Member Info for JuniorLassonde

You are suggesting something. I want to see the Molefe results and the Molefe presentation.

"All we will receive is a drilling results from phase 2 before the presentation.". I am looking forward to the Phase 2 results. If they are as good as the Phase 1 results then that will be superb. It will be interesting to note if they are going for follow on activitites within the license, and outside the license areas. The merging of pits 2 and 3 which is well underway, and news on execution of the strategy will be beneficial to current and potential investors. The Molefe presentation is a key milestone and both parties in the JV will be keen to demonstrate progress - current and potential - which looks to have a keen sense of urgency about it.

I am more interested in Molefe, and your request will not be met.

It’s a specific Molefe presentation.

What should the presentation include Sumo?

Nevertogiveup. GLR is very unlikely to merge with JLP. It has many assets that have significant value - waiting on a trigger to re-rate - which is coming.

Zinc is looking very good. An update on Ka$hitu would be good - given open pit etc.

Molefe - that is a very good JV.

Kalahari - Cobre is now £62m market cap, Kavango £37m market cap. Both were much lower than GLR not that long ago.

Luansobe - an update would calm the horses...

We will get there.

The Kier Starmer joke - well I chuckled at that one :-) But don't start me on two-tier!

Looks like folks are taking advantage of the weaker hands earlier. Rising back.

Which Junior Miners Index are you referring to? I cannot find one that shows the stats you are comparing with.

The terms are clear:

1. Interest‑free unsecured convertible loan facility, total £600,000.

2. Three tranches of £200,000, with draw‑down windows in May, July and October 2026.

3. Fixed conversion price of 1.0p per share for each tranche, versus a share price of about 0.775p at the time of signing, so conversion is at a premium to the then market price.

4. One‑year term for each tranche, repayable 12 months after draw‑down if not converted.

5. Company can prepay, but must pay a 5% cash prepayment fee on any amount repaid early.

6. The lender gets an arrangement fee of 7% of the facility in shares and three‑year warrants with an exercise price of 1.25p, equal to 50% of each tranche drawn.

7. The lender has undertaken not to short GLR shares until at least six months after the third tranche drawdown and loan repaymen

The part about “engaging with obscure lenders” is a value judgment; the factual part (they are using a small specialist lender and not a large mining PE fund or major) is accurate, but the pejorative framing is opinion in my opinion :-)

The facility terms will have been taken from the transaction announcement, which sets out the headline commercial terms (amount, tranches, prices, fees, conversion mechanics, maturity, warrants, short‑selling undertaking)./ For UK‑listed companies on AIM, it is normal to disclose the material commercial terms of such a facility via RNS, not to publish the full underlying legal agreement. The RNS describing this funding appears to do that: it sets out the quantum, conversion price, warrant terms, fees and key conditions. Releasing the full legal agreement publicly is not standard practice and often raises confidentiality issues.

Let us know how you get on with a request for CB to resign.

There are further anomalies in the Molefe license that look to be prospective. Not only the copper oxide layers, but future deeper sulphide layers.

Is Molefe repeatable as a JLP Pillar 2 strategy across multiple further mining spokes to the Sable hub? I reckon so.

Will GLR be involved - again, I reckon that will happen as well. A winning formula and all that.

Both parties to the JV want this to be very successful as would all shareholders in the JV companies.

Copper at this rate will pay off Molefe debt due to JLP double quick! :-)

Luansobe needs an update, no question. Its value is very copper-price sensitive and because cut-off % moves with price as well as costs, so stronger Cu can bring more ore into the open pit mine plan and lift value. But Molefe also needs watching — JLP is due to update in June, presumably with GLR input. We will know more if they show ramp up rates and even better if they indicate when GLR gets the 23.75% and when JLP's costs are paid back which then allows us to get $$incoming.

CB has already hinted before that something may be happening at Luansobe too. A likely Freudian slip on a different company's podcast.

! https://www.livecharts.co.uk/MarketCharts/copper.php Come on Molefe!

