Member Info for RachT2

Ashton — my replies are there. I’m not lying, and my memory’s just fine, thanks for your concern. Your obsession with my posts is almost comical — especially given how many times you’ve stated you “won’t respond” before diving straight back in.

You dodge nearly every red flag I raise. You openly admit you ignore the company’s past failures and only look ahead, as if history doesn’t matter. You’ve repeatedly accused me of having a “hidden agenda”, questioned why I don’t spend more time on other companies and spend so much time on this board. If I irritate you that much, why not just hit “filter”?

Unless you can’t. It’s been suggested you might be acting as a proxy for 80M — to my knowledge, a claim you’ve never denied. If that’s true, it explains everything: you need to see the counterpoints, and you need to try to shut them down. Ridicule, deflection, discredit — the same tired tactics we’ve all become accustomed to.

Ashton — same old deflection. You’ve been ramping this share for years, throwing more cash at it just to keep your average vaguely respectable while the price keeps sliding. Yesterday’s trade hit an all-time low, despite all your “good news” posts. Looks like you’ve backed a loser and can’t face it — even a 99% drop on a large six-figure punt hasn’t woken you up. But no, you’ll keep telling yourself you’re right and the market’s been wrong all along. Dear, oh dear. One day, Rodney......

On your recycled “why don’t you post elsewhere?” question — you’ve asked before, I’ve answered before, not repeating myself just because you’ve “forgotten.” Same for your RNS discrepancy query — I already suggested you ask AIM Regulation. I’ve seen an email from AIM confirming their consideration, and days later, 80M’s RNS magically matched the correct MET1 version. Coincidence? You decide. Even if I could post the email, you’d just dismiss or discredit it — that’s your tactic when facts don’t fit your ramp. You’ve admitted you ignore past failings and focus only on “the future,” so if you’re genuinely interested, pick up the phone to AIM yourself.

It seems the term “troll” is being misapplied here. A troll typically posts irrelevant content purely to provoke — yet the vast majority of my posts have been fact-based, relevant, and, more often than not, proven more accurate than some of the ramp-heavy posts we’ve seen from certain individuals.

Perhaps this accuracy explains the repeated attempts to discredit me. The current ‘exchange’ stems entirely from one poster’s decision to make unverified suggestions that 80M may have been in direct discussions with the US Government — a post / story made without a shred of evidence. When challenged on such fabrications, rather than providing a fact-based counterargument, the response was to label the challenger a “troll” and to deflect attention by proposing a rather childish challenge. This isn't the first time they've employed this same desperate tactic to deflect attention from their groundless nonsense.

Let’s also not forget past examples. How many times were we told with absolute certainty that there would be no fundraise toward the end of 2024? Yet the poster was wrong. Earlier in the year, my estimate of a likely raise and the price it might be pitched at was dismissed — but events proved me correct. Time and again, the Board’s narrative has been repeated here (and embellished) as fact, only for it to prove over-optimistic and undelivered.

Meanwhile, we’ve seen a claimed “large” six-figure holding lose over 97% of its value, while still being ramped by the same individual. Offering a contrary opinion, grounded in evidence, is not trolling — it’s an essential part of a balanced bulletin board..

Once again, it seems there’s an effort to pigeonhole anyone who dares to challenge the more extravagant claims posted here. I’ve said many times that I like to see both sides of the story – but some appear unhappy when their constant, groundless ramping is questioned.

Your posts read like those of someone with a very heavy holding and direct contacts within the company – an individual willing to embellish the facts or post unverified stories rather than seek / wait for verification. That does neither you nor fellow investors any favours.

And then there’s the repeated recycling of feel-good soundbites to gloss over past disappointments – “Yesterday is but today’s memory, and tomorrow is today’s dream” being a classic. Entertaining perhaps, but hardly a substitute for clear, verifiable information.

The whole “I’ll do this if you do that” routine? Really? What is this, the playground at lunchtime? Yet again, it’s just a smokescreen to dodge owning up to your own baseless ramping. You were the one who floated the fantasy that March GL / 80M had been in talks with the US Government—without a single scrap of evidence. And no, you didn’t bother checking with your so-called ‘contacts’ at 80M before posting, because facts would have ruined the story. Far easier to throw out wild, biased speculation and hope no one notices it’s pure make-believe.

Of course the Danish government invests in Greenland – it’s part of their own country. They stand to directly benefit from any mineral wealth and share deep cultural, historical, and family ties. This is hardly breaking news.

