Member Info for RachT2

CC - $200m is a plausible figure - any higher and potential investors / punters might smell a rat. Any lower would lessen the profits for these pushing this 'scheme'. I expect most of the initial participants might be out of this before the first drill results are in - is it a smoke and mirrors creation? March GL appeared overnight apparently with the sole intention of investing in JL (it's such a great investment, strange that no other bona fide company took an interest), then up popped GEL that apparently has a stake in JL, then Pelican ...............what next? All this 'corporate' action and the first drill hasn't even turned, amazing.

Wow, video of the plant looks quite impressive - yet apparently to buy 25% of it costs no more than a £380k debt for equity swop. Makes one wonder why it is going so cheap doesn't it?

I would suggest that any newcomers to 80M also bear in mind that the 80M BoD told investors the plant would be revenue producing by the end of Q1. Then that the delay was down to missing feedstock - when in fact it later transpired that the plant actually wasn't ready. Then that they would 'ramp up' production in Q2. Then investors were told revenue / production would be occuring by the end of Q2. Then full production by ............................... bla bla bla. In fact a quick read of the RNS of 19/12/24 is a good start for anyone to get an idea of the reliability / trustworthiness of 80M's news releases - as usual, littered over optimistic projections / targets.

Tomhuk - you state 'And people wonder why investors lose money on the stock market ' to infer that sellers are somehow less insightful / capable than yourself. Let’s not forget that anyone blindly following your repeated ‘Strong Buy’ calls on the likes of 80M, FRG, MSMN, EPP, NTVO, ROQ, etc., could easily have ended up deep in the red. A quick glance at the share price charts tells the story. Maybe it’s just been an unlucky streak... or maybe there’s a pattern to your extremely poor track record. Food for thought.

Greenland has made its environmental stance crystal clear — any resource exploitation must meet the highest standards. This includes commitments to local community benefit, zero harm to the environment, and use of renewable energy sources. These conditions will undoubtedly increase project costs unless offset by substantial long-term government support. But with Greenland’s limited finances, support may be restricted to tax incentives at best. As for Denmark backing a US-led project? Seems unlikely. A tough landscape to navigate — but potentially rewarding for those who can align with the policy framework.

CC – We effectively have four active assets on the table now. If JL remains a free carry for the foreseeable future (as suggested), and GS finally begins generating revenue (long overdue), that’s a solid start.

If 80M intends to progress Disko, then addressing funding needs sooner rather than later makes sense. The new NED won’t be able to conjure up funding or interest overnight — these things take time. Both Disko and Dundas will likely require significant capital, and I'd prefer to see 80M focus squarely on these four core assets rather than taking on any new acquisitions.

With the Finnish assets now back in the fold too, there’s already more than enough on their plate. Let’s see progress on what they’ve already got before expanding further.

Or to promote / raise funds to do a full Disko drill on it's own. If it could do the full 15 drills suggested by Kobold that would be a major step forward. Full cost around $13+m now so some finance would be needed.

Another poster who's diatribe brings absolutely no useful information to this board - or any constructive argument. Now filtered..

Continued .....

Greenland cost of production estimated to be $60 - $100 per barrel (stress - this is an AI generated estimate)

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 (Oil Sands) $50 – $70

North Sea (UK/Norway) $40 – $60

Deepwater Offshore (e.g., Brazil, Gulf of Mexico) $40 – $60

Now some biased individuals will jump to make claims that I’m no more than a FUD spreader - but I do like all sides of an argument to be aired. So, I asked AI ‘What would be the expected cost to produce each barrel of oil onshore in Greenland’. The results probably explain why Arco et al didn’t proceed - it’s always a question of economics. The details below were accompanied by a table that won’t c&p to the board, it compares costs with other global locations and lists factors effecting costs of production in Greenland. Of course, anyone is free to ask AI the same question and see for themselves what response they get.

The expected cost to produce a barrel of oil onshore in Greenland would likely be very high, due to extreme logistical, environmental, and regulatory challenges. While there are no commercial onshore oil operations currently active in Greenland, we can estimate based on parallels with Arctic and remote frontier onshore oil developments.

Estimated Cost Range:

$60 to $100+ per barrel

(Table)

Conclusion:

Onshore oil production in Greenland would likely cost $60 to $100+ per barrel, putting it at the upper end of global onshore production costs. Unless oil prices are high and stable, or subsidies are provided, such projects would be economically marginal or unviable in the near term.

