Member Info for RachT2

PJ

What makes you so confident it’s a buy?

It’s marked as “Unknown,” which is typically just an automated classification based on algorithms rather than anything definitive. In fact, the trades immediately either side were at slightly higher prices — if anything, that would lean more toward it being a sell.

Genuine question — what are you basing your certainty on? Is there anything concrete behind it?

My understanding has always been that only the broker and the client involved know for sure, and everything else is just best-guess interpretation.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

SilverFoxd

I don’t think the core position has really changed much — this remains a high-risk, binary proposition. Expect continued volatility, with plenty of peaks and troughs along the way. Ultimately, only drill results will determine whether the optimism is justified or not.

There’s a lot of talk about “many assets,” but that’s not new — the company has had multiple assets for years, all previously described as “valuable.” The obvious question is: why haven’t those translated into sustained profitability? Instead, there’s been a consistent need for further funding.

Take GS as an example. It’s still not operational, not generating the revenues that were previously guided, and profitability remains uncertain. This is an asset that was acquired out of administration after previous owners couldn’t make it work, ran for a few years, then mothballed for several more before changing hands again. That history alone should prompt a degree of caution.

On Disko, it’s also worth asking why a partner with significant technical capability chose to step away. That decision doesn’t come out of nowhere.

Funding is another key area. There’s still no visible proof of funds for drilling at JL or Disko. Yes, the narrative is that capital will come from private sources, so confirmation may only come when activity actually begins. Until then, it does require a degree of trust that commitments will be honoured.

As for timelines — talk of production at JL within two years feels ambitious, particularly for a greenfield project with no existing infrastructure. It would be an outlier by industry standards.

And then there’s the shift in messaging — from a career delivering discoveries in the millions of barrels RP has apparently switched to now targeting billions. Naturally, ambition is part of the business, but it does raise questions around expectations versus track record.

I genuinely hope this does mark a turning point for 80M — but at this stage, it remains a speculative play with a wide range of possible outcomes.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Well, the tone on here has certainly escalated. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

There’s an extraordinary volume of noise being posted — multiple times a day in some cases — and very little of it adds anything meaningful.

Take comments like:

“I will have no hesitation to report their activity these last few days…”

— apparently the entire price movement can be attributed to warrants. Really? It couldn’t possibly be the market taking a different view to the constant bullish narrative?

Rather than consider that possibility, the default seems to be to blame anything and everything else. The idea that the market might simply disagree doesn’t appear to get much airtime.

Meanwhile, those who have chosen to trade the volatility and take profits are labelled “weak holders” or “not proper investors.” Amusing, given that they’ve actually managed to extract gains while the price has moved around.

Each to their own, of course — but dismissing alternative approaches while ignoring what the market is actually doing doesn’t seem the most productive stance.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Panman

Hydrogen? Revenue? Unlikely.

You state - “..not to their promised timelines anyway then perhaps it's no wonder the stock is constantly dropping back as would indicate no one actually takes what the co. says all that seriously?”

Spot on. The company does appear to have a track record of issuing over optimistic timelines — some get pushed back, some quietly fade away, and others never seem to materialise at all.

It’s not difficult to check this against historic updates. Take Green Switch as an example. It was expected to be up and running a year ago, generating revenue and moving toward full capacity. Instead, we seem to still be waiting — and if memory serves, this is the fourth (or fifth?) suggested restart window.

As recently as October, one of the MoUs referenced:

“Plant restart in December 2025 with full production in January 2026”

“Start of biodiesel supply: January 2026”

Which leaves a couple of possibilities:

Those milestones were achieved and, somehow, they forgot to tell us all

Or they represent yet another set of missed targets

Guess which one I think is the more likely.

IMHO only. DYOR.

No one knows if they are both buys. The earlier transaction was placed at close to the prevailing Sell price- more likely to be a roll-over.

VikR

“If there is one thing 80M has proven time and again is its ability in acquiring licenses and permissions globally on multiple in situ commodities.”

Sounds great — but a quick reality check:

“Globally” is a stretch. The footprint has largely been limited to Greenland and Finland, with some historic activity in Austria. That’s not exactly worldwide coverage.

