Member Info for RachT2

Guly -

‘’Just the way I like it’’ - hilarious.

Same old tricks on every share you attempt to flip. ORCP - when you predicted on the 15/1 and 16/1 that the SP would rise to 0.12p then again on the 16/1 that it would rise to 0.15. Not only did it not rise, it’s actually fallen around 50% straight after your posts. You were referring to posters who advised caution on that board as trolls - that sounds familiar. Looks like their cautious approach was correct though, eh? Or TIR which has lost 30%+ since you claimed to have bought in (early December) and began ramping - again calling people with a different opinion to your own as being trolls. Shall I go on? Yawn - so transparent - so predictable - sooooo boring. Such a great way to loose money.

Others. So who thinks this isn't just a spike? A spike which will fall back to earth shortly after the results of the GEC float are known / digested / acted upon? The flippers will have no doubt gone by then - moved onto to their next target to regurgitate the same rubbish they post on this board and attempting to silence / ridicule anyone that has a different opinion to themselves. If you doubt me - just look at their posting history. The word 'troll' seems to be a favourite 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Fully intending to enjoy the ride - short though it will be.

LITT

I think a lot of posters are comparing apples with pears here. Much of the discussion is drifting well beyond what is actually known and into speculation about potential value.

CRML is at a completely different stage of its evolution to 80M. It has already moved past the resource/reserve proof phase — a hurdle that GEC/80M haven’t even reached yet, let alone cleared. The proposed drilling at JL and Disko is still in the future. By contrast, CRML has commenced construction activities in Greenland and has an MoU to develop, own and operate a processing plant. GEC/80M have nothing remotely comparable - because there is no proven resource yet. It will take a considerable amount of time for GEC/80M to reach that stage — assuming they ever do.

Do I think the 80M share price will rise on the GEC flotation? Of course — I’m holding shares. Do I expect a spike? Absolutely. History suggests reality eventually asserts itself. We saw this clearly with CRML: after the early October announcements of the successful large placing and offtake agreements, the share price spiked to just over $30, only to fall around 50% in the days and weeks that followed, retracing close to pre-spike levels. Reality always prevails.

I expect something similar with 80M — potentially multiple times as the story develops. This is not the start of a straight-line journey to riches. Talking about potential valuations at this stage is, in my view, misplaced and very premature.

I also think the US involvement angle is being significantly overplayed. I expect the EU to play a major role, with any benefits likely shared between the EU and the US. NATO will almost certainly increase its presence, and Greenland may well see both NATO and US forces stationed there. That gives the US more military presence without footing the entire bill, with responsibility shared.

Corporate involvement will still be dictated by economic, environmental and political considerations — just as it is now. I don’t see any automatic or special benefit accruing to 80M (or any other Greenland operator) from this geopolitical backdrop, either now or in the future. The only exception would be an outright invasion — which I regard as extremely unlikely.

All IMHO.

LITT

Thanks for that - there are indeed some well known / respected big hitters on the list - bodes well for the float - and hopefully the top of the spike materialising.

LITT

👍 I’m happy to continue holding and to see what the GEC float brings.

As for the claim of “major support”, that simply isn’t supported by the chart. If anything, the indicators point to the shares being overbought. That said, in a situation this dynamic, charts have no real value — which makes your assertions of “major support” not credibke.

VikR

You’re aware the filter function exists, right? Please feel free to use it; I won’t be offended.

Owning shares does not confer the right for you to attempt to silence opposing views. Trying to suppress alternative opinions isn’t an investment strategy — it’s confirmation bias, taken to extremes. And what relevance is there in claiming to own millions of shares? You have no idea whether I hold more or less than you. Do you? So If I held more than you would that mean my opinion is anymore valid? Of course it wouldn't. If I later take further profit, does my opinion suddenly become irrelevant and all of the risks and red flags somehow magically disappear overnight simply because I no longer hold? Don't be so naive.

Guly - sometimes AI is helpful, but only as an adjunct to thorough research. To confirm my own opinion I asked AI - the answer contradicts both your belief and that of the X poster you posted a link to.

The question -

‘’Do oil seeps at ground surface indicate the presence of an economically viable oil reserve? Keep reply to a succinct level suitable to repost on a bulletin board.’’

The answer is unambiguous -

‘’ Short answer: no.

Surface oil seeps only confirm that hydrocarbons have been generated and migrated. They do not indicate the size, quality, trap integrity, recoverability, or commercial viability of any subsurface accumulation. In fact, a seep often suggests a leaking or breached system.

Thousands of oil seeps exist worldwide; only a small minority are associated with economic fields. Seepage alone is not evidence of a commercially viable oil reserve.’’

