Member Info for RachT2

Buzz

As expected — no response. So there seems to be no evidence to support the many bold claims you repeatedly make.

Having read a large number of your posts, I struggle to recall seeing so much claptrap in such a short space of time. It is comical - surely you don't think people trust any of it? Yesterday, sub-1p was apparently “a great opportunity.” A few days ago it was “Great buying opp sub 1.2.” The goalposts seem to change daily..

I thought I might share some of your comedy greats. Here are just some of your statements on 80M over the past 3 weeks only — posted with your usual certainty and your use of uppercase: Folks - don’t bother reading any further unless you just want a giggle or 2 and appreciate humour)

Last Tuesday – “This is going to break 1.3 this week.” — Wrong

Last Monday – “We will see 1.5+ by Wednesday, watch this space.” — Wrong

30/1/26 – “SET TO COMMENCE!!!!!!!! IMMINENTLY!!!!!!!!!!!! GET IN BEFORE MONDAYS ANNOUNCEMENT!!!!!!” — Why? What was the rush?

Same day – “With news due IMMINENTLY and the US market opening soon we're going to see some huge buys flooding in.” — Wrong (actually Meteora looked to have been selling)

Same day – “Not many left at all… expecting 15% straight away… we're going to see 1.5 today… will finish over 1.5.” — Wrong

Same day – “The big buyers have landed… MMs cannot hold this back any longer.” — Wrong

29/12/26 – “Tomorrow is going to be a HUGE DAY!!!!!!!! THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING.” — Wrong

Same day – “Will absolutely FLY ONCE 1.25 is breached!!!!!!!!” — Wrong

Same day – “Called it, get your money in these levels are going to be a thing of the past!!!!!!!!!” — Wrong

27/1/26 – “It's about to turn, and it's about to blow!!!!! Strap in, HOUSTON WE'RE GOING TO THE MOON!” — Really? Still waiting.

Same day – “You will not see these levels again after this week.” — Wrong

Same day – “Immediate re-rating could take 80M from ~1p to 2.5p–4p+ (~150%–300%+ upside).” — Wrong

Same day – “Just re run the charts I think we're going to see 1.3 by Friday :)” — Wrong

Same day – “We're in for a great day today.” — Wrong (price closed down)

26/1/26 – “Late buy dropping in, we're in for a great day tomorrow.” — Wrong

Same day – “Once we breach 1.3 next resistance at 1.55. Don’t think we will see sub-2.00 by this time next week!” — Wrong

Same day – “This is going to be 3p+ by the end of the week, say goodbye to 1p. We will never see these levels again.” — Wrong

And to finish; my favourite - same day –

“50x potential, 10x within the next 2 weeks. Don't believe me? PIN THIS IN YOUR WATCH LIST AND HAVE DAILY REGRETS!” — Wrong. But truly hilarious.

And that’s just from this board, over a matter of 3 weeks. A similar volume of equally breathless “imminent rerate” posts appear across multiple other boards too — often in parallel. Widespread claptrap. Zero credibility. Investors can make up their own minds.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. It’s opinion, not advice

Buzz

I’d agree the first half of your post is fair — Amendment #3 clearly shows the process is progressing.

That said, my understanding is that under U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission proxy rules there is typically around a 20-day notice period between the definitive proxy being mailed and the shareholder vote. Even if “effect” were to drop this week, that would realistically push the vote into mid-March rather than imminently.

The second half of your post, however, reads more like very wishful thinking than probability. Based on what I’ve been able to review, the historical pattern for de-SPACs in the first weeks/months post-merger tends to be:

A brief spike around merger/closing (sometimes 10–40%)

Volatility driven by float and retail dynamics

A move that often fades relatively quickly

I’ve asked two independent AI tools to assess likely price reactions and, if anything, the above scenario is the more optimistic case. Both referenced what some commentators are calling the “SPAC 4.0” era — the outsized, euphoric reactions are a thing of the past. The current environment for de-SPACs appears materially more sober.