On the “interest free” point, you’re right that there is a cost in the small print: On drawdown of any tranche there’s a 5% fee on that amount, paid in cash or shares. So it’s not “free money” – it’s NO ongoing cash interest, but there is an upfront fee which, if settled in shares, is effectively dilution.

On selling assets vs using a facility, that’s the real debate:

1. Asset sale (PL253 or similar) could bring in a few million with no structured funding, if there’s a buyer at an acceptable price today.

2. The facility is a back‑stop: it can be drawn if needed while they progress Molefe / other projects and try to negotiate better terms for any big disposals, rather than selling from a distressed cash position.

You can definitely argue CB should move faster on monetisation, but just to be accurate, the facility isn’t cost‑free – it’s just that the cost is a 5% fee (and potential dilution), not a standard monthly interest bill.

Galileo has entered into an agreement with the Lender for a facility of £600,000. The Facility is unsecured, interest free and can be drawn down in three tranches as follows

Friedland: https://x.com/robert_ivanhoe/status/2053852777110020435

All time highs... https://x.com/CopperBullish/status/2053831113601356257

Strewth ... https://www.livecharts.co.uk/MarketCharts/copper.php approx $14,250 per tonne

FS, You’re right that a lot of so‑called ‘equity facilities’ and toxic convertibles have ended badly – plenty of us have scars from those. Your COPL experience is absolutely a valid reason to be cautious. A few things I’d separate out here though:

1. This has some features people associate with death‑spiral (small-cap, facility + equity + warrants), so the comparison isn’t crazy. That’s exactly why the scrutiny is needed.

2. There are also some protections that aren’t always there in the worst structures – notably the explicit no short‑selling clause on the lender and its associates, and NO compulsion to draw. That doesn’t make it risk‑free, but it’s not identical to the classic “lend / short / convert down to zero” pattern.

On “we will be shorted regardless”: the wider market can always build small shorts; what this agreement does is try to stop the finance provider itself from sitting on the short side. That’s the main abuse people worry about. If we see persistent pressure that looks like forward selling, that’s exactly the sort of thing to challenge the company and Nomad on with real data, not just assume from day one.

On funding: I agree £600k isn’t huge in the scheme of things, and selling an asset like PL253 at the right price could be cleaner. The trade‑off is timing and buyer interest – if there isn’t a firm PL253 offer on the table today, they still need something to bridge to any deal, which is where this facility comes in. The ideal outcome is exactly what you’ve said: use as little as possible, move an asset sale / monetisation forward, and get out of the facility quickly.

It is fair to keep a close eye on how it’s used and how the share price behaves.

For me, this looks like a very sensible, prudent approach to getting us to the monetisation starting line - however that initial monetisation transpires.

Olddrongo, it could well be that some or all of it ends up being used – that’s always a risk with any facility, discretionary or not. For me the key question isn’t ‘will it ever be drawn?’ but how it’s used and what we get for any dilution that goes with it. If they draw in order to bridge through to clear value events (Molefe, Luansobe, other deals) and then pay it back out of monetisation, that’s very different to quietly drawing just to fund drift and overheads. The ‘no obligation to draw’ wording at least means they’re not forced to use it if cash flow and deals come together in time. I’d rather judge them on actual use than assume from day one that the worst‑case outcome is guaranteed.

I also think the Molefe presentation is very important in this regard to understand next steps and whether it is likely to draw on any of the facility. GLR and JLP need to knock it out of the park! Not long to wait on that front.

Fair enough Levi. Rodney T did raise a fair question on shorting, so at least the clause in the agreement should put that particular concernof his in his post to bed as far as the lender and its associates are concerned. On shorting more generally, I’m with you that naked shorting shouldn’t be allowed at all. Shorting that’s properly backed by stock is a different matter in my view – it can help stop runaway bubbles and keep prices a bit more honest, even if it’s uncomfortable when you’re on the long side. For GLR specifically, the important bit for me is that the finance provider et al itself isn’t allowed to be on the short side while this facility is in place.