Member Info for RachT2

IvR

How many times do I need to say it? I’ve got no vendetta here – in fact, I love it. The volatility created by the steady stream of over-optimistic announcements and the relentless ramping that follows makes it relatively easy for anyone with an ear to the ground to make money. So by all means, keep it going.

Me? I post what I see, argue what I feel and embrace a good valid counter argument that might just change my opinion. You? You're a blinkered, biased investor that's made a very poor investment decision but has failed to acknowledge that fact - despite witnessing years of multiple red flags, unfulfilled assurances and shareholder value destruction. I'm quite happy with my position thanks.

As for Mr Hughes, I’ve never claimed to know anything about him – because I don’t, and it’s irrelevant. What I pointed out was that you don’t know anything about him either, yet that hasn’t stopped you posting insults. That’s just typical IvR.

That's much better Ashton - a reasoned constructive reply at last. Thank you.

That’s a fair article Ashton, but I’d say it underlines my point – there’s no room in the market for producers who can’t deliver oil at a competitive price.

It sums it up perfectly: “the only cure for low oil prices is low oil prices.” When uneconomic drillers shut down, supply tightens and prices recover.

But as the price chart I posted shows, Greenland oil would only be profitable when crude trades above its much higher production costs. Over the last decade, that threshold was hit just 35–40% of the time. Not exactly the basis for a strong business case.

EB - and my last trade yielded just over an 80% return, would of been more if I'd caught the top, but I've never been greedy. And you and the other rampers question why I follow this volatile little company! Really?

IvR, Ashton, CB

"Please stick to the RELEVANT FACTS.”.

CC

Glad you found the post useful. I’m not sure what point you were trying to make though.. I’ve already shown that any oil produced in Greenland would be expensive, highly uncompetitive, and up against a saturated market. Are you actually disputing that, by implying that PROVED reserves in other countries somehow won’t or can’t be accessed simply because you label them “basket cases”?

For clarity, here are the current annual production rates and the remaining years of production (based on PROVED reserves) for the top 10 producing countries. Worth noting: peak oil demand is widely estimated around 2034.

ARCO’s estimates illustrated the area of the JL basin now held by 80M may contain 2.4 - 8.1 bn boe. Figures below are ANNUAL production in bn boe. Note, ANNUAL current production exceeds 80M’s TOTAL reserves by well over 230%.

If you’d like to specify which of those countries you think fall under your definition of “basket case,” I’ll be more than happy to run the numbers on how many billions of barrels per year they’re currently producing, and how many years of production they realistically have left.

1 Saudi Arabia 3.28 bn bbl/yr.- 70-80

2 Canada 2.19 bn bbl/yr. - 80

3 Iran 1.20 bn bbl/yr. - 140

4 Iraq 1.46 bn bbl/yr. - 80-90

5 UAE 1.07 bn bbl/yr. - 80

6 Kuwait 0.95 bn bbl/yr. - 100

7 Russia 3.36 bn bbl/yr.- 25-30

8 United States 4.82 bn bbl/yr.- 10-12

9 Libya 0.47 bn bbl/yr. - 70-80

10 Venezuela O.3bn bbl/yr.- 500+

I'm pretty sure both old and new posters on this board have twigged the pattern. The 3 amigos (Ashton, IvR and ChirpyCheep) are the 3 most prolific rampers on this board. Ashton and IvR having bought in at prices up to 9.1 and c. 8 respectively and for years have perpetually ramped all the way down to the lows - some 99% drop in Ashton's case. Between them they perpetually flood the board with repetitive ramps, repeatedly complementing one another when they do so - in an attempt to add credibility to each other's ramps. Exactly as is illustrated by both Ashton's and IvR’s posts of today (and many many others) when it comes to posts with facts / observations that do not agree with their ramping narrative and that they have no valid counter for they resort to flooding the board with irrelevant, immaterial nonsense.

IvR - Google it if you're interested in Mr Hughes - but keep it off the board - it's irrelevant.

Ashton - As you've already pointed out yourself, you've asked the same irrelevant question time and time again. Flooding the board to deflect from the negatives. The response the last time.I replied is below -

As usual, when faced with red flags and FACTS he cannot dispute, out comes the same tired tactic: deflection. Instead of countering the evidence, he bangs on about my posting style, my reasons for posting, or my other investments – none of which are relevant. This board is here to discuss 80M, its risks and prospects, not me.