Even the Red Arrow are going to be using SAF. Good for the environment, and whilst unlikely to directly affect 80M, it's another vote of confidence in the product.

https://theaviationist.com/2025/07/09/red-arrows-sustainable-fuel/

Nicks – A Question of Value

If Hydrogen Valley truly places such a high value on 80M, it's difficult to understand why they agreed to give up a 25% stake in Greenswitch for what amounts to a mere £380k via a debt-for-equity swap. Let’s not forget, the original agreement was for HV to receive £1m in cash PLUS 423,957,023 shares in 80M. Based on today’s share price, those shares alone would be worth around £1.1m — making the total original deal worth approximately £2.1m.

Yet HV accepted a vastly reduced return. If, as you suggest, they see broader value in 80M beyond the Italian asset, then why effectively walk away from those 423 million shares? The decision strongly implies that HV no longer values their 25% stake in Greenswitch at anywhere near the original £2.1m figure.

If they did, surely they would have rejected 80M's renegotiation attempt and insisted on the original deal terms. As it stands, the revised deal raises serious questions about HV’s confidence in Greenswitch’s current value or viability.

IlDuce15 et al – I hadn’t forgotten that announcement. The original RNS dated 19/12/24 stated: (my uppercase)

“The Project is also subject to MORTGAGES in excess of €12m which should have been discharged prior to Hydrogen Valley acquiring Greenswitch but due to administrative error they have not been actioned. The Directors intend that this matter will be resolved before 80M acquires a material interest in the Project. Greenswitch is the subject of various disputes before the Italian courts including the ownership of the Project.”

At the time, and subsequently, this implied the €12m mortgages were a separate issue from the legal disputes.

However, having re-read the RNSs and noted that the same €12m figure is mentioned in both the ‘mortgages’ and the legal claims, I’m now inclined to think the original RNS may simply have been poorly worded. It’s possible that there are no traditional mortgages at all — and that the €12m refers solely to the court claims. If one substitutes “mortgages” with “court claims” in that original RNS, that would make more sense. Or is it just a coincidence that both the mortgages and the court claims are for a very similar amount? I'm erring on the former guess.

Let’s hope that’s the case. Some clarification from 80M would certainly be welcome — perhaps Mr Proxy can have a chat with his buddies?

CC - You seem to be stating that under contractual law the mortgage isn't enforceable (on 80M) if it's an error on the part of HV? Surely the crux of the matter is that an outstanding mortgage (that most certainly did exist) should have been discharged PRIOR to HV acquiring Greenswitch. We were told that it HADN'T been discharged. If it has still not been discharged then HV’s ownership of Greenswitch is in question - and therefore any sale they may have subsequently made to 80M is in question / invalid.

Investors need details and confirmation of the situation - information that should have been given 6 months ago.

CC – I believe you are also mistaken.

If there is still an outstanding mortgage, then a third party holds a charge over Greenswitch — and that charge would take priority over any interest held by HV or 80M.

The lender with that charge will be expecting payment (we don't know what repayment structure is in place). If payment is not forthcoming, administration, a debt-for-equity swap, or significant dilution becomes a real possibility. I’m not suggesting any of these outcomes are likely, but they're certainly not off the table either.

Do we know whether the mortgage has already been repaid? It was meant to be resolved before 80M acquired its initial 24% stake. Hopefully, it has been dealt with — but as things stand, we haven’t been told one way or the other.

IVR – I believe you may be mistaken.

You stated, “we have just taken a material interest in the project” — but in fact, a material holding was already acquired six months ago, as announced on 16/01/25. A 24% stake in any company is widely recognised as a material holding, whichever metric you apply — regulatory, accounting, or governance.

I do agree with your point that “we need more of the uncertainty removed before progressing any further” — but that was just as true 6 months ago. According to the 80M BoD’s RNS the outstanding €12m mortgage should have been resolved / settled over 6 months ago. Another red flag and a detail we are still waiting long overdue news on.

For what it’s worth, even a quick AI search of the question “Would a 24% shareholding in a company be considered a material holding?” confirms:

“Yes, a 24% shareholding in a company would absolutely be considered a material holding — both in practical and regulatory terms.”

