east of Kasempa), which similarly fits in the map's northwestern Domes Region and could tie into the Lobito Corridor.

Overall, the youtube map's includes Western Foreland licenses as part of emerging supply areas, while Luansobe represents the established eastern Copperbelt that both corridors aim to serve. All good. Note: The Sentinel Mine was developed from the Kiwara Resources License that CB sold back in the day.

In the meantime, come on Luansobe, Shinganda, Kalahari, Kashi*u, Kamativi, Ferber. Let's see those deals come in.

Definitely worth a listen for read through reasons: https://youtu.be/hNEZsjMw4EY

Between three and ten - depending on which deal drops first. Incremental bags as each deal drops. Maybe more..

Plenty of assymetrical upside when the assets get the market recognition they deserve.

There is a positive correlation between higher positive sentiment and a higher multiple in market cap. I believe a few extra bags brought about by positivity would be beneficial for everyone for lots of different reasons. 10 bagger target. Let’s see how close we can get to it.

There are several junior companies that have multi-bagged siginicantly in the last 12 months. Some are associated with CB. Yet I think we have much better assets. One I was thinking of dumping a lot of extra ££ into - but stayed here - so the opportunity cost of not doing so has been great! That's life, my decision and all that. The question is what is preventing Galileo also Multi-Bagging significantly, what can be incrementally fixed to improve perception on the great assets that GLR has?

There are several key parts to improving outcomes for all of us. We all know GLR PR is very poor - and I have contacted the execs several times to suggest improvements. The website is much better than it was, but there are things that are now very out of date which with simple housekeeping could be kept up to date, and new and current investors would be working off better information.

Why has the Kalahari licenses which Sandfire purchased, been removed from the website, but on which we have a retained interest should JORC delivery result in certain criteria being met for an up to $80m bonus. Those licenses need to be shown. I know PL253, PL039, PL040 : https://galileoresources.com/projects-operations/kalahari-copper-belt-project/ are fantastic, incredibly well located etc - but I want to see the other Sandfire ones listed as this is material information IMO.

The use of the Roast guys is now very tired. An incremental improvement would be to go with a different provider, or have an additional GLR exec or GLR stakeholder on the Roast podcast. When the Cooper Lemon guys were on a podcast that was useful but a follow up is required - the dates they alluded too have been missed - why? The NEDS - I would change several of them - and add in a Cooper Lemon NED into the mix instead, given the strong focus on Zambia. I think that would be more productive than the PR NED who appears invisible.

As for the Zimbabwe assets - the license was re-applied for two years ago? Is there an issue? Is that preventing a Kamativi deal?

Plenty to play for - and the large mult-bagger is more than achievable - but I want to see it ASAP! :-)

I think everyone has a part to play in improving things, no matter how small etc.

Let’s have a good day, then week, then month, then year. Simple steps.

I suggest you re-read my posts today Funky. Not sure on your response.

The disconnect is clear: GLR has a rock-solid portfolio of assets, yet sentiment keeps the share price depressed despite some solid updates. The common ground most of us share is that management needs to tackle governance and IR issues head-on - better communication in terms of content, and timeliness etc. to benefit everyone, while also pushing to unlock and promote the assets we hold. When those align — stronger oversight + real steps like Molefe cash flow building, potential near-term Luansobe deals (third-party talks advancing), Ka$hitu etc re-rating could be quick and strong.

Anyone with a position here has a classic asymmetric opportunity IMO if the story gains traction—many believe it will. I am confident it will. I contacted the Execs yesterday requesting updates on the website, the presentation (not everyone reads through a series of RNS), and to focus the updates on the early cash monetisation and deal potential as that is what I am most interested in. CB does read this board - but a pincer movement is required - send respectful but clear and unequivocal messages via this board, and directly to Galileo. All IMO etc.

Hi RodneyT, thanks.

I am likely more optimistic on timelines because we have several assets all ripe for a monetisation event. If we had only one then that would be different, but with three approved small scale mining licenses - two Luansobe and one Ka$hitu, two artisanal mining licenses being applied for on Shinganda (probably open pit potential) I do expect something to kick in soon. The 5 months estimate for a deal of some sorts on Luansobe has not transpired - just yet IMO - but there are many options on that license that would be worth a good multiple of current market cap when/if they happen. In a Bull market more bidders come along - maybe that is what is happening here - more competitive tension for assets? Either way, shareholders need more transparency from execs where permissable by the market, to improve their belief in what the company can achieve.

