Member Info for RachT2

Bill OT Hill —

You should make more of an effort to verify your info before posting. Yet another source of more inaccurate claims isn’t helpful. You post -

‘"No, 80 Mile PLC did not commit to "definitely" drilling Disko in 2025. In fact, following corporate changes, the actual drilling timeline has been locked in for July 2026.The confusion around 2025 timelines stems from a major shift in the project's ownership and structure during that year:"

Interesting, because that contradicts what Ashton repeatedly told this board over a period of several months with his usual confidence and certainty.

In fact, he was so convinced that Disko drilling would take place in 2025 that he posted variations of that claim no fewer than 14 times.

Fancy that.

At the time, anyone questioning those timelines was met with the usual dismissal and deflection. Yet now we're apparently being told that the company ‘’did not commit to "definitely" drilling Disko in 2025’’. So was Ashton telling porky pies? Or is your source of info mistaken?

Project timelines slip — that's perfectly normal. What isn't normal is someone now attempting to rewrite the facts.

For anyone interested, here are Ashton’s confident, assertive and unequivocal posts - with his use of uppercase. They haven't aged particularly well.

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 w

Ashton —

You suggest asking:

"When can we expect commercial production/export if discovery is successful from drilling?"

Really?

And what answer do you honestly expect to receive?

The only realistic response is that nobody currently knows. Any future production timetable will ultimately depend on drilling success, appraisal results, financing, development plans, project partners, infrastructure requirements, regulatory approvals and the Greenland Government.

Do you genuinely believe GLND or 80M will have control (complete or otherwise) over future production schedules and production rates?

It's another one of those questions that sounds impressive but is largely impossible to answer with any degree of certainty. At best, you'll receive a vague estimate. At worst, you'll receive yet another optimistic aspiration that then gets endlessly repeated on bulletin boards as though it were fact — only for the stated timeframe to come and go without being achieved. Sound familiar?

A far more valid / interesting question, in my opinion, would be this:

If Jameson Land covers LESS THAN 2% of the combined UK and Norwegian North Sea producing areas — and those North Sea basins are generally regarded as having SIGNIFICANTLY FEWER GEOLOGICAL UNCERTAINTIES than JL — how is it realistic to suggest that GLND could one day produce between 25% and 32% of the ENTIRE PEAK oil output achieved by those TWO COUNTRIES COMBINED?

After all, if JL is genuinely comparable to the North Sea, as we're constantly being told, then surely the logical starting point is that it might produce broadly similar volumes per acre — or perhaps somewhat less given the extraordinary uplift, erosion and preservation uncertainties that JL has experienced.

Using that simple approach, and applying it to peak North Sea production of roughly 6 million boe per day, one arrives at a figure closer to around 120,000 boe per day for JL.

Quite a difference.

So what assumptions underpin production figures that appear to be roughly 1,600% higher than that simple acreage comparison would suggest?

I'd be genuinely interested in hearing the explanation.

As Ashton has apparently filtered me again — despite having announced that fact several times previously — there's every chance he won't see this. What a shame.

Perhaps someone attending the AGM might ask the question.

Or perhaps they won't. LOL.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

It's been a little while since the board produced a genuinely good laugh, but thankfully that changed today.

One of the RC, in their eagerness to ramp, posted:

"Smart money loading up. 8% from 3 odd percent tells you all you need to know. What tremendous news and reaffirms my belief that we truly are in the loading phase."

Indeed, it tells me all I need to know.

Namely that the poster — and apparently those enthusiastically rec'ing the post — haven't the faintest idea what they're looking at.

There is no "smart money" loading up.

There is no "tremendous news".

There is no mysterious institutional vote of confidence.

What has actually occurred is an administrative transfer relating to the latest instalment of the already generous EBT arrangements.

That's it.

No investment thesis. No market endorsement. No strategic accumulation. Just more shares moving around the corporate plumbing.

Yet somehow this gets interpreted as a major bullish signal.

Hilarious.

One thing it does highlight, however, is just how many shares are now sitting within the trust structure. And every one of those shares ultimately originated from dilution of existing shareholders.

Still, why let facts get in the way of a good ramp?

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Ashton —

Duplicitous as ever.

You claim you're "not in the habit of making up pork pies". Really?

So posting some 14 times that Disko would definitely be drilled in 2025 was factual, was it? And informing the board that the recent interview would be conducted by Dr Flemming Christiansen was also factual? Your posts are littered with certainties that keep turning into inaccuracies.

