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

ChirpyCheep - You say: "Another personal attack from a troll. Can I respectfully ask you to ignore such messages and add posts in a manner that you see fit?"

I agree and I have already been ignoring the trolls as you have suggested. But that is not what I wanted to talk about in this post. Comments by posters, whether positive or negative, of JAY and the performance of the Board of Directors must be welcome. But what is not welcome are personal attacks and the use of vile language against individuals. Personal attacks and claims that Rod McIllree is a "crook", "drunk" and a "greedy bugger" are not acceptable. Worse, the use of vile language. Following the interview with Eric Sondergaard, RachT attacked Sarah Lowther (from Total Market Solutions) who interviewed ES. RachT used vile language by calling Sarah Lowther, and I quote, an "absolute tart". RachT posted the note on 2 May 2024 at 07:51. It was actually posted under the chat board name RachT2. It is no longer there, so I presume LSE has taken the post down (but I have a copy).

When someone makes comments or publishes content on social media about someone else that is unfair, untrue and harmful to their reputation, they could be held liable for defamation. A sensible poster here has already warned us twice about the dangers of such behaviour but it seems the trolls have not paid any attention to such warnings. An inner member of my family is a senior lawyer and I know what I am talking about here. It's best to be aware of UK laws about posting information or making comments on social media.

Regardless of all else, I avoid having anything to do with people who use gutter language.

CC - If you decide to reply to this post, please use this thread.

ChirpyCheep - I am expecting news announcements from the second half of this year with the possibility of some big news item(s) even as early as over the coming weeks, fingers crossed. I am sorry I am unable to add more.

Https://tinyurl.com/2hxt9htc

In his ​interview, Eric Sondergaard said JAY will be focussing on its copper-related projects: Disko, Hammaslahti and Thule. Disko is typically seen as a Nickel and Copper project. Watch from 8:00 mins - https://youtu.be/5G5jwsxhC8E?t=3

Copper is going to be a major focus for Anglo. News Release - 14 May 2024 - https://tinyurl.com/muzztpf2

I am sorry, IvRoche, I do not know the answer to your question at the moment.

AA carried out fieldwork in 2022 and 2023 at Disko. Following the 2023 fieldwork, AA reduced its total Mineral Exploration Licence area from 9,724km² to 7,379km² (a 24% reduction). The reduction in the area applied to just one licence, namely MEL 2019-80 (from 4,792km² to 2,447km²), but the company kept the remaining licence areas intact at the same level.

AA's current four MELs are:

MEL 2019-115 - 1,671km²

MEL 2019-79 - 2,434km²

MEL 2019-80 - 2,447km²

MEL 2019-59 - 827km²

Total - 7,379km²

I continually monitor AA's progress at Disko and can report that the company has recently applied for four Field Activity Licences for the above MELs for summer 2024 fieldwork. The application date for the FELs is 9 April 2024. An FEL is a regulatory requirement for fieldwork.

Cat - You have asked for comments. Here is mine: JAY‘s journey has not been straightforward with so many ups and downs. But then, some beautiful paths can’t be discovered without getting lost. So, cheer up. JAY may have, at last, found some beautiful paths if Disko, Thule and Helium take off (pun intended)!

I meant to say: "It was like washing one's dirty linen in public...."

Thanks for that Nicks. JAY may be "close" to some news on the industrial gas front and a few other positive developments. Please don't ask me how "close" is "close"!

ChirpyCheep - I raised the following questions with JAY and have been advised that the company is not able to comment at the moment but to wait for an update.

1. I have assumed that KoBold would maintain 51% ownership of Nikkeli until 31 December 2024. After that date, KoBold would own 49% of Nikkeli unless the terms of the current JV are revised to change the 49% ownership. Am I right?

2. Going forward, when do you expect to inform shareholders of the revised terms of the current JV?

What I am trying to say here is best to wait for the update on the revised terms of the JV going forward after 31 December 2024.

Jimbolina - I too had a laugh and almost fell off the chair when I read the claim Rob Edwards was "Looking after JAY shareholders' interests." RE was the one who cancelled the TNZ facility that had a ‘Floor Price’ (minimum price) of 2.5p per share for funding and then within a short period went and raised capital at 1.75p per share. Was that another example of " "Looking after JAY shareholders' interests"? You're kidding!

Even if RE had a valid case that the JV with KoBold was a poor deal, it was irresponsible of him to criticise the previous management so publicly for signing up for such a deal. It was like washing one's linen in public and undermining the company in the eyes of outsiders so publicly. The JV was mutually agreed upon between KoBold and JAY. If JAY management is not happy with the JV you discuss it privately with KoBold, not in public. That was reckless as it may well have contributed to souring JAY's commercial relationship with a partner.

