Member Info for RachT2

Ashton, a few points to consider on your “11-strong checklist.”

You post: “Applications for grants identified in the 12 Feb 2025 RNS have been approved.” That completely ignores what I pointed out previously — the bulk of those grant windows would appear to have closed months ago and awards have already been allocated. That’s what my research shows. So exactly which grants are you still banking on here? Or is this just more ramp-heavy spin? You ignored the question last time and I expect you’ll do the same now — as ever, don't let some inconvenient facts get in the way of your ramping narrative.

Regarding Greenswitch - you also now write: “Production restart has commenced.”

That’s noticeably different from your earlier posts declaring, your uppercase, “GREENSWITCH: Production restart in December 2025.” Have you quietly stepped back from that certainty? Let’s not forget December was already the 3rd or 4th restart date given to investors — and even that would seem to be looking increasingly unlikely.

We are now into December and virtually all the imminent news is out there so are you still confident of your share price prediction - “At least 1.00p - My expectation for the share price before the end of 2025”?

Excellent news.

Hopefully this draws a line under the endless posts from Proxy. It’s remarkable that some individuals are willing to act as the unregulated, uncensored mouthpiece for certain BoDs. Right now, anything they post carries zero consequence for the company—no accountability, no oversight—because it isn’t released through a regulated channel.

If the BoD has something to say, they should issue an RNS.

This habit of informing / mis-informing investors via ramping proxies needs to stop.

CC — for someone presenting themselves as an IFA, you continue to show a surprisingly limited understanding of how the market actually works. In my experience that’s not unusual: many FAs don’t need real market knowledge — just slot clients into Bands 1–5 and plug them into the pre-packaged portfolios.

You’ve repeatedly shown difficulty interpreting company accounts and very little grasp of macro or micro investment strategy. And now, in trying to spin a negative into a positive, you’ve taken the naïvety up another level.

Giving the BoD an even cheaper route to accumulate more shares? A nice discount? Really? This is a board that already holds millions of options — many issued at bargain-basement prices. Investors like to see directors buying shares IN THE MARKET AT THE SAME PRICE EVERYONE ELSE PAYS. What they don’t like is a management team (already viewed by many as having already been exceedingly generous to itself) loading up further at preferential rates. Yet somehow you’re dressing up such a private placing as a positive. Your desperation is showing.

Yes, the share price can drift to the placing price — but that’s far less common when it’s a private placing. I’m assuming you’ve either never encountered, or are conveniently ignoring, the impact of forward selling.

And please spare us the idea that your “whiter-than-white” BoD members or staff-related funds would never engage in anything even slightly questionable.

Wake up, CC.

Daramuda

Unless Mr Gump has posted here you won't find a post from Forrest - got it now?

I've posted here for some time and answered your question in previous posts. I've been asked that question, or similar, repeatedly. Boring. As a newcomer the onus is on you to read through my posts to find the answer to your question. I won't be answering it yet again.

Hopefully that's not 'rude'. LOL.

CC — while IVR has correctly interpreted the final paragraph, he’s missed one rather important point. That wording effectively gives the named parties the right to participate in any future private placings — and naturally those placings will be priced by… the same people who benefit from them.

Nice setup, isn’t it? A very tidy way to accumulate ever larger holdings at self-determined prices.

Cynical? Me?

Consilium — anyone can check the AI assessment for themselves; that’s exactly what my post shared. Yet you bring out two anonymous “oil gurus” and expect everyone to treat their mockery of the AI analysis as definitive.

Will I take the AI breakdown over the opinions of your two unnamed experts? Absolutely — every day of the week.

My, hasn't the board gone quiet? Have the rampers really run out of BS to say - it appears so. As ever, I was heavily criticized and ridiculed when I claimed the price would follow its life long pattern of peaks and troughs. The pattern that has always followed the usual over optimistic claims, statements and the ramping crew embellishments. Here's a reminder of one person who claimed I was wrong and that I looked ‘stupid’. It is a copy of a post I made previously highlighting the absolute BS that some people post. The prevailing price at the time of their posts is shown for reference. Maybe I'm not the one looking stupid. 😉 Be very very wary of rampers, no matter how knowledgeable they appear, and please always do your own (diligent) research.