So, Ashton – which company FACTS do you actually disagree with? Or is it just another empty whinge from a biased ramper with no counter-argument? That’s the truth here, plain for all to see.

For the record, I’ve already answered (30/9/24) why I focus my posts here, and I’ve no intention of wasting further time on irrelevant sideshows. If in future anyone ducks the facts and instead trots out yet another off-topic question, my response will be simple:

“Please stick to the RELEVANT FACTS.”

CC - post to follow

Quick response to EB's ramp.

FYI Ashton has been ramping the share for years - all the way down from around 9p - a loss of up to 99% for anyone that followed his "well researched" posts for the last few years. And you thank him for continuing his ramps for the last few weeks when the share price has done a dead cat bounce off it's all time lows. FFS - you are making yourself look desperate.

I’ve seen no real counter to the point that Greenland oil would almost certainly be more expensive to produce than in virtually every other major producing nation. The only response so far has been pathetic playground name-calling (IvR, take a bow). So let’s move on to scale.

Greenland currently has NO PROVED reserves. At this stage, it’s purely estimates. Even if we take the most optimistic case – say 40bn boe in Jameson Land – how does that stack up against the competition?

Based on BP Statistical Review (2023–24), here are PROVED reserves (bn boe):

Venezuela: 300

Saudi: 280

Iran: 200

Canada: 165

Iraq: 145

UAE: 105

Kuwait: 100

Russia: 90

US: 75

Libya: 45

Now, how long could they keep producing at current rates (approximate years from PROVED reserves):

Venezuela: 500+

Iran: 140

Iraq: 80–90

Saudi: 70–80

Canada: 80

Libya: 70–80

Russia: 25–30

US: 10–12

Peak oil demand is generally estimated around 2034, after which consumption is expected to decline. In other words, existing producers already have decades of capacity – and they can do it more cheaply than Greenland ever could.

Yes, the US may face depletion sooner, but is it realistic to think they’ll pay double to import from Greenland when they can still source cheaper oil elsewhere? I doubt it. The US economy is built on abundant, low-cost fuel.

That’s just my view, but the comparison makes it hard to see Greenland as a competitive play against the majors.

IvR

Is that from the Jay BoD? Is that an independent opinion? What was Mr Hughes' side of the argument? Where are the updates? Has Mr Hughes' new firm been subject to any legal action? Like I said, you know nothing about it other than what the Jay BoD wanted to tell you. But with your unrelenting bias that's good enough for you. Me? I seek more details before I make up my mind. Just like our investment strategies eh?

And your game? Incessantly ramp the share - you're desperate to recover some of your losses,. Your initial holding is still down some 95%, even after the latest rise. Oh, and you were advising others that a good entry point was between 6 - 7p, and 2022 was to be a “pivotal year”, etc etc. Years of ramping BS which has been shown to be utter claptrap - and you continue still. No light bulb moment yet then?

But typical IvR - no constructive or valid counter argument to FACTS raised that don't match his / her ramping narrative, so instead resorts to childish replies and attempts at belittling the poster. I'm not the only one on the receiving end of the pathetic, pointless and irrelevant claptrap. Other boards he / she posts on are littered with their nonsense. Here’s a few samples of the nonsense he / she has been churning out to others recently, all when he / she has not the sense or reason to offer a valid counter argument: pathetic isn't it? When they are incapable of offering a constructive reply their intellect doesn't extend beyond calling someone a FUD spreader.

“Facts are one thing – endless contradictions and FUD stories are another.”

“You were literally slagging off the company and spreading FUD.”

Do grow up IvR, stop boring everyone with your pathetic responses. Try posting a valid argument if you disagree with any of the facts. Play ground name calling doesn't help further anyone's knowledge or insight into whether 80M represents a good investment or not.

IvR

New readers should be aware that whenever IvR runs out of valid counter-arguments (frequently), the default response is playground tactics. Put forward a clear negative case against their narrative and out come his rattles and nonsense posts like you’re seeing now.

Once again, IvR has failed to address the actual points raised and instead resorts to personal digs. This time they’ve even tried to suggest I might be Joshua Hughes (ex-VP of Exploration). Really? That’s a new low, even by IvR standards.

