Member Info for RachT2

Ashton

Congratulations to anyone currently in profit on this share – that’s why we’re all here. That said, your latest self-congratulatory post is notably light on detail and hard facts.

Optimism is fine, but when it tips into persistent ramping it does a disservice to less experienced or newer investors. Your decision to average down aggressively – from over 9.1p to below 0.30p – inevitably raises questions about the objectivity of your views. Losing more than 95% on an original “large six-figure” holding, then committing tens of thousands of pounds more to average down, is not exactly a textbook example of strong investment judgement.

Your long-standing bullish stance has coincided with a sustained destruction of shareholder value. That exceptionally poor track record deserves to be acknowledged and scrutinised, particularly by anyone considering investing on the back of your commentary.

Balanced discussion matters. Ramp if you wish, but it’s only fair to point out that the historical results have been dire.

You’ve been repeatedly posting and promoting this company for the last 3–4 years, having started buying at over 9.1p with what you described at the time as a “large six-figure” sum, and then averaging down throughout a prolonged decline that saw losses exceed 97% at the lows.

There will undoubtedly be others who, unlike you, didn’t have the means or appetite to keep averaging down and who may still be sitting on losses – or sold out at a loss – after following your constant commentary. You’re quick to congratulate those who averaged down successfully, but some recognition of those who suffered losses would seem equally appropriate.

So, well done on finally being back in profit, but perhaps don’t blow the trumpet too loudly – the share price would still need to rise by roughly 750% to return to the level at which you first began ramping it.

All IMHO, of course.

Guly

Hilarious that you think you can teach me about market dynamics, while conveniently omitting the rather inconvenient end result of your example. You – and the rest of the ramping crew – arrived within days of me predicting you would, and then promptly set about creating the very spike I said you would. I’ve traded several previous spikes profitably, so I don’t need lessons on market behaviour from you, or anyone else. I understand it perfectly well – and my view hasn’t changed: I expect this spike to peak shortly after the float.

Your choice of 88E actually illustrates the point rather nicely, so thanks for that. FYI, it seems it never reached the $1bn market cap you stated. The intraday peak was around $485m–$550m, on (you couldn’t make it up) April Fools’ Day 2021 – roughly half of what you claimed.

It was a classic “viral” ramp-crew-driven phenomenon: short-lived and fuelled by so-called “strong retail participation” rather than fundamentals. The very next trading day after the peak, the share price fell by over 60%. That was followed by a couple of “hope” bounces and then a prolonged decline of roughly 95% over the next two years. The ramping crew moved on and reality took over. Since then, the market cap has never been anywhere near that peak and now sits below $15m – which says it all, really.

Your own example of 88E perfectly demonstrates what happens next: ramp-driven spikes are followed by sharp falls. Reality always wins. Which is exactly what I’ve been saying all along. Market dynamics in a nutshell – rampers create a spike based on little more than hope, and it falls soon after the peak. The AIM is littered with examples, with junior miners and explorers being prime candidates.

So my view remains unchanged: I expect a fall in the price in the days / weeks following the float. After that, in the short term what’s left to keep the intensity of your ramp going?

We’ll soon find out who’s right.

All IMHO, of course.

MPO818

I’m comfortable with my assessment - only a successful drill that establishes the presence of a financially viable reserve and will prove right from wrong. Not you, me or anyone else on this board. Oil seeps do indicate that hydrocarbons are present — that's pretty obvious. What they do not necessarily indicate is the presence of FINANCIALLY VIABLE reserves.

A seep is simply a starting point. Sometimes it coincides with a commercial accumulation, but far more often it does not. In many cases, seeps are evidence of leakage caused by uplift, faulting, or poor seal integrity. The world is dotted with oil seeps - yet few places contain profitable oil wells. For all the reasons

I’ve already outlined, the seep at Jameson Land proves only that oil exists and that whatever is there is escaping.

Using AI as one reference point (with the usual caveats), ‘’a commonly cited industry rule-of-thumb is that well under 10% of documented surface oil seeps are associated with commercial discoveries, and in frontier or uplifted basins the figure is often closer to 1–5%. Even that is being generous.’’

