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

You have asked whether a potential merger of JAY's Disko and Anglo American's Disko would make sense. When I asked you whether you have included KoBold in such a scenario you confirmed so.

At Disko, JAY/KoBold's current total licence area amounts to 3,015km² and AA's 7,379km². My judgment is KoBold are unlikely to ​even consider getting involved in a much-expanded exploration tenement at Disko (3,015km² + 7,379km²) until they have ​first proven up the resources ​at the current JV licence area (3,015km²). What's more, AA has yet to ​advance the project to drilling at ​their licence area (7,379km²).

ChirpyCheep - JAY wants to drill next year (2025); one option is to drill the most promising shallow target(s) that have been identified by KoBold and simultaneously carry out the EMS on the remaining targets. JAY is serious about this option and it is being given serious consideration (it is certainly not a fanciful idea). Please refer to the note I posted under the thread " Think Disko, Think Disko and Nothing But Disko! '' on 29 Jun 2024 at 08:48 (link below).

Best to be a little more patient and wait for the next RNS update on Disko.

PS: Please note that no fieldwork (e.g. EMS) is being carried out at Disko this summer.

https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/a-s-h-t-o-n/?page=2

I wonder whether the announcement of any Deals/Agreements would be held back until the company's name has been changed to 80-Mile (AIM: 80M) so that the new name can be applied to the Deals/Agreements. Moreover, it would also make sense to issue the vendors of White Flame Energy with 80M shares rather than JAY shares. Just a thought.

ChirpyCheep - You ask: " Wouldn't a merger of JAY's Disko and AA's Disko ​​make sense?​"

Good question. In asking the question, are you factoring in KoBold staying in or out?

Forcemode - You ask: You've said that the KoBold agreement is under revision and we can expect this to be announced in a week or so. In the meantime can I ask what you think could be the possible changes to this agreement...."

I am expecting the following elements to be included in the revised "Agreement" and have added a few questions alongside each of them. If a new partner joins, it would then become a new agreement.

1. PARTIES TO THE "AGREEMENT": In addition to KoBold and JAY, will the anticipated Agreement include an additional partner? If so, will it be a major mining company (e.g. Anglo American) or a strategic financial backer? In which case it would be a new agreement.

2. TENURE OF THE AGREEMENT: The tenure for the current JV is three years. What will be the tenure for the revised/new Agreement?

3. KEY STAGES OF THE AGREEMENT AND FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS: What will be the key stages of the new/revised Agreement and the financial contributions from each of the parties to the new/revised Agreement for the key stages?

4. OWNERSHIP OF NIKKELI GREENLAND A/S: What will be the respective percentage ownership of each of the parties to the new/revised Agreement of Nikkeli? Please note, Nikkeli owns all of the licences of Disko. Nikkeli's current ownership is: 51% KoBold; 49% JAY

This is just my opinion. Please do your own research and best to wait for the update if you want to be sure.

At the AGM on 26 June 2024, Rod McIllree said we can expect an update on Disko in four weeks.

ChirpyCheep - In your post on 16 Jul 2024 at 07:39 under a different thread you said: "Have a look at ADVFN. Somebody makes the point that Disko contains 1.2 trillion tons of resources. It's a once in a decade find; worldwide."

I don't think the poster was correct in quoting the figure of 1.2 trillion tons of resources for Disko. As far as I know, JAY has never put a figure in this regard​ for Disko. JAY has promoted Disko as exhibiting spatial characteristics indicative of potential deposits on a scale comparable to the renowned mining operations at Norilsk-Talnakh nickel district in Siberia. In making the comparison, JAY has referred to two figures concerning Norilsk-Talnakh: ​Proven and probable ore reserves totalling 663.1 million tonnes ('Mt') and a value of US$1.4 trillion.

Please see bullet points (3) and (6) in this RNS dated 1 February 2022 - https://tinyurl.com/yeys268t

ChirpyCheep - Under this thread, you ​said: "I very rarely reply to Enuff. For crying out loud his very name outlines his agenda."

