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

According to media reports, the incoming cabinet is expected to be formally approved when the new parliament meets for the first time on Monday, 7 April.

On 14 February, the Mineral Resources Authority (MRA) informed the mining sector that until the new government is appointed case-processing in certain mineral cases will be affected. In fact, no new licences have been issued since 20 January either. I suppose we can expect normal business of MRA to resume after 7 April.

Although there has not been a formal announcement of the new cabinet, this article predicts the following appointments:

Chairman of the Greenlanders' Union (Prime Minister): Jens-Frederik Nielsen (D)

Naalakkersuisoq for Finances and Taxes: Múte B. Egede (IA) [He was the Prime Minister in the outgoing government]

Minister of Foreign Affairs and Research: Vivian Motzfeldt (S)

Minister of Education, Culture, Sports and the Church: Nivi Olsen (D)

Naalakkersuisoq for business, raw materials, etc. Naaja H Nathanielsen (IA)

Naalakkersuisoq for Health and Disability: Anna Wangenheim (D)

Naalakkersuisoq for Children, Youth and Families: Maasi Pedersen (IA)

Minister of Fisheries, Hunting, Agriculture and Self-Sustainability: Peter Borg (D)

Minister of Social Affairs, Labour Market, Home Affairs: Bentiaraq Ottosen (A)

Naalakkersuisoq for Housing, Infrastructure and Outlying Districts : Aqqaluaq B. Egede (IA)

Naaja H Nathanielsen was the outgoing Minister of Mineral Resources (Raw Materials) and I hope she gets reappointed. 80M had an excellent working relationship with her and there was even a reference to her in one the RNS releases.

https://tinyurl.com/5a4fbeuy

Thanks, IvRoche.

Yes, what will 80M's circa 25% shareholding in MET1 be worth in the next few years if they make good progress with their projects? Black Schist, Hammaslahti and Outokumpu projects, Finland; Råna project, Norway.

In addition to the 25% shareholding interest, the recent transaction provides 80M the right to appoint a director to the Board of MET1, to remove such a person and to appoint another person in their place, for as long as 80M holds at least 10% of the voting rights of the company. This means 80M will be involved in the affairs of MET1 at Board level.

This was their corporate presentation last year: https://tinyurl.com/yr59y2pm

In this video (dated 4 months ago), Jonathan Owen (CEO) talks about the Black Schist project: https://youtu.be/C8AbmYGu9ek

1. Before MET1 share consolidation: Total issued shared capital of MET1 was 361,467,500 shares

2. 80M shareholding at 17.29% before MET1 share consolidation (link to share capital information below): 62,497,730 shares (17.29% of 361,467,500)

3. After MET share consolidation at 10:1, the total issued shared capital of MET1: 36,146,750 shares (361,467,500 ÷ 10)

4. 80M holding after MET1 share consolidation: 6,249,773 shares (62,497,730 ÷ 10)

5. Consideration payable to 80M from Finnish assets sale; £250,000 in cash plus 10% of the enlarged capital of MET1

6. Enlarged capital of MET1 from 1 April 2025: 41,146,750 shares (36,146,750 + 5,000,000 - RNS link below)

7. 10% of the enlarged capital of MET1 for 80M from Finnish assets sale: 4,114,675 shares

8. 80M's Shareholding in MET1 from 1 April 2025 (see note below): 10,364,448 shares (6,249,773 + 4,114,675)

9. Percentage of 80M shareholding in MET1 from 1 April 2025: 25.18%

NB: The Consideration Shares to 80M will be allotted and issued approximately six months after the completion of the Transaction.

IvRoche - Am I right with my accounting?

https://tinyurl.com/2kukztbu

https://tinyurl.com/3ya7jaj2

Continued.....

So, “What constitutes a defamatory comment​?”

Defamation refers to a false statement made about an individual (e.g. Director of a company), business, or entity that injures their reputation or character. This false statement, also known as a defamatory statement, must be communicated to a third party (e.g. LSE chat board), causing harm to the subject’s reputation. Defamation can occur through various means, including spoken words (slander) or written words and images (libel).

A critical element of defamation is that the statement in question must be false. Opinions, subjective views, or statements of belief are generally protected as free speech and are not considered defamatory. However, presenting an opinion as fact or making false factual claims can potentially lead to a defamation claim.