I’ll freely admit that AI responses — mine and LITT’s included — can be influenced by how questions are framed and the users' responses. That’s why I’d encourage anyone to ask a fresh, neutral question themselves: “Is the presence of a surface oil seep indicative of a financially viable oil reserve?” If someone can find credible evidence suggesting a materially higher success rate between seeps and economic discoveries, I’m happy to see it.

To date, I’ve found nothing that supports the idea that seeps are anything more than indicators of hydrocarbon generation — and, very often, indicators of leakage and depletion rather than financial opportunity.

Spotty

You mean ask the technical teams who get paid regardless of outcome? The same geologists and drilling engineers who are employed to execute programmes, not decide capital allocation or contribute to costs? Let’s be realistic: around 90% of wildcat wells fail, yet every single one had a full team of “geologists and drilling engineers” behind it. Their presence does not validate prospect quality — it simply reflects that a company chose to drill.

None of those teams were publicly saying “don’t drill here”, just as the teams involved in the 14 offshore East Greenland wells didn’t say that either — and yet all of those drills failed commercially. The presence of ‘’geologists and drilling engineers’’ on site means very little. Technical participation does not equal geological endorsement, and it certainly doesn’t equate to economic viability.

In short: drilling activity and technical involvement are not endorsements. Outcomes are what count — and historically, neither Jameson Land nor offshore East Greenland has delivered anything economic, despite plenty of ‘’geologists and drilling experts’’ being on site and paid to try.

You have your opinion - and I have mine. Simple. One of us will be proven to be right in the fullness of time - but while we wait lets just agree to disagree and respect each other's right to have, and express, an opinion.

Interesting video – thanks for posting.

However, it raises several points that I still find puzzling.

Once again, the North Sea (NS) is referenced as a comparison, seemingly to draw parallels with Jameson Land (JL) and bolster the chance of success. As I’ve posted previously, this comparison is geologically weak. While both regions may comprise broadly similar stratigraphic layers, the structural history is fundamentally different.

Jameson Land has undergone significant post-rift uplift of approximately 1.5–3 km (nearly two miles). The core producing areas of the North Sea – Viking Graben, Central Graben, Moray Firth – did not experience this degree of uplift. Instead, they remained deeply buried offshore rift basins, undergoing long-lived subsidence. This allowed Jurassic source rocks to fully mature and continuously charge large, intact traps. Uplift in the NS was limited and generally insufficient to breach most structures.

By contrast, Jameson Land sits on an exhumed rift shoulder. Substantial uplift and erosion have exposed both source and reservoir rocks at surface. Fault reactivation and erosion have likely fragmented structures and increased leakage risk. In addition, JL is likely penetrated by multiple magmatic intrusions: some may have thermally degraded (“cooked”) hydrocarbons, while others are likely to exacerbate fracturing and reduce trap integrity.

In short, JL is not a North Sea analogue. Any oil present may be similar in type, but it is far less likely to reside in large, intact reservoirs. A more realistic expectation is multiple smaller, fragmented accumulations that are technically challenging and potentially uneconomic to develop. Uplift may also have increased gas expansion and accelerated leakage, consistent with the seeps observed today, implying the possibility of partially depleted systems.

It may yet be proven that Jameson Land contains viable oil reserves, but the key question remains whether they are economically recoverable. These findings are based on fairly extensive research and are not a figment of my imagination. They appear to be pretty indisputable. Naturally, they sway my opinion on the likelihood of discovering large, intact, commercially viable oil accumulations in JL and were almost certainly factors in ARCO, BP and USGS decisions not to progress the area historically.

I genuinely hope I am proven wrong and that 80M shareholders ultimately benefit, but for now I remain cautiously optimistic at best.

Perhaps Ashton can see my concerns to his list of questions at the webinar?

LITT,

You seem extraordinarily confident that 80M’s share price will soar, yet equally fixated on my posts. That’s puzzling, given that what I post is — and always has been — clearly stated opinion. If you’re so certain of your own position, it’s unclear why a differing view troubles you so much. You’ve previously said you’d filter me; you’re still free to do so.

For clarity, the threshold for LSE, FCA, or company action is obviously far higher than simply expressing an opposing opinion on a bulletin board — particularly one that is consistent, openly stated, and, in the main, supported by publicly available information. I’m not manipulating the share price, I’m not acting in concert with anyone, and I’m not offering buy or sell advice. I post my view, and I’ve done so consistently whether I’ve held the stock or not.

