Member Info for RachT2

Ashton

Re your questions to me — you clearly believe all 3 milestones will have a positive impact on the share price. Fine. We’ll have to revisit this exchange as each one unfolds and see which view proves more accurate.

Your points:

1 & 2 – I don’t expect either to make much, if any, positive difference. The drills have been heavily promoted / ramped for months — they’re hardly a surprise catalyst at this stage. If anything, I’d say they’re largely factored in.

The flip side is more relevant: if there are further delays, I would expect a negative reaction. And let’s be honest — missed timelines are not exactly a new phenomenon here.

3 – Same principle. The act of drilling itself is “in the price” in my view. That said, I’m hopeful that company representatives — along with you and the ever-enthusiastic ramping crew — will use the event to generate another spike. Fingers crossed. After that, of course, we wait for the only thing that ultimately matters: results.

As for your repost of the 27/1/26 RNS and your reply to Bigbad — I did find that somewhat amusing. It was presented as reassurance of progress. Yet every date listed represents a revised timeline following earlier guidance that has been missed. Comical.

Disko drilling was a certainty for 2025.

Plant mobilisation was previously referenced as Q1 ’26.

GS was expected to have restarted production over a year ago — and we’ve since had several restart dates come and go - and we’re still waiting.

So you can forgive some investors if they’re cautious about the forward timelines you regularly post. 80M has a long track record of over optimistic projections and ambitious scheduling.

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

CC

Thanks for your reply.

You’ve posted some questionable takes before, but this one really takes the biscuit.

A “holistic view”? If part of the apple is rotten, I don’t ignore it and admire the shine on the rest. Significant dilution on relatively soft performance hurdles isn’t something I’d expect a LTH like you to simply shrug off. But hey ho.

You said:

“Didn’t everybody else have the same opportunity to buy at the same price as RM?”

No. They didn’t. They definitely did not. Maybe it's slipped your mind - but retail investors are almost always excluded from discounted placings and insider-aligned deals. To suggest otherwise shows a misunderstanding of the basic mechanics of how fundraisings actually work.

And this gem:

“Not his fault he is smarter than the average cookie.”

Since when does being an insider — with prior knowledge and structural advantage — equate to being “smarter”? That’s not intellect; that’s position. Very different things.

Then this:

“It also looks like that he may have more more money with JL by not using 80M as a conduit?”

Presumably you meant “made more money”? Given the volume of disclosed related-party transactions, are we really pretending these structures are unconnected? That’s quite a stretch.

We can disagree — that’s fine. But let’s not dress structural advantage and heavy dilution up as some strategic brilliance worthy of admiration.

Sonic

I rarely, if ever, look at X, so I can’t comment on the individual concerned. But predicting SEC filing timing wasn’t exactly rocket science — there was ample publicly available information for anyone to make an educated estimate. I’m not sure that alone is enough to confer any credibility to the X poster.

As for a fund raise — always possible in this sector, though I wouldn’t necessarily expect one immediately. I’ve said before that I think this spike is more likely to peak in the days / weeks following the vote and the GLND listing. I would expect that event to be accompanied by a coordinated promotional push from Rob Price and others, potentially creating an opportunity to capitalise on any uplift. It does, however, feel uncomfortably close to the previous raise.

Looking ahead, we know the anticipated drill timeline. But between the GLND listing and first drill results, what are the material catalysts? I see Ashton has attempted to put his usual positive spin on this - but surely all of those factors are ‘’in the price’’ - none are news.

On HV — we have been told of numerous MOUs; one stating feedstocks were agreed to be delivered commencing 1 November 2025. As far as we know, sustained production has still not commenced. We’re now more than 12 months on from the original restart expectations, and in that period we’ve had four separate restart dates come and go.

Meanwhile, feedstock commitments, utilities, staffing, consultancy and general overheads all continue to require funding. And even once production begins, that is a long way from achieving profitability. Achieving revenue is one thing - not increasing existing losses is all together different - for that you need to be making a profit.

