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

Polkadotdoor, You keep repeating the statement: " KoBold has already earned 49% at Disko. They seem to get an extra 2% by drilling before December 2024."

This is factually not correct. KoBold currently holds 51% ownership and JAY 49% ownership of Nikkeli Greenland A/S (the company that holds all of the licenses at Disko) - RNS on 9 August 2021 - https://tinyurl.com/y9tyeh55

Following the 2022 exploration work, JAY stated in the RNS on 10 October 2022:

"We are particularly encouraged by the preliminary results we have received to date.

The JV Company will incorporate the extensive exploration results, once received, into the 2023 exploration plans." - https://tinyurl.com/2n859zwv

So, for the purpose of clarity, let me summarise as follows:

1. In October 2022, JAY received from KoBold the preliminary results of the 2022 exploration work.

2. Following the receipt of the preliminary results, JAY has been waiting to receive the final results of the exploration work. For whatever reason there was a delay in JAY receiving the final results. According to Rob Edwards, we can expect an update on Disko next month (October 2023).

Please click on the two links I have provided above and study the two RNS releases. If you still have questions, please come back.

Before a mining company can carry out diamond drilling it will have to obtain what is called a "Field Activity Approval Licence" from the Mineral Resources Authority of the Greenland government. Click on the link below and see page 17 "Diamond drilling and other drilling operations''.

In fact, JAY applied for and obtained such a licence for drilling at Kangerluasuk for a period of 22 June 2023 to 17 August 2023 under licence no. FELT 2023 - 109. As we all know, the intended drilling was aborted due to unseasonal and unexpected sea-ice conditions in the fjords leading to the Kangerluarsuk project. Hopefully, we will have a FELT licence showing up for the Disko project for diamond drilling in 2024, fingers x!

https://tinyurl.com/2ba8pa2d

PS: The licence ref "FELT" stands for "Feltaktivitet godkendelse" in Danish and in English it means "Field Activity Approval".

DiamondGeazer, Ref my post on 8 September 2023, 13:18, I said: "Ensuring that the JV partners meet compliance requirements of the Greenland government for fieldwork (I will post something on this subject later)".

Please see my next post.

DiamondGeazer, I said: "Moreover, since I do have accurate knowledge of the total depth in metres of the 15 holes announced in the JV Agreement RNS on 9 August 2021 or the cost per metre for drilling I am unable to help constructively."

I meant to say: "Moreover, since I do NOT have accurate knowledge of the total depth in metres of the 15 holes announced in the JV Agreement RNS on 9 August 2021 or the cost per metre for drilling I am unable to help constructively.

Please also note the Enonkoski total expenditure of $4.65 million covered other expenses as well, apart from diamond drilling 9,667 metres. So, the unit cost figure of $480 per metre for diamond drilling I quoted was on the high side.

Sorry, the link I posted got twisted. Here is the link.

https://www.koboldmetals.com/careers

Q2 - You ask: "KoBold has already earned 49% at Disko. They seem to get an extra 2% by drilling before December 2024. If KoBold decides to walk away (with 49%), how does Bluejay continue to meet its exploration commitments?"

Firstly, there appears to be some confusion over the ownership of Nikkeli Greenland A/S, the company that owns all of the Disko Mineral Exploration Licences. KoBold currently holds 51% ownership and JAY 49% ownership of Nikkeli Greenland A/S. Key terms of the JV have two stages, Stage I and Stage II. KoBold completed Stage I in 2022. KoBold must complete Stage II: Sole funding of either US$11.6 million in drilling expenditure or 15 pre-agreed drill holes within the Disko licence area by 31 December 2024. Should KoBold fail to complete Stage II before 31 December 2024, 2.0% of Nikkeli Greenland A/S will revert from KoBold to JAY and KoBold would then lose majority control, after which both parties would be subjected to continuing standard dilution methodology. The latter means if KoBold continues to fail to put money into Disko in the future, it will gradually lose its percentage holding in Nikkeli Greenland A/S and eventually, its holding will become zero. If KoBold walks away, JAY can bring in another partner - for example, a major miner. Don't overlook the fact that Disko attracted a lot of attention and JAY had talks with several parties before selecting KoBold Metals. I do not believe KoBold will walk away. We will know of their intentions next month (October 2023). I am happy to be patient for a few more weeks. I hope you will give yourself a little more time as well.

Good luck!