The more technical nature of my recent post simply reflects the fact that I used AI as a research tool to confirm and sharpen my understanding. I asked for a comparative geological assessment between the East Greenland Rift Basin offshore area and Jameson Land, and which was more likely to contain economically viable oil reserves. Interpreting that as evidence of prior employment is, frankly, absurd.

I’m entirely comfortable that the LSE, FCA, or the company would see nothing remotely actionable in my posts. Claims of “legal teams”, “defamation”, or “FCA involvement” in response to an opposing investment opinion are therefore difficult to take seriously.

Finally, it’s worth noting — in general terms — that defamation concerns false statements of fact about an identifiable individual, repeatedly asserted and presented as fact. Disagreeing with an opinion doesn’t meet that bar. Making repeated inaccurate claims about someone’s background or employment might, particularly if they continue after having been publicly denied.

Balance and debate are what bulletin boards are for.

LITT

Your recent AI generated nonsense also attempted to dismiss the facts by stating that -

‘’The Reality: Location, location, location.

• The Fact: Most of those historic wells were offshore. Jameson Land is an onshore basin.’’

100% correct - well done. But now let's explore those differences in greater detail to establish the reality.

Jameson Land is geologically interesting, but it is not where commercial oil or gas is likely to be found. It’s onshore, exposed, uplifted, and heavily eroded — conditions that destroy or leak hydrocarbons rather than preserve them, note the apparent surface seeps. Most of the Mesozoic section never reached maturity, except in small, localized areas, making any meaningful oil generation extremely unlikely.

Structurally, Jameson Land is more fragmented and compartmentalised. Fault blocks are likely to be smaller, traps are likely to be discontinuous, and migration pathways are probably patchy at best. Compare that to offshore East Greenland, where regional tilted half-grabens and continuous fault blocks create traps capable of tens to hundreds of MMboe. Onshore simply cannot compete at that scale.

Reservoir potential further reinforces the difference. Offshore basins have thick, laterally continuous sandstones with reliable seals. Onshore, reservoirs are almost certainly dissected by erosion and intrusions; even where sandstones exist, continuity and seal integrity are poor - again, note the surface seeps. The result: offshore basins are far more likely to host preserved, commercial accumulations.

In short, any suggestion that Jameson Land is a hidden prize for large-scale discovery is being very optimistic. It’s fine for studying rift-basin geology, but the odds of finding anything remotely economic would appear to be minimal. If a ≥50–100 MMboe accumulation is the goal, the offshore East Greenland basins are the only realistic candidates. As confirmed by the United States Geological Survey.

So the offshore section of the East Greenland Rift Basin is more likely to hold economically viable reserves - yet the 14 drills carried out so far have failed to find any such reserve.

Balance. JL may not be the certainty you and the rest of the ramping crew are claiming.

LITT,

It appears you’ve trained your AI sidekick exactly as you’d like. However, the USGS CARA methodology is quite explicit, so let’s be clear.

Under CARA practice, where an Assessment Unit (AU) has a probability below the internal threshold — typically around 10% for containing at least one accumulation ≥ 50 mmboe — and/or where the data are deemed insufficient to support defensible probability distributions, the AU may be defined but is not quantitatively assessed. No probabilistic volumes or likelihoods are reported.

That really couldn’t be clearer.

USGS had access to data from ARCO and BP, yet still chose not to include Jameson Land in the quantitative assessment. You’re correct that JL was defined as an AU — but under CARA methodology an AU must meet all of the following to progress to full probabilistic modelling:

• Sufficient data quality

• Sufficient geological constraint

• A marginal probability of a ≥50 mmboe accumulation above the reporting threshold

Jameson Land failed at least the probability and/or data support requirement. Hence the table entry stating plainly: “Not quantitatively assessed.”

Clear now?

I’m well aware that newer techniques and interpretations — such as those produced by WFE / Sproule — may tip the balance sufficiently to justify a drill. That’s a reasonable debate to have, but will not alter the fact that the USGS EXCLUDED JL from its quantitative survey. No amount of manipulated AI will alter that fact.

