Member Info for RachT2

CC – sorry, but you’ve lost me again. Could you remind me when exactly I suggested that 80M should (or even could) sell anything at book value? Are you referring to Greenswitch or the Finnish ‘assets’?

Also, could you explain where this £6m gain for MET1 has come from, and how you believe they've managed to save £1m? Those figures seem to have appeared from nowhere, so a bit of clarification would be appreciated. Thanks.

Well, the hits keep coming. First, we heard that Greenswitch is now up for sale. Then, confirmation that MET1 won’t be going ahead with the Finnish asset acquisition. Greenswitch will only be sold if commodity prices improve—so, at current commodity price levels, finding a buyer is rather unlikely. So, 80M is left holding 24% of a plant that seemingly no one wants. Will they still go ahead and acquire the final 25% as originally committed? That now looks increasingly doubtful.

This move into the downstream space is starting to look like a strategic error. Let’s not forget—if the bulls / proxy repeated claims that Greenswitch would be a cash-generating machine were valid, then 80M picked it up for peanuts. But, as I initially pointed out, if it was to throw off so much cash how come a little old 80M was able to buy it for so little? Perhaps it was so cheap because nobody else wanted it in the first place? Perhaps it was so cheap as other, more experienced parties, realised it wouldn’t be a cash cow and had no interest in buying it?

As for MET1 walking away from the Finnish assets—this speaks volumes. They’ve already sunk cash and accepted a dilution in equity, only to walk away without advancing the project. If they truly believed in the value of the assets, they could have completed the deal and tried to sell on. But clearly, they assessed that route and saw little to no chance of recovering their money. Let’s not forget—they were the only buyer the first time around.

Now, predictably, we’ll hear the usual spin from the bulls—that 80M regaining 100% of the Finnish assets is somehow a positive. But the reality is: these assets weren’t proven up under 80M, and MET1 didn’t make progress either. If neither party wants to invest further, and nobody else wants to buy them, then the market value of these projects speaks for itself.

In short, one company tried to sell these assets, the other took them on and gave them straight back—after losing money and before proving anything. It really does beg the question: who wants them now?

CC Looks like the sale of the Finnish assets won’t be anywhere near the £6m you had speculated.

Mr Ramptastic — yet another pointless and juvenile attempt on your part to discredit my posts. You're becoming more of a distraction than a contributor. I suggest you stick to the facts.

For your information, I recommend you go back and re-read the relevant post. The line "I never used the word lucrative." was a verbatim quote from CC. I referenced it to highlight the fact that he did question whether the sale of 80M's Finnish assets could be considered lucrative. That is the context — perhaps try engaging with it properly next time.

CC - Eh? 'I never used the word lucrative.' You asked if the sale of their Finnish assets wasn't a 'lucrative' sale!!! And I thought my memory was bad. 🤣 Thank you for the explanation of the £6m - but with around 550m 2p warrants expected to be exercised I don't believe Met1s SP will hold up.

We certainly differ on our opinion of 'lucrative' and the value one can place on an asset - you apportion value in the moment - irrespective of the fact that any said asset might have been purchased at a far higher price - I find that bizarre. But we're all different.

A basic grasp of company accounts goes a long way in assessing whether a sale was, in fact, 'lucrative' or good value. Mine understanding is fairly basic — E&OE — but even that level is enough to highlight some clear issues. Let’s remind ourselves: ‘lucrative’ means profitable, money-making, or remunerative. So reviewing two examples you posted.

Kangerluarsuk

In 80M’s own RNS dated 12/6/25, the company references the y/e 2023 accounts. These show a LOSS of -£2,485,947 on the Kangerluarsuk asset. They sold it for £370k ($500k) with a potential future uplift of £1.098m ($1.5m) — if a commercially viable resource is proven. That’s conditional, with no guaranteed timeline or certainty.

Even assuming the full uplift is eventually realised (a big 'if'), total gross proceeds = £1.468m.

Net result: a LOSS of -£1,017,947.

FinnAust Mining Finland (Hamm & Out)

Sold for £250k in cash plus shares in MET1, which when combined with an earlier holding, brought in close to £2m. The '24 y/e accounts show a LOSS of -£5,511,688 attributable to FinnAust.

Net result: a LOSS of approximately -£3,261,688.

