Member Info for JuniorLassonde

There have been a lot of patient investors on this board. Frustrations are bound to happen when there is a news vacuum. There should not be a news vacuum with the assets that GLR has. It's PR 101. I have continued to accumulate below 1p but have also been holding my nose while doing so. The PR team is not a PR team with the capabilities that shareolders require. Nevertheless the assets look great on paper and CB has done well on getting them. Several mining licenses exist, and Molefe will be a cash cow at some point. Colin - please provide an update.

All the Best HD. Good luck with your future endeavours and retirement. Have a good one.

Copper breakout: https://x.com/wmiddelkoop/status/2058979464244015597

LME: https://x.com/robert_ivanhoe/status/2058973013027033510

Https://x.com/hedgehogtrader/status/2057789722693448185

Https://x.com/wmiddelkoop/status/2057907188899918270

$14, 100 per tonne

SBoring, I share the frustration on missed timelines and the constant “nearly there” messaging, but a lot of what you’ve written doesn’t stack up.

First, Leon didn’t just “buy tailings with no idea how to extract them”. The whole Zambia strategy from day one has been: Roan as a concentrator, Sable as the refinery, and the big tailings/waste packages as a separate Large Waste Project. They’ve spent years doing tailings test work and pilot‑scale circuits and are now into larger‑scale trials and commercial discussions. The real issue is that the economics and engineering are a lot more complex than they sold to the market, so it’s taken longer and more capex, not that there’s “no idea” how to extract value.

Second, “at $9k it was profitable but at $12k we’re still not cash‑flow positive” is a misunderstanding of where the business is in its life cycle. Copper production has only recently ramped to anything meaningful, and you’ve still got heavy fixed costs, interest and residual build‑out sitting on top of the operating margin. That’s why you can see improving copper numbers but still not get the clean, free‑cash‑flow story everyone wants. It’s not a binary “can’t make money at $12k”, it’s that we’re not yet at a steady‑state volume where the metal price fully drops through.

On Leon’s “risk”, his personal equity stake is tiny – a fraction of a percent – so most of his economics are salary, bonuses and incentives, not the same equity exposure as retail. That’s a perfectly valid concern about alignment. Where I’d disagree is the leap from “poor alignment and execution” to “LWP is stillborn and they should just flog the dumps”. Those big tailings/waste rights are the core bargaining chip for offtakes, JVs and funding structures; selling them outright at a weak point would be value‑destructive. Monetising non‑core tailings or slices of the package makes more sense than a firesale of the whole lot.

As for “they will definitely issue more shares”, dilution risk is always there in a junior, but it’s not a guaranteed outcome every time they hit a bump. They’ve already raised and sold assets to fund the build. Whether they go back to the market depends on how well they execute from here and what sort of partner/funding deals they manage to secure off the back of the waste/tailings platform.

On message deletions: only the site admins know what’s being pulled and why, but given how this board behaves, it’s at least as likely to be moderation for T&Cs as some grand plot to protect Leon’s reputation.

I know I can be pedantic. Spectrum city.

1. "Nobody knows until the company updates us." - True

2. "What we do know is that the hope to finalise deal by Feb fell through." - We know it has been missed, but we do not know if the deal in total has fallen through - but to take your point, that requires 1. to be fulfilled by the company.

Either way, updates are long overdue. For those who do not require them should not mind if an update is forthcoming.

Copper price is looking strong. I think a strong base is being formed.

Posted on JLP board by BU - good news. Nothing will stop the Molefe JV train :-)

Zambia’s Commerce, Trade and Industry Minister Chipoka Mulenga told Reuters on Thursday that the government has authorised Chambishi Copper Smelter and Mopani Copper Mines to resume sulphuric acid shipments after local stocks recovered.

They will export a “limited quantity to ensure the local market does not suffer,” Mulenga said, without specifying volumes.

The minister said Zambia could widen export permissions if supply conditions continue to improve.

P.S the filter button works.

As expected, it sounds like deflection from NTGU. I'll leave you to it.

NTGU - can you show your sums why you think the company is 3 years away from meaningul production. Genune question.

From a GLR perspective, Molefe represents a [cheap] leveraged option value on a potentially material copper asset, without GLR carrying the full capital and operating burden of an operator. GLR’s exposure comes through its agreed economic interest and ongoing role in progressing the asset, so the main value drivers are the scale/quality of resource ultimately demonstrated, the robustness of any mine plan, and the economic terms attached to GLR’s participation.

