Member Info for RachT2

CC

Spreadex notify an interest of over 3% - virtually every market regulator on the planet considers that to be “significant” - but you disagree. Really?

Then you ASK if 80M are “too small a company to hedge/short- and too risky”. Yet Spreadex have just told you they are interested in over 3% - are you following us? Or do you really not have a clue what's going on here?

Then you claim an interest of over 3% held by a spread betting company is insignificant. What? You obviously don't have a clue as to what's going on. You're winging it with more of your BS.

Then you state that your “guess” - “is that it's simply reflects primarily clients who took part in the recent raise.” Now you really are showing that you are utterly clueless. Were we not told that the fund raise was largely to new institutional investors? Institutions do not use the services of Spreadex - it is a RETAIL facing company.

But we do agree on one point. The fact that you were an ex IFA and / or were IMC qualified is utterly irrelevant. So why did you attempt to give credence to some of your previous posts by bragging about your qualifications? I didn't post them - you did. You might of impressed some inexperienced punters - but anyone with any wherewithal would have realised your qualifications are irrelevant. Your knowledge of how the market works has repeatedly been shown to be virtually nonexistent. You clesrly have no understanding of trading dynamics, hedging, or derivatives exposure; if you did you wouldn't be posting such ignorant comments.

CC

Some of the commentary on this board is frankly puzzling. There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding of how markets — and market intermediaries — actually operate.

Your reference to being an ex-IFA rather proves the point. IFAs don’t need to understand market micro-structure; their role is largely to funnel retail investors into pre-packaged portfolios based on generic risk bands — typically ranging from bond-heavy at the low end to equity-heavy at the high end. That’s the business model. Nothing wrong with it, but it’s a world away from understanding trading dynamics, hedging, or derivatives exposure.

If you believe my view on Spreadex is wrong — specifically, that their notifiable interest reflects hedging against a significant volume of long spread bets held by clients — then please explain your interpretation.

Why, in your view, was this morning’s TR-1 issued?

What exposure do you think Spreadex is actually managing?

And just to be clear: have you actually read the TR-1, or are you simply offering an opinion without reference to the disclosure itself? Or does your self admitted lack of financial knowledge preclude you from comprehension of the info.

Happy to be proven wrong — but that requires an explanation, not just your usual BS. I'm eagerly awaiting the valuable insight of a retired IFA, as are other board members I would imagine.

S&S

What's truly comical is clueless clowns like you that pop up every now and again but say nothing. You have a jib at me but post NOTHING of any constructive note. So what do you think of the constant over optimistic news releases? Why do you think Spreadex are now interested in a notifiable position? What is your opinion of the many red flags I've posted about.

I'm not expecting much of a response - I think we've seen the limit of your intelligence / interest / input. Strange how you've not given the board a sample of your valuable insight yet. Go on - surprise us all. LOL

Interesting to see Spreadex announcing a notifiable interest in 80M — not something you see every day.

For those unfamiliar, a notifiable interest from Spreadex usually points to one of two things:

• a sizeable short position, or

• hedging activity against client positions.

FWIW, my view is that this is more likely hedging rather than an outright directional short. In other words, there is probably a meaningful amount of long spread-bet exposure held by clients, which Spreadex are offsetting.

If that interpretation is correct, it reinforces a point I’ve made before: any short-term strength in the share price is likely to be ramp-driven and transient. As spread bets are unwound into any spike, that selling pressure tends to accelerate the retrace back toward normal levels.

Enjoy any upside while it lasts — but history suggests this is more likely another short-term spike rather than a sustainable re-rating.

Good luck to all.

Tick tock… there are only a handful of days left in December, and it’s looking increasingly likely that yet another Greenswitch “restart date” will quietly pass by.

They might still attempt it, but restarting a complex industrial plant over the Christmas period — when staffing, feedstock logistics and external support are all likely constrained — would be highly questionable judgement. History suggests optimism rather than realism will once again prevail.

