Member Info for RachT2

Ashton rarely, if ever, supports his ramptastic posts with evidence - even when specifically asked to do so. Yet here he is requesting someone else to do so.

Obviously one rule for the proxy - and another for everyone else.

Apologies SilverFoxd - you don't need me to fight your corner - but Ashton is a duplicitous specimen and I felt moved to post.

Ashton appears to be looking at the 14 November 2025 RNS and assuming these shares have been fully liquid and freely tradable for the last six months.

He is wrong. That is not how it works.

Greendome itself cannot simply dump those shares onto the open market before 30 June.

However, the fact that the registered holder is locked in does not necessarily mean market exposure cannot occur through other mechanisms.

On AIM, institutional arrangements can be (and are) rather more ‘’creative’’. It is not unusual for deals to be structured along the lines of: “I’ll sell you X million shares at an agreed price today, and transfer the actual shares to you on 1 July 2026.” So, for example, an off-market forward arrangement with another party (hedge fund, high net worth individual etc etc) could potentially allow an institution to hedge or short equivalent exposure ahead of the lock-in expiry, with settlement occurring later using the underlying shares.

So while nobody outside the parties knows what has happened, assuming that a lock-in automatically means there can be no selling pressure is perhaps a little naïve, to say the very least.

And from Greendome’s perspective, if the shares do not triple (or fail to even hold their price), the additional deferred payments simply remain in play. More shares potentially coming their way. Kerching.

Another possible reason why the spike has retraced? Who predicted that? LOL.

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

So no RNS then — just a vague post on X.

“Greenswitch biofuels facility in Italy is fully operational and permitted.”

More vague promotion? Perhaps.

I can certainly see how some might interpret that as meaning the plant is actually running.

But operational and operating are not the same thing.

My car is operational — it’s fully functional and road legal — but it is currently sitting in the garage and is not actually operating.

Before the usual ramptastic excitement starts, perhaps wait for an RNS confirming the plant is actually OPERATING, producing and generating revenue. That would be the meaningful update. Not a vague X comment.

Of course, some will no doubt jump straight from “operational” to “producing” because that fits their preferred ramptastic narrative. Funny how words, and the ability to read them diligently, matters in the investment world. It seems it might be relatively easy to mislead some people.

And some one appears to have already confused the statement to mean that a single entity will be taking 100% of the offtake. Jeez, you really couldn’t make it up. Hilarious.

All IMHO of course.

SilverFoxd

Ashton — selective reading and selective posting? Fancy that. Perhaps it's connected to the self-confessed approach of ignoring the negatives and focusing only on the positives. LOL.

Fully agree — why wouldn’t these shares be potentially forward sold? It happens every day in markets. There’s nothing particularly surprising about it.

Greendome potentially benefits either way: they receive shares, and if they choose to sell some into the market, they can generate cash while potentially helping to keep the VWAP lower. A win-win scenario for them perhaps — but existing 80M shareholders are the ones sucking up yet more dilution.

And what exactly are shareholders getting in return? A plant that previous owners failed to operate profitably over the longer term, and where the initial restart timeline is now approaching 18 months overdue.

Some of us raised concerns when this related-party transaction was announced. As usual, the RC response was that the company could apparently do no wrong. How’s that working out? But let's remind ourselves that some of the RC were stupid enough to think that the recent transfer of EBT shares was a sign of institutions loading up. Really? Hilarious. Just hilarious.

Interesting too that CB previously suggested the intention was to sell the plant once commodity prices improved sufficiently. Makes you wonder why. Will costs incurred be recovered? Maybe - but the share dilution isn't going away

And now we are just 16 working days away from yet another restart deadline. Will this one finally arrive, or will it join the previous missed dates? I know which option I think is the most likely.

Tick tock.

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

Continued....

That's excellent for “promotional” presentations. Less helpful when trying to define a large, coherent, mineable resource.

None of this means Thule cannot host economic copper mineralisation. It clearly can.

But there is a SUBSTANTIAL difference between finding high-grade surface occurrences and proving up a major multi-decade copper reserve.

In my view, that distinction is overlooked when comparisons with Camelot are casually thrown around.

If you're looking for impressive surface samples and exploration upside, Thule certainly has attractions.

If you're trying to assess the probability of proving a giant, laterally continuous copper deposit you go to Canada. BHP knows the geological odds and has made its decision.

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

I've previously posted at length explaining why, in my opinion, Jameson Land is not directly comparable to the North Sea despite the repeated claims of the usual RC members.