Trying to link Denmark’s pro-Greenland spending to some far-fetched theory about the US building infrastructure is just more hollow ramping.

Now we have Mr Proxy asking: “Has anyone asked 80M whether March GL/80M has had talks with the Trump administration about the Jameson project?” – apparently as a challenge for others to disprove his speculation. As CC has confirmed before, 80M rarely reply to ordinary investors, but Mr Proxy supposedly has a direct line. So why not ask them himself?

Until the BoD confirms such discussions have taken place, this remains nothing more than unfounded guesswork – yet another groundless ramping story.

A company’s success or failure ultimately comes down to the quality and integrity of its Board of Directors.

Today, 80M themselves published this glowing endorsement of Amaroq:

“Amaroq Minerals is a well-capitalised and technically proficient Greenland-focused explorer and developer, and 80 Mile is confident that their team is well-placed to unlock the value of the project through systematic exploration.”

If only the same could be said about 80M.

What makes this all the more striking is that both companies have followed very similar early paths in Greenland. In 2015, Amaroq acquired the Nalunaq gold mine; in the same year, FinnAust (now Bluejay) acquired a 60% stake in Pituffik. The difference? One has gone on to build a successful track record… the other, well, no prizes for guessing.

Another stark contrast:

As of 31 March 2025, Amaroq reported 7,115,483 outstanding options.

On 25 October 2024, 80M had 175,900,000 outstanding options, and have now announced the issue of another 393,557,018 shares (again diluting holders).

If my calculations are correct, that takes the total to 569,457,018 outstanding options — meaning the BoD at Jay / 80M appear to have awarded themselves roughly 80 times more options than the board over at Amaroq. Incredible.

These numbers are based on publicly released data, and I’m happy to be corrected if any detail is wrong. Perhaps Mr Proxy could confirm or deny… though I somehow doubt it - after all, the subject is rather contrary to their own ramping agenda.

Some rampers / proxy really are getting desperate. It wasn’t enough for them to spin completely unfounded theories about possible US Government aid – now they’re padding it out with a fantasy wish list: infrastructure, pipelines, even a port. What next?

This time, they’re embellishing their stories by suggesting that the US Government is already in talks with the March/80M partnership. Dream on.

The reality may well be that no US aid is granted at all – and frankly, I’d prefer to see Greenland align more closely with the EU rather than the US. After all, would you really want to be negotiating with a Chump/Vance double act?

We're told by Mr Proxy and the BoD that there's been a series of good news:

The collapse of the Kobold deal means we now retain 100% ownership of Disko. 🎉🍾🍹Yippee

Partnership deals are (as always) imminent. 😴

GS is supposedly to be throwing off cash 🤣

March, GL, Pelican et al. are drilling at the Jameson Land project. 🤔

Dundas is apparently moving forward. 😴

And with the MET1 deal falling through, we retain 100% of the Finnish assets too. 🎉🍾🍹Yippee

Wow, plenty of “good news” to cheer then. So why is the share price continuing to slide, once again nearing all-time lows?

Could it be that the market remains unconvinced, perhaps due to a persistent track record of over-promising and under-delivering? Or maybe investor confidence is being eroded by a perception that the BoD’s priorities lie more in their own remuneration than in delivering value for shareholders?

That’s one possible explanation — but are there others? What’s really behind the disconnect between the supposedly “positive” news flow and the dismal market response? Reality?

It’s hard to imagine many shareholders are feeling anything other than deeply frustrated right now. Once again, the Board’s actions appear to prioritise their own enrichment over that of long-term investors. Having already secured what many view as overly generous option packages, they’re now seemingly content to dilute shareholders further — by up to another 15%.

Those acting as proxies or aligned with the Board may not have a problem with this — let’s be honest, challenging it might be contrary to their own interests.

For existing shareholders, it’s another blow. The steady erosion of shareholder value continues, and it’s increasingly difficult to see where the alignment with ordinary investors lies.

“Rod took the company from a £10m to over £100m market cap before handing it over to a less capable management team,” we’re told — as if that alone is a meaningful measure of success.

But let’s not forget, AIM is littered with companies that once promised the world but delivered very little. The pattern is familiar: an exciting story gets spun, the share price rockets on little more than hope and hype, and bulletin boards fill up with damp Ng cheerleaders parroting bullish narratives — often without substance.

When reality inevitably sets in, it's all too easy to shift the blame onto the incoming board. Yet, the seeds of failure are usually sown much earlier — in those early “success” days when expectations were inflated far beyond anything sustainable.