The false statement must be communicated to a third party (e.g. LSE chat board) and the publication can happen through various channels, including social media (e.g. LSE chat board), print media, broadcast, or even private conversations if overheard or repeated to others.

Defamation must also harm the subject's reputation, and it can be published through various channels, including social media (e.g. LSE chat board), print media, broadcast, or even private conversations if overheard or repeated. This harm can be both tangible and intangible, affecting personal or professional relationships, business opportunities, or social standing. Demonstrating actual damages is often crucial in successful defamation claims.

I think it would not be wise for me to go into the details of Rach's two allegedly defamatory posts. That said, I thought I ought to remind posters and readers here what constitutes defamation.​ It's better to be safe than sorry.

CC - I have seen what Rach has written in response to your posts and fully understand why you felt disgusted and belittled. It seems Rach can't control her despicable behaviour. She admitted this in her post addressed to me on 28 May 2024 at 14:47. This is what she said:

"Ashton – I would genuinely like to express my appreciation to you for bringing the matter of defamation to our attention. It has been a wake up call for me as it is something I had certainly not contemplated when making posts to a chat room. I would like to take this opportunity to un-reservedly apologise for any hurt, harm or ill-feeling any of my posts may have caused. Any of my posts referring to any individuals were intended to be nothing more than an inconsequential expression of opinion and not fact. Ashton, I am indebted to you. Henceforth, if I do continue to post, I intend to curb my naturally abrasive manner and to ensure that my posts are more considerate and circumspect."

After Sarah Lowther's (Total Market Solutions) video interview with Eric Sondergaard, Rach referred to Sarah as an "absolute tart " in her post on 2 May 2024 at 7:51. LSE took down the post.

Although in 2024 Rach thanked me for bringing to her attention the matter of defamation and expressed regret over her behavior, she has not, unfortunately, mended her ways. In two of her posts this year, she went and made, yet again, certain allegedly defamatory statements about someone. They were not opinions because she presented them as facts. What she had claimed in her posts may well have crossed the threshold for them to be regarded as libellous (by people in the legal profession) as they did not appear to be properly researched and evidence-based. The affected parties have noted the two posts and I do not know what consequences might arise from them. It is easy to be reckless with what one says online without realising what constitutes defamation, and worse, being ignorant of the UK laws on them. More importantly, the consequences of such irresponsible behaviour online.

On 25 Feb 2025, Reserved posted this link - https://tinyurl.com/3rhy2wzy

At the end of the article, there were references to Greenland as follows:

"Among the projects that the DFC could fund, Lonsdale and Black said in their post, would be strategic investments in Greenland, which Trump has said he would like the US to buy."

“Backed by DFC financing, American mining, shipping, and resource-dependent businesses could step in, bringing capital and expertise,” they wrote. “The result would be a mutually beneficial partnership that strengthens Greenland’s ties to the U.S. while expanding our strategic resource base.” - Unquote

With all the noise on the chat board, good posts can go unnoticed (only two people recommended Reserved's post​ and I was one). So here are more details about the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC):

"Our investments also modernize transportation hubs and networks, allow for safe and open access to information technology networks, and secure supply chains for minerals critical to U.S. national security." - DFC

https://www.dfc.gov/what-we-do/our-work

https://www.dfc.gov/what-we-offer/our-products

Please disregard my previous post. I will post the correct links later.

New Greenland Cabinet - https://www.kas.de/de/statische-inhalte-detail/-/content/new-greenland-cabinet

New Minister for Minerals is Jørgen Wæver Johansen. He was Minister for Minerals in previous governments. Here is his profile: https://jwj.mystrikingly.com/

Rach, you say (28 Mar 2025 12:07): "It is pretty obvious that if they come good on one or more of your 3 targets then the SP may rise and any fundraise might be at a higher value than 0.22….."

I am glad you now recognise the importance of my questions to the extent that you admit that if the​ 3 targets I identified were to come good the SP may rise and any fundraising might be at a higher level than what you had originally predicted at 0.22p. I only wish you had taken into account the pending potentially significant news items before coming up with your predicted fundraise price of 0.22p. I suppose we can now put to bed all this talk about trying to predict the price point for the next fundraise with so many unknowns lurking in the background.

80M is a 17.29% shareholder in MET1.