Polkadotdoor, you ask two questions:

Q1 - You ask: "Why has it taken them (KoBold Metals) 12 months to get results from the 2022 program then?" The short answer is I do not have enough knowledge to answer your question with a good degree of reliability. However, I would respond as follows:

1. KoBold did provide JAY with preliminary results following the 2022 fieldwork at Disko and the company was encouraged by the results, according to Bo Stensgaard - RNS on 10 October 2022 - https://tinyurl.com/2n859zwv

2. The 2022 fieldwork at Disko collected a lot of information, much more than initially planned. It was an "extensive exploration", according to Bo Stensgaard. This meant a lot of post-exploration data download and analysis by KoBold.

3. Since Disko, KoBold has taken on other major projects, in particular, their flagship Mingomba copper project in Zambia that has involvement at the highest levels of sovereign governments  - President of Zambia and the US Commerce Secretary - https://tinyurl.com/yca54umu

4. So, it is possible KoBold's Data Scientist resources were stretched and they may have prioritised their resource use. KoBold is currently on a recruitment drive -   https://www.koboldmetals.com/careersThe delay in progressing Disko has been terribly frustrating for shareholders and has also harmed the share price badly. That said, we will be getting an update from JAY next month (October 2023), according to Rob Edwards. I am looking forward to learning two things from the update:

1. KoBold's assessment of how prospective is Disko.

2. Details of the field program for 2024, including the drilling campaign.

Fingers x

Continued

Diamond Geezer you ask: "If I can bother you for one other opinion. When the JV agreement required Kubold (KoBold) to either spend USD11.6 million or drill 15 drill holes before the end of 2024, in your opinion, would 15 drill holes cost anywhere near that amount?"

The short answer is I don't know, sorry. However, it is important to bear in mind what really determines the drilling cost of a program is the total run of the drilling in metres and cost per metre. The latter is a common way to express the unit cost. The total cost of a drilling program is therefore determined by multiplying the drilling cost per metre by the total metres to be drilled. I would say a typical diamond drill program probably costs in excess of $300 per meter, depending on the rock type, drill location, and much more. The Disko field program announced in the RNS on 24 March 2022 (which was subsequently aborted) included a 3,000-metre diamond drilling but it did NOT specify the number of holes. Moreover, since I do have accurate knowledge of the total depth in metres of the 15 holes announced in the JV Agreement RNS on 9 August 2021 or the cost per metre for drilling I am unable to help constructively. However, I wish to add that the total exploration expenditure for Enonkoski by Rio Tinto amounted to US$ 4.65 million for 9,667 metres (2nd bullet point RNS on 24 July 2023 - https://tinyurl.com/2vy433p9 ). This works out at US$480 per metre for diamond drilling. This gives us a ballpark figure for the unit cost of diamond drilling. That said, the terrain at Disko could well be different from that at Enonkoski so the figure of US$480 per metre may not be entirely applicable to Disko.

DiamondGeazer, you ask: "Given that Rob said they were nearing reaching consensus on where to drill in 2024 (or words to that effect), how do you see BJ (other than being the operators) contributing to this debate, because the targets will surely be based on the data from Kubold's proprietary technology, which I imagine they wouldn't share?"

This was the statement verbatim from Rob Edwards in his video interview on 6 September 2023: "We've been in conclusive and deep discussion with our JV partner KoBold Metals about what to do in the coming exploration season; so we are approaching a CONSENSUS on what that should look like for the coming year. We hope to update the market towards October time (2023) on what the plan is." - Unquote

So, although RE did not use the word drill or drilling in his statement, I expect the 2024 plan for Disko would include drilling (otherwise it would be a meaningless plan). For me one of the keywords in RE's statement was the use of the word "consensus" and I am glad your question is about JAY's contribution to this discussion (other than being the field operations manager). In answer to your question, I am inclined to focus on the word 'consensus' but I want to say something at the very outset here. As far as KoBold are concerned, the most important factor for them is the preservation of their reputation. This would mean KoBold providing the lead in deciding where to drill the holes and in what order in order to minimise the risk of failure. Apart from this issue, the consensus would cover discussions over areas such as:

- Timetable for the fieldwork (e.g. start and finish dates and how the fieldwork would progress between the two dates)

- Selecting the right contractor, taking into account cost-quality factors (after all KoBold will be paying the bill)

- Consideration of safety aspects in relation to staff, contractors, and local population when selecting drill holes (Disko has gas pockets)

- Ensuring that the JV partners meet compliance requirements of the Greenland government for fieldwork (I will post something on this subject later)

- Anything else that's important I may have left out here

It goes without saying that I am no expert on this matter, it is just my opinion.