And now you've added another one by claiming that Dr Flemming Christiansen is "highly regarded by 80M and the company has used him as a consultant on the Jameson Land project." Interesting.

What is the source for that claim? I've been unable to find any publicly available evidence supporting it. If you have a source, please provide it. If not, readers can draw their own conclusions as to whether this is simply another of your pork pies or not.

You have also completely misrepresented my earlier post — although that is hardly a new development.

Anyone reading it in full will see that it was not about boasting regarding my trading. It was highlighting what I regarded as inaccurate, over-optimistic and often wildly speculative claims being made by members of the RC.

Months ago I posted that the arrival of the RC and the excitement surrounding the GLND float would likely contribute to a spike in the share price, followed by a pullback in the days and weeks afterwards. As usual, that opinion was ridiculed, dismissed and met with the customary mixture of deflection and arrogance.

When the correction duly arrived, however, the narrative simply changed as new explanations were fabricated as to why the share price hadn't behaved as previously predicted.

My point was straightforward: trading the volatility was, in my opinion, likely to be more profitable than blindly following the bulletin-board hype.

I specifically didn't mention volume in my post; but let's look at one that did. One poster claimed to hold around 20 million shares. At the recent peak that holding was worth roughly £290,000. At current levels it is closer to £176,000. Ouch.

Had the timing of the market proved favourable, a holder of that size could potentially have been over £100,000 better off by following the more cautious approach I was advocating rather than the endless "fill your boots" rhetoric that accompanied the spike. That was the point.

Not showing off. Not bragging. Simply illustrating that my assessment of the likely post-float share-price reaction turned out to be considerably closer to reality than the forecasts promoted by you and others. No change there then.

If my intention had been to boast, I could have listed numerous other trades, positions and outcomes. Unlike some posters, however, I don't see the relevance of broadcasting such information to anonymous strangers on a bulletin board.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Ashton

Are you fabricating more pork pies? How desperate.

I deny posting anything like that on the 2/4/26 - can anyone else find the post Ashton is referring to?

Dear, oh dear.

Jacksdad

Not a bit of it - it's always a pleasure to correct inaccurate assumptions and claims.

You're welcome.

All, IMHO, of course.

Jacksdad —

You posted:

"I can't see why someone would waste time in something that they are not invested in..."

How do you know whether I'm currently invested or not?

You don't.

Unlike some members of the RC, I don't feel the need to advertise my purchases, announce every top-up, or tell complete strangers how many millions of shares I supposedly hold. Those posts are, in my opinion, rather crass and generally serve one of three purposes:

Showing off.

Encouraging others to buy.

Encourage others that they should continue to hold.

I've no interest in posting any such nonsense.

I've recently stated that I believe the current share price could represent a decent buying opportunity. Now ask yourself this: would I, or would I not, be prepared to act on my own opinion?

In any case, whether I'm invested, not invested, or somewhere in between is entirely irrelevant.

Do you honestly think the market cares how many shares Buzz, Ashton, or anyone else on this board claims to own? Do their top-ups, averages-down or declarations of confidence alter the share price by a single penny? Of course they don't. Such posts are irrelevant.

What matters is the investment case, not the size of someone's self-proclaimed holding, particularly if they're spouting the same claptrap across multiple boards.

I've followed this company for years and have previously stated that I've benefited from the peaks and the troughs. Yet, apparently, in your view, staying informed, following developments and challenging some of the more ramptastic narratives is a waste of my time.

Righto. Whatever you say.

As you said yourself — “hey ho...each to their own.”

All IMHO of course.

"Dr Phil knows Larry Swets and Robert Price very well and will include interviews with them as part of the upcoming TV series."

Great. Yet another source of GLND promotion featuring interviews conducted by someone who openly knows both the Chairman and CEO very well. I'm sure that will provide a wonderfully independent and unbiased perspective. LOL.

At some point, the sheer volume of promotional activity starts to look a little desperate. Why the constant need for interviews, podcasts, presentations and media appearances? Most companies prefer to let results do the talking.

And how has the market responded to all this PR so far?

Not exactly with the explosive re-rating the RC kept promising.

Weren't we repeatedly told to expect - BOOM 🚀🚀🚀?

So far it's looked rather more like - PHUT💧💧💧.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Sam

I can only re-iterate the obvious, I've no crystal ball.

