Member Info for ChirpyCheep

Ashton, thank you. It's a blatant attempt to damage this BB. As I have mentioned before I was a Chartered Financial Planner and IMC qualified so I understand Share Consolidations. I have thought twice about posting because of the fear of rancour and I guess there must be others.Anyway I am going to make myself look stupid.Can anybody explain to me the Consideration Shares and how can they be potentially worth £1 8 m to 80M at an exercise price of 2p when the share price is now 23p

You disgust me.A valid question and you try to belittle me.The price has gone from 0.25 to 23, that is not a factor of 10. The MC is now £7.5m and it was not that a few weeks ago Indeed you went to great lengths to tell everybody how worthless the shares were.I was talking about the increase in value notwithstanding consolidation. You knew that but just couldn't resist getting personal.

Ashton, does it really matter what price Rach thinks the next Placing price will be.Sutely it's obvious that given the size of the projects there is a substantial risk of a heavily discounted Placing because capital will be required potential before news arrives. We all know that and she is just trying to bait us .However that is the nature of the beast, look att Met1, a 53% discount of a Placing and then multiples by 10 in a matter of weeks .And that's without projects of the scale of 80M.Incidentally can anybody explain the recent Met1 share price, because I don't understand it.

Zinky, sorry you've lost me re what difference does the sale price make ? RM is the largest shareholder so I can't quite understand why he would want to make a deal at all costs.Share some of your sentiments though .Ashton may disagree but isn't JL the jewel in the crown and it makes sense to build a business around that Incidentally ES had an energy background before metals

Sorry we can pigeon hole you. I noticed that you haven't responded to Ashton's challenge. All the stuff you post is rear facing.So you say you are an 80M shareholder , which I very much doubt, and considering this fact what would you like to see happen, save management changes, that would drive the share price forward .Hopefully you will find this a fair question.

Https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_24_1425/IP_24_1425_EN.pdf

Might be more relevant that Trump et al as Greenland is European.

Ashton, might be more relevant that Chris Wright, Secretary of Energy is also attending said jolly.

Nuuk is a great place for a pub crawl.

Rach, you're making me laugh now.I am not intelligent enough to look at things such as Financial Statements . I look at Critical Minerals in Canada and look at their MC which is multiples of 80M and think would it take a lot of capital to get one of 80M,s assets. I look at ETM and their MC and wonder why their MC is multiples of ours for a project.snaller than either Disko it JL and doesn't even have a license.. Thats what I mean by micro

Https://www.online.fnbci.co.uk/blog/investments/articles/InvestmentEducationMacrovsMicro/#:~:text=While%20macro%20investing%20offers%20a%20big-picture%20perspective%20that,understanding%20of%20company%20fundamentals%20for%20more%20precise%20decision-making.

Ashton

Thank you for this; don't let Rach and LWHL put you off.

I prsonally think that micro factors are more important than macro factors for 80M, although everything helps.

As the Finnish assets are topical, do you know if there has been any progress with the industrial gasses.? The two RNS's on the discovery of industrial gasses stated that a Proof of Concept study has begun and used words like "intensify", "rapid", "fast tracking" and "expanding".If news is not forthcoming soon it would feed into the narrative of some on here about the veracity of some of the communications. As much as I resent the personal and dubious nature of Rach's posts, she does have a point on strategy and messaging. If they are not going to be fast tracked why say it.

Whilst you were disappointed with the sale of the Finnish copprer assets it's woth remembering that the share price doubled , albeit temporarily, on the discovery of industrial gasses. Does anybody seriously think that developing the Finnish metals assets could do that?

Previous expenditure on Hammaslahti and Outokumpo are irrelevant especially in the light of the industrial gasses. discovery. Otherwise the argument is we've found industrial gasses on a level that could transform the company but because we've spent all this money on the copper projects we'll have to do that first. Don't forget the money was spent when the share price was much higher and diversification made sense.

Perhaps I should have added.......... in a reasonable timescale.......... or a timescale that justifies priorities over other assets.........or even a value comparable with other assets

As the portfolio of 80M has grown so the contect of the Finnish assets have changed.

RE said they had value........ I am not sufficiently qualified to argue with him

It's a question of resource allocations; simples.

Ashton

Thank you for this, that's really helpful

I wasn't trying to be rude to you but just speaking in my simplistic universe and my simplistic thoughts, i think , were right as per the general message i conveyed.

So we all agree that the money raised is paltry. However, it;s for something that could never realise value. Moreover, if Met1 do well it will increase and in due course might be quite liquid money.

It might add up to say £1m in due course and they still retain the two projects ; Hammaslati and Outokump are no longet copper but energy. Look at it that way it's money for nothing.

Again. thank you for your efforts in liaising with the BODF

Of course Rach has a point of how would it work in practise 80M retaining the rights to the industrial gasses.

I certainly don't know, but do any of the posters on here know.

Rach and LWHL may think the monies received is peanuts and again that's a fair point.

However, the prescence of industrial gases at Outokumpu and Hammaslathti meant that the extraction of copper at those projects was at the very bottom of the pile; years and years down the road if ever.

Better to concentrate on the here and now.

LWHL says look at the facts from Rach but I am sorry she only ever points one side of the story.

Yes we can all accept her query about how retaining the gasses is going to work in practise but she won't balance it out by saying that this transaction reduces cost, increases focus and more importantly helps with the here and now on projects that could potentially dwarf the Finnish assets.

Ashton, to me it's clear

How it will work, which I think is what you're getting get, is not made clear.; but I am a bit of a mining numpty.

If it worked in practise this could be a good deal as I guess they would hav hade to priotise copper or gases and they would have priotised gases, so to 80M it was no longer a copper project-.

LWHL, personally FWIW I am neutral.

I find it difficult to wade through the vitriol to determine any facts Rach points out.

I can see the point that it's not a huge value, but surely once 80M went down the Greenswitch/ JL route it told a story on the existing assets, esp the Finnish ones.

As Zinky says it does makes sense, as diificult as it is.

LWHL, the point I was making was that if you think that this is a bad deal, predicated primarily on historical expenditure ,that make JL and Greenswitch good purchaes ?

LWHL, not sure you can look at historical expenditure cf JL.

Https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/12/europe/greenland-election-polls-close-demokraatit-intl-hnk/index.html

Looks like the pro business party has won,should help 80M.

Https://x.com/RNS_Assist/status/1899362219781247007

Isn't he referring to Oberon , was greater than 3% before recent raise.