Member Info for JuniorLassonde

The no‑short‑selling clause isn’t a cure‑all, but it does stop the lender and its associates from shorting GLR while the facility is in place and for a period afterwards. It doesn’t cover the whole market, but it does address that specific risk. I’m genuinely interested though – what makes you see it as laughable?

You’re reading a lot into one day’s price action on a very illiquid AIM stock. A few points:

1. “Market has spoken” – On GLR, a couple of nervous sells can move it 10–20% in either direction. That’s order‑flow, not some deep verdict on the RNS. The same people say “market loves it” on blue days and “market hates it” on red days – neither is serious analysis.

2. Dilution vs structure – Yes, there is dilution attached to this facility. Nobody sensible is denying that. The question is whether:

a) a flexible, optionally‑drawn facility with a no‑short‑selling clause,

is better or worse than

b) a big, heavily discounted placing done now at the bottom, before Molefe / Luansobe / other deals have a chance to re‑rate the story.

You’re treating “any dilution = failure”, but in junior mining the real test is the cost and timing of capital relative to catalysts.

“Too lazy to monetise” – with respect, that’s a nice soundbite but ignores reality. Molefe JV, Luansobe licences, Zambian/Botswana drilling etc are all, ultimately, steps towards monetisation. Whether they deliver enough value is a fair debate; writing it off as “no monetisation at all” just isn’t accurate.

Time horizon – This RNS, for me, is primarily about supporting negotiating through the next 6–18 months of project work and deal‑making.

If you want to argue that this is still too dilutive, or that you don’t trust CB to deploy the runway, that’s a reasonable position. But “red day = RNS is garbage and management is lazy” is too simplistic for anyone actually trying to assess risk/reward here. Out of interest, what specific funding structure do you think a non‑cash‑generative AIM junior like GLR could realistically get instead of this?

Breaking into all time highs: https://x.com/minenergybiz/status/2053802812841087287

Short‑term price reaction on an illiquid AIM tiddler doesn’t “prove” the RNS is good or bad – it just tells you who’s hitting the bid on the day. A few jittery sells can move this either way on thin volume. For me the substance of the RNS is:

1. They’ve avoided a big, heavily discounted placing.

2. They’ve put a back‑stop in place so they’re not forced into a panic raise if timings on Molefe / Luansobe / other deals slip.

3. There’s a no‑short‑selling clause on the lender and associates which puts that argument to bed.

If you only ever judge news by the first few hour’s share price move, almost every junior RNS will look “bad” or "good".

I’m more interested in whether this structure gets GLR to potential monetisation (Molefe presentation, portfolio deals) with less dilution than a big placing at these levels. I believe it does. Everyone has their own risk tolerance of course.

Https://www.livecharts.co.uk/MarketCharts/copper.php

$14,000 per tonne spot. Great for Molefe.

On the Sanderson / Beaufort / HB angle – fair to raise, but we need to separate what’s actually in the RNS from what only the GLR board can answer.

First, on short selling, the RNS is explicit. The facility includes a “No short selling” clause: the lender and its associates are contractually prohibited from short‑selling GLR shares from the date of the facility agreement until the later of (a) six months after any Loan Tranche Three drawdown and (b) repayment of the loan. The counterparty here is not allowed to be short. By then we will be strongly monetised IMO.

On the rest of the list:

1. DD on Sanderson / Malik / Beaufort‑HB history – not described in the RNS. Only the board and Nomad can say what checks they did and why they were comfortable.

2. FCA‑authorised vs principal lender – again, not stated. We know Sanderson is the named lender, but whether it’s acting as an authorised firm or purely as a principal investor is something the company would need to confirm.

3. Beneficial owner of the capital – not disclosed. We see Sanderson as lender; ultimate capital backing is not broken out.

4. Associates, concert parties, side letters, hedging, share‑lending – beyond the “no short selling” covenant, nothing further is disclosed. Anything formally notifiable should be, but if we want a blanket “no” on side deals, that has to come from GLR.

5. Governing law and jurisdiction – not in the announcement. It’ll be in the loan agreement, but we don’t see that.

5. Transferability of loan / conversion / warrants / fee rights – also purely a contract term. The RNS is silent on restrictions, so we simply don’t know unless the company clarifies.

Relationships with GLR insiders – the deal is not flagged as a related‑party transaction. If there were a disclosable link to a director, major shareholder etc., that should be stated; beyond that, the board is the only place a definitive answer can come from. So beyond what’s written into the RNS (including the no‑short‑selling clause), most of your list are the sort of points that need to be put directly to the board and Nomad if you feel it necessary.

Let us know how you get on.

P.S I am happy with the RNS. All good. Sensible.

Fair point in a normal corporate context, but GLR isn’t a cash‑generative FTSE company – it’s an AIM‑listed junior with no steady operating cash flow yet. For this end of the market, “bank overdraft with no equity sweeteners” is usually not on the menu. Lenders to juniors typically want some equity upside (shares/warrants) because they’re effectively funding working capital against future exploration / development success rather than against recurring EBITDA. The alternative is a big discounted placing straight to PIs and institutions.