The table in this article shows the results of the recent parliamentary elections in Greenland: https://tinyurl.com/5668njuz

According to media reports, we can expect an announcement of the composition of the new Government of Greenland today. The reports speculate that Naleraq, a centrist, ardently pro-independence party, that came second and is the only party not included in the coalition. It withdrew from coalition talks after a disagreement on when Greenland should seek independence from Denmark, with the Democrats favouring a slower approach. Naleraq is also a pro U.S. party.

 It is worth noting here that mining companies seeking important decisions from the authorities for progressing their business will have to wait until the new government is in place.

Continued...

This raises an interesting question. Would you care to explain what assumptions you made concerning my questions relating to the three vitally important milestones that I had identified before you came up with your price of 0.22p for the next fundraise? On second thoughts, please don't bother. But do me a favour though - don't trouble me with any more of your challenges as you don’t have the guts to accept my challenges. If you’re hellbent with your challenges, please go and find someone else.

Rach, your latest challenge to me was (21 Mar 2025 10:24 under a different thread): "As yet, you have not replied to my challenge with your guess as to the level that the next imminent fundraise might be set at. I'm guessing 0.22p. What's yours?"

In response to your challenge, I asked you to answer these three questions first:

1. Is it likely or unlikely that Disko will be drilled this year?

2. Is it likely or unlikely that Jameson Land will have a partner this year?

3. Is it likely or unlikely that there will be production at Greenswitch this year?

Your response (27 Mar 2025 at 9:21 under a different thread) was that my questions were utterly irrelevant and that they raised issues far too complex to be addressed by a simple Likely/Unlikely response and that each of the questions required a cogent reply.

Oh dear, my challenge to you was straightforward: drill or no drill; partner or no partner; and production or no production. Nothing complex about the three vitally important questions and they don’t require a cogent reply, unless you want to duck out of answering them. I bet you (and LWHL) will be the first ones here to lash out at management if the company fails to achieve in 2025 drilling at Disko, a partner for Jameson Land and production at Greenswitch, but at the same time dare to dismiss my three questions as irrelevant.

All that said, I am somewhat puzzled about how you came up with a fundraising price of 0.22p. Surely, the price would depend on what 80M achieves before going to the market, including the three vitally important milestones that I have identified, plus the strength of the details relating to each of them. For example: (a) Disko - Whether it gets drilled and if so how many holes and the strength of the terms of the partnership (b) Jameson - Whether the company finds a partner and if so the profile of the partner and the strength of the terms of the partnership (c) Greenswitch - Whether production restarts and if so the volume of initial production and the level of cash flow from it. And also not to mention the impending news on grants and off-take agreement for Greenswitch.

If, for example, 80M managed to achieve all of the three vitally important milestones that I have identified with strong outcomes relating to each of them, the company would then be able to go to the market with a fundraise price at a much higher level than it would otherwise be able to. So, how can you challenge me to come up with a spot price for the next fundraise when it involves issues that are too complex to be addressed by a simple single price point response. I could legitimately argue that the proper way to reply to your challenge would be to come up with different fundraise price scenarios depending on what the company achieves before going to the market. Get it!

Chirpy - Yes, I too have noted with interest that Chris Wright, Secretary for Energy will be visiting Greenland this Thursday, 29th on a two-day visit with Usha Vance​, Second Lady. Greenland is blessed with a considerable amount of natural energy resources: Hydropower, Oil and Gas. Greenland’s enormous untapped hydropower resources exceed the country's domestic demands many times over, and Greenland has the potential to become a net energy exporter. I bet Trump's administration knows about all these facts. Interestingly, the trip also includes Mike Waltz, National Security Advisor with a planned visit to the U.S. military Pituffik Space Base (formerly known as the Thule Air Base).

https://tinyurl.com/4jppeta3

​Rach - You say (21 Mar 2025 10:24 under a different thread): "As yet you have not replied to my challenge with your guess as to the level that the next imminent fundraise might be set at. I'm guessing 0.22p. What's yours?"

Chill out, girl. The reason I did not bother to reply to your challenge was that when I offered you a challenge the last time you chickened out. You remember this post ​from IvRoche (7 Oct 2024 17:59) when you ducked out of my challenge: "I think it's a fairly straightforward challenge from Aston to Rachel. Rachel you either accept or don't... Do you stand behind your convictions or not?".