But no need to take my word for it — feel free to check for yourself.

CC – My only agenda here is to ensure a balanced representation of the facts. While some seem content with an uncritical, one-sided narrative portraying 80M as a flawless operation and a great investment, I believe that does a disservice to current and prospective shareholders alike.

IVR speculates that Hydrogen Valley’s decision to offload 25% of Greenswitch in a debt-for-equity swap could reflect financial strain. That’s a valid hypothesis. However, weren't the bulls initially praising Mr Price; what with his strong track record in the US oil and gas sector he's surely a heavyweight capable of attracting investment with ease. If so, raising £380k should not have been an issue, particularly for a project touted as a future revenue-generator.

Let’s also recall that for the remaining 51% stake, 80M was originally to pay an additional £6.05 million. It’s not unreasonable to question whether this figure will also be renegotiated or reduced — potentially via another debt-for-equity arrangement. However, HV still owes between €2.5m and €4.1m to the former owners of Greenswitch, due by 30/06/2027. The variability in that figure is itself concerning. Failure to repay risks reversion of ownership — meaning HV and, by extension, 80M could lose everything.

There’s also the matter of the €12m mortgage on Greenswitch. This was supposed to be settled prior to HV’s acquisition, yet it appears to remain unresolved. 80M’s Board had stated they intended to address this before acquiring a material interest in the project. Given that they now hold a 49% stake, it's reasonable to ask whether this qualifies as "material" — and if so, why there’s still no update on the mortgage resolution.

Mr Ramptastic has again posted one of the bulls favourite lines - RM “sounded optimistic”. When hasn't RM sounded optimistic? While RM may always sound optimistic, history suggests that optimism hasn’t always been matched by results — as evidenced by the erosion of shareholder value, multiple over optimistic projections and unfinished projects.

Yet another post from Punter1234 that offers no substantive argument or meaningful detail. As with many of their contributions across various boards, there seems to be little attempt / ability to engage with the actual points raised. Instead, the focus appears to be on dismissing or ridiculing differing views without offering any coherent counterargument. Disappointing, but not unexpected. Now filtered.

Why is HV so keen to offload Greenswitch?

I know the bulls will try to spin this as a great deal, but let’s ask the obvious: why is HV selling a 25% stake for so little? The original purchase price for Greenswitch already looked suspiciously cheap, especially considering we were told it was poised to generate significant cashflow. Now 80M can acquire 25% simply by assuming responsibility for a £380k working capital loan owed by HV — no cash changing hands, no new shares issued. That’s it.

This smacks of desperation on HV’s part. It’s worth noting HV was set up shortly before it acquired Greenswitch — possibly for that purpose alone. So why the sudden need to dump it? If Greenswitch really had near-term cash-generating potential, wouldn’t HV either hold onto it or demand a much higher price?

Something doesn’t add up. The fact they’re effectively giving away 25% of the business in exchange for loan relief suggests they don’t see the value they once claimed was there.

And let’s not be dazzled by mentions of offtake agreements. They’re two a penny and often amount to nothing — just look at Dundas for a cautionary tale.

This deal raises more red flags than it answers.

CC – Thanks for the reply.

I see the logic behind your calculations, but I’d point out they’re speculative. That’s not a criticism — your projections might be on the conservative side, but they could just as easily prove too optimistic. MET1 certainly don't think the Finnish assets are worth anything near to what they had initially.

You’re working off a projected MET1 market cap of around £60m at the time of allotment. That’s possible, but equally, it could be substantially lower. Like you, I expect the share price to weaken as the year goes on — particularly with ~500m 2p warrants still in play and being exercised.

Retail buyers seem content paying above 2p, perhaps not realising that doing so simply encourages further warrant conversions — increasing dilution. On 23/06 MET1 admitted 58.3m new shares, followed by another 74.5m just a week later. At some point, even PIs may recognise they’re diluting their own positions by paying more than insiders.

If all outstanding warrants are exercised, we could be looking at 750–800m shares in issue. With a likely share price of ~5p by what would have been the allotment time, that puts the market cap closer to £37.5m–£40m — well below your £60m estimate. Clearly, you’re expecting a stronger SP than I am.

Time will tell which of us is closer to the mark — let’s see where we land in November post-allotment date. Good luck!

That said, whichever way you look at it, 80M took a significant hit today.