Ultimately, near-term price action will hinge on two variables:

The level of redemptions (currently unknown)

The presence and strength of PIPE support (none disclosed at this stage)

Clearly - assertions of a “violent upswing incoming” without knowledge of the variables appears to be nothing more than a completely baseless fabrication.

If there is any evidence that this SPAC — particularly one with no PIPE announced — is structurally positioned to behave differently, I’d genuinely welcome seeing it. I’m sure others would too. Please feel free to post any supporting evidence so we can assess the validity of your claims. Thanks.

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.

It still looks like there's no PIPEs as yet. There's still time so fingers crossed.

I want to apologise and clarify something regarding the trust value I mentioned earlier. As I’m still getting up to speed with SPACs, I had relied on AI to help navigate the filings, and it quoted a figure of $78 m for the trust. I’ve since realised that this number came from StockTitan, a third-party filing summary service, and not directly from the official SEC filings.

The official 10-Q from 19/12/25 shows the trust account at $87,774,470 as of 31/10/25. That is the most recent verified figure I can find. Of course, the actual balance today may be lower due to redemptions, fees, or other expenses, but I think it’s safer to rely on the official filings rather than third-party summaries.

I sincerely apologise for the earlier error and any confusion it may have caused. Particularly as I claimed it was there in black and white - it was, but not in the official filings. I’ll be sticking strictly to primary filings from now on.

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.

Longinthetooth

Hilarious. I see you’re now claiming to provide tips. Really? Interesting development. I'll be sure to monitor the future of that.

Let’s inject a little perspective to your post. I quoted your over-optimistic claptrap, along with several other examples of the same over-optimistic claptrap that have conspicuously failed to materialise. There’s a veritable myriad more I could post — from here and on other boards where you’ve performed the same routine. Shall I? It could be entertaining.

So, has REE 10–20 bagged yet? Has it reached that £100m market cap? No. It’s still sitting at roughly a tenth of that. Which means my comment stands: it’s the same recycled nonsense, AI madness, just on a different board. And the real comedy is that it’s virtually identical each time — almost templated — just swap the ticker and off you go. Ramp aggressively, create excitement, move on. rinse and repeat - that certainly appears to be your MO. Sometimes it works for you. Intense ramptastic posting can sometimes help generate a spike. Keep going and you might squeeze out a little more short-term heat at REE.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the market — for now — appears rather less convinced by the glowing narrative you’ve been constantly pushing about 80M. Awkward.

And how’s the campaign to silence me progressing? Any joy persuading the FCA or LSE that expressing a contrary opinion to you is some sort of offence? I’ve yet to hear from anyone.

For those unaware: this individual actively encouraged others to report me to regulators simply for posting a view that didn’t align with his own. Make of that what you will.

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.

FaaMai - welcome to the board and to the mysterious and murky world of investing.

Negativity? If I’ve got any facts wrong, please point them out — I’m very happy to be corrected. I’m obviously not infallible - and will occasionally make mistakes.

I don’t create the facts — I merely post them. The latest S-4/A clearly states that net trust cash could range from $78.6m to ZERO, depending on redemptions. That is written in black and white.

So is it “negativity” to highlight that a claim that $125m has been raised is false? Is it “negativity” to explain that funds sitting in a SPAC trust are not the same as a guaranteed equity raise, given the redemption structure? Is it “negativity” to point out that, at present, there are no PIPE commitments?

Those aren’t opinions — they are facts drawn directly from the company’s own filing.

If stating verifiable information that corrects or tempers an overly bullish narrative is labelled as negativity, then perhaps we simply have different definitions of the word. Surely investors should want balanced and accurate information — whether it supports a bullish view or not.

If I see what I believe to be a materially inaccurate or over-optimistic claim, why wouldn’t I question it? Would you prefer me to remain silent and let an OBVIOUS INACCURACY go unchallenged? Perhaps that is what you would do?