Note - the SMALL MINORITY phrase. (My uppercase)

As I understand it a leaking or breached system is not desirable. Perhaps you know differently?

Note - ‘’..a seep often suggests a leaking or breached system.’’

LITT

Thanks for your response, but to quote you - ‘This is the most important point’ - you are wrong again.

I did not base my comments on the “chance of geological success” for a blind wildcat well drilled in the 1980s.

The sub-10% figure I referred to is sourced from the US Geological Survey (CARA), 2007. The USGS is a federal agency within the US Department of the Interior, and its assessments are generally regarded as well-researched and credible.

JL was not included in the 2007 quantitative survey because the USGS considered the probability of discovering an accumulation of at least 50 mmboe to be below 10%, which was their stated threshold for inclusion.

The fact that JL was excluded from CARA is therefore informative in itself.

The figures should not be dismissed or confused with wild cat drills.

Sorry - that should be Jameson Land obviously.

GMC

I’m ignoring nothing. You are wrong to state that I am. I hold an alternative view to your ramping narrative — that’s all.

The $92m figure is not a “legal floor” — no such concept exists. Nor is that value implied by the market. It is a notional valuation assigned by those promoting the deal themselves. The conflict of interest there should be obvious.

You are assuming that one or both drills will be successful and that 80M will inevitably benefit materially. I take a more cautious view. The ARCO, BP and USGS assessments were not written by forum posters either and were based on years of data and analysis, not optimism.

You use the word “if” — and that’s precisely the point. If the drills are successful, I agree entirely: GEC will fly and 80M should benefit accordingly. But if Jameson Lake does not deliver as hoped, GEC can simply pivot to other projects, which it is free to do in any case — projects that may not involve 80M at all.

Caution is not negativity. It is risk assessment.

LITT

I’ve had a response from the LSE regarding my earlier query – apparently my posts were removed in error and have now been reinstated. A rather bizarre episode, but at least it’s been corrected.

That said, I strongly disagree with your claim that your latest AI-generated post is presenting “the facts”. They are anything but. AI outputs are only as good as the inputs and framing provided. Through selective modelling and prompts, it is perfectly possible – inadvertently or otherwise – to train an AI to produce the narrative one wishes to see.

For example, were all of the relevant nuances around the interconnected company structures involving RP properly included? That would encompass, among other things: the long-established relationship between RM and RP; the timing of HV’s formation shortly before acquiring GS, seemingly with the intention of selling it on to 80M; the subsequent and substantial reduction in the agreed purchase price; the repeated failure of claimed GS restart dates to materialise; the fact that GS was acquired out of administration; and the reality that future profitability is far from guaranteed, given the previous owners’ outcome.

Added to that are further considerations, such as another RP-linked entity partnering with 80M on the Disko project despite financing still needing to be secured, and the historically cautious assessments from ARCO, BP and the USGS regarding the chances of success at JL. Etc, etc.

Your AI post describes the GEC partnership creation thus - ‘‘March GL didn't want to stay a private company, so they merged with a SPAC called Pelican Acquisition (PELI).’’ Hmmm, that's left out an awful lot of facts; facts you maybe didn’t input?

AI can be a useful analytical aid, but presenting its output as an established “fact” – particularly when key context may be absent – risks being misleading.

All IMHO, of course.

Wow - even more suppression this morning. LITT has replied to a post I made earlier - a post that has now disappeared. So here it is again -

The market itself is signalling a clear disconnect between PELI and 80M valuations. In my view, that simply reflects what I’ve long believed: 80M is NOT worth 30% of GEC. It never has been, and it never will be.

US investors are buying into GEC’s potential and its strategic springboard into Greenland. They are valuing GEC’s broader ambitions, which extend well

beyond a single initial partnership with an AIM minnow like 80M. The idea that GEC’s future is somehow capped or defined by that first deal is, frankly, naïve.

Yes, 80M may currently hold 30% of the JL partnership – but that is very different from owning 30% of GEC’s overall value. The two values are being conflated, and the market quite clearly disagrees with that narrative.

Anyone else spot a reason for the post to be deleted by LSE? Yet a defamatory post calling me a paid troll remains - despite the fact that I've asked for its removal.

The market itself is signalling a clear disconnect between PELI and 80M valuations. In my view, that simply reflects what I’ve long believed: 80M is NOT worth 30% of GEC. It never has been, and it never will be.

US investors are buying into GEC’s potential and its strategic springboard into Greenland. They are valuing GEC’s broader ambitions, which extend well beyond a single initial partnership with an AIM minnow like 80M. The idea that GEC’s future is somehow capped or defined by that first deal is, frankly, naïve.