I have not filtered RachT but generally don't reply to her posts now. I don't want to engage with someone who has a habit of using "vile" language. I might post something on this matter later. What I am trying to say here is don't filter but ignore her posts as appropriate.

CC - ​Are you sure that JAY has already assumed majority control of Nikkeli (51%)? I thought that would happen on 31 December 2024 unless the two parties mutually agreed to revise the terms of the current JV before the end of the year.

Red​knight - Thank you for ​the question "Why don't Kobold just buy JAY for petty cash...?" I have covered ​your question under my broader Q15.

That said, my personal opinion is if (and that's a big if) there were to be an offer from KoBold, it would be for JAY's 49% stake in Nikkeli Greenland A/S rather than the whole of JAY. I say this because KoBold's business model covers only green transition minerals projects. They are not interested in non-green transition minerals projects. ​As you will already know, JAY's project portfolio is a mix of both green transition and non-green transition minerals.

ChirpyCheep - What has prompted me to post this note is your earlier comment under a different thread: " ES's (Eric Sondergaard) reply to me was only about 4 lines but he did say K (KoBold) were " relieved" to have the current team back."

Rob Edwards gave a video interview on 28 September 2023. In the interview, RE talked at some length about the JV with KoBold (8:45 to 10:30 - link below). RE made several negative observations about the JV and how it operated. These were his specific comments:

a) The deal was quite short in terms of tenure, only 3 years.

b) It was not a particularly generous deal in terms of funding.

c) JAY had looked at another deal from a big mining company which was multiple of the dollars committed in the KoBold deal and over a longer tenure of time.

d) The technical arrangement between KoBold and JAY wasn't well balanced to start with but JAY is beginning to contribute more now.

e) The JV with Rio worked well in terms of JAY's weight of technical input and control over the project and that's the way JAY likes to work.

Even if the above points were valid, why did RE go public with what he regarded as the shortcomings of the JV with KoBold? Did he not realise that his observations were likely to damage the working relationship with KoBold? RE was talking about a deal that had already been agreed between two parties (KoBold and JAY) and is still in operation. Not very professional utterances when the JV is still live. I would say reckless. How do you think KoBold would have reacted to this interview? I am not surprised to learn that KoBold is "relieved" that they no longer have to deal with RE.

https://youtu.be/cgIt_T6SJ08?t=10

Cheshire - You ask: “Is this valuable land (Disko) going to stay dormant for many years to come? The target areas need to have more intensive work done but when?”

You raise important and relevant questions. Since you are a farmer I thought of using the popular English phrase in such situations that we urgently need the meat and potatoes of the Disko project! Shareholders are craving for more information that would give them greater confidence in the Disko project. That will come only when the details of the 2025 fieldwork program including how many holes are to be drilled and also the terms of a, hopefully, well-balanced revised JV are published. In the RNS on 29 April 2024, JAY said seven initial priority targets within the project area have been identified for drilling. Talking about drilling holes, KoBold claims in this article (link below) that their exploration program in northern Quebec provides a good case study where the company hit nickel-sulfide mineralisation in 8 of the 10 drill holes, which equates to 10 times better than the industry average for similarly isolated drill holes. KoBold also answers the question: "How do we decide which rocks to sample?" An interesting read if you have not seen the article before.

The all-important question for JAY shareholders: Will KoBold produce an 80% success rate drilling at Disko? I wish I had a crystal ball!

https://spectrum.ieee.org/ai-mining

Cheshire - Concerning Disko, you commented: "Have they (Anglo American) been looking over the fence (into JAY)!"

Of course, I suspect both JAY and AA keep an eye on each other to see what each party is up to. That is to be expected. But let me take this opportunity to state some facts and also make a couple of observations on the subject.

In 2019 Anglo American moved into Greenland and since then have pegged out Mineral Exploration Licences ​(MEL's) around JAY's Disko licence areas.

1. In 2019, AA was granted two MEL​'s.

2. Since then AA expanded its licences to 4 MEL​'s covering a total area of 9,724km².

3. In 2023, AA reduced the total licence area from 9,724km² to 7,379km² (a reduction of 2,345km² or 24%). This was achieved by reducing one of the 4 licences, MEL 2019-80, from 4,792km² to 2,447km².

4. AA carried out a fieldwork programme at Disko in the summer of 2022.

5. In 2023, the MLSA issued AA with four Field Activity Licences (a requirement for fieldwork).

6. AA has yet to carry out drilling at Disko.

7. JAY moved into Disko in 2011, eight years before AA. Since then JAY has increased its licence holdings to 6 MEL​'s. The 6 MEL​'s were obtained in 2012, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2024. The most recent one, MEL 2024-30, was granted in March 2024 (see RNS 29 April 2024).