Unable to offer valid counter-arguments to the facts in my posts, some people resort to childish insults or wrongly claim that I am shorting the stock, that I’m an ex-employee, or that I’m a troll, etc. All rather pathetic, false and desperate attempts to deflect attention away from the facts. Such posts only serve to illustrate that the posters lack a credible argument to challenge the information presented. Most of those who specialise in such one-line insults and false claptrap I’ve filtered — as you can imagine, I see a fair amount of filtered posts when I look at this board. But thankfully not the dross they are posting.

IMHO only. DYOR.

MrPos,

Thanks for your reply. Although actually I'm already aware of what a SPAC is — surely that’s pretty basic stuff? Ironic that you accuse me of talking down to people. 🤣 No offence intended - just saying. 🤣

Anyway, you stated: “They raised around $75m back in May 2025 and more later. Currently $125m.”

Can you clarify where those figures are coming from? None of that represents PIPE capital — there are no PIPE commitments at this stage. The money you refer to sits in the SPAC trust. It’s important to distinguish between money “raised” in a SPAC IPO and money raised in a conventional equity fundraise. In a SPAC structure, IPO proceeds are held in trust and shareholders have the right to redeem their shares and receive their money back plus interest. An important differentiator.

The S-4/A filing from three days ago sets this out clearly:

“Net cash from the SPAC trust could range from about $78.6 million to zero.”

In other words (before any potential PIPE) the cash remaining in the merged company after redemptions could be approximately $78.6m in a no-redemption scenario — and as low as zero in a high-redemption scenario. That’s a very wide range, and of critical importance.

I only flag this because quoting a flat $75m - $125m figure, without reference to the redemption mechanics or the latest filing, could give the impression that such a sum is guaranteed — which it clearly isn’t.

And let's not forget that the money remaining in the trust (after redemptions, merger expenses etc) is effectively what becomes GLND’s working capital - the money that will ultimately fund the drills, logistics, etc etc.

As I’ve said before, I’m still getting up to speed on SPAC mechanics myself, so if I’ve misunderstood anything I’m very happy to be corrected. Always learning.

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.

Probably like most on this board, I initially had limited knowledge of how SPACs operate in the US. Recent developments, however, have prompted me to do some reading.

As I noted previously, LITT’s predictions have so far failed to materialize, despite being based on supposed “norms” in this space. LITT has repeatedly suggested that “smart money” is queuing up to invest — yet the latest filing paints a slightly different picture.

As of the S‑4/A filing dated 9 Feb 2025, there are no PIPE commitments registered for the PELI SPAC merger. The filing notes that the parties intend to seek PIPE financing and will use “good faith efforts” to secure commitments, but no institutional investors have formally committed at this stage. That said, there is still a chance a PIPE could be announced before closing, which would change the dynamics. But for now it looks like LITT’s ‘’smart money’’ may not have realised what a brilliant opportunity they are missing. LOL.

For context:

During the SPAC boom, 70–80% of mergers had PIPEs in place at announcement. More recently, particularly in smaller or higher-risk sectors, this has fallen to roughly 30–50%. Even so, the majority of SPAC mergers still secure PIPE financing at announcement.

It is worth stressing that PIPEs are not essential for a successful outcome. That said, the absence of a PIPE at this stage may raise questions about institutional appetite or perceived risk for this merger — a reality somewhat at odds with LITT’s bullish narrative about ‘’smart money’’. PIPEs are important because they inject additional capital and signal institutional confidence. Without one, the merged company will rely primarily on remaining trust cash.

Readers should note that the lack of a PIPE does not prevent the merger from closing, but it is a factor worth monitoring when assessing post-merger cash position and overall market confidence. Of course, if anyone wiser or more experienced in SPACS thinks I’m wrong then please do correct my understanding.

As always, all my posts — past, present, and future — are IMHO only. This is opinion, not advice. DYOR before making any investment decisions.