Let’s be clear: none of us here know Mr Hughes’ personal details beyond what was in a single RNS. Bluejay painted him as a villain and even said they would pursue legal action and provide updates “in due course.” That was about 18 months ago—yet not a single follow-up has been issued. Why is that? If he was truly the scoundrel we were told, where are the updates?

It looks more like BOD bluster than reality. In which case, IvR, you may owe Mr Hughes an apology. I won’t hold my breath waiting for mine.

IlDuce

Well spotted, my apologies, yes I did accidentally refer to Canada when I was referring to your post about Alaska. Have you anything else in my post that you'd like to take issue with? Any other points you can call out as being incorrect? No, I thought not. So the cost of production in Greenland is likely to be higher than current producers are subject to. I’ll assume that you don't disagree with that assessment.

You've certainly pinned your colours to the mast - “cashed up enough not to need a placement” “cash in bank” and “no need for placing” - and now total faith in a new JV company that's just merged with yet another new company. And yet neither of those new companies has even stepped foot in Greenland yet. Wish I had your optimism. Let's hope your confidence isn't misplaced - good luck with your investment.

FYI, as explained previously, my intention has never been to drive the price down, I post my observations. If folks don't like it they are free to ignore or filter me. But I will admit to benefitting from some of the many previous spikes, none of which had anything to do with me - the company and it's BoD do a great job of that without needing assistance from me. Have a look at the SP graph prior to my time of posting - looks just as volatile to me. The last spike being a good example - the rampers went into their usual self perpetuating mutual admiration overdrive and suckered some people in. Ramping such a sky high valuation based on nothing more than a NOTIONAL value that has been placed on a newly formed company always looked very questionable to me. I didn't quite manage to benefit from the peak - but close enough. Hope you benefitted too? It would have been a shame for you to have lost around 35% as it's dropped back again.

GLR1990

It's ALWAYS going to be a question of economics. It doesn't matter if you're sitting on the world's largest resource of bla bla bla - if you can't produce an end product and sell it competitively on the world stage then it'll stay in the ground until such time as you can. Simple really.

Naphthman

You're not worth a response

To return to THE most crucial driver of O&G success - economics. IvR has pointed out the BREAK EVEN for Canadian producers is $60 - $70. Let's consider that for a moment. So taking the median; the price of oil has to be over $65 for Canadian producers to make a profit. Have a look at the price graph for oil for the last 10 years and see just how often the price is over $65 - quite surprising isn't it? Now let's extrapolate that for Greenland where costs are estimated to be higher still - breakeven between $60 - $100. Let's err on the side of caution and pick a figure below the median, say $72.50, (readers feel free to choose your own best estimate) how often does the price get over that threshold? And that's just to breakeven - remember, there's still no sign of any profit at that level. Looks to me that the price moves into profitable territory on only c. 35% - 40% of that 10 year period. And most of that was in the last 3 + years following the Ukraine invasion - since which the price has been in a steady decline. No wonder ARCO and BP didn’t sink a first hole – the economics just didn’t stack up. So what's changed? Anything? Well yes, costs have risen with inflation so breakeven is more likely to rise than stay steady. For some context, today's price, which is below the breakeven figure cited for Greenland, exists despite the fact that currently there are low oil reserves and OPEC has recently announced increases to production. OPEC members surely have an interest in keeping the price low enough to deter new competitors - pretty easy to do if they can produce it at half the price the newbies can.

CC

So now merely mentioning mikee p’s name and suggesting he/she might have a point counts as me “eulogising” them? And I’m the one being “desperate”? Still waiting for you to actually voice your own opinion, by the way.

I'm pretty sure both Ashton and IvR can handle the ‘insult’ that has sprung from your vivid imagination - but bless, you seem to think they both need protection from the nasty bulletin board lady. How sweet of you. And yet, according to you, I’m the one insulting people? You have referred to mikee p as ‘somebody who can hardly put two words together’.- spot the irony?

Anyway, onto what actually matters: fundraise or no fundraise in the next 3-4 months?

Ashton:

I’d say it’s a 50:50 chance. If it happens, my estimate would now be around the 0.36 - 0.38 level. I previously suggested 0.20–0.23, but circumstances have changed (eg will Disko be drilled in '25?) and that needs factoring in.

