Member Info for RachT2

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

Early Bird

Here’s some real BS for you - all posted at higher prices than now. Recognise them? They’re all your’s - take a bow 🤣🤣 Talk about ramptastic rubbish.

1p+ before the weekend

Churning this morning but fully expect this to break out towards 1p this afternoon

Then build on to 2p etc...

Gap up to 1p+ tomorrow nailed on

Another 100% tomorrow me thinks

Should fly past 1p today

PMSL

Rebs438

“Cashed up”? To do what, exactly?

No revenue is coming from GS yet – only rising costs. And then there’s the much-talked-about Disko drill. Kobold themselves put the price at $11.6m, which with inflation will now be nearer $13m+. Does 80M really look that “cashed up”? Hardly.

The reality is that 80M (and the rampers) are pinning hopes on bringing in a partner. But even if one shows up, the terms are unlikely to be as favourable as those Kobold offered – and remember, Kobold walked away after reviewing all the new data.

So what share of costs will 80M be left with if Disko drilling ever happens? It won’t be a free carry unless they hand over a big chunk of the asset. Neither route looks great, which makes a fund raise increasingly likely – and those often follow just after a bit of “good news” spin from the company.

Meanwhile, the market has already spoken: the share price is down more than 30% since we've been treated to some of your expert opinions - what a laugh these are -

Anyone selling at this level after that RNS should really not be in this game - honestly.

Wouldn't be surprised to see another 100% tomorrow

1p finish on the cards imho. no stopping this.

Walking it up. still far too cheap.

expecting 0.8 - 1.0 before close and gap up tomorrow.

Etc etc etc

Now kindly eff off.

🛑Ramp Alert🛑

Promotional literature from MarchGL attributes ARCO’s exit from Jameson Land to factors such as an oil price collapse, corporate restructuring, and prohibitive royalties coupled with cash constraints that reportedly discouraged drilling the first well.

But does that tell the full story? Consider this: when BP acquired the licence in 2000, they had full access to the data, the resources, and the expertise to advance the project—yet they too chose not to proceed. If Jameson Land were the “fantastic opportunity” some are now portraying, surely a major player like BP would have acted, it had plenty of time in which to do so.

Despite fluctuating financial conditions, no other large oil & gas company (to my knowledge) has expressed serious interest in acquiring or developing the licence. Then along came White Flame Energy — and the rest, as they say, is history.

Downagain

Ordinarily I wouldn’t bother responding to something so ambiguous, but given the number of recs it’s received I’ll take the time.

You mention “proper context” – but what exactly do you mean? What context? Explain yourself and I might try to oblige in future posts. Which of the points below do you think I’ve “dressed up as facts”? Can you show any of them to be wrong? Do you disagree with them? Or do you believe the USGS got it wrong?

Here are the points, stripped down:

80M’s JL licence covers only ~1.7% of the East Greenland Rift Valley Province (EGRVP).

The USGS didn’t include JL in its quantitative survey – it judged there was only a 7.2% chance (4.2% in the sub-volcanic extension) of finding at least one 50mmboe+ accumulation. This is from CARA documentation. My previous posted figure of 5.6% was incorrect - as I stated it was from an AI response, and AI isn’t infallible.

USGS concluded the real potential lies elsewhere in the EGRVP and primarily offshore – 80M holds no offshore licences.

The valuation 80M puts on its JL licence is based on a notional figure.

GeoExpro didn’t run its own surveys – it recycled 1980s ARCO data, re-hashed by Greenland Gas & Oil (GGO), a company linked to the same directors who (in the same year) set up White Flame Energy (WFE), and who now at 80M.

Beyond airborne magnetic surveys, GGO did little / no subsurface work.

GeoExpro didn’t address the USGS’s conflicting conclusions.

Their report suggests a gross un-risked P50 of ~3.5bboe, with only a 1-in-10 chance of success.

On that basis:

I doubt GEC will limit its interest purely to JL if more attractive opportunities come up.

I doubt 80M will be able to hold its 30% stake long-term – costs for drilling/infrastructure are only going to rise.

ARCO’s complete withdrawal from the area always looked suspiciously “convenient.” If the prize was really that large, why walk away? And after 40+ years, 80M picked it up simply by issuing new shares to WFE (owned by some of 80M’s own directors). Make of that what you will.

That’s my view / opinion – I’d be interested to hear yours.