Now that Ashton appears to be turning his attention to "promoting" Thule, it's perhaps worth examining why Thule/Dundas is not the same opportunity as BHP's Camelot project in Canada. And both Hammaslahti and Outokumpu are geologically way different from Camelot - so different that another post would be necessary to explain why they are not remotely comparable.

Yes, both sit within the broader Proterozoic Thule Basin and are separated by the relatively narrow Nares Strait. But geologically (like JL and the NS) the 2 are quite dissimilar.

I utilised AI to help formulate and refine my thoughts on Thule and would advise anyone reading this to verify these facts for themselves.

BHP's decision to focus on the Canadian side was hardly accidental.

And whatever became of the prospective partner Eric told us was interested in Thule a couple of years ago? They can't have been that enthusiastic. Likewise, we're told the licence expansion cost virtually nothing because 80M had accumulated sufficient exploration credits. No competing rush for the ground then? I wonder why.

Using various geological sources to help refine my understanding, the key differences appear to be these:

1. Scale matters

On the Canadian side, the sedimentary sequences remain largely intact across vast areas. That provides the enormous rock volumes required for a major copper system.

On the Greenland side, hundreds of millions of years of uplift, rifting and glaciation have removed a significant proportion of the original basin. Much of the target rock volume simply isn't there anymore.

2. Continuity matters

Camelot's geology appears relatively continuous and predictable. When drilling intersects mineralisation, geologists can reasonably model its extension over large distances.

By contrast, northwest Greenland has been heavily faulted and broken into separate structural blocks. One drill hole may hit excellent grades, only for the mineralised horizon to terminate abruptly against a fault a short distance away.

3. Complexity matters

The Greenland side has also been heavily intruded by later volcanic activity. Those intrusions can create spectacular surface samples and eye-catching headline grades, but they can also disrupt the continuity of the original mineralised system.

Continued.....

Continued....

Rather reminiscent of the repeatedly promised 2025 Disko drill, which also failed to materialise.

And according to CB, RM has apparently indicated that the plant could ultimately be sold once commodity prices become sufficiently favourable. If so, shareholders may never see the long-term stream of cashflows that was originally being used to justify much of the enthusiasm.

And here we are today.

Still waiting for the latest restart.

You really couldn't make it up.

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

Annoying indeed.

Some of us did try to point out the seemingly unrealistic optimism at the time, but as usual were met with deflection, ridicule and rudeness. Looking back now, which side has actually been proven correct?

Here are some of Ashton's more memorable assurances. They, as usual, focussed on only the positives - not a smart thing to do obviously.

".......so I contacted 80M management and asked whether the cashflow would not be available for developing 80M's other non-petroleum assets. The answer I got back was that cashflow from the Greenswitch facility would be used to service the broader 80M portfolio of exploration assets, including Disko."

"After more careful study, I am chuffed over the proposed acquisition of the Greenswitch plant for three main reasons:

The most valuable feature of the Greenswitch asset is that it is 'production-ready' with production to commence in Q1 2025 and then to be ramped up in Q2 2025. None of 80M's other assets offer this unique feature at the moment.

The revenue from the asset can support the progress of 80M's other assets, in particular the two potentially highly valuable assets Jameson Land and Disko.

The timing of the acquisition could not have been more perfect..."

And this AGM gem:

"RM informed the meeting that as for the Greenswitch plant, the plan is to start production in Q1 2025 (as confirmed in the RNS), and then take it to FULL production by the end of the year, with the associated generation of revenue for the company. Not long to wait for confirmation from the company that production has started in Q1 2025."

Not long to wait indeed.

Then there were the company statements themselves:

19/12/24 (Fundraise RNS)

• "Revenue generation is expected in Q1 25"

• "Q1 restart ESO and biofuel production"

12/02/25

• "The Company remains confident of a plant restart in the coming weeks once feedstock materials are received."

• "The plant is now ready for complete restart and full production ramp-up expected in Q3 25."

The delay would appear not to have been caused by feedstock availability after all. Subsequent updates suggested the plant simply wasn't ready despite investors previously being told otherwise.

Then, less than a month later:

11/03/25

• "A final €1.9m maintenance programme is underway"

• "A soft start is designed to ensure plant performance as production is ramped up over the coming months."

So despite being told the plant was "ready for complete restart", further significant maintenance was apparently still required.

Fancy that.

As the months passed, the timelines continued to move. The promised production failed to materialise. The expected revenue failed to materialise. The anticipated portfolio-supporting cashflow failed to materialise.

Continued......

Continued...

Lots of headlines. Lots of projections. Plenty of optimism.