It’s also worth remembering that HV acquired the plant out of receivership, operated it for several years, and then mothballed it for around seven. Assets with strong, consistent profitability don’t usually get mothballed at all - let alone for that length of time.

So yes, I do expect further fund raises at some stage. The key question is timing. Hopefully 80M can maintain sufficient runway to benefit from any drill-related excitement before needing to return to the market again.

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

No

&

No

Sonic

“When the price should be going much higher.”

According to who? The market clearly doesn’t agree — neither here nor in the US. The ‘’effective’’ notice turned out to be less of a BOOM - more of a plop.

“It can’t be warrants as they have to be notified.”

Wrong. The exercise of warrants is notifiable. The subsequent sale of the resulting shares is not — unless it involves a director or triggers a notifiable threshold crossing.

And in case you've missed it, quite a number of warrants were exercised recently — I posted about it at the time. It would be reasonable to assume that a significant proportion of those newly issued shares are likely finding their way onto the market, particularly given the typical behaviour of warrant holders. There may also be more still to come.

That’s all pretty basic stuff - the obvious mechanics of supply.

Glad to have helped answer your queries.

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

CC — new account I see. After 10 years and 1,900+ posts on the previous one. Trying to bury something? 🤔

We’ve had this debate before. I raised concerns about what I view as an exceedingly generous EBT scheme — you supported it. We still disagree. So let’s revisit the numbers.

The headline consideration was around £2.75m, but that valuation was directly linked to the prevailing share price — which happened to be near an all-time low when the deal was struck. As a result, Rod, Eric, Michael and several other private investors received 879,490,831 new 80M shares between them.

Rod reportedly held ~36% of WFE; the transaction was clearly very favourable for certain parties.

On top of that came 393,557,018 additional shares via the EBT.

At the time the EBT was initiated, there were roughly 4.329bn shares in issue. The highest £40m market cap hurdle required a share price of around 0.92p.

The lowest threshold — £15m market cap — equated to roughly 0.35p. Those are not exactly stretching targets in the context of small-cap volatility; some related party transactions and 6 months is all it took to pass those goalposts.

Yes, 0.92p was more than 3x the WFE deal price — but still over 90% below the levels at which Dundas was being discussed as approaching profitability, and roughly 85% below the level at which Rod last sold a meaningful holding (Sept ’22, notified Dec ’23).

With hindsight, £2.75m now looks like an attractive acquisition price for JL. But if the asset was materially undervalued at the time, why wasn’t WFE sold to a third party at a higher valuation? That’s an open question.

What does appear clear is that WFE’s owners have done very well — as certain individuals often have during the more turbulent phases of Jay / 80M.

So yes, the acquisition price may prove excellent. But does that automatically validate the structure, timing and scale of the EBT awards? That’s where our views diverge.

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

Correct — the generous EBT scheme caused dilution just six months ago. Fancy that.

In that short time, we’ve also had several related-party transactions. Fancy that.

80 Mile had to issue a later statement to clarify that some of these were indeed related-party transactions — seems they forgot to tell the market the first time. Naughty chaps. 🤣 Fancy that.

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

GLR

You stated: “…and raised over $85m USD for the drilling campaign.”

That isn’t correct.

The trust may hold ~US$85m on completion of the merger (subject to redemptions), but that sum is not designated for the initial drilling campaign. The filings are quite clear about the intended use of the money held in the trust.

The first Jameson Land drills are to be funded by the MarchGL consortium under the agreed structure — assuming, of course, they raise the necessary capital on their side.

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

So the EBT has now allocated 380,000,000 shares — roughly 96% of its holding. They didn’t remain in the trust for very long, did they?

Interesting timing. The EBT scheme is implemented, a series of transactional announcements follow — most involving interrelated parties — and before long the relevant performance thresholds appear to have been met.

What a stroke of good luck for the BoD.

Meanwhile, shareholders experience further dilution — which, of course, is the other side of these arrangements.

C’est la vie.

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

WildS

So you’re “ambivalent” about your small punt in 80M? Understood.