Since you did not accept my ​last challenge, you owe me one before I am prepared to talk about your new challenge about fundraising. So, if you want me to reply to your challenge, first give me a simple "​Likely" or "​Unlikely" answer to ​the three questions below (no convoluted answers please, a simple "​Likely" or "​Unlikely" answer).

1. Is it likely or unlikely that Disko will be drilled this year?

2. Is it likely or unlikely that Jameson Land will have a partner this year?

3. Is it likely or unlikely that there will be production at Greenswitch this year?

Once I have your answers to the three questions, I will then come back to you with my challenge (since you owe me one). After that we can then talk about your challenge. In the meantime, I look forward to your answers.

Second Lady Usha Vance, the wife of Vice President JD Vance, will be visiting Greenland this month.

https://tinyurl.com/2b5smazt

Chirpy - You say: "Ashton, to me it's clear. How it will work, which I think is what you're getting (at), is not made clear; but I am a bit of a mining numpty."

As I have already pointed out, when the RNS was released certain important issues were unclear to me and raised questions. I therefore did not rush to offer any comments immediately. Putting that to a side, I wish the cash payment under the proposed transaction was considerably more than £250,000 given the fact that 80M has already spent more than £3.1 million on drilling and exploration activities at Hammaslahti and close to £2.1 million on exploration activities at Outokumpu, adding up to a total of circa £5.2 million. In short, I am disappointed by the figure of £250,000.

Let me now turn to the issues in the RNS that were unclear to me. The RNS said:

"The SPA will contain (amongst other terms and conditions):

(v) provisions confirming that, following Completion, Metals One will have all rights arising under, or in connection with, the Licences, save that 80 Mile will retain any rights in respect of the extraction of industrial gasses under the Licences;

(vi) obligations on the parties to jointly operate the production of industrial gasses under the Licences with Metals One receiving a management fee on eligible expenses in respect of such operations."

The questions for me were:

1. After implementing the proposed transaction, would 80M retain rights regarding the extraction of industrial gases, and if so how would the percentage of rights be split between 80M and MET1?

2. Would the production of industrial gases be jointly operated by 80M and MET1 under the licences, and if so how would the costs/revenue associated with production be split between 80M and MET?

I have sought and obtained answers to my questions (1) and (2) from 80M management and they go as follows:

These will be further addressed in the FAMF OY SPA agreement with MET1 but as drafted, the terms are as follows:

1. 80M has retained a 100% interest in industrial gasses present in the project areas.    

2. 80M will pay a 10% management fee to MET1 for coordinating exploration activities related to industrial gas exploration. In a production scenario, MET1 would NOT have a carried interest. Their interest only relates to the coordination of field activities during the exploration phase (cost plus 10%).

I suppose one way of looking at the transaction is it enables MET1 to go after copper with 80M still retaining 100% rights to pursue industrial gases when it is ready.

Hope this helps.

Today's RNS includes these statements:

"The SPA (Sale and Purchase Agreement) will contain (amongst other terms and conditions):

(v) provisions confirming that, following Completion, Metals One will have all rights arising under, or in connection with, the Licences, save that 80 Mile will retain any rights in respect of the extraction of industrial gasses under the Licences;

(vi) obligations on the parties to jointly operate the production of industrial gasses under the Licences with Metals One receiving a management fee on eligible expenses in respect of such operations."

Can someone explain what they understood from these statements?

LWHL - You may think you present balanced posts but the truth of the matter is you really don't. Let me give you a recent important example.

I posted these questions:

1. Is it likely or unlikely that Disko will be drilled this year?

2. Is it likely or unlikely that Jameson Land will have a partner this year?

3. Is it likely or unlikely that there will be production at Greenswitch this year?

These are vitally key and highly relevant questions for shareholders but your reply was:" ...I think Ashton's questions are irrelevant because of the history of the company. Many promises and proclamations, which have delivered only disappointment and (heavy) dilution."

Through this reply you have made your position crystal clear. That is, because 80M has failed to deliver in the past it is not going to deliver anything meaningful for shareholders in the future. Since that is your clearly stated position, one cannot expect you to present balanced views on 80M and I am afraid this comes across in your posts and you may not realise it.