To my previous note, I should have added that the terms of the JV announced on 9 August 2021​ state: "Stage II - Sole funding of either US$11.6 million in drilling expenditure or 15 pre-agreed drill holes within the Disko licence area by 31 December 2024."

However, it is possible that with more precision targeting, the number of pre-agreed holes could be fewer than 15. In this context, I would like to refer readers to these extracts from an article and what Josh Goldman (CEO, KoBold Metals) stated:

"Using this high-tech array of software tools, the San Francisco–based mineral exploration company, backed by Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, can change its airborne survey plans from day to day to more quickly home in on PROMISING PLACES TO DRILL."

"By combining this approach with the AI decision-making tool developed with Stanford, KoBold is betting it can BOOST DELIVERY RATE BY A FACTOR OF 20, says Josh Goldman, the company’s chief technology officer. KoBold says the approach will also reduce the environmental impact of exploration because it will mean FEWER WASTED DRILL HOLES in the ground."

"Like a chess player trying to win a game in as few moves as possible, the AI will aim to help KoBold reach a decision about a prospect with minimal wasted effort—whether that decision is to DRILL IN A PARTICULAR SPOT OR WALK AWAY".

We will know for sure what the 2024 plan is for Disko next month (October 2023).

https://tinyurl.com/37mkb9sj

The answer is: "Drilling"

This report was released in April 2022 (1st link below). Although it seems the main purpose of the report was to demonstrate the potential efficiency of using high-resolution UAS (Unoccupied Aerial System)-based multi-sensor data to assist exploration targeting in difficult or poorly exposed terrain, it nevertheless is a useful read for Disko followers. The study focussed on an area south of Qullissat on the northern shore of Disko Island. It is a highly technical report so I have focussed my reading more on the following sections:

❖ Abstract

❖ Introduction

❖ Economic mineral potential

❖ Conclusion and outlook

The report makes reference to the work of Dr. Peter Lightfoot, Technical Lead of Magmatic Systems at KoBold Metals. The 'Acknowledgements' section thanks JAY for their support during the preparation and conduction of the field campaign. In particular, the study thanks Bo Møller Stensgaard and Hans Jensen for THEIR support with logistics.

In his video interview yesterday, Rob Edwards said: "We've been in conclusive and deep discussion with our JV partner KoBold Metals about what to do in the coming exploration season; so we are APPROACHING a CONSENSUS on what that should look like for the coming year. We hope to update the market towards October time (2023) on what the plan is."

In the RNS dated 14 October 2019 (2nd link below), Bluejay increased the drill-ready targets for Disko from twenty-one in 2018 to twenty-eight. It will be interesting to see how many drill targets KoBold comes up with.

https://tinyurl.com/yc4w8u2k

https://tinyurl.com/y4v747pa

Meant to say Revised Mineral Resource Estimate

My own view in this matter is that if the revised MRE was 'Bad' or 'Ugly', the information would be regarded as price-sensitive and JAY legally obliged to release the information to the market under AIM Rule 11 because under such a scenario Dundas would become a dead duck and dud project. On the other hand, if the revised MRE was 'Good', the information would still be price-sensitive but as I have already pointed out in one of my previous messages there is an exemption under Rule 11 whereby JAY can withhold releasing the information to the market if it is wrapped in the transaction with an outside party (e.g. prospective strategic investors). Since JAY has not released the revised MRE, I regard it as being 'Good', assuming of course JAY is already in possession of the revised MRE. I know for a fact that on 13 July 2023, Jay was waiting to receive the revised MRE shortly. Just because Rob Edwards did not mention the revised MRE in his interview yesterday does not necessarily mean it is 'Bad' or 'Ugly'. We will find out for sure between now and Christmas.

Https://tinyurl.com/f7xp3h2b

Sorry, Grubber, when you said "Disko sell-off", I thought you meant the sell-off of Nikkeli Greenland A/S. My apologies.

As you will know the 13 June 2022 RNS was about the demerger and potential separate stock market listing of the wholly-owned subsidiary Disko Exploration Limited ('Disko'). It had nothing to do with the sale of Nikkeli Greenland A/S.