What is ironic is this: you and the rest of the ramping crew endlessly promote “new technology” as a guaranteed win for JL, yet when KoBold deploys its own advanced technology, gathers new data, and then chooses to walk away from a 51% stake in exchange for a potential 2% NSR, you somehow argue this doesn’t reflect KoBold’s view on the economics of Disko. Ironic, isn’t it?

Balance matters.

Wow — the rampers really are in overdrive today.

Buzz has now posted the same article three times within the space of just over two hours. Is that a record? Desperation, or just hoping repetition turns fiction into fact? Meanwhile the usual supporting cast pile in to tell us how “fantastic” the article is. Transparent and entirely predictable.

Same tactic as always: flood the board and try to drown out anything that doesn’t fit the ramping narrative.

Unfortunately for them, the article itself is poorly researched and contains several material inaccuracies — which, unsurprisingly, the ramping crew won’t mention. So, for a bit of balance:

• It references the 31bn boe estimate from the 2007 USGS survey. What it fails to mention is that this survey explicitly excluded Jameson Land. The USGS omitted JL because it assessed the probability of finding a viable 50m boe oil field there as below 10%.

• It claims that attempts to extract this 31bn boe have been “difficult”. The reality is more damning. Around 14 offshore wells have been drilled. Despite encouraging geology — including reservoir-quality sands and hydrocarbon indications — every single well was either dry or showed only minor oil/gas “shows”, insufficient for commercial development. This consistent failure is precisely why no project advanced to production. Surface oil seeps are often indicative of leaking or depleted systems — which should sound familiar to anyone following JL.

• It suggests the success or failure of GEC depends on the Trump administration. Nonsense. Projects succeed or fail on economics, not on which transient clown happens to be in office at any given time.

• It links Trump’s Greenland aspirations to KoBold. Wrong. KoBold has no interests in Greenland. After spending millions and significantly improving the geological understanding of Disko, this well-funded and highly respected company chose to walk away.

• It then claims KoBold “sold” its interest back to 80M last May. Again, wrong. KoBold sold nothing. It handed back its 51% stake, along with approximately £750k of equipment, in exchange for a mere 2% NSR. That outcome speaks volumes.

Enjoy the ride, folks. History suggests the ramping crew won’t be around for long after the float — and then reality will reassert itself, as it always does.

SoleTrader

Oh no. Yet another master of never posting anything more than one line of useless nonsense is going to filter me. How will I sleep at night with the worry? Hilarious. Bye.

CC

Thank you for the compliment.

You and I have exchanged views since I first posted here, and you’ll know that — just as now — I’ve never wavered from a cautious stance, despite profiting from the predictable spikes. Consistent.

I'm not sure what the point is you are trying to make by referring to the fund raise. But without bragging let's give the context with some verifiable details.

You’ll know that I correctly predicted three fund raises while the ramping contingent (including “close connection to the BoD” Ashton) insisted the company was fully funded. On one occasion I called the price exactly, on another I was within (from memory) ~20%, and on one I was well off — but the key point is that all 3 of the fund raises I predicted did happen, despite blanket denial from others at the time.

While we're discussing fund raises; let’s also not forget ES stating there was no imminent fund raise required, only for one to materialise just nine weeks later.

Do you truly believe this as a long term straight line rise from here? Fine if you do - but you won't change my opinion that that will not happen. There are too many unknowns.

On valuation, I don’t see this as a simple price discussion. Certainly not one based on the much promoted “notional” value. Until the company matures sufficiently to be valued on fundamentals, it remains a hope-driven share with the resultant peaks and troughs — and I see no realistic path to that changing.

Continued over-optimistic and undelivered announcements only reinforce the same pattern: a share driven by hope and repeatedly exploited by the ramping crew. The outcome is obvious — spike after spike. I fully intend to profit from as many of them as possible, but I see no justification for treating this as a long-term investment.

Too many peaks and troughs. Rather than crossing our fingers and waiting for a promised “transformational value” that has never materialised, why not trade the reality in front of us? Ride the prevailing sentiment and wait for the ramping crew to arrive / depart - hardly ever fails.

All very much IMHO of course.

Spotty

More claptrap — the desperation is becoming obvious. Amusing, though.

How exactly does stating that I hold, am in profit, and expect this spike to peak shortly after the float deter anyone? Your attempt at outrage just weakens your own narrative. If you genuinely believe my individual posts move the share price, that says far more about your flakey opinion than mine.

