Member Info for JuniorLassonde

Seisnav, I am happy to be clear about my position.

Yes, I’ve been positive on Galileo and on Molefe from early on, because I’ve always seen the value in a properly funded hub‑and‑spoke model around Sable. I actually wrote to CB several years back making exactly that point – that a hub‑and‑spoke model is the logical way forward for junior miners in Zambia. Whether he listened or not is another matter, but the logic still stands: it just makes sense.

If Jubilee spends money drilling out the Molefe area and that de‑risks tonnes on JV ground, then of course that’s good for GLR as well – I’ve never pretended otherwise. But that doesn’t make the argument “invalid”. In fact, it underlines the whole point:

A stronger, better‑defined Molefe - and potentially Molefe district is very good for JLP.

It’s potentially very good for GLR.

And it’s very good for anyone holding copper exposure in that part of Zambia.

Those interests are aligned, not in conflict.

On “ignoring everything else”: I’ve repeatedly said management should be pushed on communication, Large Waste, non‑core disposals, the overdraft, copper guidance and skin in the game. Those are legitimate governance issues. Where we might differ is that I don’t think historic irritation is a good reason to turn down ring‑fenced, project‑specific capital from a credible copper partner at exactly the point Molefe is ramping and starting to prove itself.

So yes, I like Molefe and I like the district potential – and that benefits both JLP and GLR. I’m not hiding that; I’m arguing that if you own either, trying to choke off funding to the one asset that can actually move the dial is not a great strategy.

Forest,

Let’s strip this back to the key points.

1. “We don’t need the cash.”

At group level there is cash. But this isn’t about plugging a hole – it’s specific project‑linked capital for Molefe/greater Molefe from a copper specialist who wants their money tied to drilling, licences and mine development. That’s not the same as dipping into a general pot you might want for other priorities.

2. “We don’t need to do this deal / we can wait.”

We never have to do any given deal. The question is whether it’s smart to turn down a credible, highly successful copper growth team willing to fund Molefe while it is already feeding Sable and the district upside is still being defined.

3. “We don’t know what Molefe is worth, or if this is the best option.”

By definition you never know the full value of a growth asset at this stage – that’s why a serious partner structures a small toe‑hold and staged follow‑on capital. A NO vote doesn’t magically summon a “better” partner; it just sends a signal that we are willing to stall or complicate the one relationship that has actually materialised.

4. “We don’t need Molefe developed instantly, we’re profitable and have £95m.”

No one is arguing for reckless speed. The point is to accelerate the ramp and de‑risk sooner – more drilling, faster pit integration, earlier free cash flow – using a mix of internal cash and targeted external funding. That preserves flexibility elsewhere and aligns a specialist investor’s upside directly with Molefe succeeding, rather than relying only on the existing balance sheet.

The live decision is about a US$1.5m ring‑fenced CLN with staged upside from a serious sector player, who will bring in specialised governance for the money they are putting at risk, and clearly have 'clout'. It's therefore no surprise to see me promoting the yes vote, I agree, for the reasons I have outlined previously. It's a done deal in any case :-)

Indeed GLR's time will come TheGhost. An update from the Galileo Team is required to help PIs understand what the future looks like, with the assets we have. It should not be too hard to do this.

Forest, a few counter points:

First, the 300m shares is a maximum authority, not an automatic “we will issue all of this tomorrow” decision. Every listed company keeps a buffer of headroom it may never fully use – that’s standard corporate plumbing, not a guarantee of 300m shares hitting the market.

Second, on the “real and serious risk” of being taken private cheaply while big holders secretly roll into a private vehicle – that is pure speculation. Could any company become the subject of a low‑ball bid? Yes. Does that risk somehow get removed by starving the main growth asset of project‑linked funding? No. If anything, you make a cheap bid more likely by capping growth and leaving Molefe under‑developed.

Third, we can’t have it both ways. A few weeks back the slogan was “vote NO to get Leon out”. Now it’s “vote YES to get Leon out”. It should be obvious that using every vote as a proxy war on LC misses the actual question in front of us: does Molefe/greater Molefe deserve properly structured capital to accelerate drilling, licences and mine development, or not?

Nobody is saying “trust management blindly”. People are saying:

1. there is a serious copper growth team prepared to put money at risk,

2. the funds are ring‑fenced for Molefe, and

3. Molefe is already mining and feeding Sable, with a chance to ramp and de‑risk faster.

If you want better governance, you push on board composition, communication, skin in the game and deal transparency. Using the mere existence of share authority – something every company needs – and unproven conspiracy theories about going private as reasons to block funding into the one asset that can actually change the valuation trajectory looks a lot less like protecting PIs and a lot more like voting against share price upside.