The heavy lifting on pre‑stripping, pit development, mining and plant ramp‑up largely sits with JLP - the operator and is in progress - they appear to be making quick progress. If that work successfully de‑risks Molefe into a long‑life, cash‑generative operation, GLR benefits via its 23.75% interest and any associated cash‑flow streams, with far less capital at risk than an operator’s equity. That’s why the asymmetry on share price increase is interesting for GLR holders: relatively modest exploration and development spend today can translate into a large share of project value relative to our market capitalisation if the resource and economics stack up.

The good news is that JLP’s PR/IR function (Cath Drummond and team) is clearly switched on and will almost certainly be reading both this board and JLP’s own board on Molefe. I recommend you put your expectations here for the Molefe Presentation from a GLR perspective as this would go a long way towards helping GLR investors understand the scale and shape of our exposure.

Waiting for hard RNS numbers on Molefe/Sable will suit some risk profiles – at that point you’re paying for more certainty around actual delivered volumes and plant performance. Others will deliberately accept more project risk by entering earlier, on the basis that if the current development work translates into the copper production levels and capacity utilisation the company is targeting, the upside from these levels is likely to be more asymmetric than it will be once the market has a de‑risked RNS in front of it. Different psychology, same underlying assets, different risk profiles. Whatever approach you choose, good luck.

On Molefe, the current work is about enabling higher, more stable feed rather than headline spend. Overburden removal and pit merging (Pyts 2 and 3) are standard steps to unlock a larger ore envelope, and those costs are spread over many years of ore production. The key metrics to watch will be cost per tonne and cost per pound, not the absolute stripping spend or truck count.

On Sable and transport, the strategy is explicitly to move as much value‑added material as possible rather than low‑grade bulk, so minimising haul distances and sending product in a more finished state is exactly what improves the economics. In that context, the right questions are:

1, What is Sable running at today versus its designed nameplate?

2, How much debottlenecking or incremental upgrade is planned, and over what timeframe?

3. How will Molefe’s ramp‑up be sequenced against that existing headroom at Sable?

Those details will need to come from official updates and accounts, but the direction of travel is clear: maximise local upgrading, reduce logistics intensity, and use existing plant capacity (plus staged upgrades) to lift copper output. Waiting for the next formal RNS guidance is reasonable, but it does not mean there is no progress or that the current work is “speculation”; it is the necessary groundwork to move from concept into sustained production.

The Molefe ramp‑up is being sequenced into Sable’s existing and planned capacity envelope rather than assuming some unbuilt “blue sky” plant. Sable is a roughly 14–16 ktpa copper refinery by design, and that the Molefe/Roan ramp‑up is being phased within that envelope. If ramp up includes additonal spokes to the Sable Hub then of course an expansion of capacity will take place. BTW some people confuse ktpa copper with tonnes of ore going through Sable.

On waiting for the next RNS before acting / taking a position, this will be the preferred choice for some, according to their risk profile, while others will choose to position themselves in advance of any formal update. I continue to position ahead of RNSs based on my own research. DYOR.

And this is why the presentation for Molefe is important. I have not seen many voices saying what they would expect in that presentation which could help the JLP team ensure the presentation in June is sufficient for now. Pillar 2 will be a big driver of Free Cash Flow. I am looking forward to successful execution.

The strategy on what ore is sent straight to sable verses what is treated before sending verses what will be stockpiled for later processing is known. Pits 2 and 3 will soon be merged and execution will then begin on ramping up feed to Sable.

The free cash flow from the pits 1 and 2 merger and mining will support additional expansion as well as other things.

NTGU, yes, there is inflation, but Zambia is currently running around 6.8% annual CPI, back inside the central bank’s 6–8% target range, and the outlook is for sub‑7% on average in 2026 – that is a tightening, not an explosion in costs.

The plan at Molefe includes merging pits to increase mining capacity and improve efficiency, which allows higher volumes over largely fixed site costs (supervision, mine infrastructure, some equipment and overhead), as well as variable costs. As you merge and optimise pits (2 and 3 for starters), you lift run‑of‑mine tonnage through the same haul roads, workshops, offices, and much of the existing fleet. The fixed and semi‑fixed cost base (G&A, mine services, certain contractor minimums) is spread over more tonnes, driving unit mining cost per tonne down even if individual line items (diesel, spares, labour rates) creep up. Variable costs (fuel, explosives, tyres, some contractor charges) do rise with volume, but the blended effect is often lower cost per tonne and per pound because fixed cost dilution and better equipment utilisation more than offset the inflation on inputs.