On the financial side, where’s the evidence of meaningful returns? Yes, licences have been acquired and some interests sold on, but a look through the year-end accounts shows ongoing costs, write-downs and repeated fundraises. I’m not seeing a track record of consistent profit from any of those activities. And wasn't GS supposed to be producing revenue / profits over a year ago.

The only notable “gain” appears to be the accounting treatment around the return of Kobold’s share in Disko, recorded at zero cost — which flatters the picture somewhat.

So yes, licences have been accumulated — but not globally, and not obviously profitably. I’d have thought competition for unprofitable licences wouldn't have been that stiff - but what do I know.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Sonic

I’ll caveat this from the outset — my knowledge in this specific area is fairly limited, so I’m very open to correction if anyone has better information.

That said, my understanding is that any export / logistics route would most likely be via Scoresby Sund / Hurry Inlet, considerably further away than the 3 miles you state. While OPW-1 is geographically closer to the coast, the local geology appears to make that option highly challenging — both in terms of pipeline routing and any potential loading facilities.

From what I can gather, that stretch of coastline is dominated by significant basalt formations rising steeply (100’s of metres), with little in the way of natural sheltered harbours, flat landing areas, or protection from ice movement. None of which lends itself easily to any infrastructure development or shipping.

Again, that’s just my interpretation based on what I’ve been able to piece together — and it hasn’t been the easiest area to find clear, definitive information on. Happy to be corrected if anyone has more detailed insight.

PS I’m seeing a lot of green filters today - no doubt the usual suspects responding to my posts in their time honoured manner - no valid counter arguments just their usual dross. If I’m wrong, maybe someone could repost anything of value. I’ll not hold my breath.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

And needless to say, for my previous post -

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Wow — another “ramptastic” news piece doing the rounds, courtesy of Larry and Robert. They must be exhausted with the volume of interviews… although, to be fair, the script doesn’t seem to change much.

The latest takeaway? Apparently oil production and sales within two years. Impressive — if not a touch optimistic. Particularly given that no discovery has been made yet, and even in a success case you’d still be looking at appraisal drilling, proving commerciality, permitting, environmental work, financing, and then building out infrastructure from scratch. Minor details, clearly. Perhaps the crystal ball is working overtime.

I've advised readers to pose AI a suitable question, here’s mine -

‘’Since the 1960s—the era of modern environmental impact reporting—has any company successfully moved an onshore project from its first exploratory drill to commercial sales within two years, specifically in a location requiring entirely new infrastructure?’’

The answer I got pretty much sums it up.

No credible example.

Since the 1960s, industry data shows:

Fastest historical average (discovery → production): ~5 years

Modern average: ~10–15 years

“Fast-track” today: ~2–3 years just to first oil, typically using existing infrastructure

Your criteria are much tighter:

first exploratory well → commercial sales

onshore

entirely new infrastructure

That combination is the blocker. You still need appraisal drilling, permits, financing, and to build roads, facilities, and export routes — which alone usually takes several years.

Yes, individual wells can produce in weeks, but only where infrastructure already exists — not comparable to a greenfield project.

Bottom line:

A sub-2-year timeline under those conditions would be an extreme outlier — effectively unheard of — and would almost certainly rely on loose definitions (e.g. prior appraisal, existing infrastructure, or calling test production “commercial sales”).

Continued...

Then there’s the gem that “real investors” wouldn’t have sold. Nonsense. One poster even admitted they could have taken ~20% but chose not to — and are now sitting well below that level. Each to their own, but hardly a compelling advert for the “hold at all costs” approach.

For balance, I did recycle a small portion of earlier profits back in on Tuesday as a punt on the listing — easy come, easy go. But when I saw the RC in full flow, 80M up ~20%, and GNLD indicated at nearly +200% pre-open, that was more than enough for me to take money off the table. A ~24% return in 2 days works just fine for me. Since January I've held this stock on 4 separate occasions - sold at a profit on each and then re-purchased at a lower price. Yet apparently that disqualifies me from being a “real investor” — seems the definition now involves sitting through avoidable drawdowns. I’ll pass.

And some clowns repeatedly question why I remain interested and monitor this stock - they proudly announce that when they sell they have no further interest and depart the board. Smart move. LOL.