I have not told anyone not to buy. I’ve simply highlighted red flags — something rampers seem allergic to — and I’ll continue to do so. This is another ramp-driven spike, no more, no less. Balance clearly isn’t your thing.

If you’d bothered to read my previous posts, you’d know I’ve said repeatedly that I love the share. What’s not to like? Over-optimistic company announcements followed by the usual ramping chorus, producing spike after spike after spike — long before I ever posted here. This one won’t be any different. As always, money to be made.

“Poor character”? That’s rich. I’m the one putting my head above the parapet with a cautious, reasoned view. You’ve chosen the spineless option — herd mentality, mutual reassurance, zero challenge. That’s poor character.

And the real issue? Like so many hollow rampers, you have no credible counter-argument to the red flags. So instead, you try to discredit the messenger.

Textbook behaviour — and poor character personified.

Further to my previous post regarding Disko, LITT’s latest AI-assisted commentary is once again incorrect.

He stated:

“The ‘Drill or Drop’ penalty: KoBold had a legal commitment to spend $11.6m on drilling by the end of 2024. Because they failed to do this, they were at risk of losing their 49% stake for nothing.”

That is simply wrong.

The penalty for not completing the drilling by the end of 2024 was a reduction in KoBold’s interest from 51% to 49%. That 49% interest was theirs to retain indefinitely. There was no obligation to forfeit it, no ticking clock, and no requirement to continue drilling or spending beyond that point.

KoBold could quite legitimately have held the 49%, paused all activity, and resumed work at a time of their choosing. There was no risk whatsoever of them “losing it for nothing”.

Instead, after completing further data gathering, KoBold made a conscious decision to exit entirely — handing back 49% of Disko and approximately £750k of equipment in exchange for a 2% NSR.

That was a voluntary, informed decision. Attempts to reframe / ramp it as a forced or penalty driven outcome are pure misrepresentation.

Lenoman

I honestly don’t know the ultimate outcome here – like everyone else on this board, I’m not a minerals expert and I haven’t visited the site, assessed samples, or reviewed the technical data firsthand. What I do know is that KoBold is widely recognised as a leader in this field. After conducting its own data gathering and technical work on Disko, it made a conscious decision to walk away. To me, that is a major red flag.

So the choice is fairly simple: believe the rampers and a newly formed, closely connected company structure — or place more weight on the actions of an established, market-leading technical expert. You decide.

Allan55

“Perhaps they need the money.”

If you’re referring to KoBold, then with respect, that comment is completely detached from reality. KoBold raised approximately $537m shortly before exiting Disko. Despite that, they chose to walk away rather than spend less than 2.5% of that sum to retain their 49% stake. Instead, they handed back the licence interest and around $750k of equipment, in return for a contingent 2% NSR — which may or may not ever deliver anything.

If Disko really were the Norilsk-scale prize some rampers claim, why exit on those terms? KoBold gathered the data, improved its understanding of the area — and then left.

KoBold is backed by Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and other high-net-worth investors. They do not ‘’need the money’’. Their decision appears to be technical, not financial — and that, again, should not be ignored.

Just before posting, I note that LITT has once again produced his usual AI-generated contribution, suggesting that a 2% NSR somehow compensates for the loss of a 49% stake plus approximately £750k of equipment. Really? That interpretation stretches credibility.

For the sake of argument, let’s humour this line of thinking. Even if one assumes that a 2% NSR ultimately equates to, say, 10–15% of total future profits (depending on margins and cost structure), what rational company would willingly take on the expense, risk and complexity of developing a mine only to permanently forfeit a guaranteed double-digit percentage of its profits from day one?

That kind of burden materially weakens project economics and makes financing, returns and overall viability far less attractive. Hardly the behaviour you’d expect if this were the Norilsk-scale prize some are so eager to promote.

SpottyNutter

You’ve re-posted the claim that “KoBold sold its Greenland interests back to 80 Mile last May.” That is not correct.

KoBold did not sell the asset – it handed it back. Along with the 49% interest (down from an original 51%), KoBold also transferred approximately £750k of equipment. In return, it retained only a contingent 2% NSR.