Several posts with valid points. Chri5p has pointed out that Galileo has several assets which are excellent and were negotiated by management. Hats off to them for that. RodneyT has pointed out 'significant corporate governance issues here' which I also think is a valid point. We have the assets, we need an improvement in how they are seen to be governed for shareholders benefit. Investor relations has been poor for way too long, even with an additional NED on the board who presumably has experience in that space. To date we have seen nothing from the NED that hints at influence from that NED resulting in improvements. There is a high probability that negotiations are ongoing for one or more assets. I doubt anyone saw Molefe - a producing asset - in the mix that will eventually results in £incoming to GLR. And none of Molefe potential (look it up) is reflected in the SP. It is possible that Luansobe open pit becomes a spoke for the JLP hub and spoke model - again serious £ incoming were that to occur. Luansobe has the deeps and huge blue sky potential next door to Mopani so I expect any deal on Luansobe will want a retained interest in that potential. There are several other assets - which makes GLR one of the best Juniors on AIM as well as ASX etc. The SP is languishing because sentiment is low - there are reasons for that. Attracting more investors to the fantastic assets that GLR has is important - that's what promotion is about - and it requires management to promote better, and shareholders to reward that promotion with improved sentiment. Anyone who thinks or claims sentiment is not important on AIM has an agenda IMO. Meanwhile, accumulating when sentiment is low is a good choice IMO. Things can turn quickly.

here's a quick reminder of the key projects and their proximity to monetisation/production as of early 2026:

1. luansobe copper project (zambia, 75% ownership).

this is the most advanced near-term asset. it has a jorc-compliant resource, a small-scale mining licence already awarded, and advanced scoping studies completed in mid-2024. the company is negotiating collaborative agreements with third-party contractors and anticipates rapid progression to open-pit production, followed by further drilling for longer-term underground potential. it's accelerating towards near-term copper production — one of the closest to monetisation in the portfolio.

2. molefe copper project (zambia)

galileo entered a collaboration agreement with jubilee metals group in november 2025, with rights to earn up to 23.75% by funding exploration. initial resource drilling has been completed (results pending lab assays as of early 2026), and early results have been encouraging. the mine is already operating (producing ore at ~3,500–4,500 tpm of +2% cu, targeting ramp-up to 8,500 tpm), with plans for on-site processing, pit expansion, and further development. this partnership fast-tracks progress, putting it on a path to expanded production and revenue in the near term.

3. ferber property (nevada, usa, 100% owned)

recent phase 1 exploration (with bronco creek exploration) has identified four priority drill targets over a 20km² area, focusing on skarn-hosted and porphyry-style mineralisation (similar to nearby major trends). permitting and contractor prep are underway, with reconnaissance drilling (~3,000m in up to 8 holes) planned for the first half of 2026. this is earlier-stage exploration — promising but further from monetisation, with drilling key to next steps.

other assets include shinganda copper-gold (zambia, prospective for iocg-style mineralisation with drilling history - with two small scale artisanal mining license applications in play - mentioned briefly in a recent podcast), ka****u zinc (zambia, plans for shallow open-pit development of supergene material - and a small scale mining license approved), and various exploration interests (e.g., lithium/gold in zimbabwe, kalahari copperbelt (great positions) in botswana) and nw foreland. these remain more exploratory.

overall, luansobe and molefe stand out as the nearest to generating revenue through production, leveraging existing licences, partnerships, and operational momentum in a strong copper region. ka$hitu and shinganda could provide some monetisation aspects - we shall see.

a few increaseed holdings tr1 would likely spark interest. either way - accumulate while others appear to be practicing a form of self-sabotage is a good strategy :-) imo.

China : https://x.com/marketplunger1/status/2028624260940357779

Alternatiely,

Strategic engagement with multiple potential partners (via farm-ins, joint ventures, earn-ins, or asset sales) combined with a willingness to walk away from suboptimal ones is not “stringing along.” It is a core, value-protecting tactic that often strengthens a company’s position, credibility, and long-term attractiveness in a high-risk sector.

In mining negotiations, a demonstrated BATNA (best alternative) commands respect:Serious counterparties (majors or funded strategics) come in with stronger initial offers to avoid being shopped. It signals confidence in the asset base (“If Galileo walks, the project must need real work—or they have better options”). The mining community—while networked via Johannesburg, Lusaka, and London conferences—is global and pragmatic. New capital (private equity, battery-metal funds, Asian players) enters constantly. One or two walked deals don’t “dry up prospects” when the underlying projects are strong e.g, small-scale mining licences). Contrast: A CEO who never walks risks value destruction (accepting punitive terms or funding dead projects) and gets labelled weak or desperate—far more damaging for future fundraising and partnerships.

Serious players don’t “go elsewhere” en masse; they compete harder, and the best opportunities still flow to disciplined operators with advancing projects. Prospects improve, not diminish, when the CEO is seen as a tough but fair value maximiser.

And

In short, on AIM, share prices are often sentiment-led due to the market's small-cap, high-risk profile. Fundamentals matter over the long term, but short- to medium-term moves are frequently dominated by how investors feel about the story, the sector, or the broader risk environment. This makes AIM exciting for speculative plays but demands caution, as sentiment can reverse quickly.