LITT

“Ramptastic” as ever — “as soon as this is Nasdaq expect USA to invest then 5p!”

Another bold prediction to add to the growing collection.

Let’s recap.

We were told the PELI spike was “smart money” loading up. Turned out to be Meteora flipping for a modest premium.

We were then confidently informed:

“In a de-SPAC merger like this… they are almost always signaling a ‘Requested Effectiveness’ for that same afternoon or the following morning.”

We were even given precise time windows:

High probability: same afternoon

Medium probability: following morning

Very precise. Very confident.

Here we are — two full US closes later and well into day three — and… nothing.

Apparently “almost always” now means “not this time.”

We were also advised to watch the NASDAQ open:

If $PELI moves on high volume without PR, it means the “smart money” has seen the S-4/A and is betting on the EFFECT notice.

Reality check: three days of entirely normal intraday movement, virtually unchanged price, and volume running at less than half average — despite the S-4/A being public.

So either the “smart money” forgot to turn up… or the narrative was, shall we say, slightly overcooked.

And this isn’t confined to 80M. Today you posted on REE:

“10 or 20 bags.”

“£100m mcap credentials NO QUESTION.”

NO QUESTION, apparently.

The confidence is admirable. The track record… less so.

Perhaps fewer certainties and more caveats would serve the board better than the rolling stream of AI-assisted inevitabilities.

IMHO only. Not advice. Please DYOR.

CC

Can you actually point to a single post where I’ve described Disko as a “white elephant”? Have I ever said it’s worthless? Have I ever assigned it a zero value?

It clearly has value — potentially significant value. “The Boulder” alone demonstrates that. What I have consistently challenged are the adamant claims that it’s “the next Norilsk,” and I’ve questioned whether it is economically viable — particularly after KoBold’s departure. That’s not calling it worthless. That’s acknowledging uncertainty — something some seem reluctant to do.

Economic viability is ultimately something only drilling will confirm. Which leads to the obvious question: why didn’t KoBold drill?

You’ve made a considerable leap from “this may not be economically viable” to “this is a white elephant.” Conflating the two is, frankly, disingenuous.

If you revisit my post on the day 80M announced KoBold’s exit, there’s very little I’d change. At the time I asked:

“Will any new partner be yet another company formed in the last few weeks solely for this instance? Yet another company nobody knows anything about? Just like HV and March GL?”

Draw your own conclusions.

For additional context, only a month earlier the supposedly “valuable” Finnish assets were sold for less than 1% of the value Ashton had speculated — and were later handed back free of charge by MET1. That doesn’t exactly strengthen confidence in prior valuations. So when an industry leader, having significantly expanded its dataset, walks away from Disko, it is entirely reasonable to question why.

Disko could still prove extremely valuable. I have never called it a “white elephant” — and if I have, please quote the post. What I have consistently maintained is that KoBold’s departure places a significant question mark over economic viability. Refusing to even acknowledge that possibility isn’t balance — it’s bias.

As for USFM, I have no more information than anyone else. I have no board contacts and no inside access. There are various possible explanations: perhaps KoBold wanted a large-scale development opportunity like their African project and the numbers here didn’t justify it. Perhaps they simply weren’t sufficiently impressed with what they saw. Perhaps USFM is content with a different risk/reward profile and would monetise earlier if a discovery is made.

But that’s all speculation. Like everyone else, I don’t know.

What I do know is that KoBold’s departure concerns me, and for now I regard it as a negative.

IMHO only. DYOR.

Tony

In the main, one would like to think most people involved genuinely hope the venture succeeds. But the commercial reality is often rather different — and you may not like the answer.

Whether a project ultimately succeeds or fails, someone always makes money along the way. Shareholders typically fund the risk. Boards, management, contractors and logistics providers get paid regardless of outcome. Some BoDs and “close” large investors may also benefit handsomely from options or warrants — packages that private investors rarely get access to on comparable terms.

Now consider the sector statistics.

