Member Info for A-s-h-t-o-n

I can understand the ​current preoccupation on Jameson Land with the impending listing of Greenland Energy Company on NASDAQ. But if you are a newcomer to 80M, I would strongly suggest you brush up on the huge potential of 80M's asset ​named Disko​ as well. The Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS) considers Disko as being an analogue of the Norilsk-Talnakh nickel district in Siberia. Here are a couple of excerpts from an article published by the GEUS.

"Mineral exploration in the West Greenland flood basalt province is attractive because of its resemblance to the magmatic sulfide-rich deposit in the Russian Norilsk region, but it is challenged by rugged topography and partly poor exposure for relevant geologic formations."

"The volcanic rocks of Palaeocene age exposed on Disko-Nuussuaq in central-west Greenland form part of the North Atlantic Igneous Province. Due to a similar geological setting the Disko-Nuussuaq area is regarded as analogous to the Norilsk–Talnakh Ni–Cu district in the Siberian trap basalt, and thus a highly prospective region for major Ni–Cu–Co platinum group element (PGE) deposits."

https://pub.geus.dk/en/publications/drone-based-magnetic-and-multispectral-surveys-to-develop-a-3d-mo/

https://se.copernicus.org/articles/13/793/2022/

Continued.....

Reading some of the posts today on this subject, I got the impression that there could be some confusion ​over transferring shares out of the Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) to directors and employees of 80M causes dilution. This is not correct. It does not. Let me explain.

After the EBT was set up in July 2025, 80M issued 393,557,018 new shares to go into the Trust. That's when dilution happened because the 393,557,018 shares became part of the company's ​enlarged total number of shares in issue. Prior to the transfer of shares from the EBT to directors announced today (19 February 2026), the total number of shares in issue was 5,006,562,696. The total number of shares in issue after the transfer is also the same at 5,006,562,696.

So, to conclude, any shares transferred out of the EBT does not cause dilution as these shares have already been accounted for in the company's total number of shares in issue.

On 2 February 2026, under the thread "US Shutdown", I posted a note on a provisional timetable for Greenland Energy’s (GLND) NASDAQ listing. I am reproducing that note below before updating it:

1. House Speaker Mike Johnson remains confident that the US government shutdown will end by Tuesday, February 3rd. On that basis, the SEC is expected to open on Wednesday 4th (assumption)

2. The SEC approves Pelican's application for NASDAQ listing within 2 weeks from February 4th (assumption)

3. As a publicly listed company, PELI is required to give 3 weeks notice to shareholders before calling an Extraordinary General Meeting (fact)