8. The recent licence MEL 2024-30 provides a buffer around JAY's other existing licences and secures a continuous land position along the drill-accessible north coast of Disko Island where the company has several high-priority drill targets. This licence was strategically obtained as a natural extension of exposed sedimentary rocks, which represent the prime geological environment for hosting potential ultramafic intrusions.

9. JAY's current total licence area amounts to 3,015km² (as opposed to AA's 7,379km²). The holder of these 6 MEL​'s is Nikkeli Greenland A/S which is owned 51% by KoBold Metals and 49% by Bluejay Mining until 31 December 2024.

The above are facts. I will now make a couple of observations:

1. A key consideration when looking for minerals is not the size of the land alone but the potential of the mining site for the presence of rocks containing mineral ore. As an early mover into Disko (long before AA), JAY would have had the advantage of picking up, by using historical records, the most prospective areas within the land mass. What I am trying to say is size does not necessarily matter.

2. When AA reduced its licence area recently it must have got rid of the least prospective area, which reinforces my point that size does not necessarily matter.

CC - You say: "BBs are about opinions not facts; the facts are all there to see."

I am sorry, but I will have to disagree. BBs should be about both facts and opinions. Also, not everyone is well-researched to know the facts so it is worth stating the facts. But never express opinions dressed up like facts.

Turning to your question about KoBold, I am of course disappointed that they won't be drilling this year. But why? Did KoBold's relationship with JAY's previous management break down? Was this a contributory factor in not drilling this year? Maybe it was because I thought these statements in the RNS on 29 April 2024 hinted at something was amiss with the relationship:

"Prior to the December 2023 board restructuring, JV discussions were focussed around KoBold's early reversion of the joint venture, rather than 2024 field activities. Consequently, the lead-time necessary to secure specialized drilling equipment far exceeded what would have been possible in 2024." - Was this an oblique criticism of JAY's previous management?

"We are thrilled to have Eric back at the Bluejay helm; he's a great technical operator, and with his leadership, we look forward to unlocking the full potential of our partnership." - Was Kurt House hinting here that the relationship with JAY's previous management was not that thrilling or great?

As for the future, JAY has given an undertaking in the RNS that Nikkeli anticipates initiating planning for 2025 activities in late 2024 and is committed to advancing the Disko project. We await details of the plan. I am also expecting a revised JV to be announced, possibly around the same time.

Good question.

17. Will KoBold and JAY agree to revise the terms of the current JV?

18. If so, what will be the terms of the revised JV?

Cheshire - What prompted me to post this note is what you have said recently: “Hopefully this won’t drag out for a decade! Waiting for some good news soon!”

Yes, I hope we don’t have to wait a decade and will have some good news in the near term (2024/2025). Anyone who has researched JAY properly will know that it is a HIGHLY SPECULATIVE HOPE SHARE. There have been relentless prophecies here that JAY’s future is doomed. Such opinions are just that and not the facts. The same applies to bull opinions, they are just that and not the facts. The factual position is we do not know the answers to too many of the questions in front of us to determine - with a good degree of confidence - whether JAY is doomed or will prosper. So, what are the questions and let’s take a look at them:

1. Will KoBold unearth a mega find at Disko?

2. If a mega find is unearthed, how might the share price react to the news?

3. If a mega find is unearthed, will a mining major become a partner soon after?

4. If a mining major becomes a partner how might the share price react to the news?

5. Will Nikkeli be listed on the stock exchange if a mega find is unearthed at Disko?

6. Will JAY succeed in selling any of its assets?

7. If so, how much cash will the sales bring in?

8. How might the share price react to the asset sales news?

9. Will there still be a commercially viable route for the Dundas project?

10. Will the new Thule copper asset turn out to be a commercially viable project?

11. Will the mining major who has already expressed a specific interest in the Thule project become a partner?

12. If the mining major becomes a partner how might the share price react to the news?

13. Will Kangerluarsuk and Hammaslahti turn out to be commercially viable projects?

14. How will JAY fund itself over the next two years for housekeeping expenses and costs associated with progressing the Disko, Kangerluarsuk, Hammaslahti and Thule projects?

15. Will there be a takeover offer for JAY?

16. Will JAY go bankrupt?

Until we have the answers to these questions, anyone who shouts that JAY is doomed or will prosper is simply expressing opinions and they are not facts. The fact of the matter is JAY's future will unravel when we have the answers to the questions I have listed. In the meantime, we will hear lots of opinions, both bear and bull. That's fine, but they are not facts. Until we have answers to the questions I have listed, JAY is HIGHLY SPECULATIVE HOPE SHARE. I suspect any neutral observer who has researched JAY well will know all this stuff already but I thought of listing the questions anyway.

My good wishes for your investment.