Some still choose to praise the original storyteller for driving up the market cap. But let’s be honest: the real test of leadership is not how high you can inflate a valuation, but whether you build a company with genuine, long-term value. Too often, what we see is a talent for promotion, not for creating lasting shareholder returns.

Thanks to Ashton for confirming – 80M is in a rather precarious position. They're clearly operating from a position of weakness, and any potential partner will be fully aware of that. Unless they can secure a financially strong partner soon, there's a real risk they'll lose the Disko licence.

There’s no revenue coming from Greenswitch (no surprise there), so without a partner stepping in, 80M is likely left with two options:

1. Lose the Disko licence, or

2. Attempt another fundraise to finance a drill.

But let’s be realistic – any drill funded through a near-term raise would be little more than a token effort. As mentioned before, the kind of comprehensive drilling campaign Kobold outlined would cost in the region of $13 million – not something 80M could pull off quickly through the market in its current state.

So the question is: if a new partner comes in holding all the cards, what kind of price will 80M have to pay? It could be steep. With hindsight, the Kobold deal might end up looking like a missed opportunity.

CC - we appear to agree. There are mixed messages coming out of 80M. Apparently there will be incredible revenue / profits from GS which, to my mind, could fund at least the initial drill IF such figures are achieved. Why rush into a potentially unfavourable partnership for Disko at this stage? The initial 15 hole drill would cost around $13m now - allowing for inflation over the initial $11.6m Kobold figure. Disko would attract FAR more interest and a partnership FAR more favourable to 80m shareholder value IF drilling was successful and it was proved up. The asset isn't going anywhere - what's the rush? Perhaps the BoD are not that confident about the profitability of GS?

My how I did laugh. Mr Proxy is ramping again - regarding Disko he states - 'Note the key words: "this remains a priority".

All of the 'assets' listed below were also 'priorities' - until they weren't. Punters were repeatedly told how valuable each project was and how each was being prioritised - and how each fund raise would help advance each of these 'priorities'. Just how rewarding have each of these 'priorities' been? Oh dear, shareholder value has persistently fallen while these 'priorities' were advanced. Current share price near record lows. Mr Proxy needs to wake up and smell the coffee 😉

Austrian assets

Dundas

Thunderstone

Enonkoski

Kangerluarsuk

Hamm

Out

Bla bla bla ,.............

Plenty of noise from the bulls around the recently announced feedstock supply and offtake agreement—but let’s not ignore the glaring omission: there are NO DETAILS on the underlying economics.

We're told it’s a long-term agreement, but that raises more questions than answers. Is pricing fixed or indexed? Are there caveats or premiums built in? At present, UCO (Used Cooking Oil) is trading at record highs—around $1,200–$1,250 per tonne—and POME (Palm Oil Mill Effluent) prices remain elevated, not to mention growing certification concerns. Both are central to NACATA’s feedstock offering. Are these the commodities NACATA will be supplying? Or maybe Fatty Acids or Tallow Oil? ‘Feedstocks’ is a pretty broad term and not knowing exactly what NACATA intends to supply makes it impossible for any investor to even guesstimate P/L.

So why commit now? This looks like the worst possible time for the 80M board to lock into long-term supply contracts. If prices ease—as they often do in commodity cycles—80M could be stuck sourcing feedstock at top-of-market rates while competitors benefit from lower costs.

Add to that the revenue assumptions flying around. One poster has cited $1,000 per tonne as average biodiesel revenue. Fair enough—but if feedstock is costing you $1,200/t, the issue doesn’t need a CFO to point out the obvious problem.

Where is the economic detail? What prices were agreed? I appreciate such detail is commercially sensitive (and we're unlikely to ever know exact prices) but the point is clear - how competitive are these contracts in the context of a tight European market with record prices?

Once again, it feels like another ramptastic RNS without the substance that shareholders deserve. The market doesn’t need, or want, more vague fanfare.

Continued...

News of the MarchGL partnership really helped the share price - not. Let's hope any such future partnership deals are viewed a little more favourably by investors.

This is all just my opinion, and I could be completely wrong—but it’s an opinion informed by a detailed look at the track record of this management team. Unlike some, I don’t just look to the future and ignore past red flags—I use them to help assess future risk.

IlDuce – good question. Here's my take: a firm NO.