4. Once shareholders have approved the merger, NASDAQ listing would take place within 1 week (assumption).

So, my estimate (I repeat 'estimate') is that Greenland Energy Company's NASDAQ listing is likely to take place in about 6 weeks' time from today (2 February). This estimated timeline is still within the period Q1 2026 that 80M communicated to the market on 27 January 2026 - End

~~~

I want to now update the timetable since two of the four events that I identified in my initial post on 2nd February have materialised.

1. As I expected, the SEC did in fact reopen on Wednesday 4th February.

2. As I expected, the SEC did in fact approve Pelican's application for merger within two weeks of 4th February. The approval was granted yesterday, 17th February.

3. Now waiting for Pelican to fix the date for the Extraordinary General Meeting for shareholders to approve the merger. I am expecting the EGM to take place on or around 11th March, which would give shareholders the required 21-day notice.

4. Assuming shareholders approve the merger, I am expecting the NASDAQ listing to take place within 1 week of 11th March. That is, on 18 March or thereabouts.

To sum up, I estimate that the date for listing is 18th March or thereabouts. This date is still within the period Q1 2026 that 80M communicated to the market on 27 January 2026.

Changing the subject slightly, if you want to know how Greenland Energy shares would be allocated, use the link below. Please also note Rod McIllree will become Director on the Board of Greenland Energy once the merger has been completed.

https://marchgl.com/pelican-acquisition-corporation-nasdaq-peli-announces-definitive-merger-agreement-with-greenland-exploration-limited-and-march-gl-company-with-the-combined-company-to-be-named-greenland-energy-com/

PS: Please note, while we wait for GLND's NASDAQ listing, there are potentially other news items in the pipeline.

Https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=0002037431

Thank you Tonypeters for posting the information.

If AMRQ’s London main market listing results in improved and also less volatile share price performance of the company, that would be good news for 80M shareholders. Under the Kangerluarsuk asset transaction agreement between AMRQ and 80M, the latter was due for US$500,000 in AMRQ shares. Additionally, upon discovery of an economic deposit, as defined by a JORC or NI 43-101 compliant resource that supports development, the company would receive US$1,500,000 in cash or shares. - See RNS 12 June & 11 August 2025.

I can understand an early bird's impatience (forgive the pun). I would suggest you monitor here for approval from the SEC of the merger - https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=0002037431

Decagon Asset Management LLP, which has taken a significant stake in Pelican, has offices in London and New York.

DAM's London Address Postcode: W1B 2AF

80 Mile's London HQ Address Postcode: W1B 4BT

The two are virtually neighbours. How cool is that?

Yes, 100%. We should have confirmation on the SEC website soon.

I am hearing noises that the SEC approval for the merger has been granted.

LostAllMyShirts - You said: "Despite these estimates, drilling efforts (around 25 wells) were unsuccessful, and no significant discoveries were announced, reports Advisor Perspectives. In essence, the surveys identified massive theoretical resources, but the environmental, economic, and political realities make extracting them highly improbable, says Advisor Perspectives."

Let me state the factual position.​ To date no deep drilling has been undertaken at Jameson Land Basin. One diamond drill hole called "Blokelv" was drilled by the Danish state survey to determine the porosity of surface sediments. It was terminated after an oil-filled belemnite was identified in core logging at 104m. To claim that around 25 wells were unsuccessfully drilled at Jameson Land Basin is, therefore, factually false.

Yes, Trai, well researched. The ​Wood Makenzie article says: “To date, just 25 exploration wells have been drilled, predominantly in Greenland’s Southwest basin.”

As you will already know the Jameson Land Basin is in the Northeast of Greenland.

Let me try that ​Wood Makenzie link which did not work when you tried to post - https://www.woodmac.com/blogs/the-edge/is-greenland-venezuela-2.0

LostAllMyShirts - You say: "Despite these estimates, drilling efforts (around 25 wells) were unsuccessful, and no significant discoveries were announced, reports Advisor Perspectives. In essence, the surveys identified massive theoretical resources, but the environmental, economic, and political realities make extracting them highly improbable, says Advisor Perspectives."

Could you post the link to the "Advisor Perspectives" report you have referred to which says 25 wells were drilled unsuccessfully at Jameson land Basin?

CC - I am glad you have now put your question directly to RachT2. I could not understand for the life of me why she did not answer it in the first place. Let's see what she says.

I am also looking forward to seeing how she replies to ilDuce15's post. I have noticed she avoids replying to ilDuce1, whom I regard as a smart poster.

CC - There was no ambiguity whatsoever in your question, it was crystal clear: "Podcast stated that Kobold walked away because the numbers didn't stack up. Any ideas why USFM think they do?"

I thought it was a straightforward question and there was no need to misrepresent it. If one was able to answer the question, well and good. If not, leave the question on the table for anyone else to answer, instead of misreading the question and taking it at a tangent. I have already admitted that I do NOT know why if the numbers ​did not stack up for KoBold, why ​has USFM ​come on board? As there has been no company meeting since the JV with KoBold was terminated, the best offer I was able to make under the circumstances was my willingness to put the question to management at the next meeting. RachT2 responds to my offer with the comment: " You “don’t know” but will be happy to “raise it at the next meeting”. That’s not an explanation – it’s another example of evasion."