I think virtually everyone is expecting the drilling permit to be granted. The Greenland government has already given approval for equipment mobilisation. It is therefore unlikely they would refuse approval for drilling.

If the project were ultimately not permitted, I very much doubt it would be because GLND or its contractors had failed to follow the required process or comply with the relevant regulations. They appear highly motivated to get this programme across the line and, one would assume, will satisfy whatever reasonable requirements are placed before them.

At this stage, the only realistic reason I can see for the drilling not proceeding would be some seismic / significant change in policy or political direction at Greenland Government level.

Could that happen? Of course.

Do I think it is likely given where we are today? No, I do not.

As ever, nothing is guaranteed until the permit is formally issued, but from where I sit the market seems to be treating approval as the expected outcome, and I agree.

All IMHO, of course.

Chilli —

Thanks for reply. You say:

"Whether Jameson Land ultimately contains commercial accumulations is a geological question. Whether it could ever produce 1.5 million boe/d is a development, infrastructure, financing and political question many years further down the road. And maybe this is the point you're making?"

That, and the geological differences, is precisely the point.

The production numbers being casually thrown around appear wildly optimistic, both in terms of scale and timeframe. To stress the point again, suggesting that Jameson Land can soon be producing 25–30% of peak UK and Norwegian North Sea output looks highly unrealistic / over-optimistic.

JL covers LESS THAN 2% of the acreage of the relevant North Sea producing areas and has a significantly more challenging geological history when it comes to hydrocarbon preservation. The comparison simply doesn't support the production figures being promoted.

You also say:

"Personally, I'm not particularly interested in debating production numbers at this stage because we don't yet know whether the first commercial accumulation has even been discovered."

I completely agree. The difference is that I'm not the one making these claims — RP and parts of the RC are. I'm questioning them.

In reality, before anyone starts talking about million-barrel-per-day production rates, we first need a commercial discovery. Then financing. Then development. Then infrastructure. Even if the upcoming drilling is successful, there are numerous hurdles between where we are today and any meaningful production scenario. Yet RP is already happy to throw out ridiculously optimistic numbers. Ramptastic.

My questioning posts are, like the vast majority of my posts, simply a reaction to what I regard as over-optimistic “promotion” / ramping. If such antics didn't exist, I'd have considerably less to comment on. I've said many times that companies would earn far more credibility by understating and over-delivering. Unfortunately, that approach has never seemed to be part of 80M's DNA. Nor, it would appear, is it a trait shared by parts of the RC. On current evidence, RP doesn't seem especially inclined towards it either.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Continued.....

None of that means Jameson Land can't be highly successful. It doesn't mean significant discoveries won't be made. And it certainly doesn't mean the project lacks merit.

What it does mean is that casually throwing around production figures of 1.5 million boe per day at this stage seems premature and over-optimistic, particularly when the closest comparison province (IMHO) currently produces only a fraction of that amount despite being vastly larger and substantially more developed.

A little realism alongside — or perhaps instead of — the ramptastic optimism wouldn't go amiss.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Chilli —

Thanks for engaging. It's refreshing to have an actual two-way discussion rather than the usual barrage of emojis, insults, slogans and unsupported nonsense.

I don't disagree with the points you've raised. They are all perfectly reasonable observations.

My counterpoint is simply this: I'm not the one constantly comparing Jameson Land to the North Sea and viewing it through that rose-tinted lens. Much of the core North Sea producing province has not undergone anything like the degree of uplift experienced at JL.

The difference is significant.

Large parts of the North Sea experienced uplift measured in the hundreds of metres. Jameson Land is generally cited as having undergone around 1.5–3 km of uplift and erosion. Those are very different geological histories and they carry very different risks.

For that reason, I've always felt the Norwegian Barents Sea is the more relevant comparison.

The Barents Sea experienced:

uplift commonly estimated at 1–2 km, locally more

substantial erosion

complex hydrocarbon charge histories

recognised leakage and preservation concerns

As a result, exploration outcomes have historically been more uncertain than in the core North Sea basins.

Yet despite those challenges, the Barents Sea has still become a successful petroleum province. None of this is an argument against Jameson Land. Far from it.

The point is simply that uplift matters. It introduces uncertainty. Ignoring that uncertainty whilst endlessly promoting only the upside isn't analysis — it's marketing.