Julian: https://miningindaba.com/articles/investing-in-the-african-mining-sector

Nice: https://www.livecharts.co.uk/MarketCharts/copper.php

Wowzer: https://www.livecharts.co.uk/MarketCharts/copper.php

One point that keeps getting lost in the discussions is early monetisation.

Molefe isn’t just an exploration story - it’s already mining and feeding Sable, with a plan to ramp volumes and tighten the link between owned ore and refinery output. The new investor money is coming in at the point where the asset is already generating copper units, but before the full district and JORC picture is nailed down. That’s precisely the window where early monetisation and growth capital can do the most work.

The capital is ring‑fenced for Molefe and the greater Molefe area – more drilling, licence work and mine development – rather than disappearing into general corporate use. That aligns directly with the original idea of Molefe: a near‑surface, truckable ore source that can be monetised early through Sable while the resource and district case are built out in parallel.

By bringing in project‑linked funding from a seriously credible copper partner now, while Molefe is already mining and feeding Sable, we should be able to accelerate the ramp‑up (even more :-), reach higher run‑rates faster and pull forward the point at which Molefe is generating meaningful free cash flow. That is exactly what “early monetisation” is supposed to deliver – more copper and more cash, sooner, rather than waiting for a perfectly framed JORC document before we move.

I am looking forward to the Molefe presentation. A Jubilee led copper district in Zambia would be fantastic for all shareholders, and all parties involved.

I expect the Molefe presentation, given its increasing importanceto several key parties, to not require reading between the lines, but to cover off most of the points which are of interest, and speculation, by shareholders, and potential furture investors.

Forest,

I’m all for pushing the board on communication, skin in the game and delivery – that’s long overdue. But I think you’re drawing the wrong conclusion from that when it comes to Molefe.

The “300m shares” headline is a general authority limit, not an automatic issuance. The actual CLN we’re talking about is US$1.5m, ring‑fenced for Molefe, with a staged path up to US$10m if things go well. That’s targeted growth capital into the one asset that can realistically move the dial, not a blank cheque to spray stock around.

Re “there are many mining partners” sounds good in theory, but in practice only a handful of credible teams want to back small, near‑surface copper hubs in Zambia. When one of them steps up, takes a view on Molefe and is willing to put real money at risk at this stage, that is information. You don’t improve the deal by slamming the door and hoping an even kinder partner happens along later.

Yes – keep pressing on Large Waste, Sable, Project G, copper guidance and board shareholdings. Those are legitimate pressure points. But using historic frustrations as a reason to block Molefe‑specific funding from a proven copper growth team, when the capital is ring‑fenced and staged, looks a lot less like protecting value and a lot more like saying no to the one part of the business that could actually grow big enough to protect it.

John - the South African CEO - looking for 'district scale growth' in the Americas https://d2ghdaxqb194v2.cloudfront.net/2801/200058.pdf

And here we are. Molefe - district scale copper?

;-)

@sirboring re ‘I choose prove it and it can be done cashflow positively then expand.’

When you lose the vote, it would be best to reconsider your investment. Money talks, the investor is serious, has large and deep pockets, and the vote outcome has already been decided by those with the larger shareholding including Slater no doubt. Fast, hard, seeking significant cash flow will be the direction of travel.

If Molefe turns out to be a copper district - and that appears to be the direction of travel and probably why the new investor is coming on board, then Molefe alone is a game changer for JLP and GLR. Then there are the other GLR assets. Could be a huge rerate.

No, I’m just someone who can read an RNS without needing a tinfoil hat. In other words, no relationship, professional or social. Just a habit of checking the potential numbers and the strategy before reaching for the pitchfork. :-)

Sumo, valid concerns. The Molefe presentation should cover a lot, and I would expect will provide information on the reasons for this new serious investor supporting the potential copper district. Post this tranche of money I expect they will be buying shares at ever increasing SP as the asset develops.

Happydays43 - no offense - but I am filtering you. Bizarre logic I can do without seeing. All the best. Time to move forward not backwards.

So you would prefer Slater to sit on a loss than potentially get their money back because some other investor is taking a risk and investing into the Molefe asset which, with its significant cashflow, could drive cashflow into other JLP assets. I don't see your logic - so no point discussing it further. I wish Slater well - and I bet they will vote for the deal. 100%

And your point is that the investor might buy in cheaper than slater to help accelerate the Molefe copper district potential which means Slater’s investment will increase in value? I have an investment in both companies. There is an overlap with Molefe. The new investor has concluded that this could give them a good return and they have previously turned a small company into a multi-billion mid tier company. Sounds good to me.

The account Galileo use is shown on the website. It’s poor that they are not using it - but they are using CBs personal twitter account shown on the website.

NTGU it is definitely not that simple. For reasons best known to the investor, and those who have done sufficient due diligence, the investor has decided that Molefe is what it wants its money invested into. It’s their money. They choose. I expect slater will be happy with the new investor and its track record.