Therefore my conclusion is that those that do not understand this simple fact, and focus on negative rather than positive aspects need to have a long think on how they can improve the sentiment on the companies prospects. I expect a negative pile on response in 3, 2, 1 ....

Key Reasons Sentiment Drives AIM Share Prices

High volatility and low liquidity — AIM stocks often have smaller market caps (many under £100 million), thinner trading volumes, and fewer institutional buyers. This means even moderate shifts in investor mood can cause sharp price swings. Positive buzz (e.g., from news, broker notes, or sector trends) can drive rapid rallies, while negative sentiment (e.g., rumors, macro fears, or sector sell-offs) leads to quick drops or prolonged underperformance.

Retail and speculative trading — A large portion of AIM activity comes from retail investors, who are more sentiment-driven than fundamentals-focused institutions. Excitement around growth stories, emerging sectors (e.g., biotech, mining, tech), or perceived "hidden gems" can inflate prices beyond fundamentals. Conversely, fear or loss of interest causes liquidity to dry up and prices to plummet.

Limited analyst coverage and information — Many AIM companies receive little formal research coverage, so prices are heavily influenced by news flow, bulletin board chatter, social media, or investor forums. Manipulative rumors or sudden positive announcements (e.g., deals, trial results) can have outsized effects.

Broader market characteristics — AIM has historically been more sensitive to overall investor risk appetite. In risk-off periods (e.g., rising interest rates, economic uncertainty), AIM underperforms sharply as investors flee smaller, riskier names. Recent analyses note AIM has often traded at deep discounts to historical averages, partly due to poor sentiment, with recovery tied to improving confidence rather than just company fundamentals.

1. Ultimate Upside Analog – Battle Mountain District (Phoenix / Fortitude / Copper Canyon) – Nevada Gold Mines (Barrick/Newmont JV)Location: Lander County, central Nevada (Battle Mountain-Eureka trend).

a) Geology: Eocene (38–39 Ma) porphyry Cu-Au-Mo system with extensive skarn (proximal Cu-Au skarn → distal Au skarn like Fortitude and Tomboy-Minnie).

b) Carbonate domes and fault-controlled replacement exactly like Ferber’s described setting.

c) Scale & History: Started as small historic Cu-Au mines (like Ferber’s Martha Washington). Evolved into a multi-million-oz Au + significant Cu system. Phoenix currently produces ~240 koz Au/year from skarn-hosted polymetallic replacement + porphyry halo.

Key Intercepts/Production: Fortitude skarn: original reserves ~16 Mt @ ~0.15 oz/t Au (millions of oz total). District historic + modern: hundreds of millions lbs Cu + >3–4 Moz Au from skarn zones.

d) Why Directly Comparable: The RNS explicitly calls out the Eocene age match to Battle Mountain. Ferber is a smaller, underexplored “sleeper” version in the same metallogenic belt (northeast extension). Success here would mirror how small historic showings became a Tier-1 operation.

e) Implication for Ferber: If reconnaissance drilling hits wide Cu-Au skarn or porphyry stockwork, re-rating could be dramatic (similar discoveries have 5–20x moves for juniors before acquisition or JV).

2. High-Grade Skarn Resource Analog – Independence Gold Project (Battle Mountain Resources / Americas Gold Exploration JV)Location: Immediately adjacent to Phoenix mine, Lander County.

a) Geology: High-grade gold-rich skarn in Battle Formation carbonates (exact same host as Phoenix skarn), with overlying epithermal halo from Tertiary (Eocene-affinity) porphyritic intrusions. Skarn is contact-metasomatic replacement.

b) Resource (JORC, 2025): Skarn: 984.4 koz Au @ 6.67 g/t Au (high-grade, non-refractory, covers <1/3 of property, open in all directions).

Epithermal: 419.6 koz AuEq @ 0.4 g/t.

Total: 1.4 Moz AuEq.

c) Recent Work: Drilling confirming extensions; rock chips up to 16.6 g/t Au outside resource.

d) Why Comparable: Same carbonate-intrusive contact skarn setting, same district as the “giant” Battle Mountain analog, intrusion-driven. Ferber’s polymetallic nature adds Cu upside that Independence lacks, but the skarn scale shows what modern targeting can unlock quickly.

e) Implication: A modest hit at Ferber (e.g. 20–50 m @ 0.5–1% Cu + 0.5–2 g/t Au) could justify a similar resource pathway and attract majors (Independence is still JV-held, not yet in production).

A license share - increasing GLR % in a larger extended Molefe license area in exchange for JLP getting a % of both Luansobe licenses with the massive upside it contains, and providing the heavy lifting and monetisation on a Luansobe spoke, could be an interesting agreement. Point is, many ways to skin any negotiation for a win:win without merging.

UBS: https://x.com/CopperBullish/status/2027358112517070886