Yes, 80M may currently hold 30% of the JL partnership – but that is very different from owning 30% of GEC’s overall value. The two values are being conflated, and the market quite clearly disagrees with that narrative.

All IMHO, of course.

I recently posted explaining that it is impossible to know with certainty whether late-reported “dark” trades are buys or sells, and therefore impossible to state definitively who is buying or selling, despite the confident claims of certain posters.

AI gave an unambiguous confirmation of this: there is no definitive way to classify such trades. At best, it outlined some criteria that may help form an educated view. Stress the key word here: GUESS. Nothing more, nothing less.

Applying those same criteria to the late-reported £50k trade would suggest that it was a sell.

LITT

Whether or not its your misunderstanding of the agreement, or yet another example of AI being relied upon without proper comprehension, unfortunately your post contains another inaccuracy. You state:

“The Pivot: If 80 Mile decided they didn't want to wait for the second well or if March GL declined their 14-month option, 80 Mile would still own 50% of a now-proven asset. They could then choose to sell their stake to a major oil company, bring in a different partner, or as you suggested, essentially put their interest up for sale to the highest bidder while the market excitement is at its peak.”

That is simply wrong. The time frame is for MarchGL / GEC to decide - not 80M.

At that point in time it will be impossible for 80M to know if it will be the owner of 50% or 30%. It would simply not be able to sell a 50% stake without MarchGL / GEC’s having decided the path forward. Under the agreement, once the first hole is completed and 80M has relinquished 50%, they are contractually obliged to issue MarchGL (or GEC) with an option, exercisable for 14 months. Crucially, that option is exercisable at MarchGL’s (or GEC’s) discretion, NOT 80M’s.

Until MarchGL / GEC makes its decision, it is unclear whether 80M ultimately retains 50% or is diluted further to 30%. On that basis, the maximum stake that could even be argued as saleable at that moment would be 30%, not 50%. Realistically what large energy co. would consider buying a 30% stake in an asset with only one hole drilled (successfully or not) and an unknown partnership structure going forward? I’d suggest - none!

And equally crucial - that 14months is another 14months that 80M will have to fund itself. Fingers crossed that GS eventually gets restarted and (crucially) makes a profit by then. If not, I'd suggest more dilutive find raises are likely.

Banzaimcgowan

Thanks for your kind words.

FYI - I still retain some of the shares I purchased in early December. They were purchased around the time I posted to predict an imminent spike. It's been good so far but I'm happy to have taken some profit off the table.

This is my post made on the 9/12/25 -

The red flags haven’t vanished — they’re all still there. But let’s be realistic: anyone buying now could well benefit from another ramp-driven spike in the near term. RP is throwing everything at this narrative, the IPO hype machine is rolling, and the expected (by some of us) fundraise is now behind us.

Greenswitch remains a major concern — another missed restart date looks increasingly likely. But that probably won’t matter in the short term while the focus stays on IPO excitement and JL.

As ever though, expect a spike — not a sustained recovery. Drilling is still months away and outcomes are far from guaranteed.

Trade it with eyes open.

Investors should note what appears to be selective moderation on this board. I have never previously had a post removed, yet one of my posts disappeared yesterday, and this morning an entirely civil exchange between Ashton and myself has also vanished.

That discussion contained no foul language, no personal attacks, and no breaches of board rules. It was simply a reasoned exchange of differing views between two long-standing and prolific contributors. There was no legitimate justification for its removal.

The fact that the moderation appears to be focused primarily on my posts raises obvious questions. It gives the impression that cautious or dissenting opinions are being suppressed, which is not healthy for informed investor discussion.

I will continue to post as normal and will draw attention to any further instances of apparent censorship or suppression should they occur.

LITT

And you claim I am misleading investors, hilarius - lets look at your flagrant attempt to ramp the share and your repeated false claims of “dark” trades being buys. You DO NOT know if a late reported dark trade is a buy or a sell - you can only speculate. According to AI your ramping narrative that the late reported dark trades are buys is INCORRECT - no surprise there then. Knowing that you and others in the ramping crew would try to discredit my post / opinion (and just how much you trust and rely on AI) I asked AI for confirmation of my opinion. I asked -

“Is there any way to tell if late reported so-called dark trades are buys or sells? So that I might reproduce the reply onto a bulletin board please keep the response pertinent but succinct.” It's reply was unambiguous -

“Short answer: no – not definitively.

Late-reported “dark” (off-book) trades do not show the aggressor, so there is no official way to label them as buys or sells. Anyone claiming certainty is guessing.

That said, you can sometimes infer probability, not fact, by looking at context:

Price vs spread at the time: at/above offer suggests buyer-initiated; at/below bid suggests seller-initiated.