Could Jameson Land ultimately prove the sceptics wrong and become a world-class oil province? Absolutely. Could it prove to be as good as, or even better than, the Barents Sea? Possibly.

But when RP and various bulletin-board posters start talking about billions upon billions of barrels and production rates north of 1.5 million boe per day, a little perspective is warranted.

The ENTIRE Norwegian Barents Sea currently produces around 300,000 boe per day — and that's with multiple discoveries, extensive infrastructure and major developments already online.

And let's not forget that size matters.

The petroleum-producing area of the Norwegian Barents Sea covers roughly 77 million acres. By comparison, the Jameson Land licences cover around 2 million acres. In other words, the Barents Sea province is roughly 38 TIMES LARGER.

Or put another way: at peak production around 2000, the UK and Norwegian sectors of the North Sea were producing approximately 6 million boe per day. That came from a geologically less challenging area covering around 106 million acres.

Yet we're being told that Jameson Land could soon produce around 25% of North Sea peak output from an area representing LESS THAN 2% of the acreage and with a FAR MORE complex geological history. Really?

That looks rather ramptastic. It doesn't look particularly realistic.

Continued..........

Chilli —

Thanks for your reply. I think you've posted a pretty fair and balanced summary of the situation.

My point has never been that Dr Flemming Christiansen's earlier work should be treated as definitive proof that Jameson Land cannot contain commercially viable accumulations. That would be overstating the position.

Rather, my concern has always been that the (paid-for) Sproule report appeared to focus heavily on the positives whilst making little or no reference to some of the geological risks and uncertainties highlighted in earlier academic work. Likewise, RP and many members of the RC seem keen to emphasise the upside whilst giving considerably less attention to the potential downsides.

That isn't a criticism of the prospectivity itself. It's a criticism of the presentation.

Investors are best served by a balanced assessment that considers both the opportunities and the risks. Highlighting only the positives may make for a more attractive narrative, but it doesn't necessarily make for a more informed investment decision.

As ever, the drill bit will ultimately provide the answers.

All IMHO, of course.

Well, no real new news then. Just RP rolling out much the same story we've heard before. ZZZzzz.

Still, one positive: at least RP didn't repeat the mistaken claim that 80M has been mining titanium for the last decade. Progress of sorts. LOL.

It was also a refreshing change to hear the interviewer openly declare both a shareholding and that he was being paid to conduct the "interview". Transparency is always welcome. Rather makes one wonder why certain UK-based promotional outlets don't appear to operate to similarly robust standards.

As for the ‘’interviewer’’, Dr Paul Christianson, this was apparently the individual Ashton claimed is "often confused" with Dr Flemming Christiansen. Really? My suspicion remains that there was no widespread confusion whatsoever - until Ashton himself managed to ‘’confuse’’ them whilst attempting to ramp / promote the interview. Ramptastic stuff.

By contrast - 73 year old Dr Flemming Christiansen is an eminent geologist who has spent decades studying Greenland geology and was one of the key sources I relied upon when examining the potential implications of the substantial uplift suffered by Jameson Land. His published work highlighted issues such as exhumation, altered burial history, seal integrity and hydrocarbon preservation risk.

Curiously, those aspects rarely seem to feature in the promotional material. The positives are highlighted repeatedly; the geological risks pointed out by (amongst others) Dr Flemming Christiansen, receive rather less attention. Fancy that.

In fact, I don't recall GLND or 80M ever prominently referencing Dr Flemming Christiansen's work when presenting the investment case. Again, perhaps just a coincidence. 😉

One point that particularly caught my attention was RP's own comment that oil is flowing into local rivers — plural. That would appear to indicate leakage on a significant scale. Of course, surface seepage demonstrates that hydrocarbons have been generated and migrated, which is encouraging. Equally, however, it raises legitimate questions about how much may have escaped over a geological timescales measured in millions of years.

Think of that point - oil has almost certainly been flowing onto those rivers for the last SEVERAL MILLION years. To be absolutely clear, none of this means there won't be commercially viable accumulations. Only drilling can answer that question.

My point remains exactly the same as it has always been: investors should consider all of the available evidence, not just the parts repeatedly promoted by the RC.

That said, I've also stated in recent weeks that I considered both GLND and 80M to be approaching potentially attractive entry levels after the recent weakness. So here's hoping for another profitable spike.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Ashton —

ROFL. You really have stooped to yet another new low. The standard of behaviour you now appear willing to endorse becomes more embarrassing by the day.