I ​avoid ​replying to him either. ​On 5 February 2024, he disclosed that he had sold out but decided to keep a few thousand shares for nostalgic reasons​ (whatever that means).​ On 25 April 2024, he admitted he ​​was a non-believer in JAY. ​He is without question obsessed with Rod McIllree, going by his continually negative references to RM. Maybe that's his agenda and no real interest in JAY, who knows?

Rach - This is what I said: "If I were interested in putting a positive spin on shareholdings, why did I post the information that Sandgrove had reduced its holding by 4% between 11 January 2024 and 12 February 2024? Think about it if you are accusing me of bias!"

If you read carefully what I have written, I was saying I am not biased and don’t put positive spins when I reproduce the figures published by JAY on the Substantial Shareholders lists. Of course, I am biased otherwise when it comes to JAY's prospects because I strongly believe that Disko - its flagship project - will come good.

When posting figures from the Substantial Shareholders lists, I simply reproduce the numbers as published by JAY and/or provide the link. In some instances, I have copied and pasted the numbers from the previous two lists to highlight how the shareholdings have changed from one update to the next but the source for the figures has always been just the Substantial Shareholders updates and I have never included TR-1 notifications figures in them. In presenting the figures I have NEVER misrepresented them. I just reproduce them. On 7 December 2023, JAY informed the market via two TR-1 notifications of the transactions Rod McIllree made on 6 December 2022 and 14 September 2023 and these transactions were absorbed into the Substantial Shareholders update the company published on 11 January 2024.

Please note ALL the figures that I included in the note I posted on 15 Jul 2024 at 13:33 (yesterday) for Rod McIllree's shareholding also came entirely from the Substantial Shareholders lists published by the company.

If anyone wants to track the TR-1 notifications and share the figures via updates then that’s fine but I will stick to monitoring and sharing the Substantial Shareholders lists as I have always done previously. Please note, when a new list comes out the old list disappears - so I take screenshots of the lists for my records to see how the shareholdings have changed.

I presume shareholders must be happy that RM has substantial skin in the game with 97,499,268 shares - his largest holding, ever! What do you think?

I will conclude this note by saying I may be many things Rach but I am certainly not a disingenuous person. You don’t know me but I know something about your personality from your own admission. I might post something on this later.

It seems some people have not read the RNS on 11 July 2024: "This is the first systematic assessment of the rock potential WITHIN the Project license area and reinforces the Project's potential as a world-class source of high-grade titanium dioxide feedstock. Bedrock samples consistently show almost double the values of contained ilmenite than the existing JORC-compliant resource estimate of 117 Mt at 6.1% ilmenite within the Project's raised and active beach environments. The presence of an underlying, titanium-rich sill offers additional exploration targets and resource expansion potential."

Whenever JAY updates the Substantial Shareholders list, I share the information here to benefit readers. When the last update was published on 12 February 2024, I posted two notes - one at 17:45 and the other at 17:49 (link below). One post gave the link to the list. The other post ​c​compared the shareholdings of the two largest holders (Sandgrove Capital Management and Roderick McIllree) between 11 January 2024 and 12 February 2024.:

12 FEBRUARY 2024

Sandgrove Capital Management - 134,400,901 (8.92%)

Roderick McIllree - 91,499,268 (6.08%)

11 JANUARY 2024

Sandgrove Capital Management - 154,684,379 (12.93%)

Roderick McIllree - 78,999,268 (6.61%)

If I were only interested in putting a positive spin on shareholdings, why did I post the information that Sandgrove had reduced its holding by 4% between 11 January 2024 and 12 February 2024? Think about it if you are accusing me of bias!

https://tinyurl.com/yt7b2wu4

ChirpyCheep - You ask: "So as you are the most knowledgeable poster on here can you enlighten us on what you think will happen re Dundas? They are obviously going to try to enhance the resource but will this be possible without a JV and is there any appetite in the market for such a project as Dundas?"

I do not regard myself as the most knowledgeable poster here, but thanks for the compliment all the same.