In frontier basins (Arctic, deep water, unexplored regions), failure rates can exceed 80%. Wildcat wells fail around 70%+ of the time. Even near-field wells can fail 40–60% of the time. Why, why, why were all those failures sanctioned? See above.

In mining, over 90% of exploration projects never become operating mines. Only a small fraction ever reach sustained profitability. Why, why, why were those explorations sanctioned when statistically most will fail and destroy shareholder capital? See above.

Out of 100 junior exploration companies: 5–10% become genuine success stories (build a mine or are acquired on strong terms), 20–40% end up bankrupt or formally insolvent and 50–70% neither succeed nor formally go bust - they dilute repeatedly, merge, change projects, or quietly delist. Why, why, why? See above.

This isn’t about being negative (as some will no doubt claim) — it’s about understanding incentives and risk allocation in high-risk sectors.

IMHO only. DYOR.

Ashton

When KoBold walked, some of us viewed it as a serious concern. You immediately went into overdrive trying to recast it as good news.

You suggested KoBold might not have had the funds. You described the 2% NSR as being a good deal. You floated Anglo American. You talked about “reputable and well-established mining companies” stepping in. You even tried to argue that majors don’t partner unless they own 100% — so somehow KoBold leaving was a positive.

At no point did you seriously acknowledge the most obvious possibility: that KoBold assessed the economics and decided Disko didn’t stack up.

Now, when that explanation is increasingly difficult to ignore, you say you might “raise it at the next meeting.” Where was that caution before the stream of confident bullish assertions? Where was the “let’s clarify it first” approach then?

And how dare you imply that we should somehow now be grateful for your offer to ask a question — when you were perfectly comfortable presenting speculation as near-certainty beforehand.

There is a very real chance that the “best-in-class” operator you repeatedly held up as industry leaders concluded the project wasn’t economically viable. That possibility deserves acknowledgment, not deflection.

As for the promised “reputable and well-established” replacement — we’ve ended up with an associated new vehicle and granted away a 2% NSR, which could represent a far more meaningful slice of future profits than some are willing to admit.

Your bullish narrative was loud. The outcome speaks for itself.

As always, this is IMHO only. It is opinion, not advice.

Tony

Just had time to read. Thanks for sharing – it’s a genuinely useful resource for anyone researching Greenland. It’s quite technical in places, but I’d strongly encourage posters to read at least the GEUS Bulletin:

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

If nothing else take a look at Figure 1.

While it’s obvious that ice becomes more of a constraint the further north you go, the map clearly illustrates that there are numerous prospective areas across Greenland. The sheer number of documented oil seeps and surface stains demonstrates widespread hydrocarbon migration. That is significant.

However, it’s important to keep this in perspective: oil seeps are indicators of a working petroleum system — they are not proof of an economically viable discovery.

Which brings me back to what I see as the central question: why would Greenland permanently restrict fossil fuel exploration and development to Jameson Land alone? That doesn’t seem logical. Yes, as the bulls keep pointing out, JL is currently the only area with an appropriate licence framework, but licensing regimes can change.

If that were to happen, the soon-to-be-formed GLND could potentially secure licences elsewhere in Greenland. The geological report makes clear there is no shortage of prospective basins.

Crucially, any additional Greenland licences acquired by GLND would not benefit 80M shareholders.

So while 80M may hold 30% of the JL partnership, that seems very different from asserting it holds 30% of the value of GLND as a whole.

As always, this is IMHO only. It is opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

CC

I don’t agree that KoBold can fairly be described as “Africa-focused”. KoBold has 60+ projects spread across four continents. Africa is simply a very large landmass with abundant opportunities. Suggesting that its exit from Greenland was driven by an African focus feels like someone clutching at straws.

As you rightly say, nobody on this board knows KoBold’s precise reasons for pulling the plug on Greenland. However, the podcast in question explicitly suggested that the decision was driven by the economics not stacking up. No alternative rationale was offered, and there was certainly no mention of a strategic shift toward Africa.

