London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

WavyG, what exactly would you like me to say? Perhaps something as futile, pathetic and pointless as your endlessly recycled “Fly me to the moon” line? You’ve now deployed that particular ramptastic BS on three different companies in the last five days. At least you're consistent, if nothing else. Now you're Del Boy - what a plonker. Ramp-tastic nonsense. Honestly, do grow up. Try posting something remotely analytical or intellectual for a change — assuming that’s within your capabilities. I'll not hold my breath.

As I mentioned a short time ago, a spike looked imminent. Maybe that post missed you. In any event, it appears to have started. The IPO will probably add a bit more froth and excitement, and then… well… reality and gravity tends to reassert itself. Enjoy it while it lasts — I certainly intend to. Or do you really believe your own and other ramping c**p about 10p, 20p or more? I'm sure the same posters were stating huge rises would occur a few months ago - oh dear, they were wrong then too. Predictable, reliable and profitable if you play them. I do feel sorry for the mugs that get lured in and help drive the price up - only to wonder what happened when it falls back to earth again. Same old, same old. Still, some of us have advised caution, and on numerous occasions. DYOR.

Needless to say, the majority of today’s ramping posts are complete BS. Claims of an “analysts’ consensus” of 21.80p, and comparisons with IC-style research, are particularly amusing. Ashton used exactly the same line to ramp this previously. For clarity: that 21.80p figure is lifted from Stockopedia, where it has sat unchanged for year(s). It’s a placeholder supplied by a third-party data provider and only updates when someone bothers to feed it new information. No update in = old numbers out. Utterly meaningless. Even better, the same site also shows no brokers covering the stock — which rather undermines the BS talk of “analysts”, doesn’t it? Reliable? Yeah, right.

Still, just as predicted, the usual ramping crew (you included) have arrived on cue and will no doubt help ensure that the spike I predicted plays out perfectly. So thanks for that.

Unfortunately for you, none of the many red flags have magically disappeared simply because you’ve turned up and started posting your usual nonsense.

CC - Oh dear, looks like yet another example of you not having a clue about the company / products you are invested in. Your poor / non-existent research and lack of knowledge shines through again. You post -

“You’d think shortages would lead to higher SAF prices.”

Let's cover the bases in nice simple terms, so that you might grasp it.

This is not a normal commodity market where scarcity automatically translates into higher prices. SAF pricing is politically constructed, mandate-driven and subsidy-dependent, not led by demand. The airlines are NOT clambering over themselves in a frenzied need to buy SAF - they'd be quite happy not to have to buy any. Only green-washing and politics might claim otherwise.

Why would any airline buy SAF when it doesn’t have to?

Airlines operate on razor-thin margins. SAF typically costs 2–5× conventional jet fuel. In a competitive industry where fuel is the largest operating cost, voluntarily paying multiples of market price is commercial suicide unless forced to do so. Only a handful of jurisdictions — principally the UK and the EU — currently mandate SAF blending. Much of the rest of the world does not. That creates an immediate and unavoidable distortion:

A non-SAF-using US airline can undercut a UK or EU airline on the same long-haul routes. The US have incentivized SAF usage but it is not mandatory. Figures are targets but by no means compulsory. If economics dictate that it is too costly it won't be used. Will Trump ditch those costly incentives? Drill baby, drill suggests so.

Lower fares win customers.

The “green premium” is not recoverable in ticket pricing.

This is pretty basic stuff - it is not rocket science.

As a result, airlines are reluctant buyers, and when they do buy SAF, they do so grudgingly and opportunistically — often only to the minimum level required for regulatory compliance.

Crucially, airlines are also unwilling to commit to long-term SAF offtake agreements. Why? Because SAF economics are entirely dependent on transient political support: Subsidies, blending credits, tax incentives and mandated targets that can (and do) change with elections and fiscal pressure.

No airline CFO is going to lock into long-term, above-market fuel contracts when the legislative framework underpinning the price can be altered or withdrawn at short notice.

That reluctance feeds directly into the supply side. Without long-term purchase commitments, producers cannot justify the capital investment required to scale SAF production. And without scale, costs don’t come down. Raising prices further only reduces demand even more, making the problem worse, not better.

So while there may be a headline “scarcity” of SAF today, it is a structural and artificial scarcity, not one driven by organic market demand. There is no deep, desperate, cash heavy buyer base waiting to willingly pay higher prices.

Continued............