Still waiting for more of the detail and for the latest restart assurance to be met. Or not.

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

Well, it looks increasingly unlikely that the share price is going to triple before the end of June.

There will be no drill results by then. The Jameson Land drilling permit still needs to be granted if the October timetable is to be met. USFM has so far committed only the initial $7.5m — whatever happened to the much-discussed $30m? And Greenswitch producing by the end of H1 is looking increasingly optimistic given there are now only around 17 working days left for that to occur. As for profit ….. dream on.

Which brings me back to the Hydrogen Valley acquisition terms announced several months ago.

If the value of the shares issued to Greendome failed to triple by 30 June 2026, further consideration becomes payable. In other words, potentially more shares being issued (dilution) and more cash having to be found.

Is that cash that 80M currently has available? I have my doubts. The last fund raise was around six months ago and continued refurbishment costs, operating expenses and general overheads at a non-producing plant will surely have consumed a significant chunk of that money.

Thankfully, these obligations are not immediate. The plant may finally become operational and may even be profitable before the additional consideration falls due. Likewise, successful drilling and positive news flow would make any future fund raise considerably easier and less dilutive.

But there are still plenty of uncertainties.

After all, the previous two owners were unable to make the plant a profitable long-term operation. Perhaps 80M will succeed where others failed. Perhaps not. As always, only time will tell whether management's “expectations” prove realistic or, once again, somewhat optimistic.

What struck me when revisiting that RNS was how many of the upbeat projections were again over-optimistic and have slipped. Fancy that.

For example:

• "Under the terms of the MOU, the Group will supply up to 80,000 tonnes per annum of renewable feedstocks to the Ferrandina plant beginning 1 November 2025."

• "Plant restart planned for December 2025 with full production in January 2026."

• "Start of biodiesel supply: January 2026."

Oh dear. More missed timelines.

And then there are the agreements that still remain largely opaque.

The NACATA deal was widely promoted, but investors still don't know the key commercial terms. It's a five-year arrangement — but at what pricing? Has that even been finalised? Feedstock markets have moved materially since the announcement, particularly following recent geopolitical tensions.

As I commented at the time, any five-year supply agreement is unlikely to be structured purely for 80M's benefit. NACATA will naturally seek to protect its own margins and manage its own risks.

And we're still largely in the dark regarding the Tecnoparco MoU as well, despite that being announced nearly twelve months ago.

Continued...

Buzz

Ramping as always - how's your other certainties doing? BMV or KOD which you're also ramping at the moment? Oh dear - you're little emojis and claptrap were wrong there too.

“Had this off a mate in who's a bigger hitter in london - huge gains to be had!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

“20x in next 3 weeks”

“Leaked rumor - record breaking apparently”

“Soon as 0.20 is breached it is going to fly - still expecting 400% today!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

“BMV looking seriously undervalued at £3.8m 👀”

“Love all the desperation of people de ramping saying be careful because they missed the boat!”

“Sells eaten at 0.2 look at that bounce on the charts!!!!! This is about to blow 🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀”

Just some of the c**p posted over the 13 & 14 April - price since the last post above?

Straight line DOWN by 77% - fancy that.

Anyone reading Buzz’s posts should check out his “record” on this and other boards too. Zero credibility.

All IMHO, of course.

Again, I find myself agreeing with SilverFox.

The rampers continue to insist that once "the seller" has finished selling, the share price will somehow rocket.

How do they know it's a single seller? Why not multiple sellers? More importantly, why do they assume that the disappearance of one source of supply automatically results in a dramatic re-rate?

The current share price represents the market's present equilibrium. Buyers are clearly willing to buy at this level and sellers are clearly willing to sell at this level.

What happens when that balance changes?

Scenario 1 – The price rises

Sellers become even more willing to sell. Existing holders take profits. Others reduce risk. New sellers emerge - capping the supposed re-rate. The key question then becomes: are buyers willing to keep paying increasingly higher prices for what remains, at this stage, a highly speculative investment?

Scenario 2 – The price falls

Buyers may become more interested, viewing the lower price as an opportunity. Meanwhile, some sellers may be less inclined to sell if doing so significantly reduces their profit or crystallises a loss.

Ultimately, markets are fairly simple.

The price today reflects the collective judgement of buyers and sellers right now. That applies not just to today but to every day. Some clearly believe the current level represents a good entry point. Others clearly believe it represents a good opportunity to exit or reduce exposure.

Only time will tell which camp proves correct.