Now that reality has bitten, some are calling GNLD and 80M a “joke.” I’d disagree. They’re perfectly tradable — particularly when sentiment is being whipped up into peaks and troughs. The volatility created by the RC and those buying into the narrative presents regular and, mostly, predictable opportunities.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Well, what a couple of days.

Anyone who’s been on this board for more than five minutes will know I’ve consistently urged caution and highlighted a number of red flags along the way. Of course, rather than address those points with anything resembling a coherent counterargument, certain posters defaulted to the usual mix of rudeness, deflection — and even suggestions that I be reported to LSE and the FCA. Says it all, really.

That aside, thanks must go to the usual ramping crew (RC) for delivering their trademark blend of overconfidence and comedy — which, as ever, peaked just before reality arrived.

A fair chunk of posts are filtered my end, so I’ve only caught snippets — but I doubt the tone varied much. For days (weeks, in fact) we were told this was going “ballistic” — just wait for the GNLD listing, etc etc.

So… where are the US institutions we were assured were lining up? Where are the supposedly savvy US PIs? Where’s the “Booommmm”?

Apparently, now they haven’t materialised, the narrative has shifted — the US market is suddenly “brainless” for not following the script. Remarkable. From smart money to clueless overnight, simply for disagreeing with the RC. You couldn’t make it up. And now, having been comprehensively wrong, we’re told to “be patient.” Priceless.

In reality, the simplest explanation is usually the right one — the market is pricing things as it sees them, and that’s clearly very different from the RC narrative. Instead of accepting that, we get the usual excuses: MMs, warrant sellers, profit-takers… anything but the possibility that expectations were wildly overcooked.

On warrants, I’ve seen confusion about why holders would exercise at these levels if a big move higher is imminent. Perhaps those participants — often closer to the mechanics — have a more grounded view. But of course, they can't possibly be correct as that would contradict the RC. Hilarious.

Continued .........

Spod

What do you suggest? Perhaps if I perfected the type of claptrap one liners you favour I might be held in higher esteem. What do you think? Here goes -

Boom

Bought more

Booommmm!!!!

Nah, didn't think that would work. LOL.

All IMHO, of course.

Let's have a reality check and a breather - some wild valuations are being posted. Let's remind ourselves of some facts.

The relevant RNS from 80M presented an optimistic (no surprise there then) fairly clean, high-level picture: a retained 30% interest in Jameson Land, an implied valuation of c.$92m, and initial drilling funded by March GL. On the face of it, all very straightforward and positive.

However, digging into the relevant S-4 adds a layer of complexity that isn’t really reflected in those headlines. Most notably, Clause 10.3 states that, post-completion, the parties will negotiate in good faith for March GL to acquire the remaining 30% on the same terms as the Pelican transaction. It’s not binding, but it clearly leaves the door open for GLND to move toward full ownership — something the RNS doesn’t exactly highlight.

The S-4 also suggests that:

Any future deal could be anchored to the EXISTING transaction terms/valuation framework

The overall structure remains conditional, with multiple steps still to play out

The long-term economics of that retained 30% (beyond the initial wells) are less certain than the headline implies

Operational control is likely to sit with the incoming entity rather than 80M

There’s also an obvious dynamic worth considering. With certain 80M directors now aligned with GLND, any future negotiation over that remaining 30% could raise questions. They are, of course, bound by fiduciary duties, but outcomes will depend on how robustly negotiations are handled when interests overlap.

Taking all that together, the “retained 30%” starts to look less like a fixed, long-term cornerstone holding and more like a negotiable position — one that could ultimately be consolidated into GLND, depending on how things unfold.

And let’s be realistic — the “shrewd” investors behind MarchGL / PELI / GNLD appear commercially astute. It’s hard to see them paying any more than they need to if and when they wish to acquire that remaining 30%.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

SharePoint

It’s not about winning or losing — I post my opinion, nothing more. I’m not trying to influence price action one way or the other.

I’ve managed to take some decent profits trading this and, hopefully, there’s more to come. Appreciate the “advice” though — always entertaining.

For what it’s worth, I did recycle some gains back in after the recent drop, so I’m benefiting from the current move as well. And what a swing this morning — from being down when I first posted to circa +20% shortly after. Not exactly dull.