Zebbo, thanks for your replies

No one is denying that there is great potential for the JL basin - of which 80M hold licences over a part of. My point is that is 80M worth 30% of GEC, itself valued by the inappropriate use of a notional value and is JL as good as 80M claim it to be. The USGS survey suggests not - but ultimately only drilling will tell.

You describe GeoExpro as ‘independent’ - yet they rely solely on data from 3rd party outside sources, they do not perform surveys - in this stance they have referenced data from Greenland Gas & Oil (GGO). The initial holders of the JL licences, White Flame Energy, was established in September 2013 - the exact same year as GGO - my, what a coincidence. The list of directors for both companies is the same and includes both Roderick McIllree and Eric Sondergaard - fancy that. So is any data from GGO independent? No it is not!

A quick search on google for the GeoExpro report you have highlighted would also suggest your figures are a little optimistic, you state P50 as 5 bboe, however the report states of the JL basin (of which 80M licence is but a part) -

‘’Initial prospect mapping and volumetric calculations identified gross un-risked P50 recoverable resources in the region of 3.5 Bboe with an estimated average Chance of Success of 1:10.’’

Good, just not as good - and that is from self reported non independent data.

For those new to this board, it’s important to put 80M’s position in Greenland into proper context. Claims that 80M represents a 30% “slice of the pie” may be somewhat misleading. While Jameson Land (JL) is currently the only permitted O&G licence onshore, the broader picture suggests that Greenland’s energy potential is far larger.

Greenland Exploration Company (GEC) has ambitions to explore “Greenland’s vast energy potential,” which implies a focus beyond JL alone. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has conducted detailed assessments of the East Greenland Rift Basins Province, covering some 500,000 km². Their 2008 Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal (CARA) estimated approximately 31.4 billion barrels of oil equivalent across this province, the vast majority of which is offshore. By comparison, 80M’s JL licence covers just 8,429 km², or roughly 1.7% of the total area, and contains no offshore acreage.

Despite ARCO’s claims; it’s also worth noting why the USGS did not include Jameson Land in its quantitative assessment. An AI generated response states that the JL basin was considered to have a low probability (5.6%) of containing an undiscovered petroleum accumulation of at least 50 million barrels of oil equivalent—below the threshold for a full resource estimate. The surrounding East Greenland Rift Basins, however, were subdivided into nine geologically distinct areas and fully assessed due to their higher likelihood of significant reserves.

In short:

Greenland’s O&G potential extends far beyond JL.

JL is a very small fraction of the region identified as rich in hydrocarbons.

The majority of potential resources are offshore—JL has no offshore exposure.

GEC is unlikely to focus exclusively on JL if other more promising areas become available.

Investors should therefore consider 80M’s share in JL as part of a broader, evolving Greenland energy landscape, rather than a dominant portion of a fixed “pie.”

Typical IvR I see - no constructive or valid counter argument to FACTS raised 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 they post on have numerous examples of the same nonsense. When they are incapable of offering a constructive reply their intellect doesn't extend beyond calling someone a FUD spreader.

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. But of course, as you are merely here to ramp your own poor investment you are not interested in seeing a balanced playing field - you only want to see opinions that mirror your obvious bias.

Ashton - we’re going to have to disagree yet again I’m afraid.

You’ve argued that because a new company has been formed, all previous company statements are redundant – and that this somehow a) proves I’m wrong and b) that the new company will be focused solely on Jameson Land (JL). That’s not only unlikely, it’s pretty implausible.

As I’ve pointed out before, the USGS have stated that the vast majority of Greenland’s O&G potential is offshore. JL, on the other hand, has NO offshore licences. So why would the newly formed Greenland Energy Company restrict itself to just JL, which is relatively small in comparison?

Your own quote actually supports this – “makes it crystal clear that the focus of the new company, Greenland Energy Limited, is to bring Greenland's vast energy potential to the global stage.”

Exactly – GREENLAND’S vast energy resources. That’s a lot more than just little ol’ JL.

Which brings me to valuation. The 30% figure being suggested for 80M’s share of the new company is misleading. It assumes JL equates to Greenland Energy Company’s entire future energy potential, which is simply not true. GEC have the ability and potential to capitalise on many other areas in Greenland - both onshore and (more importantly) offshore; if Government approval is forthcoming. And the $92m figure that’s been bandied about is based on a notional value – something with no real standing when it comes to O&G or mining companies. I’ve already posted examples showing just how irrelevant notional valuations are in this sector.

So to recap:

Greenland Energy Company is unlikely to limit itself to JL.

Greenland’s real O&G potential lies offshore.