On MET1 — it wasn't a Ponzi scheme. Inexperienced PIs who were suckered by the ramping like to call it that - no doubt an attempt to make themselves feel better about being duped. A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent structure where returns are paid from new investors’ money with no underlying business. That isn’t what MET1 was. It is a legitimate company with an underlying business model.

What happened there was something far more familiar in small caps: intense promotional activity, over-excited narratives / claptrap and a wave of retail enthusiasm that ignored the OBVIOUS warning signs.

At the time I posted that there were 750m 2p warrants overhanging the stock and that the market cap had become stretched. I also suggested the price could fall below 5p by December — it went lower than that. The information wasn’t hidden; it was openly discussed on the MET1 board, along with concerns about third-party promotional activity and unrealistic projections.

Yet many chose to ignore the red flags and focus on the ramping rather than the fundamentals. Sound familiar?

That’s how these cycles tend to work. Excitement builds, caution is dismissed, reality reasserts itself. Spike over. Rinse and repeat.

Hopefully your exposure was limited if it was just another small “ambivalent punt.”

And as for this morning — can you already spot the fresh wave of ramptastic breathless posts? Or are they credible this time? LOL.

Good luck with the ambivalent punting strategy.

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

WildS

Thanks for your interest, in response to your questions

I like making money

And?

Yes & yes.

What I find curious is the direction of your questions, particularly given your own history with “ramping crews.” On MET1 you were quite candid about being sucked in by over-enthusiastic narratives and even called out posters for ramping without substance. You said the rampers had “played retail investors royally.” Fair enough — you learnt a lesson.

So what’s different this time? Are the rampers on this board somehow more trustworthy?

Rather than speculating about motives (mine or anyone else’s), why not address the substance. If you disagree with something I’ve posted, say so and explain why. For example:

What’s your view on the effective impact of the 2% NSR?

How do you see margins working in a high-cost Arctic jurisdiction?

Why do you think Jameson Land was excluded from the USGS CARA survey?

Those and numerous other questions are material points that affect valuation and risk.

Motives are a distraction.

And if you’d like an example of hollow, baseless ramping, take a look at Amystakes’ posts — here and across multiple other boards. There’s a consistent pattern: bold claims, zero substance.

Whenever challenged, instead of addressing the argument, the response tends to be deflection — either personal insults or the predictable “disgruntled ex-employee” line. No evidence, no analysis, just noise. Even now; again tells everyone to filter me yet reads and responds to my posts. Hilarious.

It’s a tactic, I suppose. Not a very convincing one — but a tactic nonetheless. 🤣

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

‘’Can someone put the call out for LITT....’’

Yeah, we need more ramptastic nonsense to keep this spike going for a little while longer yet - no disrespect Sonic but you're just not in the same league as LITT 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

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

''Gave what is actually a very short timeline for the first drilling ...''

Yes, but he gave quite a long timeline for the main show; to drill JL - October through to March.

And there was some folks posting endlessly about some ships moving some equipment about in late '25 - 🤣

TonyPeters

Thanks for your post regarding KoBold’s 2% NSR — coincidentally I’ve also been revisiting it lately too.

As you correctly point out, the NSR in practice translates to slightly less than 2% of gross revenue once allowable deductions are applied (which will vary by product and cost structure). Realistically, it’s probably somewhere in the 1.6%–1.85% range. For simplicity, I’ve used 1.7% as a working assumption.

Running the numbers, that royalty could prove more meaningful than many appreciate — not just for 80 Mile plc, but for any future partner or acquirer at Disko. If we assume ~1.7% of revenue, here’s how it impacts profit under different margin scenarios:

High margin (20%) → KoBold effectively captures ~8.5% of total profit

Average margin (10%) → KoBold captures ~17% of total profit

Low margin (5%) → KoBold captures ~34% of total profit

Break-even (0%) → Operator makes no profit, yet the royalty remains payable on revenue

That’s the critical point: an NSR is paid on revenue, not profit. It functions almost like a “super-dividend” — paid before shareholders see any distributable earnings.

If Arctic operating costs escalate — fuel, logistics, labour — margins compress further. Given Greenland’s cost base is likely to be higher than many other jurisdictions, margins may not be especially generous to begin with. In a tight-margin scenario, the royalty becomes proportionally very significant.