0.68 - Should fly past 1p today

0.68 - Then build onto 2p

0.655 - It’s far too cheap here

0.635 - fully expect this to break out towards 1p this afternoon

0.64 - Looking ready to go now

0.64 - Has to build higher

0.64 Only a matter of time before the brakes come off here

0.61 - Gap up to 1p+ tomorrow nailed on

0.59 - Profit taking coming to an end……up we go soon

0.59 - 1p+ before the weekend

0.59 - People selling out will be kicking themselves

Ashton

I'm letting my guard down now; but I think your sentiment is genuinely well meant and sincere, and I thank you for your concern.

But, please do not worry for my wellbeing. I have no hatred of RM, I am not consumed with hatred or driven by emotion.

What I do dislike is the stream of over-optimistic, inaccurate, and often rule-stretching ramping that regularly appears around this company — repeated, embellished, and recycled.

This outfit has a long history of exactly that: overly bullish narratives from the BoD, enthusiastic holders who refuse to question anything, and the usual short-term opportunists that volatile AIM stocks attract. That behaviour isn’t unique to 80M — it’s common across AIM — but this is a company I’ve followed for a long time (FAM/Blujay/80M) and with limited time this is where I choose to comment.

Sorry, but while that would appear to be your bad luck I am hopefully that it might be to others' benefit. Lucky aren't you 😉

It is disappointing that you never acknowledge any of the very real red flags I’ve raised. They exist, whether that's convenient or not, and ignoring them does you no favours. That’s your prerogative — just as it’s mine to continue pointing them out.

I genuinely hope that long-suffering shareholders eventually see a return here. But as my posts reflect, I don’t believe we’re at that turning point yet.

All the best — and thank you again for your concern.

Consilium

I get that you don’t trust AI, but perhaps it’s time you dusted off those old Almanacs and caught up with how the sector actually works today.

A basic Google search for “regarding oil exploration what does 50¢ in the ground refer to” will tell you—clearly—that the rule of thumb applies to P50 / 2P reserves. Every AI model (Gemini, ChatGPT etc.) gives the same answer. None of them suggest it applies to P10. Anyone can verify this for themselves in seconds.

Your supposed “expertise” in O&G is way off the mark. Nobody is claiming you can “get 2P reserves for 50¢ per boe” straight out of the ground. The point is simple: that’s roughly what a proper oil producer might pay for a developed, appraised asset—not a fantasy-land P10 number.

To get to 2P, the reservoir has to be proven, and you don’t get there with a token one-hole wonder. If 80M try to go the distance to 2P, they’ll be diluted into oblivion—Pelican and RP know this full well. The free carry for two holes is a loss leader, nothing more. JL at “30% for 80M” is a pipe dream.

If either well actually comes in, 80M will almost certainly sell out long before 2P territory—because a single discovery hole is nowhere near 2P. It’s the starting line, not the finish. And what does a producer pay for one lucky hole? Spoiler: maybe nothing, but cetainly not 50¢/boe, not close, and certainly not what some posters here are fantasising about.

So should I trust your mysterious “friends in the sector”, or Google, AI, and actual industry norms?

No prizes for the correct answer.

Consilium — you do realise the figures you’re using are P10? As far as I’m aware (I'm open to being corrected) the 50¢/boe in-the-ground metric applies to 2P reserves, NOT P10. Those two are worlds apart.

2P only exists once all of the following have happened:

Discovery confirmed

Appraisal completed

Reserves independently certified

Development plan established

Funding secured

In other words: your valuation metric only applies after all those milestones are ticked off — and only to 2P, not the headline P10 numbers.