The bigger issue, though, is credibility. Investors do not appreciate being fed a repeated stream of over-optimistic, ramp-heavy statements that fail to materialise. The Board’s assurances have been eroded to the point where even genuinely positive news struggles to move the share price.

Greenswitch is just one example. Ashton, in particular, has repeatedly regurgitated hollow ramps. A brief timeline illustrates the problem:

19/12/24 (fundraise RNS):

“Revenue generation is expected in Q1 25”

“Q1 restart ESO and biofuel production”

Both statements have since been proven wrong.

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.”

Again, incorrect. The delay would appear not to be due to lack of feedstocks — future updates informed that the plant simply was not ready, despite investors being told otherwise.

11/03/25:

Despite previously stating the plant was “ready for complete restart”, we are now told:

“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, yet again, prior assurances were premature at best.

We were later guided to a December 2025 restart — which now looks about as credible as the repeatedly promised (by Ashton) 2025 Disko drill, which also failed to materialise.

The lesson here should be obvious. The Board (& Ashton) must stop issuing over-optimistic forward-looking statements that repeatedly miss delivery. Either be realistic in RNS language, or better still, only announce milestones after they have actually been achieved.

Under-promise and over-deliver — not the other way around. Until that changes, market scepticism is entirely justified.

Well spotted CC - another piece of paid for advertising; again paid for by the folks behind GEC. They really are throwing some cash about to promote this one - which reinforces my opinion that another ramptastic spike will soon be upon us. Hopefully I'm right - enjoy it while it lasts folks - but don't get greedy; it's likely to be yet another ramp driven spike and not the start of any long term recovery. Good luck.

Anyone who’s followed this board for a while will remember that I’ve questioned 80M’s hydrogen/helium ambitions from the very start. The BoD seized on the hydrogen “bandwagon” when it became fashionable — no surprise there — but the fundamentals never stacked up. Most of the world’s hydrogen is produced cheaply as a by-product of LNG processing, and as long as LNG remains in global use, that feedstock remains abundant, low-cost, and close to end-users. Greenland, unsurprisingly, doesn’t fit that model.

Now we’re seeing another potential source emerge: generating hydrogen from older, inactive and currently uneconomic oil wells using microbes. The article below outlines the early-stage work, but the headline is straightforward: production costs could be comparable to existing LNG-based methods, while producing roughly half the CO₂. If this can be commercialised at scale, it opens the door to millions of existing wells producing low-cost hydrogen from infrastructure that’s already in place — and importantly, much closer to the markets that need it.

It’s early days, and not yet proven at scale, but it’s an intriguing development. Cheap, decentralised hydrogen from redundant wells is a far more realistic pathway than anything Greenland can offer.

So when 80M circles back to talking up hydrogen again (from Greenland), it may be best to treat it with a chunk of cynicism. Of course, henceforth they may now be referring solely to hydrogen production in Italy. Where costs would certainly be more than the microbe route. Still no sign of that cranking up though - despite several restart dates having been and gone. And just how long does it take to get a grant? It's, what, over a year now since we were told about the application - and several of the grants have been closed to applications and already been allocated. Still, the ramp crew were certain that GS would start up this December, oh and in February and in June and in……. Tick tock - realistically about one more week before the latest restart date comes and goes. Eagerly awaiting news.

Link: https://techcrunch.com/2025/12/11/eclipse-energys-microbes-can-turn-idle-oil-wells-into-hydrogen-factories/

Panman

Interesting article on SAF pricing — thanks for sharing. I’m actually a little surprised it only picked up one rec… although perhaps that says more about the actual reality of the situation and the current mood here.

Looking back at 80M’s October RNS, they’re still a long way from any meaningful SAF production. The main agreement with Ludoil covers 40ktpa, but not until 2027. The smaller JEnergy deal also references SAF, but only in a vague “longer-term” context. In other words, today’s SAF prices are irrelevant to 80M’s near- or even medium-term position.