80M’s “30% of the pie” argument is flawed.

The valuation rests on a notional number with little substance.

Panman – with respect, you need to take a closer look at the source of the article you’ve referenced. If you read the MarketWatch page carefully, you’ll see the disclaimer:

“The MarketWatch News Department was not involved in the creation of this content.”

That’s because the piece wasn’t written by MarketWatch at all – it came from PR Newswire.

PR Newswire isn’t a news outlet; it’s a paid press release distribution service. Companies (including 80M) pay them to circulate announcements like results, project updates, or deals. Crucially, PR Newswire does not fact-check or investigate – they publish whatever the company submits (with only light formatting).

Ashton has already confirmed in the past that 80M use PR Newswire for this very purpose. In fact, 80M launched a PR blitz on 12 May via PR Newswire to push their Jameson message out more widely.

So, the “article” you’re relying on isn’t independent reporting – it’s simply whatever 80M wanted published. Worth bearing that in mind when assessing its credibility.

Sorry Panman, I am not wrong. If you want to find out about notional value and the Pelican / March GL merger read the article below. Spot the use of 'notional' value?

https://marchgl.com/news/

Continued..

Summary - mining companies do not use notional values as a metric

‘Why can’t people read?’ - enquires one ramper. Perhaps they need to reread the RNS themselves. The Pelican deal is for GEL, not just Jameson Land. The RNS makes that clear. Yet 80M keep spinning it as though GEL = JL, which conveniently inflates their “optimistic” valuation.

From the release:

“Greenland Exploration Limited is a special purpose vehicle domiciled in Texas, focused on developing strategic interests in North American energy assets. Through its partnerships and acquisitions, GEL aims to deliver long-term shareholder value in a dynamic global energy market.”

Key words: interests, partnerships, acquisitions – plural. JL is only one part. Pelican is buying into GEL’s broader (and still undefined) future, not just JL. On that basis, 80M’s slice is surely less than 30%.

And let’s not forget – the lofty valuation comes from one brand-new company slapping a NOTIONAL number on another brand-new company. Neither has drilled in Greenland. In fact, neither has drilled anywhere have they? Why notional value is irrelevant to mining companies.

“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 DO NO

Continued....

So, do we blame Ashton’s over-exuberance, or the BoD for feeding him the story in the first place? Probably both – there are plenty of historical examples.

Bottom line: if you’re considering a position here, please do your own research. Don’t rely on rampers. The track record is plain to see:

Over-optimistic RNSs that never delivered

Assets sold for a fraction of their hyped value

Key partners walking away

Endless fund raises

A BoD with form that speaks for itself

Anyone new here will quickly spot that Ashton is the board’s No.1 ramper. Some even reckon he’s effectively acting as a company proxy. His posting style is consistent – prolific, always bullish – despite his own “large six-figure” investment collapsing by ~99%, and another chunky buy at 8p faring just as badly. Averaging down to his current level must have cost him a fortune. Sadly, not everyone has those resources, and plenty who followed his ramping over the years have been badly burnt.

Most of his output is just recycled optimism: old news, old posts, re-hashed again and again to keep the ramp alive. Take Disko as an example. Back in late 2024 and early 2025 he was adamant it would be drilled this year:

8.11.24 PS: As for Disko, it WILL be drilled in 2025.

5.12.24 I am confident enough to say Disko WILL be drilled in 2025.

13.12.24 Disko WILL be drilled in 2025 and I am 100% confident.

15.12.24 As for Disko​, the question is not whether it will be drilled in 2025 but how many holes.

18.12.24 I repeat. I am still 100% confident that there will be drilling in 2025!

4.1.25 RM shared the positive news that Disko would be drilled this year (2025).

9.1.25 As for Disko, my understanding is that management is planning to drill at the back end of the field season this year (2025). Drill rigs are already in place in Greenland and can be deployed at short notice.

14.1.25 RM shared the positive news that Disko would be drilled this year (2025).

15.1.25 …….Rod McIllree said 80M is considering a few interesting options on multiple fronts. He was unwilling to be drawn into the details. We have to be patient for the update but​, importantly, he confirmed drilling in 2025.

26.1.25 However, the decision now is to drill Disko this year (2025).

27.1.25 But the words RM used on Disko at the meeting that struck me most were that "several other alternatives" were being considered. RM was quite reticent to discuss further on the matter but at least he was able to confirm drilling at Disko in 2025 which pleased me no end!