What we can say is that the existence of sustained and relatively substantial selling doesn't sit particularly comfortably with the RC narrative that everyone is simply loading up ahead of an inevitable boom. Yet, as ever, the RC appears convinced that they are smarter, better informed and more insightful than the market itself.

No change there then.

All IMHO, of course.

SilverFoxd

I've had Cybertron filtered for ages now. It's a terrible shame that I miss out on their eloquent, articulate, knowledgeable and invariably courteous contributions. And, of course, the way they always construct coherent and compelling counter-arguments. LOL.

Still calling for people to report me, are they? Hilarious.

The funny thing is that I haven't heard from the FCA, the LSE, a board moderator, or indeed anyone else. But never mind — we'll let Cybertron continue with the crusade. If it gives them a sense of purpose, who am I to object?

Agree regarding the pump and dump brigade. As for the constant "I'll hold until 3p", "I'll hold until 4p", bla bla bla type rhetoric, it's the same old bulletin-board fantasy.

Anyone buying at today's price would be sitting on roughly a 100% gain at around 1.7p. Yet we're expected to believe that everyone will politely ignore a doubling of their money and hold indefinitely while awaiting the outcome of a binary drilling event. Really?

Many of the loudest advocates have spent time and money averaging down and (apparently) accumulating large positions. Once those holdings double in value, taking at least some profit becomes the rational thing to do. Most investors aren't going to leave substantial gains entirely on the table while waiting for a drill result that may or may not deliver, a drill result that has around 10 - 20% chance of success.

That selling pressure matters.

It caps rallies, limits the size of any re-rate and helps explain why so many of the promised "BOOMs" and "life-changing reratings" ultimately retrace once reality catches up with the excitement. Peaks and troughs - produced by the ramblings of the RC who are telling everyone else to buy and hold.

It has always been thus.

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

Continued...

None of this means Jameson Land lacks potential. It doesn't mean a major discovery won't be made. And it certainly doesn't mean the project won't ultimately prove highly successful.

What it does mean is that endlessly quoting the most optimistic resource figure without discussing the associated probabilities, lower-case estimates and geological risks looks more like promotion than balanced analysis. Ramptastic.

Surely investors deserve the realistic figures and caveats as well as the headlines.

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

After reading Nocheesecake's post, I decided to dig a little deeper.

The results are interesting. Reality check time?

First, who exactly is Jørgen Hammeken-Holm?

He isn't some junior official offering a personal opinion. He is the Permanent Secretary and Head of Department responsible for raw materials and industry matters within the Greenlandic Government. In other words, when he comments on licensing, permitting and what Greenland Energy can or cannot do, he speaks with considerable authority.

So when he expresses doubt about permits being obtained by October and notes that such processes normally take a long time, perhaps that's worth paying attention to.

Also - in another KNR article in April ‘26 he stated - "Jeg vil sige, at der er stor risiko for, at man ikke finder noget som helst" — which translates precisely as "I would say that there is a high risk that nothing at all will be found."

I then came across another KNR article featuring Thomas Varming.

For those unfamiliar with him, Varming is a geophysicist with GEUS (the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland) and was involved in resource assessment work relating to North-East Greenland. Again, not some random commentator.

According to the article, Varming stated that the oft-quoted 13 billion barrel figure represents a P10 outcome — in other words, a figure with only around a 10% probability of being achieved. He also noted that industry participants would more commonly focus on higher-probability estimates rather than the most optimistic case.

That raises an obvious question.

Why is it that RP, and many of the RC, seem determined to endlessly repeat the 13 billion barrel figure without routinely mentioning the probability attached to it? Ramptastic.

Sproule's own report contains a P90 estimate of around 1 billion barrels. That is a huge lift from GUES’s own figure of 350m boe. It's still a very substantial figure by any measure, but it is rather different from the 13 billion barrels that gets endlessly repeated on bulletin boards and in promotional material.

And then there is the question of discovery risk.

Again, referring to the Sproule report, the individual prospects are assigned relatively modest chances of success. My understanding is that the reported geological chances of success are approximately: (open to correction)

OPW-1: 20%

OPW-6: 10%

OPW-9: 11%

In other words, even before debating whether 13 billion barrels exists, there remains a significant risk that individual wells fail to encounter commercial hydrocarbons at all.

Continued......

VikR —

Some of us manage to donate to charity without feeling the need to announce it to a bulletin board. Personally, I've always thought generosity is at its most admirable when it is carried out quietly, without the benefactor seeking recognition for their actions. But each to their own.