If KoBold or 80M believe that the podcast is materially misleading, they could of course ask the BBC to issue a correction. That wouldn’t require disclosure of any sensitive or inside information — merely a clarification that the withdrawal was not based on project economics. I’ll leave it to Ashton to suggest that to one of his contacts. Such a correction would no doubt be a significant positive for 80M shareholders.

I’d genuinely be pleased to see my view proven wrong.

All IMHO, of course

CC

Fair enough – I don’t believe I’ve twisted anything, but I apologise if that’s the impression I gave.

That said, why did you direct the question specifically to Ashton? Why not ask anyone else? Was it because he doesn’t know what he’s talking about? Because of limited experience or knowledge of the company? Because you distrust him? Of course not.

You asked him precisely because you do trust him and because he’s close to the company – and, by his own admission, to certain members of the BoD. He has also been consistently and strongly bullish on KoBold’s departure.

In that context, your question can quite reasonably be interpreted as testing or challenging his previously stated opinion. That’s the basis of my post – nothing more.

Ashton

From the very day KoBold walked away, I’ve consistently said there was only one credible reason: the numbers at Disko didn’t stack up. You – along with the rest of the ramping crew – repeatedly tried to spin their exit as something positive. You were adamant.

Fast-forward to today and CC has now questioned your repeated bullish assertions and the certainty with which you presented them. Your response? You “don’t know” but will be happy to “raise it at the next meeting”. That’s not an explanation – it’s another example of evasion. You can’t keep brushing over-optimistic claims under the carpet every time they’re found wanting. At some point you have to own them.

You also felt the need to respond to my apples-and-pears analogy by telling the board that you are “too intelligent…” – a personal quality apparently matched only by your modesty. LOL. As usual, you dismissed my observations as “red herrings”.

I stand by them. In fact, they’ve been reinforced.

It now appears increasingly likely that KoBold walked away from Disko precisely because the numbers didn’t add up – exactly as I’ve said all along. It is frankly inconceivable that the US Government does not have a long-standing relationship and regular dialogue with KoBold – just look at its raison d’etre and who is behind it. It’s equally inconceivable that Disko would not have been discussed.

So the very company you previously held up as best-in-class and leaders in their field has almost certainly shared its view of Disko with the US Government.

And that view appears to be: uneconomic.

Which neatly brings us back to my original point. When you asked for differentiators between Amaroq and 80M, this belongs firmly on the list – whether it fits your bullish narrative or not.

Ashton

Referring to your post of 6/2 — I agree, in effect, after a rapid rise of 400% it seems that most of any perceived upside is already priced in for now. The only obvious near-term catalyst for a material move higher would be a successful IPO and US investors interest.

It’s also noticeable that the previously enthusiastic commentary around the PELI share price has gone quiet. Not surprising, perhaps, given that what some were highlighting as a steady rise turned out to be a brief spike, with the price now settling back. Until recently there were regular posts pointing to incremental moves as bullish signals. As for Meteora’s trades, it’s possible their buying supported the price and their exit had the opposite effect — but that’s speculation.

I don’t have direct experience with US SPACs, but some basic research (and AI-based analysis) suggests PELI’s current pricing isn’t especially encouraging. In broad terms, SPAC pricing is often interpreted along these lines:

$10.00–$10.50: Barely above NAV. Implies expectation that the deal completes, but limited confidence in meaningful value creation — a “wait and see” stance.

$10.50–$11.00: Modest premium. Suggests growing confidence, though expectations remain conservative.

Above ~$11.00: Market begins to price in genuine upside beyond deal completion.

$12.00–$15.00+: Stronger anticipation of value creation, usually driven by a credible target or compelling narrative.

Above ~$15–$20.00: Rare and often speculative, typically associated with promotional phases and vulnerable to sharp pullbacks.