Your repost of Damers’ bizarre little “legal team” fantasy is clearly aimed at me — after all, I’m the only poster on this board who publicly stated that I had filtered Damers back on 22/5/26. Not exactly subtle.

The truly hilarious part though is the suggestion that I somehow failed to “digest” the March 2025 RNS. On the contrary — many of us digested it perfectly well. That’s precisely why we recognised it for what it ultimately proved to be: yet another set of over-optimistic timelines and expectations that failed to materialise as originally implied.

What appears not to have been “digested” (by Damers) are the subsequent company releases confirming that Greenswitch was STILL undergoing maintenance and had NOT, in fact, already become the hugely profitable operation Damers repeatedly claimed it was. Awkward.

So let’s be clear about the actual issue here. Damers repeatedly posted statements presented as fact, including:

25/3/26 —

“I hear in the grapevine that Greenswitch is progressing well.”

15/4/26 —

“The Greenswitch facility is up & running. Expectations have been exceeded regarding revenue & profit.”

And later:

“The above company’s facility is not only in production, but making substantial profits.”

Those weren’t vague opinions. They were explicit claims about operational status, revenues and profitability — claims subsequently contradicted by the company’s own updates.

Yet somehow I’m now supposed to be the villain for pointing that out? Apparently asking for evidence and highlighting contradictions now constitutes a “torrent of abuse.” Hilarious.

And then comes the theatrical “legal team” nonsense. Oh dear.

Ashton, what exactly are you trying to achieve by reposting that drivel? An attempt to intimidate me into silence? To discourage scrutiny of blatantly inaccurate claims? Because if so, it’s both transparent and rather pathetic.

The irony here is quite something. If Damers genuinely possessed insider information that Greenswitch had already exceeded expectations for “revenue & profit” as early as April 2026, I suspect any competent “legal team” might actually be more interested in identifying the source of that information than threatening anonymous bulletin-board posters for questioning it. LOL.

Personally, I suspect we’ll never discover this mysterious source because the far more likely explanation is the obvious one: the posts were simply more unverifiable bulletin-board fantasy dressed up as certainty.

You genuinely couldn’t make it up.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Ashton —

Ramptastic as ever.

So you “note” Damers’ “confidence” regarding GS, yet conveniently ignore the rather important detail that this supposed “confidence” was based on a stream of false and plainly inaccurate claims. But of course, because the posts were bullish and supportive of the narrative, you'll ignore the negatives. Only focus on the “positives” - even if they're not true. Predictable. And hilarious.

Let’s remind ourselves of this remarkable progression of Damer's “confidence” shall we:

21/3 —

“Does anybody know what 80m expect the annual net revenue from the Greenswitch facility to be?”

So at that stage apparently unfamiliar with even the basics. Fair enough.

Yet just FOUR days later…

25/3 —

“I hear in the grapevine that Greenswitch is progressing well.”

Amazing transformation. LOL.

Then by 15/4 — posted TWICE for emphasis:

“The Greenswitch facility is up & running. Expectations have been exceeded regarding revenue & profit.”

Followed shortly by:

5/5 —

“Greenswitch is going great guns…”

And then the absolute masterpiece on 10/5:

“The above company’s facility is not only in production, but making substantial profits.”

All complete and utter nonsense, as subsequently demonstrated by the company’s own recent release confirming the plant was STILL undergoing maintenance ahead of production restart.

So no, this wasn’t “confidence.” It was simply inaccurate promotional claptrap dressed up as insider-style certainty. One naturally wonders why somebody genuinely “confident” in the company would feel the need to invent such obvious nonsense in the first place.

Still, as we know, you’ll happily use any angle available to squeeze in another ramp. And wow — you’re “awaiting news” on GS? Truly groundbreaking insight there. Join the club.

GS has already missed multiple previously stated restart timelines and there are now only around five weeks left before yet another target period potentially disappears into the usual fog of over-optimistic promises. Of course all investors are awaiting news. That observation isn’t remotely of interest — and frankly isn’t even worth posting about in the first place, unless the objective is simply to keep the ramp ticking along. LOL.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

🤣🤣

What exactly is Eric doing these days? And why, after more than SIX MONTHS, does 80M still not have a new CEO in place? Hmmm. Interesting.