You, on the other hand, have never given a figure—only repeated reassurances (incorrectly) that a raise isn’t coming. So let’s have it: are you going to stick to the party line again, or finally put forward your own number?

CC

Another one of your “attempts at humour” – tumbleweed moment, perhaps? Are you actually going to give us your take on mikee p’s point, or is this just another one of your personal digs? Wouldn’t be the first time.

For the record, I didn’t make the latest call, but I do think it’s got legs. You may remember that in 2024 I correctly called two fundraises – even nailed the exact price on one of them – while the rampers (Ashton included) swore blind no raise was coming. Ashton was so sure he even tried to make a wager, which I declined.

Worth noting: on one of those occasions Eric Sondergaard himself had told everyone just nine weeks earlier that no raise was needed. Yet there it was. Imagine that – me being more accurate on funding than a BoD member.

I did also flag the possibility of a raise earlier this year at around 0.23, so maybe I won’t get the hat trick this time. Then again… maybe I will.

Early Bird claims 80M are “fully cashed up and carried” – but is that reality, or just more ramping?

Yes, they’ve raised funds twice recently and banked ~£2m+ from MET1 and Kanger. But check the accounts: the cash burn is hardly negligible, so whatever’s left is dwindling fast. Let's be generous and assume they’ve still got £1.75m in the kitty (or if anyone knows a more accurate number) – how far does that stretch?

They now shoulder 49% of ongoing GS costs, which weren’t in the Dec ’24 numbers. That means 29 staff, insurance, rates, and Mendelsohn’s fees all start hitting the balance. Hardly trivial.

EB also says they’re “carried on most JV commitments.” Most? EB - which ones exactly? JL yes, but beyond that? Are there others that I’ve overlooked?

Then there’s Disko, Dundas, Ham & Out – all will need serious money. £1.75m doesn’t go far when you factor in burn plus exploration costs plus GS. And any potential Disko JV partner knows 80M have no revenue (GS still to deliver) and that Kobold already walked after reviewing the data. Why would a new partner cut them a great deal? The only way they will get carried is by giving up a big chunk of ownership. Which is something I’m sure RM is keen to avoid.

So, as mikee p has suggested, another fundraise down the line? Don’t rule it out – no matter what the rampers say. Time will tell which view proves right.

Thanks Ashton - looks like you are correct, I've seen 'Government minister' and assumed she was therefore talking Government policy. As you say, personal opinion can be very different. Another one where only time will tell.

IvR – worth remembering that Greenland’s government demands the toughest ESG standards. Projects must run on renewables – no cheap diesel gensets allowed – and only get the green light if they provide tangible benefits to local communities. That’s not cheap.

March GL / Pelican / GEC (take your pick on the name) are playing this cleverly. I don’t believe their ambitions stop at JL. Either way they come out ahead. If the two drills hit ECONOMIC reserves, great – they and 80M holders benefit. If not, they’ve still established a US-backed foothold in Greenland, opening the door to talks on licences across the much larger and more prospective East Greenland Rift Valley Province.

The USGS only put JL’s chance of hitting a 50mmboe+ reserve at 7.2% – and that’s before even considering economics. Maybe GEC’s backers do know better, but the bigger game is clearly outside JL. Unfortunately, anything beyond JL does nothing for 80M or its long-suffering shareholders.

If JL really is the great asset the rampers tell us it is, why did neither ARCO nor BP ever drill a single hole there? Both companies had access to virtually the same data that’s available today — the only additions since being the magnetic fly-over and a desktop re-hash of old information, both carried out by a company with the same directors as the then-owners, WFE - and some of those directors are now at 80M. Fancy that. Could it be that the economics don’t stack up? An AI-generated response (worth readers checking for themselves) suggested that producing O&G in Greenland might simply struggle to compete on the global marketplace where oil and gas are traded.

Comparison with representative present production costs of various global locations

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+

Ah well, tiny URL didn't work so here's the full link address

https://oilprice.com/Metals/Commodities/Why-Greenland-Isnt-Chasing-the-Dream-of-Becoming-a-Mining-Superpower.amp.html

no idea why the link in my last post didn't copy so i'll try again

********************2c6etvwh5

Ashton – good effort on bringing new readers up to speed, but you seem to have left out some key facts, allow me to assist.

Kobold raised $537m earlier this year. Yet they walked away from Disko rather than spend