Subsequent price action: strength after the print leans buy; weakness leans sell.

Volume vs price: heavy volume with little upward movement often indicates selling/distribution.

Order book behaviour: firm bids despite prints can imply absorption; repeated replenished offers often imply supply.

On AIM in particular, many late prints are MM crosses, client facilitation, or inventory clearing, not directional conviction.

Bottom line: there is no reliable buy/sell flag for dark trades, only educated inference based on surrounding market behaviour.”

The “dark trades” you refer to were made at 14.00 but didn't appear until over 2hrs later. The lowest prevailing price around 14.00 was 0.85 - yet the “dark trades” were priced at 0.82. Suggesting they were SELLS. Edit - as I'm writing this I see that 3 more such large “dark trades” have appeared. According to AI criteria the trade at 08.29 looks like being a buy - but the other 2 are almost certainly sells. Or do you now disagree with AI as well?

But let's stress this section of the AI reply -

“On AIM in particular, many late prints are MM crosses, client facilitation, or inventory clearing, not directional conviction.”

So most of your imagined “dark” trades as being bought by “sophisticated Investors, hedge funds etc” is way off mark. They are nothing more than a product of your biased opinion and attempt to ramp the share price for your own ends. You have NO way of knowing and AI suggests you are mistaken.

Everyone wants this current spike to go a little higher (me included at the moment) but please DYOR and take everything the newly arrived rampers say with a HUGE pinch of salt.

Some genuine amusement provided daily by the ramping crew. Today’s efforts were particularly entertaining, though I suspect I’ve missed a few contributions hidden behind green filters, no doubt recycling the usual inaccuracies.

LTT – you suggest my cautious tone is misplaced. Or is it simply inconvenient because it contradicts your persistent ramping? Let me consider that for a moment 🤔. Naturally, you’d prefer everyone to believe this is heading for 3, 4 or even 5p in the short term. That narrative is useful if your intention is to attract fresh PIs and provide liquidity to flip your own holding. The tactic is hardly subtle, and it’s becoming increasingly obvious, especially when one looks at the identical phrasing and promises of imminent riches posted by the same accounts across multiple boards.

Spod – I’ll try to make this as clear as possible. Over many years the company has issued a series of over-optimistic RNS statements that it has repeatedly failed to deliver on. At GS alone, there have been four separate stated restart dates that have come and gone. Not once has the company issued an RNS to acknowledge a failure to meet those timelines or to apologise for missing them. That is a matter of record.

You insist I should support my comments with an RNS confirming non-events, despite knowing full well that no such RNSs exist because the company does not issue them. To demand documentary evidence that you already know will not exist is disingenuous at best.

Investors would do well to focus on delivery rather than rhetoric, and on history rather than hype.

Spodulike

Certainly, happy to explain. It's good to bring a bit of balance to the board - thanks for presenting the opportunity.

You are relying on an RNS dated 28 October in which a scheduled production start date was quoted. That, in itself, demonstrates poor research. It was the fourth such date provided by the Board, and the plant is still NOT operational.

I cannot point you to an RNS explicitly stating that production has not commenced. If you had carried out proper due diligence, you would know that the company does not issue RNSs to confirm non-events when its repeatedly stated restart dates come and go. Nor does it issue RNSs when many of its other projected milestones pass without any visible progress. That has been the consistent practice to date. You are surely aware of this, yet still choose to ask the question in an apparent attempt to regain some credibility.

In another recent post, you described the divestment of Hamm & Out as some kind of milestone. This suggests you are unaware that Met1 handed those assets back free of charge shortly after acquiring them. One has to question how valuable they can realistically be under those circumstances. Did you simply choose to omit that inconvenient fact? It certainly doesn't fit with your ramping narrative. Or were you simply not aware?

Again, these are matters of record, not opinion.

Spodulike

Thanks for your reply - but you have clearly not carried out thorough due diligence. GS is not operational. Your response simply recycled outdated news, none of which reflects the current reality.

The fact is that the third or fourth production restart date quoted by 80M has now come and gone, just like all the previous ones. This is a consistent pattern, not an isolated delay.

So I’d genuinely like to understand the logic behind valuing the company at a £100m market cap on the basis of this plant. It has yet to generate any revenue, let alone profit. Importantly, it failed to produce profits under its previous owners as well, who ultimately went bankrupt, with the asset acquired out of administration.

Those are facts, not opinions. On that basis, assigning a £100m valuation is wholly unjustified.

Would you be so kind as to inform us all of just where you have seen that production is underway. I am not aware of any such updates being released. It looks like the 4th date given by the BoD has also come and come. Are you talking BS? Wouldn't surprise me. Go on, prove me wrong.