The key for me is:

1. There’s no obligation to draw – so it’s genuinely a back‑stop, not forced dilution.

2. The board is openly saying they want to avoid a large pre‑emptive placing while they’re into a period of potential value‑realisation (Molefe, Luansobe, Kalahari etc.).

3. If near‑term deals/monetisation drop, the facility may never be fully used, but it’s there so we don’t get hit with a panic raise at the wrong time.

So yes, in an ideal world you’d have a vanilla overdraft and no equity elements – but in small‑cap mining reality, this is often the least dilutive way of buying time and negotiating from a position of strength rather than desperation.

100% wwt. that quote from cb is basically the board telling us three things:

(1) they expect near‑term value events (molefe etc.),

(2) they do not want to smash the market with a big placing before those play out, and

(3) the facility is there as an insurance policy, not a cash‑burn machine.

1. “no compulsion to draw down”

this means the facility is a standby line, not money they must use immediately. it signals that the board believes they can navigate the next few months largely with existing cash and expected near‑term cash flows/monetisation, using the facility only if timings slip or negotiations take longer than planned. in light of a june molefe presentation and active work on that project, it looks like they think molefe and other deals will move the dial soon, but if anything is delayed, we have a safety net so we don’t have to do a distressed placing at the worst possible price.

2. “mindful of the negative effects of large placings and dilution”

they are explicitly acknowledging the pi complaint: repeated big placings at discounts destroy value and sentiment. by saying this, the board is effectively committing to avoid a large, pre‑emptive equity raise while they are in: ongoing negotiations on other assets (e.g. luansobe, shinganda, kalahari, royalties, jvs, etc.). a near‑term window where molefe’s story is being formalised and presented in june (looking forward to that). so the interpretation is: we know a big placing now would be highly dilutive and mis‑priced relative to what we think the portfolio can be worth once these negotiations and molefe are clearer.

3. “correct type in light of the progress potential of the company’s current portfolio”

this is the key line tying to “ongoing negotiations” and “near term monetisation”. they are effectively saying: the portfolio (molefe, luansobe, kalahari, shinganda, ka****u, ferber / royalties etc.) has enough near‑ and mid‑term progress potential that it doesn’t justify a big dilutive equity raise at today’s price. a flexible facility is a better match: it gives them breathing space while they try to convert discussions and drilling into transactions, jvs, or cash‑flowing positions. put differently: they see a realistic path to monetising assets (starting with molefe, but not only molefe) in the near term, so they’ve chosen an instrument that bridges to those events rather than locking in heavy dilution beforehand.

so i read it all as the glr board saying 'we think we’re close to value‑realisation events across the portfolio, starting with molefe, and we don’t want to blow shareholders out with a big placing just before that. this facility is there as backup, not as an automatic draw, so we can get through to monetisation with minimum extra dilution'

i am very happy with it.

"The board of Galileo has put in place a working capital facility with no compulsion to draw down but remains in place for contingencies. The board is mindful of the negative effects of large placings and dilution and feel that the instrument is the correct type in light of the progress potential of the Company's current portfolio"."

Good strategy.

key takeaway for me is the stop gap interest free loans before monetisation of molefe imo. it's a working capital facility + equity which looks less like “keeping the lights on” and more like bridging finance that keeps glr in control of the portfolio while it finishes key de‑risking and lines up bigger counterparties. it gives them flexibility to:

1. complete the molefe earn‑in and turn that into a monetisable stake in a live copper mine.

2. push luansobe over the line into first production / a jv on terms that reflect its two‑licence, 10‑year, 150kt+ cu footprint.

3. maintain progress on the pipeline (shinganda, ka****u, kalahari etc.) without being forced into a firesale or ultra‑dilutive raise at the bottom of the market

all good.

Https://x.com/KatusaResearch/status/2053500459579744762

Https://x.com/KatusaResearch/status/2053500459579744762?s=20

Harmprof, I totally agree LC has earned some scepticism on timelines, so I’m not blindly giving him a free pass. For me the key is that we’ve now got a detailed Molefe presentation coming in June that should finally spell out the copper plan in black and white – you can either sit tight and wait for the RNSs that follow, or speculate ahead of them based on what the presentation lays out, but those are two very different risk‑reward profiles and each investor has to pick which camp they’re comfortable in.

Ahh! Lightbulb moment :-) I agree!

I am an investor in both. Agree or not, I see Pillar 2 as the strongest Pillar in the overall strategy and the one that the market will understand more as the company pushes on additional high margin hubs for Sable.

I’m not convinced a Molefe placing is even needed. GLR’s ticket is a modest, staged US$700k and JLP still has to earn back what it has already spent and maximise Sable throughput, so both sides are aligned to make Molefe work hard without GLR writing a massive cheque. That’s why I see the current GLR valuation as way behind the curve if Molefe performs in an increasingly bullish copper environment. Progress to date appears ahead of target.

