RE: IvR3 Nov 2025 00:42
Fair point, CC and it’s a good debate to have. If we’re talking about a possible “fourth leg,” here’s how I’d see the landscape:
1.) Hammaslahti (Finland) – modest tonnage (3–4Mt Cu-Zn-Au) but near-surface and fully permitted infrastructure. Could restart small-scale if copper stays high, but not a company-maker. VERDICT: JV or Dispose
2.) Outokumpu (Finland) – brownfield VMS ground, technically interesting but patchy results. Would need real spend to move forward. VERDICT: Dispose but keep the gas rights
3.) Thunderstone (Greenland) – early-stage, gold-nickel-copper anomalies, still greenfield. One for the bottom drawer. VERDICT: Hold (mainly because I like gold)
4.) Dundas (Greenland) – Feasibility-ready ilmenite project, paused due to TiO₂ prices, feedstock surpluses and capex needs plus the MRE debacle. Would need money to dispel the doubts re: tonnage via more drilling but could come back to life in a stronger titanium market. VERDICT: Hold or JV
5.) Thule (North Greenland) – little public data, year and years off. VERDICT: Hold or JV (aligns with Dundas)
So honestly, with Jameson (oil), Disko (critical metals) and Ferrandina (biofuels), I don’t think 80M needs a fourth leg right now. Better to prove up what they’ve got and let those three generate momentum and/or cash flow.
If I could choose a “what if,” though - I would have kept Kangarlussuaq. That was arguably the best fourth-leg candidate: genuine scale, advanced geology, plus Ironbark now Skylark Minerals are looking to restart work on their Zinc deposit Citronen (post failed sale) given the strength of the Zinc market and pricing.
Hope that helps, ATB.