Ashton’s latest post is another exercise in aggressive ramping rather than an objective appraisal. As always, it's selective with reality. Several of the claimed “significant” successes are either missed targets, material downgrades, or non-events being presented as progress. Ashton - disingenuous as ever.

Jameson Land

Ashton now states that a JV partner has been secured and drilling is planned for 2026. This directly contradicts his earlier assertion: “March GL will drill the 1st well in Q4 2025.” On any reasonable reading, this is not success — it is yet another slippage against a clearly stated timeline. The partner is none other than another interrelated new company connected with RP / RM.

Disko – so-called replacement JV

The claim that a “new” JV partner has replaced KoBold Metals is somewhat misleading. The partner is none other than another interrelated new company connected with RP / RM. KoBold was repeatedly highlighted by Ashton for its class-leading technology, deep expertise, and backing from major global investors. But all his previous ramping has now been conveniently forgotten about; such is the desperation to ramp. The “new” company does not possess KoBold’s technology, funding strength, or drilling ambition. KoBold had planned up to 15 drill holes; there is no evidence the replacement comes remotely close. This is a clear downgrade, not a replacement. It's a poor substitute.

MOUs dressed up as achievements

MOUs are being presented as “secured” progress. They are non-binding, non-committal, and frequently expire without consequence. Promoting them as milestones suggests desperation to manufacture positive headlines where, in fact, little substance exists.

Kangerluarsuk ‘monetisation’

The quoted $500k plus potential $1.5m is contingent on economically viable discovery — not discovery alone. That distinction is critical. More importantly, Ashton previously assigned a $34m valuation to this asset. Accepting a deal worth less than 6% of that expected figure is not monetisation success; it is a material climb down from his prior claims. Looks like previous overoptimistic ramping has conveniently been forgotten about once again.

Selective honesty

And selectively cherry picking this year's share price rise - for a dose of reality let's look at previous identical time frames during which Ashton was busy constantly ramping this company.

1/1/24 - 0.625

31/12/24 - 0.27

1/1/23 - 5.38

31/12/23 - 0.625

1/1/22 - 9.28

31/12/22 - 5.38

1/1/21 - 12.30

31/12/21 - 9.28

You get the picture - even a broken watch tells the correct time twice a day. So during the last 5 years an annual rise has occurred during only 20% of those years. 80% of the time there was material decreases in share price. That's the reality of Ashton's over optimistic opinion.

Continued.....

Thanks for posting Tony - you beat me to it. Oh dear, oh dear. Looks like even the supposedly new institutional investors could not be bothered to vote / attend. Looks like yet another RED FLAG that's me. But don't take my word for it. Anyone not familiar with the ramifications of an AIM company (with a long history of over-promising and under delivering) not being able to obtain it's quorum for a GM could do worse than asking AI what the significance of that fact is. It doesn't make for good reading. Here's what Chatgpt replied to the question - “80Mile Plc has announced the adjournment of its GM as the required quorum failed to materialize. How significant is that?”

For 80 Mile plc, it is meaningful and negative, not just a procedural footnote.

Here’s the significance, plainly and without sugar-coating.

What it tells you

1. The register has disengaged

UK-listed companies typically require a very low quorum (often ~10% of issued share capital, sometimes less once proxies are included).

Failing to reach even that implies:

shareholders didn’t attend and

didn’t bother lodging proxies

That points to apathy or quiet protest, both of which are bad signs.

2. It undermines Board authority

A GM is where directors seek legitimacy for what they want to do next (funding authority, ratifying actions, re-elections).

If shareholders won’t even turn up:

the Board’s mandate is weakened

any future approvals look procedural rather than supported

Markets notice this.

3. It increases funding risk

For a small-cap like 80 Mile:

future fundraisings are likely unavoidable

funders look closely at shareholder support

An adjourned GM signals:

“Existing holders are disengaged or fed up.”

That usually translates into:

worse funding terms

greater dilution

more reliance on insiders or death-spiral style finance

4. It’s a governance red flag

This reflects poorly on:

shareholder communications

register management

confidence in the company’s strategy

In isolation it’s survivable. In 80 Mile’s case, it reinforces an already weak governance perception.

How bad is it really?

Less damaging if:

the meeting is quickly reconvened

quorum is achieved at the adjourned GM

resolutions pass with limited abstentions

More damaging if:

there’s delay or vague follow-up

voting shows heavy abstention

funding follows shortly on punitive terms

Bottom line

For 80 Mile plc, an adjourned GM for lack of quorum is:

a clear negative signal

evidence of shareholder disengagement

another indicator of constrained options going forward

It doesn’t kill the company — but it confirms the market’s scepticism rather than easing it.