Most SPACs tend to trade close to NAV — usually $10–$11 — until firm merger economics and timelines are disclosed. Applying that framework to PELI trading just over $10, the message from the market seems fairly clear: deal likely, upside uncertain, enthusiasm restrained.

Whether that reflects the delay in listing or some muddling of expectations is open to debate, but US investors appear notably less bullish at present.

I’ll reply to your post of this morning a little later. Have a nice day.

As always, all IMHO, of course.

Chuckster

Thanks for sharing — fascinating stuff. Is there anything in my post you’d actually like to challenge? Any facts wrong? Any inaccuracies at all? No? Didn’t think so. It appears the real issue is simply that you don’t like an opposing opinion.

Which is ironic, given that back in December ’24 you expressed your opinion of the BoD as:

“I dont post much on here and have been a holder through thick and thin, but i honestly can not understand how they can sleep at night with all the false promises and bare faced lies that roll off their tongues through official rns's and video interviews.”

And this earlier gem :

“Would love to hear Rod being interviewed by an impartial… you literally staked your career and reputation on Dundas… can you explain to your long suffering long term shareholders… what happened?”

Clearly the words of a relaxed, confident, and thoroughly reassured long-term holder who felt everything was progressing perfectly. LOL.

So forgive my confusion: after years of feeling misled, disappointed and angry enough to write the above, you now take offence at anyone pointing out risks, negatives or inconsistencies? Really? That’s quite some transformation.

Even more impressive is that you not only held through a prolonged share price collapse, but apparently you've averaged down heavily — all while publicly accusing the board of “false promises” and “bare-faced lies”. Hmmm, that’s certainly one way to invest.

And despite being on this board long enough to know that I’ve repeatedly said that I’ve never shorted ANYTHING in my life, you still choose to suggest otherwise. Obviously your strong points didn't include consistency or the truth.

All IMHO, of course.

Ashton

Re your Amaroq question — I think this is a case of you comparing apples with pears. There are several material differences that help explain the contrast:

Scale: Amaroq’s market cap is roughly 10x that of 80M.

Production and revenue: Amaroq is already producing and generating revenue — a very significant distinction.

Financial trajectory: Annual losses have reportedly been reduced by around 66%, with a credible path toward profitability. By contrast, 80M currently has no operating revenue, only asset disposals.

Drilling track record: Amaroq has completed, and continues to conduct, extensive drilling programmes, some with strong results. At 80M, the market is still waiting for the key drilling activity to begin.

Jurisdiction: Amaroq is a Canadian company, which is an important differentiator in the current geopolitical environment.

De-risking: Amaroq has proven assets; 80M remains largely at the “hope and expectation” stage.

Taken together, these points go a long way toward explaining why the two companies may be viewed very differently — including by US authorities. If I were allocating or investing taxpayers’ money, I know which profile I’d be more comfortable backing at this stage.

Hopefully 80M is in dialogue with a range of authorities, but until there’s clear evidence of progress, I remain cautious.

As with all my posts, past, present and future:

All IMHO, of course.

Sonic

More comedy, honestly.

I don’t see any contradiction here — perhaps you can explain what you believe it is.

The earlier post was simply to correct inaccurate claims that Meteora’s 6%+ holding somehow validated the merger or signalled an imminent float. Both assertions are incorrect.

Having read the filings before making either post, Meteora’s actions and the associated timings were so obvious that it honestly didn’t occur to me they would need to be spelt out — until I read your post.

The follow-up only became necessary once it was clear that some posters (like you) either hadn’t read the SEC filings, hadn’t understood them, or were determined to apply an unjustifiably positive spin regardless of what is written in black and white.

Hopefully that clarifies matters and banishes any contradictions you may have imagined.

As ever, all IMHO, of course.

Silverfoxd

Spot on - as I said previously - that is exactly what Meteora does, it's typical of their strategy. Nothing can be implied by either their purchase or their sale - they really aren't interested in the long term outcome of any perceived mergers.