That said, the US market isn’t open yet, so plenty of time for things to change.

All IMHO, of course.

So why is 80M dropping? Probably something to do with my long held view that 80M isn’t 30% of GNLD. I posted comment from the press recently and its worth reposting here

‘’Greenland Energy Company will be judged first on Jameson Land… the wider significance of the listing may emerge later… as part of a broader Arctic industrial story…”

In other words, JL looks like the starting point. If the bigger picture does materialise, it sits at the GLND level — not necessarily within,more including, 80M.

Which brings me to valuation. I have always struggled with the idea that 80M equates to ~30% of GLND — how can it? At best, you might argue it reflects a current interest in JL, but even that comes with caveats. GNLD appears to have options to acquire that stake on favourable terms, irrespective of what the initial drilling reveals. If that’s the case, it arguably places a ceiling on the longer-term value attributable to 80M from JL alone. Happy to hear any reasoned counterpoints.

Looking further ahead, if GLND does evolve into a broader Arctic vehicle — spanning power, minerals, infrastructure, etc. — it’s not apparent that 80M shareholders would be likely to participate in that upside. Those opportunities would presumably sit within GLND itself.

And let’s be realistic — the parties behind GLND appear commercially astute. It’s difficult to see why they would dilute their own position to benefit minority interests elsewhere if they don’t need to.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Well, well, well…

“Trading above its fair value and on the Most Overvalued list.”

That’s not coming from a random BB poster — that’s from Investing.com, a well-established platform widely used by retail investors.

And how is that dismissed by some? “The author obviously wants in…”

— you really couldn’t make it up. The level of bias is something to behold.

Of course, platforms like Investing.com will be using their own models and assumptions, and like any methodology they won’t be perfect. But to brush it aside so casually rather misses the point. Reports like that will be read — and many readers will likely place more weight on them than on anonymous ramptastic bulletin board commentary.

Flawed or not, it’s a data point that the market will see and react to. Ignoring it entirely doesn’t feel particularly wise.

Be cautious.

IMHO only. DYOR.

The setup doesn’t look quite as compelling as some are suggesting. A ~12% drop into the close is hardly a ringing endorsement from the market. Those holding — or considering entry — don’t appear to share the confidence that GNLD will open at a premium. Comments along the lines of “clear opportunity to load up before the listing” feel more like familiar hype than anything grounded in price action.

Even some of the more enthusiastic voices seem to be wavering: “why are investors not loading up ahead of the listing… I’m invested heavily hence a little concerned.” Quite. The market doesn’t seem to be following the ramping crew’s script.

As others have said, tomorrow — and the days that follow — should be interesting.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Hammer

You'll find that Tiger writes pretty much the same claptrap on pretty much every board they post on.

Their "wisdom" is no more valid for 80M than it is anywhere else they chose to ramp, sorry, I mean promote. LOL.

Typical ramping crew, this stock has attracted loads recently. Still, all good for the short term spike - until they disappear like they always do.

All IMHO, of course.

Hmmm… quite the coincidence.

PELI / GNLD attracts little in the way of institutional participation (no PIPEs announced), and then out comes a video suggesting they’re not particularly interested in institutional backing anyway.

Of course — why would any company want the stability, credibility and funding support that institutions typically provide? Much better to forgo all that.

It does make you wonder why that message wasn’t being pushed months ago, with plenty of time to emphasise this supposed preference for retail participation. The timing feels… convenient.

IMHO only. DYOR.

Satnight

Ha ha - where do I start? LOL.

You might want to have a look back at some of my earlier posts.

There is absolutely no certainty here. Despite what the ramping crew would have one believe. The entire JL project appears heavily reliant on continued funding from the MarchGL backers. If those anticipated “private placings” don’t materialise as required, then the outlook for JL would, in my view, become very challenging, to say the least.

Given the scale of redemptions and the absence of any PIPE support, there doesn’t seem to be much appetite from elsewhere for the project. The reliance is therefore quite concentrated.

I’d assume a similar dynamic applies to USFM.

For what it’s worth, I do think the funding will likely come through — but what do I know?

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.