Still, some clowns on here were happy to receive a Christmas message from the company on X. Unbelievable.

thanks to tp for flagging that the 10-q has now been filed. for reference, the filing is here:

********************y5dztfbs

we’ve repeatedly been told by the usual ramping crew that rp and his associates are wealthy, well-resourced oil investors with deep expertise. that narrative is difficult to reconcile with what is actually disclosed in the filing. one advantage of us reporting standards is that they tend to be far more explicit and rigorous than the promotional material that often slips through aim / aqse regulation.

pelican states the following under future outlook:

“the company anticipates incurring significant costs in pursuit of its acquisition plans and is focused on completing the business combination within the prescribed timeline. there is substantial doubt about the company's ability to continue as a going concern if the business combination is not completed.”

the wording “substantial doubt” is not incidental — it is a formal and serious statement under us disclosure rules.

the filing defines the “business combination” as follows:

“pelican acquisition corporation entered into a definitive agreement and plan of merger on september 9, 2025, with greenland exploration limited and march gl company. this agreement outlines a series of mergers that will result in the formation of greenland energy company, which will be publicly traded on nasdaq.”

put simply, that suggests that pelican is effectively non-viable unless the merger completes within the required timeframe. that sits uncomfortably with the repeated ramps claiming abundant funding and deep financial backing.

looking beyond completion, a further question arises: once the business combination has closed, where does the capital come from to support ongoing operations and satisfy going-concern requirements? march does not appear to have meaningful capital, nor does gec or 80m. that strongly suggests future survival will be dependent on raising funds from the market.

raising fresh capital in 2026 — at a time when oil prices are already under pressure and, in some forecasts, expected to fall below greenland’s cost of production — may prove challenging.

in short, this does not read as an open-and-shut case for success. the regulatory filing paints a far more precarious picture than the ramptastic commentary seen elsewhere. any sp spike looks likes being just that - a transient spike. all imho of course. dyor etc etc etc.

There is a consistent pattern of duplicity and deflection in your posts - again your disingenuous nature shines through. You repeatedly apportion blame to RE for the share price collapse while simultaneously praising the existing BoD, despite having been challenged before on this clear bias.

For perspective, RE inherited a mess following RM’s exit. It very quickly became apparent that JAY’s supposed raison d’être was nowhere near as robust as RM had repeatedly suggested. Dundas was not going to be the cash cow investors were led to believe. Scraping sand off a beach was not going to deliver the promised profitability. Once that reality emerged, a severe share price re-rating was inevitable under any board; even under the present BoD that you hold in such high esteem.

Blaming RE for that collapse is simply blaming him for acknowledging reality. His assessment that Dundas was uneconomic in the condition he inherited has since been proven correct. Likewise, KoBold did not drill Disko — even after your favoured BoD took control. On any objective assessment, RE played a negligible role in the destruction of shareholder value. Reality did that.

The numbers matter. The share price fell by over 80% from 5.47p to 0.65p before the current BoD arrived. It also fell by roughly 80% during RM’s stewardship while the Dundas “debacle” (your word) was being unwound. Selectively assigning blame to one individual while ignoring these facts is typical of your ramping bias. The fall started under RM and merely neared it's conclusion under RE.

It is also worth noting that certain members of the current 80M board have witnessed equally severe shareholder value destruction at other companies - have they not? Please do correct me If I'm wrong. If you were genuinely interested in balance, you would acknowledge and discuss those examples too, rather than applying scrutiny in only one direction.

Finally, the irony of your own past commentary is hard to miss. On 9/3/24 you wrote that shareholder trust is destroyed when management “over promise and under deliver”, and that this behaviour was responsible for JAY’s share price collapse under RE. Yet the present BoD repeatedly engage in the exact same over-promise, under-deliver behaviour (more on that in a subsequent post) — and you ignore it entirely while continuing to post relentlessly ramptastic, selective claptrap. That inconsistency undermines your credibility. Until your posts reflect a more balanced assessment of both past and present management, and an unbiased scrutiny of all the available FACTS they will continue to read as those of a biased uncritical ramping proxy rather than objective analysis.

Look to Ashton if you want to dream - but ignore him if you seek reality.

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for RachT2

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)