For the benefit of readers who are not aware, Disko Exploration Limited holds 1 x Mineral Exploration Licence for the Thunderstone asset and 1 x Mineral Exploration Licence for the Kangerluarsuk asset. The wholly-owned subsidiary Dundas Titanium A/S holds 1 x Mining Exploitation Licence and 2 x Mineral Exploration Licences for the Dundas asset.​

Nikkeli Greenland A/S was created on 1 February 2022 and is the licence holder at Disko. Nikkeli Greenland A/S​ is 51% owned by KoBold Metals and 49% owned by Bluejay Mining. This means KoBold has the majority interest in Nikkeli Greenland A/S and therefore it cannot be sold without the consent of KoBold Metals. ​

https://tinyurl.com/yvthswpa

Grubber

You say: "I can understand RE’s initial caution: without Dundas in production and the Disko sell-off cancelled, he was heading a company without any source of regular cash-flow or a great deal of cash in the bank. "

As far as I know, JAY has never said Disko was for sale. So, what did you mean by "Disko sell-off cancelled"?

Http://tinyurl.com/yc56fhbw

Bluejay owns 29.98% of Metals One .

JAY'S stated time frame for releasing the Dundas revised Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) was mid-2023 - RNS 14 February 2023 - https://tinyurl.com/47jr7seh

We are now into Q3 2023, so what could be the reason for the delay in releasing the revised MRE? I know for a fact that on 13 July 2023, JAY was shortly to receive the final version of the revised MRE and the company had intended to release it via an RNS some time afterward.

I regard the revised MRE as price-sensitive information. My conjecture is the revised MRE is being treated as part of the discussions with one or more of the prospective strategic investors as to the future of the Dundas project and this is the reason why it has not been released to the market yet. Let me now share with you the definition of price-sensitive information and under what circumstances a company may withhold price-sensitive information.

DEFINITION OF PRICE-SENSITIVE INFORMATION

a) AIM Rule 11 requires notification without delay of any new developments that are not public knowledge which, if made public, would cause a significant movement in its share price. Hence, the information is deemed price-sensitive.

b) Such information is something an investor is likely to use as part of an investment decision, Hence, the information is deemed price-sensitive.

EXEMPTION TO AIM RULE 11 FOR DISCLOSING PRICE-SENSITIVE INFORMATION

Rule 11 provides an exemption whereby a company may not notify price-sensitive information if transactions are in the course of negotiation where such disclosure might prejudice those negotiations, However, under such circumstances certain conditions will have to be met:

1. Those who are aware of the price-sensitive information must keep the information confidential and also do not trade in the company’s shares ((e.g. parties to a negotiation, professional advisers and Board of Directors).

2. Companies choosing not to make such information public must have effective procedures and controls in place to ensure confidentiality and minimise the risks of a leak.

I think the options for the Dundas project are (a) Sell-off the asset (b) Keep the asset 100% in-house and progress it to production (c) Strike a deal with a major miner and progress it to production.

Nothing is confirmed until it is confirmed.

Sorry if my post gave the impression that the current incumbents would turn JAY around. What I would say is that the jury is still out on this matter. In his video on 5 December 2022, Chairman Rob Edwards made this statement: "Bluejay's portfolio of assets will change shape and move up the value curve in 2023 and beyond." So, he has until the end of 2023 to live up to his statement by showing, for a start, how he has moved the two flagship projects Dundas and Disko up the value curve.

Definitely -Yes, you say: "I think it is important to treat a company and its current leaders separately and to segregate the two."

I am not sure whether I can agree. Let me give some examples:

1. A headmaster or headmistress can turn a failing school into an institution of excellence but conversely can also thrash an excellent school through mismanagement.

2. The competence of a captain can make all the difference in how a ship weathers the storm (speaking metaphorically and literally).

3. The Chairman of a firm can make all the difference to the success or failure of a company since strategic leadership and direction come from the top.

Let's take a FTSE company that was in the news last month - namely Marks & Spencer. The Chairman Archie Norman radically shook up the company and fixed the drifting business. The share price is now flourishing under his chairmanship - http://tinyurl.com/yuvuk5cr

I hold shares in M&S and was fortunate enough to buy them for around £1.00 per share in 2020 when they were bombed out. They are now standing at around £2.25 under the chairmanship of Archie Norman.