Anyway, if there is one good thing that has come out of this conversation is RachT2's admission that nobody on this chat board knows KoBold’s precise reasons for pulling the plug on Greenland. Given this to be the case, the decent thing she could have done was to appreciate my offer to raise the matter as a question at the next company meeting. I suppose that is too much to ask from her because RachT2 is Racht2!

ilDuce15 - You say; "KoBold will likely seek to IPO at some stage on a very ambitious valuation, supported by the narrative that it has developed novel, AI-led exploration technology."

In the note I posted on 25 May 2025 , I said Josh Goldman (KoBold's CEO) has publicly stated that the company was planning to go public within three to four years. He said so in an interview with CNBC in March 2024 which I listened to. Please click on this link and page down to the section "IPO Potential " - https://accessipos.com/kobold-metals-stock-ipo/

CC - Good question but sorry I do not know the answer. Happy to raise it at the next company meeting as a question from the floor.

Thank you, Banzaimcgowan, for alerting us to the programme. It was worth the 30-min listen. Did you note Ronald Lauder got a mention in the broadcast. He is the billionaire Estée Lauder empire’s heir who, according to former U.S. national security adviser John Bolton, first put the idea of “buying” Greenland into Donald Trump’s mind, and has quietly taken ownership stakes in Greenlandic companies.

I mentioned Ronald Lauder in the note I posted on 16 Dec 2025. This is what I said: "Word is Mr Lauder could be a big investor in the Greenland Energy US$86m fundraising. It could be around US$10m. Hopefully, we will know soon."

https://www.arctictoday.com/trump-ally-who-inspired-greenland-purchase-idea-quietly-invests-in-greenlandic-companies/

CC - Amaroq is listed in the U.S. on the OTC market.

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/amrqf

Amaroq Minerals is registered in Canada. 80 Mile is registered in the UK. Amaroq's mining projects are exclusively in Greenland. 80 Mile's mining projects are in Greenland and Finland. The Trump administration has a better relationship with the UK than Canada.

Given the above facts, I don't understand why RachT2 made this statement: "Amaroq is a Canadian company, which is an important differentiator (from 80 Mile) in the current geopolitical environment."

It is nothing but a BIG red herring to support her persistent negative narrative of 80 Mile. We are not morons to swallow such utter rubbish.

Continued.....

Talks have already taken place between the Trump administration and 80M, as confirmed by Eric Sondergaard (former MD), and the question is whether the talks are still ongoing and have made progress. None of us know the answer to this question, including you. But talks have certainly taken place. I agree with you on one thing though, until we have an announcement from 80M on the subject, it is wise to be cautious about progress. In the meantime, why oh why do you have to present a one-sided negative narrative by including red herrings such as market cap, production, revenue, etc? The bit that exposes your one-sided negative narrative is this statement: "why the two companies (Amaroq and 80 Mile) may be viewed very differently -  including by US authorities. If I were allocating or investing taxpayers’ money, I know which profile I’d be more comfortable backing at this stage." The flip side to this negative narrative is that the Trump administration could consider taking a stake in the Disko project or provide financial support to it conditional upon successful drilling results that confirm sizeable quantities of the critical minerals on the US list. It's a shame you failed to include this as a conditional possibility in your analysis. This makes your repeated claim that you are here primarily to provide balance somewhat hollow!

To sum up, I was comparing Amaroq's early stage critical minerals projects with 80M's Disko early stage critical mineral project for potential US government support . All these projects are still in the exploration phase and in the same jurisdiction. That is NOT comparing apples with pears.

NB: The Kangerluarsuk asset that Amaroq recently acquired from 80M is primarily a Zinc project which is also on the US critical mineral list.

RachT2 - You say; " Re your Amaroq question — I think this is a case of you comparing apples with pears. There are several material differences that help explain the contrast:"

To say "comparing apples with pears" is condescending. I am too intelligent to engage in such behaviour. Let me expand:

The primary criterions for the Trump administration for considering a mining project for taking an equity stake or providing funding support is whether the project - if it's not already in production - has the potential to discover, produce and supply minerals deemed as critical by the US government so that it can become less dependent on the supply of them from non-friendly countries. This does not necessarily mean for a project to qualify for consideration is dependent upon its market cap, whether it is already in production or not. The administration would consider supporting a project favourably if it considers that it has the potential to supply critical minerals to the US in sizeable quantities and reliably (the jurisdiction of the project would also be an important factor here). The case in point is that the CEO of Amaroq has confirmed that the US government is mulling investment into its CRITICAL MINERALS mining projects (not the Gold producing mining project). It is therefore important to note here that none of Amaroq's critical minerals projects is in production and generating income. They are still in the exploration phase, just like 80M's Disko critical minerals project. Disko is blessed with Cobalt, Copper, Nickel and Platinum Group Metals (PGMs). PGMs are made up of Platinum, Palladium, Rhodium, Ruthenium, Iridium and Osmium. In November 2025, the US government’s Department of the Interior published the final list of critical minerals. Importantly for 80M, except for Osmium, all of Disko’s minerals are on the US critical list. This bodes well for the Disko project being a candidate for attracting interest from the Trump administration.

Continued.....