27.1.25 Yes, that’s one possibility. But at the General Meeting, Rod McIllree was confident enough to confirm drilling at Disko this year

30.1.25 RM confirmed to the audience (not just to me) that Disko would be drilled in 2025.

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.

Yet today Ashton says it’s unlikely to be drilled this year. Typical pattern: overly optimistic predictions (in line with the BoD narrative he’s close to), then when they don’t happen, he simply shifts focus to the next project to ramp. All red flags and past failures are simply brushed under the carpet. When pushed for a reaction to yet another disappointment his response is that he chooses to only look to the future. Make of that what you will.

Continued.........

Who wrote the latest 80M RNS? Most likely the BoD themselves – it reads like a ramp. Pelican merging with GEL is straightforward enough. What isn’t clear is how the BoD conjured up that eye-watering $92m valuation. They’ve simply taken 80M’s stake in GEL and slapped on an over-optimistic number, implying 80M is worth 30% of GEL.

But that assumes GEL is a one-trick pony focused only on Jameson Land – which it isn’t. The RNS itself spells it out:

“Greenland Exploration Limited is a special purpose vehicle domiciled in Texas, focused on developing strategic interests in North American energy assets. Through its partnerships and acquisitions, GEL aims to deliver long-term shareholder value in a dynamic global energy market.”

Key words there: interests, partnerships, acquisitions – PLURAL. Jameson Land is just one piece of the puzzle. Pelican isn’t buying only Jameson Land; it’s buying into GEL’s wider, yet-to-be-defined future.

On that basis, 80M’s share of the pie should realistically be far less than 30%. But of course, I could be wrong – perhaps RM is a master valuer while the “overly cautious” consultants and advisers back in the UK just don’t get it… LOL.

IvR

Newer posters should be aware that you’re dealing here with one of the two most prolific rampers on this board. Both have been relentlessly talking this share up for the past 2–3 years, despite their own entry point now being down by more than 98%. IvR even urged others to buy in at 6–7p. When challenged on the many red flags and repeated disappointments surrounding this company, neither offers reasoned counter-arguments. Instead, as you see again now, they default to petty jibes and irrelevant chatter.

Some posters are claiming the recent EBT is positive, aligning the BoD with shareholders. I have frequently posted my concerns.

1. No clarity on how the pot is split between directors vs staff, or if there’s a cap per individual.

2. Vesting rules vague – cumulative, pro-rata, or triggered by a short-term spike? We’re not told.

3. Milestones undefined – exploration/project targets remain “to be set later.”

4. Board discretion too wide – shares can be handed out for “extraordinary effort” without any firm criteria.

Yes, dilution is known, but the real cost depends on allocation and vesting mechanics – and until that’s clear, it’s impossible to judge whether this is a genuine incentive or just another enrichment scheme.

Right now, let’s not forget that virtually 100% of “staff” are BoD members. Yesterday’s ramping news has already pushed the market cap through most of the thresholds that were announced just over 2 weeks ago, and volumes are high. For every buy there’s a sell – question is, have the BoD already taken advantage to cash in yet again?

We may not know for a while – after all, RM took over a year to disclose his sale of 45m shares, which dropped him below the 3% threshold. Make of that what you will. 😉

Wow, nice spike today. Anyone not greedy might have taken another profit today – thanks again 80M. Seems like that opinion is in the minority though, as most here reckon this is just the start of a major rise. Ah well, you can’t win them all - and a profit is a profit 🤣.

What’s behind this sudden jump? A notional value slapped on by one newly formed company onto another newly formed company – neither of which has touched land in Greenland yet, let alone drilled a single well. In fact, have they drilled anywhere?

Naturally, 80M were quick to ramp up the “value”. And then we get the RM quotes:

“The figures they have used are far more accurate in my opinion and have not been constrained by overly cautious consultants or advisers in the UK.”

“Our new partners appear far more willing to value things properly than their UK based counterparts.”

So now RM is of the opinion that he is a better assessor of value than industry consultants and advisers in the UK? Fancy that 🤣 I wonder when he discovered his new found talent? There was little sign of any such expertise being on display when it came to past estimates. 🤣

Meanwhile, the old rampers are gloating already. Personally, I think it might be a little bit premature for that. And a new hoard of bottom feeding day traders have appeared and are attempting to persuade the gullible to invest so they can flip. Good luck all.

Edwood 85

Very well thank you. Exactly what part of 'I currently have a long interest' do you not understand? Boy, some folks are just plain dumb.

Fantastic news and great for yet another spike. Enjoy it people.