It’s also worth remembering that most mines do not report accounting profit for several years due to capex recovery. Billions can be spent before free cash flow materialises. Yet the NSR is payable from first production. KoBold gets paid while the operator may still technically be in the red.

None of this makes Disko unworkable. But it does underline that the royalty is far from trivial — it meaningfully affects project economics and potentially future deal leverage.

Interestingly, I couldn’t identify a buy-back clause in the KoBold exit terms — something often seen in similar arrangements. If there truly isn’t one, that would allow KoBold to retain the NSR indefinitely.

I can’t help but feel this outcome reflects the balance of power at the time the original deal was struck. KoBold effectively held the cards. Once they had met the initial spend commitments, there was no binding timeline requiring further work — they could progress at their discretion. In the end, 80M has ceded a meaningful slice of future revenues, seemingly without a buy-back mechanism to regain flexibility. That suggests negotiating leverage may have been limited — and we’ve ultimately ended up with a deal that is, at best, far from perfect.

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

LITT

Glad you “liked” that — though I’m not entirely sure why. Perhaps your AI assistant was off duty, or perhaps you missed the context. Either way, let’s put both the article and the 31bn boe figure into perspective.

I posted a link to the article. I did not endorse it. In fact, I consider the author’s tone overly pessimistic. The comparison to 25 dry wells in southwest Greenland was, in my view, a rather disingenuous attempt to draw parallels with Jameson Land and the East Greenland Rift Basin.

Now, as for the headline 31bn boe figure you seem so pleased about…

The USGS CARA assessment explicitly EXCLUDED Jameson Land from its survey. Not overlooked — EXCLUDED. The reason? It did not believe the probability of an economically recoverable discovery there met its assessment threshold. That’s not my interpretation — it’s set out in the published methodology. I’ve referenced it before and it’s freely available.

So the quoted 31bn boe relates to the broader East Greenland Rift Basin area — an area vastly larger than JL and one the USGS considered to have a higher probability of commercially viable discovery. It does NOT include Jameson Land.

Hopefully that jogged your memory.

That said, my view on the recent price spike remains unchanged. I still believe the share price is likely to peak either on confirmation of the vote/float or in the days and weeks following. I retained what remained of my initial holding (after taking some profit) and viewed this morning’s drop as a reasonable top-up opportunity.

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

Sarir

Yesterday you twice posted that March GL have agreed to fund $300 million towards the cost of the first two exploration wells.

Would you mind sharing the source for the $300m figure?

Obviously March GL agreed to fund the first two wells, but I haven’t seen any official documentation specifying a dollar amount. $300m for two wells — even allowing for ~3,500m Arctic drilling — strikes me as very high, so I’d appreciate clarification.

I sincerely hope you are wrong and that the $300m figure is inaccurate. If costs were anywhere near that level, it would clearly have funding implications.

Would that not raise the question of a further fund raise within months of IPO?

For context, the last 10-Q showed the trust at approximately $87m, and 80M’s November ’25 release referred to “the expected US$86m in cash post-transaction.” Unless PIPE commitments are announced (none to date), available cash would appear to be less than a third of the amount you’ve referenced.

That’s why clarification on the $300m figure is important.

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

The Forbes article would appear not to be behind a pay wall - here is the link -

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ianpalmer/2026/01/27/hard-facts-about-greenlands-resources-of-oil-and-rare-earths/

Darn - it didn't quite fit on ne post

Continued .......

.....He warns that any company entering Greenland must be prepared for a 20-to-30-year lead time before seeing a single gram of rare earth minerals or a barrel of oil reach the global market.

Another AI sourced interpretation of the Forbes article. Even I think the author is being exceptionally pessimistic (if AI has actually reproduced an accurate precis) - its quite long (even though its a summary 😃) so I might have to run to a second post. Or folks can ask Gemini or ChatGPT to run their own summary of course.