Six months ago we were told:

“The Company announces that Mr. Eric Sondergaard will step down from his position as Managing Director of the Company. Subject to completion of funding for USFM Corporation ("USFM"), it is expected that Eric will join the board of US-based USFM in due course.”

But here we are half a year later and — unless I’ve missed something — there’s still been no announcement confirming any such appointment. Which rather raises the obvious question: has “completion of funding” actually occurred?

Because from what has been publicly disclosed, it appears only the initial US$7.5m funding has been secured so far, not the full package previously implied. One might reasonably expect that if full funding had genuinely been completed, Eric’s appointment would already have been formally announced to the market.

Then, nearly FOUR MONTHS ago, we were told:

“The search for a CEO is well underway, and the Board look forward to providing further updates in due course.”

And…? Still no update. Still no appointment. Still no explanation.

Strange really. With all the supposedly transformational projects, imminent catalysts and endless “world-class” opportunities being promoted, you’d think suitably qualified candidates would be queueing around the block for the role.

Unless, of course, the reality behind the scenes is perhaps a little less compelling than the bulletin-board narratives suggest. Can anyone else suggest a satisfactory reason to explain why such an ‘’attractive’’ position hadn't yet been filled? Particularly as the search was apparently ‘’well underway’’ 4 months ago.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Jacksdad —

Thanks for your (kind of) support. I see you’ve responded to a poster that I currently have filtered, so I’m unaware of the precise contents. However, I’ll assume that — as ever — there was no meaningful counterargument to anything I’ve actually posted. Instead, it appears the usual tactic is once again being employed: attempts to distract and to encourage complaints about me in the hope of turning the board into a cosy echo chamber for endless ramping claptrap. Apparently one such clown even suggested reporting me to the FCA. Hilarious. And rather pathetic.

If people genuinely dislike reading my posts, the solution is remarkably simple: press the “FILTER” button. The fact they continue to read, respond to and obsess over my posts rather undermines the theatrical outrage. It also tells any sensible moderator everything they need to know.

You mentioned that some of my posts are “factually incorrect.” Fair enough — if I become aware that I’ve posted something inaccurate, or if an error is later demonstrated, I’ve no issue acknowledging it and correcting it. Unlike certain members of the RC who simply abandon old narratives and move straight on to the next bit of promotional nonsense without a second thought.

I've no intention to deceive anyone. I genuinely like to post an honest opinion and to be accurate. So if you can point me toward any specific examples of something you believe I’ve posted inaccurately, I’d genuinely appreciate it. I can then amend, apologise or counter-argue.

Ilduece - although if you've filtered me you'll not be reading this. Ah well.

Never a truer word - and confirms my early post - you state

‘.......who clearly believe the market is mispriced’.

Precisely. They ‘’believe the market is mispriced'. But it ISN’T, is it? It’s the market - the share price is always exactly where the market says it should be. End of. The market never has to ‘’realise’’ anything. It will NEVER ‘’completely miss” anything either. At any particular moment in time it is ALWAYS correct. The weight of Buys Vs Sells ensures that.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Not that Buzz will read this of course — apparently I’ve been “filtered.” Funny how the people who claim not to read my posts always seem remarkably aware of their contents. LOL.

But statements such as:

“Once the market realises…”

“The market has completely missed what’s happening here…”

…are nothing more than the usual bulletin-board nonsense.

The market knows EVERYTHING currently available. The market prices EVERYTHING accordingly. The market determines the value level for EVERYTHING. That is literally how markets work.

Only rampers continually try to convince others that “the market has got it wrong” whilst simultaneously insisting that they themselves possess some special insight the wider market lacks. The reality is usually far simpler: they’ve bought the share and are now emotionally and financially biased toward believing their own narrative — or hoping others will buy in after them.

And let’s be honest, Ashton almost certainly has far greater knowledge and experience of this company than Buzz, yet even he spent years confidently promoting the story whilst the market proceeded to mark the share price down by roughly 97%. Slight problem there for the “the market just doesn’t understand” theory.

Meanwhile Buzz has repeatedly told readers that prices considerably higher than today represented “bargains.” Not just here either — the same style of commentary appears across multiple boards. ECR being another recent example where readers were encouraged to “fill their boots” at materially higher prices than today. And so on. Rinse and repeat.

Still, perhaps the market is simply too silly to appreciate such genius-level bulletin-board analysis.

At least the childish rocket emojis haven’t appeared this time around. Progress of sorts, I suppose.

All IMHO, of course.