All we can really do is hope the SAF production timeline doesn’t slip the same way as every previous “restart date” has.

The board (and the ramping crew) sold a narrative that the company would be cash-generative well before now — yet they’ve just had to raise £2m just to keep things moving. It raises the obvious question: how much are the costs at the plant stacking up, and how large will that bill be before shareholders see anything resembling a positive bottom line?

Ashton

You stated — “I have identified at least one poster who is an ex-employee of JAY…”

You didn’t present it as opinion or speculation — you stated it as fact. It isn’t. It’s false, and it’s clear to anyone following this thread.

You claim to have “established” the identity of an ex-employee, yet you’ve also repeatedly insisted I must also be an ex-employee or somehow linked to the company or its directors. Every one of those claims is wrong, baseless, and entirely a figment of your delusions. If you can’t even avoid misidentifying me, why would anyone believe you’ve identified anyone else’s status?

Then you propose I travel 300+ miles to hear your “reasons”? Note - “reasons” - NOT FACTS. Why would I (or anyone) entertain your theories; theories that are almost certainly built on the same flawed assumptions you’ve already demonstrated about me? Your track record speaks for itself. You are deluded - and lie in an attempt to support your narrative. Dispicable.

You’re simply trying to bluff your way out of being caught out. If your claim were genuine, you’d name the individual. You won’t — because you can’t. You haven’t “identified” anyone; you’ve just convinced yourself that anyone who repeatedly challenges your narrative must be an insider. That isn’t insight — it’s wishful thinking.

As for CC — right on cue, another of the amigos steps in with the usual sycophantic supportive noise. Spare me. The sudden hand-wringing over “personal details” is just another diversion. If you truly believe Ashton has “identified at least one individual” and that his assumptions about me are accurate, then you’re buying into his fantasy. You even acknowledge the anonymity of the board — yet somehow treat his claim as credible? Really?

It’s the same pattern every time: the amigos appear instantly to defend each other, derail the discussion, and try to discredit the poster rather than address the points raised. What you never / rarely offer is a single substantive counter-argument to any of the red flags being highlighted.

Perhaps try engaging with the issues instead of the poster. The red flags remain — whether I’m the one pointing them out or not.

Ashton

You are so transparent - but your deceit, duplicity and disingenuous nature shines through.

Having engaged with me previously on the futility of attending board meetings you know full well that I will not attend any such meetings. Isn't that where you first learnt that Disko would DEFINITELY be drilled in 2025? LOL. That's just one example. I rest my case.

Your claims of identifying ‘at least one’ ex-employee of Jay / 80M are complete and utter BS. You think you've posted a smart reply to get you off the hook - but only a complete imbecile would fall to see through your pathetic excuse. You have tried to bluff your way out of being proven to be a liar - you made the whole thing up. Shame on you. Liar.

Oh dear, 2026 is not shaping up to be a good year for a maiden oil drill. Production costs in Greenland are expected to be amongst the most expensive in the world, see below. Oil has recently dropped below $60 bboe - and looks set to fall further - that's below the actual estimated cost of production in Greenland.

The Financial Times reports that - The energy market faces a ‘super glut’ next year as new oil supply collides with global economic weakness, the chief economist Trafigura, the community trader, has warned.

And if Venezuela ever gets its act together then look out ….....

The rampers tell us that the new company will be using new technology in an attempt to constrain production costs. All well and good but that paints over the fact that the competition also has access to that exact same technology - thus negating any benefit to the new boy on the block, GEC.

The cost of producing oil on Greenland will almost certainly be prohibitively high, certainly higher than virtually all the other current oil producers.

Region/Country Estimated Cost per Barrel (USD)

Middle East (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Iraq) $10 – $20

Russia $15 – $25

U.S. Shale (tight oil) $40 – $55

Canada (Remote Onshore - Oil Sands) $50 – $70

North Sea (UK/Norway) $40 – $60

Norway Onshore $60 - $90

Deepwater Offshore (e.g., Brazil, Gulf of Mexico) $40 – $60

Greenland Onshore $60 - $100+

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.