The article "Hard Facts About Greenland’s Resources Of Oil And Rare Earths" by Ian Dexter Palmer, Ph.D., published in Forbes on January 27, 2026, serves as a critical reality check for investors and governments eyeing Greenland as the next frontier for energy and minerals.

​Dr. Palmer, a petroleum engineer, argues that while Greenland's potential is mathematically vast, the physical and political "hard facts" make extraction unlikely in the near term. Here are the specific points he addresses:

​1. The "Stranded" Oil Deposits

​Palmer notes that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) once estimated that the Arctic could hold up to 13% of the world's undiscovered oil and 30% of its gas. However, he highlights two major barriers:

​The 2021 Moratorium: The Greenlandic government (Naalakkersuisut) banned all new oil and gas exploration due to climate concerns and low expected returns. Palmer argues this has effectively "stranded" these resources for at least a generation.

​Economic Costs: He points out that extracting oil from ice-clogged waters is significantly more expensive than shale production in the U.S. (like the Permian Basin), making it financially unviable at current or even moderately high oil prices.

​2. Rare Earth Elements (REEs) and the Uranium Conflict

​Greenland is widely considered the largest untapped source of rare earths outside of China. Palmer focuses on the Kvanefjeld (Kuannersuit) and Tanbreez projects:

​The Uranium Problem: The Kvanefjeld site contains significant amounts of uranium alongside the rare earths. Palmer explains that the 2021 legislation banning uranium mining (with a 100 ppm threshold) essentially halted this project, as the two minerals cannot easily be separated during extraction.

​Geopolitical Stakes: He emphasizes that the U.S. and EU are desperate to break China's 80%+ monopoly on REEs, but Greenland's strict environmental regulations are currently acting as a "bottle-neck" for Western supply chain independence.

​3. Logistical "Hard Facts"

​A central theme of the article is the lack of "industrial readiness." Palmer details the extreme infrastructure deficit:

​Ports and Power: There are no deep-water ports or road networks connecting potential mine sites to the coast.

​Energy Source: Large-scale mining requires massive amounts of power. Palmer questions where this power would come from, as Greenland's current hydropower is insufficient for heavy industry, and the government is opposed to fossil-fuel-powered mining operations.

​4. Conclusion: A Multi-Decade Gamble

​Palmer concludes that while Greenland's resources are "real," they are "physically and politically locked." He warn

Ashton, et al

LAMS seem to have their facts somewhat muddled here. Even taking a conservative view, suggesting the odds of recoverable oil/gas at Jameson Land (JL) are 1000-1 feels excessively pessimistic.

The only piece I can find that references “25 wells” is the Forbes article:

Hard Facts About Greenland’s Resources Of Oil And Rare Earths

By Ian Dexter Palmer, Ph.D. — Forbes (27 Jan 2026)

It’s behind a paywall so I can’t access the full text, but from the available summary the “25 wells” refers specifically to the Southwest Basin — not JL and not the East Greenland Rift Basin, which are generally regarded as the more prospective areas for hydrocarbons.

That distinction matters.

I recently pointed people toward the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS) bulletin article Tony kindly posted — particularly Fig. 1 in the PDF:

https://geusbulletin.org/index.php/geusb/article/view/6519

If you look at that map, the Southwest doesn’t exactly scream “prime target” compared with the East Greenland Rift system, or indeed most other locations. I referenced the article previously to highlight that Greenland’s prospectivity isn’t confined to JL — but equally, using 25 dry holes in the SW to imply the whole of Greenland is a geological no-hoper seems disingenuous.

Different basins. Different plays. Different geology.

Summary of the Forbes article (provided by AI) -

It examines whether U.S. energy or mineral companies are genuinely interested in exploiting Greenland’s oil and mineral resources — including hydrocarbons and rare earth elements — or if the interest is mostly geopolitical and speculative.

In that context, it references Greenland’s potential oil resources and the limited historical exploration, including mentions in other reporting that around 25 exploration wells were drilled in the Southwest basin, with none yielding commercial oil.

The article also touches on rare earth and critical mineral potential, the challenges of drilling and mining in harsh Arctic conditions, and the economics of extracting those resources compared to geopolitical strategic interests.

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