Let’s look at some real-world examples of how P10 volumes shrink once they become certified 2P reserves:

Kosmos – Ghana

P10: 1.8–3.0bn

2P: 500–600m

Reduction: –70% to –80%

Cairn Energy – Senegal

P10: 1.5–2.0bn

2P: 300m

Reduction: –85%

Tullow Oil – Ghana

P10: 1bn

2P: 240m

Reduction: –75%

JL may end up slightly different, but the pattern is clear — P10 almost always collapses dramatically once proper appraisal is done. If you can produce examples where P10 and 2P are broadly aligned, by all means share them. I’ll be eager to see the list (AI might even help you out there… LOL).

Putting a 50¢ valuation on 4bn of P10 seems to be somewhat misplaced and amateurish. Good luck with your investment.

Consilium

You’re dismissing an AI-generated report and valuation — yet claiming it’s my posts that lack credibility. In reality, what you’re saying is that AI lacks credibility. Do you seriously believe you’re a more reliable source of information, analysis, and data processing than a system built for exactly that purpose? Dream on.

You’re perfectly free to give your own estimate of the likely valuation (although, notably, you still haven’t). AI has given its best assessment as well.

Now, which of those two do you think I consider the more accurate and dependable? No prizes for correct answers. LOL.

Luca — absolutely, AI is a powerful tool, and I’ll take both my own research and its analytical approach any day over the usual ramping we see from certain individuals on this board. As ever, the quality of the output depends on the quality of the question — but for fun, here’s what AI today made of the $92m “notional” valuation being applied to 80M’s 30% stake in JL Vs fair value

It produced a long response with plenty of caveats, and a solid grip on the realities: frontier exploration, Greenland environmental constraints, the SPAC angle, etc. The summary breaks the valuation into three possible outcomes, each with a probability attached. Worth noting: the chance of hitting that $92m (or higher) valuation is only around 15%. As neither ARCO or BP considered it worthwhile to drill a single hole and only 2 holes are planned at this stage I think that's an optimistic figure, but that's what AI suggests. So with all the news pretty much already out there it looks like the market is being nearly as cautious as I am. Talk of 1p, 2p + is pure ramping. Below is what AI states.

1. FULL SUCCESS

Commercial discovery proved; SPAC valuation holds or improves

Value to 80M: $92m–$200m

Probability: ~15%

2. PARTIAL SUCCESS

Hydrocarbons present but commerciality unclear; delays and further appraisal needed

Value: $20m–$60m

Probability: ~25%

3. FAILURE / NON-COMMERCIAL

Dry or sub-commercial; write-down likely

Value: $0–$5m

Probability: ~60%

⭐ Risk-Weighted View:

AI’s fair value estimate for 80M today: around $20m–$45m.

Well below the headline $92m — because $92m is a success-case number, not a risked valuation.

In plain terms:

Is $92m possible? Yes — if drilling confirms a commercial field. It could even go higher given the P10 upside.

Is $92m a reasonable notional figure? Yes — if you’re simply taking the SPAC deal terms.

Is $92m fair value today? No — not for a pre-drill, frontier asset. A realistic, risked valuation is far lower.

And crucially:

The market isn’t going to credit 80M with anything close to $92m until the drill bit turns — and signs of hydrocarbons start to emerge.

CC - you are hilarious. The man who admits to not knowing a thing about company accounts and not having a clue about macro investing strategies (yet erroneously claimed to use one, LOL) assumes he knows more about notional value than I do. PMSL. Still, he’s so desperate he'll try any excuse in an attempt to discredit my posts. Desperate, or what? FYI CC I'll repost a previous post I made about why notional value is NOT used for mining / exploration co.s. I note you didn't dispute those facts when they were first posted, just as you won't do now.

“Notional value” is a financial term – it refers to a theoretical amount used in contracts and derivatives. It’s not the same as market value or anything you can actually realise.

Why notional value DOESN’T apply to mining assets

Mining and exploration assets are inherently different from financial instruments, for several key reasons:

1. Assets are uncertain and undeveloped

Early-stage exploration properties have no guaranteed commercial value until proven through drilling, resource definition, feasibility studies, and permitting.