Ashton

What a duplicitous and deceitful operator you are. You’ll spin any narrative, tell any lie and deflect from any fact if it helps prop up your relentless one-way ramping.

You’ve repeatedly implied that I’m somehow linked to the company, its employees or the BoD. Yet the only person caught inventing stories here is you.

Let’s quote your own words, posted 25/05/24:

“Among the non-believers, I have identified at least one poster who is an ex-employee of JAY but will not expose the person, at least not for the time being.

Just an early warning to believers and neutral observers of JAY that ulterior motives are at play here.”

Well, here we are 18 months later. Multiple reminders. Multiple opportunities. And you still haven’t named a single person. Why? Because it was a total fabrication from the start — a fantasy you invented in an attempt to silence criticism and distract from the very real red flags that keep piling up.

You couldn’t disprove the facts… so, as usual, you tried to discredit the poster.

That’s not debate. It’s not research. It’s not even clever. It’s just the desperate actions of a liar.

Ashton

Here we go again — your same tired regurgitation of deflection, distraction and outright fabrication.

You confidently claimed you had identified ex-employees of JAY / 80M posting on this board and that you would reveal them when ready. That was well over a year ago. Since then?

NOTHING. Zero. Not a SINGLE name, despite me reminding you on more than one occasion to make good on your claim.

So here’s yet another opportunity: Put up or shut up. Name the individuals you supposedly exposed… or finally admit you MADE THE ENTIRE THING UP.

The reason you keep ducking the facts is obvious: You cannot counter a single red flag I post — so you go after the poster instead of the post. It’s pathetic, it’s lazy, and it shows how weak your position really is.

For the last time, I have no past connection to FINN, JAY, 80M, their staff or board.

Your fantasy narrative is just that — a fantasy. Endlessly repeated, endlessly debunked.

Your credibility isn’t slipping — it’s already gone.

Daramuda

If you Google “Greenland Gas & Oil Companies House”, you’ll see exactly the listing I referred to — company number 14060306. Incorporated on the dates I mentioned. And look who’s there again: Gregory Kuenzel. Even more interesting — that company also shows WFE as a previous name. So yes, it appears there are two identically named entities, both linked to WFE: one actually incorporated as Greenland Gas & Oil, and the other — the one you referenced — originally named Greenland Gas Co. I'm hardly likely to be argumentative for the sake of it.

I’m still working through the details, but the overlap is certainly notable.

On a lighter note - regarding my previous post wherein I thanked Forrest for his comment of “Stupid is as stupid does” and you replied “I trawled back a bit but cannot find a post from Forrest to which you appear to refer.” My response was that “Unless Mr Gump has posted here you won't find a post from Forrest - got it now?”. You obviously hadn't ‘got it’ as you again replied -”The header of your 7.44 post yesterday morning included the words - "well said Forest". Mr Gump did not type that - you did.” So let's make it even plainer for you to understand - the saying was from Forrest Gump. Remember him? Got it now?

Touche.

Daramuda

Thanks for the detailed reply — it’s good to have a reasoned discussion for once. I’m well acquainted with Companies House research, but your guidance may help those less familiar dig into the facts themselves. I’ll dig deeper into GGO / WFE when time allows.

As to your fascination with what motivates me — I'll refer you to my post of 26th November responding to Ashton’s thoughtful comments. That’s it. No hatred, no vendettas, no blame games. Just balance and accountability — despite what you and some others like to imagine.

On RP and the network of companies now intersecting with 80M… what’s your take? We’ve seen several entities created that exist seemingly only to transact with 80M. The related-party angle was originally not disclosed in the RNS and had to be corrected — never a great look.

