Member Info for welloilbeefooked

Morning Shuvlin, agreed, they’ll be processing their own ore eventually but apparently there’s seven years of ore piled up waiting to turn into cash before they need to start using any of their own

The purchaser certainly thinks our SA business is going to be profitable..

LUFC - the capex spend in SA must nearly be washed through the P&L now and there’s a massive stockpile of tailings waiting to be processed - 7 years? - the margin over the next few years should rocket and the new owners will reap the rewards instead of JLP

Iagree with allof that Kalan but what the market and most investors want to know is why are we ditching a long term cash cow part of the business if Zambia copper is only in need of light capex going forward? Why are we not retaining SA and using debt finance for the copper ramp up in Zambia?

LL - the business wasn’t acquired at 2p a share because it’s not for sale, it’s almost as though PG thinks his shares might be worth holding for a while…..

Agreed NS, Iwas thinking about Zambia so probably should have started another thread. A long way to go to get to targets in Zambia, I also think they’ll need plenty of capital to get there so not buying in to the sly mention of dividends. Another concern would be the rate of inflation in Zambia, been averaging 15% or thereabouts for a long time, costs rising against a weakening dollar. I still say leaving SA is madness!

4everlong, the huge upside exists but Leon has consistently failed to deliver on it and therein lies the problem imo. He can talk the talk but in terms of execution and delivering on targets he has failed time and time again. Credibility in management is key and Leon is no longer credible imho

Still a tiny MC after this morning’s rns, up nearly 500% now

Hi Frogkid, yeah that’s what I think too. So a few months ago Slater knew the value of SA - “But the company’s strength has rested on its chrome operations in South Africa” He’s got his man doing the numbers now so I’m leaning towards this being a bit of a firesale tbh

Interesting commentary on JLP from the latest Slater Growth Fund report:

https://slaterinvestments.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Slater-Growth-Fund-Annual-Report-2024.pdf

Gotreal - yes we can see that from the RNS's but then it all comes down to contract negotiation and management going forward. It's difficult to manage a new area of any business when you have virtually zero experience of that area. Be very interesting to see how this change of direction impacts margins as well. I'm still out at the moment but wish all LTH's well.

One of the main problems imo is by pivoting to Zambia they’re essentially becoming miners and processors, not just processors. The simple fact is Jubilee has never operated a mine in it’s entire history as far as I can recall,so if the Zambian model is to vertically integrate the supply chain through to production all under the JLP umbrella then it’s a big gamble.

The alternative is to collaborate with experienced mining companies to outsource the mining element but that effectively puts JLP into exactly the same position they find themselves with feedstock suppliers in SA right now. It’s a mess and way too many unknowns.

They also say the collaboration agreement which they WILL announce is for the DEVELOPMENT of MOU-3

They say “we will announce a collaboration agreement” There is no equivocation there.

“We will announce a collaboration agreement for the design, financing and execution of the initial phase of the MOU-3 development upon publication of the test results. We anticipate first gas sales by the end of 2026 subject to all the usual caveats of regulatory approval and technical due diligence.”

Sounds like there might be gas after all eh?

The problem is when shareholders start voting against board recommendations it rarely ends well. And i have no idea why they couldn’t just release the major details of this sale when they obviously have those details .

Seis, would it not be reasonable to expect a company with JJP’s exposure to price volatility to be employing forward contracts to reduce said exposure? It would be a poor FD that was always on the losing side of such contracts.

Gotreal, I’m not saying don’t invest in Zambia, just do it a different way. Let’s say Leon’s comment about $90m being 10 times earnings is reasonable. That’s $9m earnings per annum from SA, add back $10m for depreciation/amortisation from chrome/pgms - per the latest annual report. That’s the best part of $20m cash generated. There’s years of waste stockpiled waiting to be processed so very little in capex required to maintain cash generation going forward. Forget growth, sweat the assets we all bought and paid for in SA.

If they need cash for Zambia, use this SA cash and revolving credit. Our risk profile would remain spread across various metal groups - remember when that was part of the strategy to hedge against price volatility? Well now we’re going all in on copper.

Last, the buying party is paying up over three years essentially with a very large chunk of our own free cash - you could not make this up.

I honestly wish all remaining holders the best of luck, I sold a few days ago, been here off and on for too many years to remember. Might be back one day but I don’t agree with any of what’s being proposed at the moment.

Possibly Shuvlin, but the point is valid, a big chunk of change has been invested into SA, the Jubilee Way etc. The opportunity cost alone is massive, we’re not reaping any rewards from years of jam tomorrow. Has it all really been smoke and mirrors?

Papaki, you are of course correct about the cashflow aspect of depreciation and amortisation - add back both charges to net profit so cash generated annually will be higher . However, the assets in question whether physical or intangible were cash outflows at one point, just “expensed” to the balance sheet.

Bottom line for me is after all these years we should now be sweating these assets to extract the return, not selling them to another organisation who clearly take a different opinion as to their worth.

I would like to see a truthful breakdown of the net asset value which will disappear from the JLP balance sheet for the injection of “up to $90m”, whatever that means. Not holding my breath though