As for progressing Dundas, I am now looking at it in two stages:

Stage I (Management's current priority): To try and add more grade and tonnage to the resource. Some of the Dundas ilmenite sand comes from a mineralised sill that sits underneath the sand deposits. That sill is at or above the grade of the sand deposits. The aim is to see whether anything can be done economically to include the sill as part of the resource. The RNS on 11 July said JAY would aim to undertake a low-cost JORC-compliant exploration target, to further advance the concept (i.e. including the sill as part of the resource). I do not think JAY will need a partner for Stage I but please check with the company.

Stage II: Develop the project for production (with or without a partner - whichever is more feasible) or sell off Dundas. I don't think either of the two options under Stage II can be achieved without successfully accomplishing Stage I.​ That is, JAY has to come up with a revised JORC-compliant resource estimate that makes the project economically viable production or a saleable asset.

I post here whenever the Substantial Shareholders list is updated on the company website. I extracted Rod McIllree's shareholdings from the information published on those ​five dates I have just shared. Nothing more, nothing less.

I keep an eye on substantial shareholders, in particular, Rod McIllree's holding:

October 2022 - 75,820,635 (7.22%)

September 2023 - 75,820,635 (6.34%)

January 2024 - 78,999,268 (6.61%)

February 2024 - 91,499,268 (6.08%)

July 2024 - 97,499,268 (6.47%)

https://bluejaymining.com/investors/shareholders-information/

LWHL - You say: "It was in response to Ashton, who often seems to focus on, and comment in detail on, really trivial points that critics sometimes make. While seemingly ignoring the actual elephants in the room."

Really, are you able to provide some examples to substantiate your claim that I focus on trivial points? When you referred to Eric Sondergaard as CEO I did correct you to say that's not his job title. Okay, I accept that may be a trivial point but I wanted to highlight the fact you don't even bother to do basic research on new management. Let's move on to a substantive issue. Recently (11 July 2024) you asked: "If there was/is genuine value in Dundas, then why has nobody taken it off JAY's hands yet, or agreed a JV?"

This question implies a failure on the part of management to sell off Dundas or form a JV. If you had done proper research you would not have asked this question. Do you know what the current priority for Dundas is? The main issue I have with you is that you don't do proper research on the company but are only too hasty to make unfounded negative comments. You claim that I focus on trivial matters. My counter comment to that is you fail to focus correctly on substantive issues due to lack of research.

I ask again, do you know what the current priority for Dundas is?

Interesting observation CC. This is the full sentence of what LWHL said: "What is the point? Everyone here has made up their minds in one direction or the other. Bulls seem to find no fault or failure in anything here."

LWHL - You say: "All of which is really trifling and minor, by the by stuff, and of no consequence to the real issues at hand, of course.”

I agree, but I wish you had not brought up your comments about chat board messages and RNS releases disappearing in the first place when there are far more important issues to discuss. That said, anyone seriously interested in JAY would first check for information on the company website. As I have already said, management has confirmed to me that all of the information currently available on the JAY website will be transferred across to the 80M website. So, let’s put this spurious issue to bed once and for all.

You say: " Everyone here has made up their minds in one direction or the other. Bulls seem to find no fault or failure in anything here."

That's a one-sided statement, if I may say so. You say “everyone” but then go and refer only to bulls. What about the bears? I wish you had said: "Everyone here has made up their minds in one direction or the other. The bulls seem to find no fault or failure in anything here whilst the bears find nothing but all faults and failures." I thought you were someone who promoted balanced views.

You say: " I will only comment here again if we see an RNS that outlines an asset sale or another fund raise." I am lost here, why restrict your comments to only these two areas? What about comments on projects? Why leave them out? I thought it was central to taking a holistic approach when making comments on a junior miner like JAY.

ChirpyCheep - You ask: "You have said many times you expect the terms of the agreement to change, and probably pretty speedily, do you have any ideas of how it would look?"

I will give a direct answer to your question in a moment but let me say this first to set the scene. At the AGM on 26 June 2024, you sat alongside me in the front row and will recall I asked this question of Rod McIllree during the Q&A session: “I am expecting the next Disko update to include two elements: (a) Details of the 2025 fieldwork program (b) Revised terms of the future agreement with KoBold Metals. Am I right?”