Assigning a notional (face) value implies certainty or realization potential that simply isn’t present.

2. Valuation depends on many variables

Asset value hinges on:

Mineral grade and tonnage

Market prices for commodities

Costs of extraction and infrastructure

Political/regulatory stability

Environmental/social licensing risks

All these factors mean a single “notional” number would be misleading.

3. IFRS and accounting standards don’t allow it

Under IFRS 6 (Exploration for and Evaluation of Mineral Resources), companies must use:

Historical cost (with impairment reviews), or

Fair value less costs to sell

There's no provision for using “notional” or arbitrary asset values.

4. Notional value implies liquidity

A notional value can be appropriate where assets are easily tradeable (e.g., bonds, options).

Mining projects are illiquid and highly bespoke; no clear market exists for many undeveloped projects.

What Do Mining Companies Use Instead?

Carrying value – historical cost adjusted for impairments.

Fair value (IFRS) – in rare cases where market comparables or transactions exist.

Net Present Value (NPV) – used in feasibility studies to estimate a project’s potential worth.

Enterprise Value per Resource Ounce or Tonne – used by analysts to benchmark peer projects

Summary

Mining companies don’t use notional value because:

It’s not meaningful or standardized in resource valuation.

It would imply certainty and liquidity where neither exists.

It’s not permitted by accounting standards.

More accurate and compliant valuation methods—like NPV, fair value, and carrying cost—are available.

Well, well. I see Rod is now using a slightly revised version of the valuation he’s been pushing for 80M. Not before time. Today we’re told it’s no more than a “NOTIONAL value” (my uppercase) — exactly what I’ve been highlighting for quite a while. Credit where it’s due: good to see Rod finally presenting it in the correct terms.

Bob – you say “she’s there as a nominal adviser”. You are spot on. She looks like a token appointment, nothing more. Her experience appears extremely limited—confined to the Bluejay/80M bubble and other entities linked to certain BoD members. Hardly the sort of background that warrants a ramp-heavy announcement from the BoD, nor the usual embellishments from our resident proxy.

Once again, there’s no evidence to support claims that she brings “extensive technical and operational expertise” or experience in “strategic execution across international energy ventures.” Unless someone knows otherwise, because Ashton certainly doesn’t.

Napthman – I’ve answered that question before, more than once, and I’m not going to repeat it yet again.

Bob - you are free (as is everyone) to disregard my comments if you wish. The / proxy / rampers would have us believe that Disko is the next Norlisk - and you think an internal promotion of someone with no apparent experience outside of her roles at little old Bluejay / 80M is a credible choice to head up such a vast project. Are you serious?

Yet again, Ashton has avoided responding to a key red-flag question—this time about the suitability of an internal staff member to lead what is supposedly 80M’s flagship project. This is the one project he’s repeatedly claimed is the entire basis of his investment in Bluejay/80M. Instead, as usual, we get more material that simply echoes the company narrative. Predictable, but still disappointing.

He’s unable to offer any independent validation of Olga’s credentials beyond what the company itself wants shareholders to believe.

When most companies announce a new expert, director, or senior hire, they reference that person’s previous roles and external experience—just as MET1 did when it referenced Olga’s position at 80M. Bluejay/80M have done the same for several other appointees. Strangely, they’ve never done so in any announcement regarding Olga.

Ashton, thanks for the prompt reply, but you’ve actually reinforced my original point. From what you’ve provided, Olga appears to have little to no experience outside the interconnected web of 80M / Bluejay / White Cliff Minerals / Alien Metals / Coyote sphere. Her supposedly “significant” experience seems to be exactly what Bluejay / 80M have been promoting to shareholders, rather than anything independently verifiable.

You also haven’t highlighted any external experience; instead you’ve posted more Bluejay / 80M material. Interestingly, that document shows she was involved with certain BoD members as far back as 2021—earlier than I’d realised. MET1 (another interconnected company) praises her based solely on her being a “Senior Geologist” at 80M. Nothing else. Is Olga really the most experienced / suitable person 80M could obtain to head up a project that you have always insisted is potentially huge? Or is it just that (like in February ‘24 when most of the staff were sacked) she is available and a “promotion” ramp is too good an opportunity for the BoD to miss?