For any company; I don’t believe that historic ‘red flags’ and failings are priced into the share until there’s been a substantial change in the management team—particularly the very same one responsible for a lot of those ‘red flags’ and the significant erosion of shareholder value. Why would anyone believe the leopard has changed its spots?

And right on cue, what happens? The BoD awards itself even more shares. In my view, that’s yet another sign of greed and a blatant disregard for shareholders. So what future red flags should investors brace for? Long-term holders have already had a front-row seat to plenty. What’s changed? As far as I can see, not much—same BoD, same behaviour.

Now Mr Proxy would have you believe that GS is about to start throwing off cash. We were told it would be up and running by end of Q1—yet here we are, and it's still waiting on feedstock. Déjà vu? We've heard that excuse before. The plant won't be profitable until such time as it is producing a substantial / full capacity output. Heaven knows what time frame that will be.

Edit. Today we receive news of a feedstock and offtake agreement, but where are the figures? What's the expected margins on cost of feedstock Vs sale of finished product. That must surely be known. I do hope this is profitable for 80M but with so many biofuel producers closing down and projects cancelled (as the economics don't stack up) it's hard to remain optimistic. And the usual BS from Amy - throwing off loadsamoney? That must be why GS sold a 25% stake for a piddly little £380k debt for equity swap. Cuckoo.

And what about the grant they were supposedly hopeful to receive anytime soon? Some bulls seem to believe that this money—if it arrives—will be handed over with no strings attached. But governments don’t just throw large sums of taxpayer money at companies without a clearly defined, local or national purpose. So what exactly is 80M planning to spend any grant money on in Italy? The grant won't be to cover costs already spent on projects that already exist. The GS plant refurbishment is supposedly complete (or nearly there) and costs covered. The Italian taxpayer isn't going to bankroll Dundas, Disko, Hamm, or Out. Maybe the grant could go toward expanding GS—but let’s be real: it took over 7 years just to refurbish the existing site. How long before any expansion is actually cash-generative, let alone profitable?

In my view, more fundraises are inevitable. Disko needs financing. Dundas needs financing. Even the unwanted Finnish assets will need money if they aren't just being mothballed (like several of Jay / 80Ms previous ‘valuable’ projects before them). That means more dilution and further erosion of shareholder value. Or, just like JL, they might choose to give away a substantial / majority holding to a 3rd party simply to progress matters. News of the MarchGL partnership really helped the

🐖🐷🐽 oink oink

Ashton – A Few Realities That Deserve Acknowledgement

It’s disappointing that you offer little more than token criticism of Jay and 80M’s track record. Time and again, you avoided addressing some direct, pertinent questions regarding a long list of questionable decisions and actions taken by the BoD. It’s difficult not to conclude that this is because many of those decisions are indefensible.

Your approach seems to be: ignore all past failings and focus solely on "the future." Yet let’s not forget—Dundas was the future once, then it was Thunderstone, then Hamm, then Outt, then bla bla bla… the list goes on. There’s a consistent pattern here that many have noticed, even if you refuse to acknowledge it.

You often compare Disko to world-class assets like Norilsk, but you’ve never engaged with my counterpoints highlighting the major differences—economic, logistical, geological—that make such comparisons unrealistic.

I respect optimism, but when it becomes persistent ramping it does a disservice to less experienced or newer investors. Your decision to average down significantly—from 9.1p to below 0.30p—raises valid questions about the objectivity of your views. It’s a simple fact that losing 95%+ on an original “large six-figure” holding, and then putting in tens of thousands of £’s more to average down, doesn’t exactly scream successful investment judgement.

Your long-standing bullish stance has coincided with a steady destruction of shareholder value. That exceptionally poor track record deserves to be recognised and scrutinised—especially by anyone considering investing based on your commentary.

Balanced discussion is vital here. Ramp if you like, but let’s be fair: your optimism has been misplaced thus far and it's only fair to point out your exceptionally poor track record.

CC - I've given you my opinion, but to explain it further. You are wasting your time (and others) concerning yourself with an arbitrary figure - a figure that has no relevance to 80M, a figure that would appear to have been conjured up solely for money market participants to profit. Have you ever seen Jay / 80M post a notional value? Clue -NO! Have you ever used AI to answer any of your questions? If not, do give it a try. Here is AI’s response to the question ‘Why is notional value not used to value mining company assets’?

Notional value is a term primarily used in derivatives and financial contracts, representing the total face or theoretical value of an asset (e.g., a $1 million notional amount of an interest rate swap). It does not represent market value or realizable value.

………..

Why It 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.