Not surprisingly RM replied he could not discuss the details of what might be in the update. So I pressed him with this follow-up cheeky question: “Is it possible that a future partnering arrangement for Disko might include Anglo American (AA) whereby the partnership becomes a three-way arrangement?”

Surprisingly RM responded to my question by saying under any such arrangement it would mean JAY losing majority control and was unwilling to elaborate further. I could NOT draw any firm inferences from RM’s reply except so far as to say JAY would ideally like to have majority control (>50%) in progressing the project. Now I will return to your question but I stress my reply is a guess about what might happen based on how it seems and not on proof. This is what I think might happen:

1. AA joins as a partner. This would mean Disko having three partners: JAY, KoBold and AA in progressing the project.

2. As for the ownership of Disko (strictly speaking Nikkeli Greenland A/S), there could be one of two possible outcomes: (a) KoBold gives up 2% of Nikkeli to JAY and a proportion of the remaining 49% to AA. This would mean JAY becoming the majority owner (51%) with KoBold and AA as minority partners, or (b) The Nikkeli ownership is reconfigured in such a way that AA assumes 51% (majority control) with the remaining 49% distributed between JAY and KoBold as minority partners.

I repeat what I have stated is conjecture and should NOT be regarded as no more than that.

At the AGM on 26 June 2024, RM said we could expect the Disko update in 4 weeks.

LWHL - You say: "But with the name change, all of the historic chat posts will disappear, as will historic RNS's. People will still be able to find them of course, but not as easily."

Really! No, they will NOT disappear and they will be just as easy to find.  Let me expand.

At the AGM on 16 June 2022, shareholders of AEX Gold (AIM: AEXG) - a Greenland-based junior mining company -  approved the name change to Amaroq Minerals (AIM: AMRQ). The change of name came into effect on 12 July 2022. The reason for the change was considered appropriate due to the company's business being recognised for holding mineral licences in gold as well as strategic minerals.

The historical RNS announcements on the AEX Gold website were transferred to and are now available on the Amaroq Minerals website. So, they have NOT disappeared - https://tinyurl.com/mr3dkk2a

 

The LSE chat board posts on AEX Gold are still available and they have NOT disappeared - https://tinyurl.com/45f2j2dh

There is a new link on the LSE chat board for posts on Amaroq Minerals - https://tinyurl.com/4yp2dcx8

I am CONFIDENT that the same arrangements would apply when Bluejay Mining (AIM: JAY) changes its name to 80 Mile (AIM: 80M).

Why must you look at a future situation with such unfounded doubts? Did you do some basic checks on the LSE chat boards like what I have done? Did you check with JAY management before expressing the view that historic RNS releases would disappear? I have checked with JAY management and can tell you that you are mistaken.

This is not the first time you have failed to do some basic checks before expressing a view on JAY. Is this because you are not invested in JAY and are only a casual observer of the company, I wonder?

Catwithamnesia - you say: “ Kobold didn't brought anything new to me (sic).”

Really! The facts say otherwise. Let me expand. In addition to already known targets, KoBold has identified ​9 ​NEW ​strong gravity (± magnetic) anomalies (targets). These are NEW discoveries. With further intensive analysis and interpretation, KoBold has narrowed the 9 NEW ​strong targets down to 7 ​INITIAL PRIORITY targets within the project area for drilling. These targets may represent intrusions of comparable size to the host intrusions of many world-class magmatic Ni-Cu sulphide deposits. However, only a drilling campaign would provide definitive answers to how valuable these targets are.

So, you’re telling me KoBold has not brought anything to JAY. You must be kidding! I would strongly urge you to go back and read KoBold’s findings.

LWHL - You ask: " If there was/is genuine value in Dundas, then why has nobody taken it off JAY's hands yet, or agreed a JV?"

It seems you have not read the RNS releases on 16 April 2024, 11 July 2024 and also the interview with Eric Sondergaard on 3 May 2024. If you had you would not have asked the question. You have recently admitted you are not a shareholder and I have wondered whether because you do not have no skin in the game in the stock you do not take the trouble to research the company properly. In fact, on a couple of occasions, I have even helped you with information and in one instance I even corrected you when you referred to Eric Sondergaard as CEO which is not his job title.