Take Hydrogen Valley: formed solely to acquire Greenswitch, only to immediately pass it on to 80M. And why did RP take such a heavy haircut on the deferred payment — reducing the cost of a 25% equity stake to a £380k debt-for-equity swap? Odd behaviour, especially when we’re told his contacts are supposedly “big hitters” with plenty of cash.

To me, it doesn’t quite add up. Curious to hear your thoughts.

Tick tock… tick tock…

Ashton proudly reminds us that the latest restart date for Greenswitch is December ’25. Is that the 3rd… or 4th attempt now?

“GREENSWITCH: Production restart in December 2025.”

Given the Christmas/New Year shutdown, that leaves — what — two full working weeks? Are we about to watch yet another promised restart date slip quietly into history?

And what about that big “Fortune 500” feedstock agreement trumpeted in October? Have deliveries arrived? They were supposed to be there from the 1st November. Are they just sitting there gathering dust? Have they even been paid for — or is that what the latest fundraise is actually covering?

Just when will profit materialise? That just isn't going to happen until production is ramped up considerably. And even then, let's not forget that Greenswitch itself couldn't run it profitably for the first 4+ years of ownership and the owners before that went bust. And some folks thought the recent fund raise was unnecessary. LOL.

Tick tock… tick tock…

Daramuda

A genuine thank you — a reasoned counter-argument makes a refreshing change from the usual deflection, insults and denial.

Point 1. I’ve been asked why I post here so many times. It's now tedious. If you really are keen to know then trawl through my posts for an explanation - you won't have to look far. The answer is irrelevant anyway. If I share facts or highlight red flags, then challenge the content — not my motivation. If someone provides a valid explanation that changes the picture, great — that would suggest the company is finally acting in shareholders’ interests. Sadly, that hasn’t happened yet.

Point 2. For the record, your recent deductions about my posts are incorrect. Ashton dragged up Rod’s recent claims about asset longevity, and I recollected him making a similar promise previously — which I then confirmed was for Dundas. I posted how well that turned out. Contrary to your speculation, that post wasn't driven by emotion or attributing blame - just balance. Hopefully, unlike most here, you will appreciate balance rather than wishing only to see the positives and live in cuckoo land?

I said a fundraise was imminent — before year-end — and here we are. Credit to the BoD for getting a slightly better price than the 0.38p I had guessed at, but it’s still dilution that the rampers swore would never come. Unfortunately they fell for the BoDs claims that Greenswitch would be throwing off cash ten months ago and be at full profitable production by now. More misplaced over-optimism.

I’ll look further into the creation of WFE and return to the subject - looks interesting. I note however that is was not incorporated under the name Greenland Gas & Oil on the date you specified. Meanwhile, perhaps you can explain how you became one of the small “select group” of original investors in GGO. If you’re truly independent with inside insight here, your contribution to the board would, I'm sure, be most appreciated. Who knows — you might even persuade me this is a company now worth backing long-term.

Regards

Daramuda

You like to make things up don't you. You're now claiming I lost money during the early days of Bluejay. Hilarous. You really should try sticking to facts. - you make yourself look pretty stupid hypothesising about subjects you know NOTHING about.

Equally hilarious is your claim, and I quote - “I write as one of the early shareholders in Greenland Gas & Oil (GGO).” Is that so? That company was incorporated in April 2022 and dissolved in December 2023 - and its company filings only showed one share holder. It was never a public listed company or appeared on any stock exchange that I can find. So unless you're Gregory Kuenzel (who had ONE share) you were not “one of the early shareholders in Greenland Gas & Oil (GGO).”

Care to elaborate on both of your claims? LOL.

Anyone new to the whole Bluejay / 80M / Dundas saga should take a look at Rod’s past presentation where he painted it as a truly outstanding opportunity — slick slides, confident delivery, the full works.

According to him, it was going to be simple: scrape the valuable sands straight off the shore, minimal cost to mine, rapid route to production, long-term output guaranteed… the dream package.

Shame reality didn’t quite line up with the sales pitch — but then, when has it ever?

Enjoy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cazSAOpIRfc