So, I ask again: what “extensive technical and operational expertise” does Olga have outside of the interconnected ecosystem? Where, when, and with whom did she gain her supposedly “significant” experience prior to that 2021 document telling us of her credentials? I’ve been unable to find anything at all—perhaps your BoD contacts can shed some light.

But as ever, I won’t be holding my breath.

Well, well. The BoD states (and Ashton eagerly repeats) that “Olga brings extensive technical and operational expertise from her career in geoscience, project delivery, and strategic execution across international energy ventures.”

I’m struggling to find any such experience that genuinely qualifies her for this important new role. Beyond the interconnected companies I’ve already mentioned, there’s very little that could reasonably be classed as “extensive technical and operational expertise.”

MET1 she’s only just joined, Coyote doesn’t appear to be operational, and we all know the situation with Bluejay/80M. She may have done some basic field work at Conetec and acted as a Wellsite Geologist at Rockwell, but neither position appears to involve strategic or executive responsibilities. I can’t find any official release from either company confirming her roles there, either.

Her Facebook profile (assuming it’s the same Olga Solovieva; geologist) suggests she last visited Greenland in 2018—though that could simply be due to lack of updates.

So once again, I have reservations. I also find Ashton’s latest ramp—“I am now expecting Olga to play a leading role in progressing Disko’s work programme in 2026 as 80M’s new Chief Operating Officer”— over optimistic to say the least. It reads well if you buy into the usual proxy-style ramping, but the reality appears quite different.

Happy to be proven wrong, of course—so come on, Ashton: show us this “extensive technical and operational experience.” Personally, I won’t be holding my breath.

Ashton — and perhaps the BoD — seem to have glossed over a few rather important points in their latest attempt to ramp 80M. Newcomers should be aware that Olga Solovieva has a long and quite familiar history with Bluejay / 80M and a circle of interconnected companies. Funny how that same theme keeps popping up, isn’t it? Interconnected companies.

Ashton is busy celebrating Olga’s appointment as COO. Whoop-dee-do. But he forgets to mention that on the very day in Feb ’24 when Bluejay announced sacking 80% of its staff, it also slipped out the news that Olga had become their “Senior Geologist” — complete with the usual PR fluff about diversification and expertise. What was not highlighted then (or now) is that she’d already been working for Bluejay since January 2022. Convenient omission? Surely not…

A quick check shows that Olga’s CV is embedded in a cluster of companies linked to 80M and its directors. She’s also involved with White Cliff Minerals, whose current board includes Rod, Troy and Eric — all names that pop up repeatedly in the wider network. She’s involved with Alien Metals, another “interesting” company where Rod also happened to be a director. She’s been associated with Met1, and she turns up at Coyote Ltd, where — surprise, surprise — Eric also appears.

I am, however, unable to find any reference to Olga working at any other companies.

So what do these companies all share, besides Olga and familiar faces from the 80M board?

A rather awkward detail: none of them seem to make any money.

Typical Ashton — I’ve no idea how you’ve still got the cheek to pump out such over-optimistic expectations. As usual, you haven’t addressed a single one of the recent red flags. Instead, you’ve responded with yet another pair of long, ramptastic posts full of predictions — despite having a record of many predictions proving to be complete rubbish. Yes, you occasionally get one right, but if you throw enough mud, some of it is bound to stick. You’ve now listed 15 new “expectations” and no doubt you’ll again post to claim ‘insight’ and to pat yourself on the back when one or two happen to land. LOL.

Jim — RM is simply doing what RM does best: ramping. It’s hardly surprising he talks up his latest venture at every opportunity; AIM is full of that behaviour. But calling 80M his “life’s work”? Come on. You should have a look at his track record with companies prior to 80M to get a fuller picture of his life's work.