I get where you’re coming from – Leon’s history on timelines and over‑promising is exactly why the market is giving JLP such a low “talk vs delivery” rating at the moment. For me though, that’s also why this June presentation DOES matter. It’s not about another blue‑sky story, it’s about whether they finally line up three things that can be checked quickly in subsequent RNSs:

A. A clear, dated pit integration and ramp‑up schedule at Molefe

B. Concrete tonnage/grade targets into Sable over the next 12–24 months

C. How that ties into published Zambia copper guidance and “pillar 2” cash flow

If June is just more hand‑waving, I agree with you – the market will ignore it and wait for the next Ops RNS. But if they actually join the dots and then back it up with a couple of quarters of Molefe delivery roughly in line with what they’ve just shown, that’s when the SP can move significantly. RNSs on their own will tell you “what happened last quarter.” A good, grounded well structured and thought through presentation plus subsequent RNSs gives you something more valuable: confidence that the JV is delivering the JLP “clever processor” is becoming a genuine mine‑to‑metals business on Pillar 2. That’s what I’m positioning for – not the presentation day spike, but the re‑rating if Molefe starts to look like a REPEATABLE template rather than a one‑off promise.

In addition, there are several parties interested in the JV outcome - JLP shareholders and GLR shareholders in particular, investors who are on the sidelines, and investors who can now see things coming together. I have also sent JLP a list of things I would like to see in the presentation. If they deliver then that will help. IMO.

For me, the market is still pricing JLP as a 'clever processor' with a few copper options, while Molefe is quietly morphing into a proper mine‑to‑metals pillar 2 that could materially change the earnings profile. Integrating Pit 2 and 3 into a single open pit, stripping the overburden and ramping ore tonnage and grade into Sable is not a side‑show – it’s the moment Sable stops being “a plant looking for ore” and starts looking like the heart of a mine‑backed copper hub.

The June 26 Presentation from JLP is the catalyst. If they simply join the dots – pit integration, ramp‑up schedule, ongoing drilling and extensions, plus how Molefe underpins Zambia copper growth targets – then JLP stops looking like a toll‑processor on a low multiple and starts looking like an integrated copper miner‑refiner. Crucially, Molefe isn’t just one asset, it’s the template: once the market can see one Molefe working, it can start assigning value to a pipeline of Molefe‑style deals feeding Sable. In that scenario, Molefe doesn’t just move one asset; it forces the market to rethink the whole “pillar 2” copper story.

Roll on June.

It’s clear to me that the market is still valuing Molefe as if it were just an earlier‑stage exploration project, while GLR will soon own up to 23.75% of a scaling, producing copper mine that’s on the cusp of having a formal resource attached to it. That mismatch is unsustainable in my view.

Molefe is the first asset where GLR sits in the slipstream of an established operator and a fully‑fledged refinery at Sable. That external validation and marketing lift are worth far more to a microcap than the US$700k they’re putting in to earn their stake. In effect, Molefe is a free option for GLR on turning a near‑term producing asset into a much larger copper hub – without GLR having to raise hundreds of millions to build plants or refineries. That’s exactly the sort of JV exposure small caps are supposed to have, but rarely actually do.

GLR is writing an explorer‑sized cheque for a developer/producer‑style stake in Molefe, and if the June Presentation from JLP lays out credible multi‑year copper production, the embedded NPV uplift for GLR per dollar spent starts to look very attractive. You’re not only buying Molefe here; you’re buying the spoke and multi-hub template. Once the market can see one Molefe working as intended, it can start ascribing value to a pipeline of “Molefe‑like” JV deals that follow the same playbook.

Right now, today’s valuation still implicitly assumes a short‑life starter pit and a bit of stockpile tinkering around the edges. The Molefe story that the June Presentation from JLP can put in front of the market – a multi‑pit, multi‑year, JORC‑capable oxide hub feeding Sable – hasn’t been properly printed into most models yet. IMO.

So where’s the more asymmetric upside – GLR or JLP? GLR is an approx £10–11m microcap where a 23.75% interest in a successful Molefe – plus the template for more JVs of the same type – could realistically be worth a large chunk of, or even more likely a good multiple of the current market cap - and that is without further deals.

Happy Saturday!

LC did not “conclude” 13 ktpa despite the testing as the 13 ktpa figure was the pre-defined design capacity of the upgraded facility from 2024, based on engineering parameters and initial metallurgical work. The 2025 trials (and associated costs) were the necessary final step to optimise for the actual variable ores in the stockpile and lock in a long-term supply contract. That work was successfully completed, the agreement was signed, and production has since been ramping toward the higher end of the guidance envelope. The testing was expensive because the ores are complex, but it was a deliberate de-risking investment that has now translated into commercial supply and growing output