That decision is quite telling. Rather than commit further time or capital, KoBold chose to walk away from Disko entirely, effectively assigning minimal value to the project. Relinquishing both a substantial stake and equipment speaks louder than any rampers narrative.

LITT

Up over 100% – well done. The price when I posted that it might be a good time to buy (early December) was around 0.51, so some holders may now be up more than 100%. Others may have done even better by averaging lower. That said, I don’t see anyone else noisily congratulating themselves – but self-promotion does seem to be your forte. Comedic, if nothing else.

I suggest you re-read my post from this morning, perhaps without the “ramper outrage” filter applied. It was clearly aimed at highlighting the duplicity and inconsistency of ramping posts. At no point did I tell anyone to sell – that is, once again, another of your misrepresentations designed to suit your preferred narrative.

You also claimed to have blocked me, yet continue to respond to multiple posts of mine. The irony - pure comedy.

The red flags do not magically disappear simply because the ramp-fuelled spike (which I predicted on 9/12/25) is still running. I was explicit then – and remain so now – that I expect a pullback after the float. That position hasn’t changed. I’m not sure which part of that is causing you confusion. I can’t really spell it out in simpler terms - nor should I have to.

There’s also another ramping crew inconsistency worth noting. On the one hand, rampers regularly insist my posts have no impact whatsoever on the share price (a view I wholeheartedly agree with). On the other, you claim those same posts are somehow driving it down. Looks like that's only your opinion. Are you paranoid, daft or just sensitive?

By all means, keep the (predicted) ramp going, please - I suspect the spike hasn’t peaked just yet, and I’m enjoying the profit.

More comedy gold - the ramping crew are hilarious.

Funny how the story always changes.

Last week it was “imminent rerate”, “transformational news” and “huge share price incoming”. Certainty level: 100%.

This week, with the SP going nowhere (or south)?

Suddenly it’s the MMs suppressing, thin trading, no stock available, and—my personal favourite—“perfect time to top up”.

So let me get this straight:

If the price rises, it proves the bull case.

If it doesn’t rise, that also proves the bull case.

Every outcome is bullish, every failure is someone else’s fault, and every delay just means next week… again.

It’s not analysis, it’s post event justification dressed up as insight.

No accountability, no reassessment, no admission of error — just a constantly shifting excuse to keep the ramp alive.

Same posters. Same lines. Same excuses. Different day.

But sure… the next catalyst will be the one. 😉

Thanks Ashton - news that the grant has been secured is welcome. Do you know when exactly it was secured?

Strange that the company didn't see fit to update shareholders via an RNS - €10m is pretty material.

LITT

You’ve twice stated that you’d “blocked” me – then later admitted you actually hadn’t. Despite this, you still reply to virtually every post I make, exactly as you always have. A touch inconsistent, wouldn’t you say?

I don’t offer tips, but as I’ve already intimated on several occasions (try to keep up), I expect the current spike to falter in the days / weeks following the float. I’m perfectly happy to hold mine until then.

Your previous post mentioned impairment charges, so let’s briefly explain what those are for the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with company accounts. AI actually does a decent job of defining them:

“An impairment is a write-down of an asset’s book value when it’s judged to be worth less than what’s shown on the balance sheet. In plain terms, the company is admitting an asset (e.g. a project, goodwill, plant, licence) won’t generate the cash originally expected, so its value is reduced, with the loss taken through the P&L.”

Now to the actual numbers.

2023 accounts: £3.5m impairment charges.

2024 accounts: £4.9m impairment charges.

So, year after year, assets being written down because they weren’t worth what had previously been claimed. Funny how that keeps happening. Makes you think, doesn’t it?

LITT

Hilarious – thanks for another laugh. In your desperation to ramp, you’ve reposted yet another AI-generated essay, manipulated, guided and managed (intentionally or otherwise) to deliver the conclusion you wanted. You really should read these things before posting them – you might catch the glaring errors that strip them of any credibility.

Most of your latest nonsense hinges on AI attempting to argue that the $34m figure wasn’t an official number and therefore somehow irrelevant. You’ve completely missed the point. I clearly stated that the figure came from a poster, not the company. It was cited purely as an example of that poster’s accuracy (or lack of it).

Once again, you and your AI sidekick have misunderstood the plot entirely – and in doing so, reinforced exactly why your many AI posts should be treated with extreme scepticism.