The same applies to your investment posts. Hardly a day seems to pass without you informing one board or another how much you've topped up by, how many shares you've bought, or how much conviction you have. Often the sums involved are substantial — amounts many investors simply don't have available.

Whenever anyone questions the need for this constant self-publicity, the response seems to be that they're somehow jealous. Not everyone with less money than you is jealous - they might just be a little more refined, reserved and respectful.

There are undoubtedly plenty of investors with portfolios as large as, or larger than, your own. The difference is that most don't feel compelled to provide a running commentary of every purchase and top-up.

Perhaps they're simply a little more reserved. And less arriviste.

You, on the other hand, sometimes come across as a modern-day incarnation of Harry Enfield's "Loadsamoney" character — endlessly waving purchase confirmations around and expecting admiration to follow.

If that's the image you're aiming for, then congratulations. It's working.

Of course, some posters clearly enjoy the performance. After all, this is the same bulletin board where a routine transfer of EBT shares was recently described as "smart money loading up" and "tremendous news" that confirmed we were in a "loading phase." LOL.

Some might even be persuaded to buy because you’ve made another large purchase - such a shame that a lot of your transactions are self confessed ‘averaging down’ or selling out before ‘ you lose the lot”. Way to go.

Others may prefer to judge investment ideas on their merits rather than on the size of somebody else's latest top-up.

Just saying. We all have our own opinion.

All IMHO, of course.

How refreshing.

It's always heart-warming to see someone carry out a charitable act in such a completely anonymous and selfless manner, without seeking any recognition, attention or personal gratification whatsoever.

The fact that we've all been informed about it on a public bulletin board is, of course, entirely incidental.

I'm sure the primary satisfaction comes from helping the charity rather than ensuring that complete strangers are made aware of the apparent need for self gratification. Or maybe not.

All IMHO, of course.

Nocheesecake —

So you intended your post to be viewed as positive did you? Righto.

How exactly do you interpret those comments as anything other than, at the very least, somewhat concerning?

Are these reports not quoting the actual Head of Department?

"He does not dare to speculate on whether the permits can be obtained before October, but says that it usually takes a long time."

"Normally, an EIA takes two years to do. It is not us, but the environmental authorities, who must make assessments of this, but normally these are processes that take a very long time, says Jørgen Hammeken-Holm."

And let's not overlook another rather important comment attributed to him — namely that even if oil is discovered, it could take at least 10 years before profits are generated."

That appears considerably longer than some of the timelines and expectations that RP has been discussing.

Those aren't comments from anonymous bulletin-board posters. They're being attributed directly to the Head of Department.

And do those comments not relate to an application that was only submitted around two weeks ago?

I'm not saying the permits won't be granted. I still think they probably will be. But pretending those remarks are somehow unequivocally positive seems a stretch.

Buzz —

More nonsense from you, I see.

Yesterday it was a 100-bagger. Today it's apparently only an 80-bagger.

Presumably you've uncovered some fresh geological data overnight and carefully refined your valuation model?

Oh no, that's right. I'd forgotten. You simply pluck increasingly ridiculous numbers out of thin air and present them as though they're analysis.

The little rocket emojis probably help convince readers that you know what you're talking about.

How's ECR doing by the way? Weren't you enthusiastically promoting that one not so long ago?

Last time I looked it was down over 40%.

Funny old market, isn't it?

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

Nocheesecake —

Wow. What a bombshell. Thanks for posting.

“The head of the department says that drilling for oil will not begin in October, as has been previously announced.”

“Normally, an EIA takes two years to do. It is not us, but the environmental authorities, who must make assessments of this, but normally these are processes that take a very long time, says Jørgen Hammeken-Holm.”

“I was very surprised by the first reports in the press that they would soon find many billions of barrels of oil for Greenland and the rest of the world, says Jørgen Hammeken-Holm and continues: They don't have the money for such large investments yet, and even if they did, and you actually find oil, it will take at least ten years before you can get profits from it.”

Those are some fairly eye-catching comments.

Until now, I've been of the view that the permit would ultimately be granted. In fact, I recently replied to someone on this board saying exactly that. My thinking was that GLND and its contractors would hardly progress the project this far, spend the money, organise the logistics and publicly discuss drilling timelines without having received strong indications that the necessary approvals would be forthcoming.

Now? 🤔

Like everyone else on this board, I'm trying to assess the available information. But those comments certainly appear to be genuine and might therefore be quite significant.

Interesting times.

All IMHO, of course.

Continued.......

4.4.25 At the General Meeting I attended on 13 January 2025, Rod McIllree informed the attendees that Disko would be drilled in 2025.

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