Combined total LOSSES from these ‘lucrative’ disposals: -£4,279,635. Way to go - spend £7,997,635 acquiring and 'developing' assets that you then sell for a -£4,279,635 LOSS. 'Lucrative'? Value? Surely not.

So let’s be clear: by any standard definition, these are not ‘lucrative’ sales. Rather, they’ve simply crystallised SOME of the significant LOSSES incurred under 80M/Jay’s management. Shareholders’ capital has been eroded. Shareholders / investors money has been LOST — and dressing these disposals up as wins is nothing but the folly of a biased investor.

CC – could you clarify your post?

It’s unclear who your message is aimed at – is it directed at me, or at Mr Ramptastic? The latter also holds the view that the asset sales were not “lucrative,” - he argued I couldn’t be a shareholder because my post on 2/5/24 stated I’d only consider buying after a genuinely lucrative sale. So are you disagreeing with him, with me, or with both of us?

Also, your figures are wildly inflated. You mentioned £6m for the Finnish asset sales – where are you getting that from? The actual proceeds were a fraction of that. And Kangerluarsuk raised just £370k – how does that come close to being significant against the company’s market cap?

If you’re using these sales to justify calling them “lucrative,” then you’ll need to reconcile that with the reported £10m loss for the year ending 2024, and total retained losses now sitting at around £35m. Even generously, these asset sales clawed back less than 8% of what has been lost (of shareholders / investors money) under Jay and 80M’s stewardship. Only another £32.5 million to go, right?

Your grasp of arithmetic seems to be on par with your admitted lack of accounting knowledge.

Indeed, why the constant speculation? My shareholding is entirely irrelevant — and more to the point, unknown to you. Yet you persist in your speculative assumptions. Whether I currently hold or not is something you simply cannot know, and anything to the contrary is pure guesswork. It's puzzling that such a basic point continues to escape you.

But let’s return to the substance of your post. If you believe I do not hold shares in 80M, then by extension, you must also accept that the company has not completed any 'lucrative' asset sales since my post of 2/5/24 — and on that, we agree. The sales that have occurred have been anything but lucrative. Assets once hailed by both the company and its most vocal supporter as being worth substantial sums were sold for a fraction — in some cases, less than 1% — of those projected values. How lucrative will the sale of Greenswitch be? LOL.

CB – If only things were that simple.

I’ve said before that attending meetings with Jay/80M has largely proven futile. The spoken word from them tends to be no more reliable than their RNS releases — over-optimistic, vague, and rarely followed through. So why would I make the effort to attend meetings when past comments haven’t stood up to scrutiny?

That said, I do appreciate others attending and reporting back — but I’ll continue to take all commentary with a healthy pinch of salt.

Will this post be another example of that unreliability I wonder?

“At the General Meeting on 13 January 2025, Rod McIllree stated that Disko would be drilled in 2025.” We're now halfway through the year, and there’s no sign of that drilling, or even any credible lead-up to it.

And now, talk of Greenswitch being sold raises more questions than answers. A few that immediately come to mind:

1. Restart – Still no sign of it, despite repeated suggestions that it’s imminent. Zero revenue, and profitability? Anyone’s guess. What’s the realistic timeline for production, revenue, or even break-even?

2. Ownership & Authority – RM’s comments about a potential sale seem odd. 80M only owns 24% of Greenswitch. Is it really their decision? Or has HV already made that call?

3. Price Trigger – If the sale is commodity-price dependent, what is the threshold? Or is it a floating arrangement?

4. Production Requirement – Does the plant even need to be operational before a sale goes ahead, or are HV/80M just looking to offload it regardless?

5. Strategic U-turn – Just months ago, this was painted as a “transformative” move into downstream revenue. Now it's for sale? What’s changed?

These seem like very basic — but important — questions any attendee in a supposed “intense meeting” with RM might have asked. Yet the only feedback you posted was vague and light on substance.

So did no one ask these questions? Were the answers vague or evasive? Or were attendees simply told nothing of value?

Someone seems desperate enough to speculate about whether I hold shares in 80M. Not only is that entirely irrelevant, but more importantly, no such details are known to the ever-present ramper or proxy.

On the topic of biofuels, it’s worth stepping back from the noise. Demand and supply are highly dynamic. When oil and gas prices are low, the higher cost of biofuel production often becomes uneconomic. That alone undercuts a lot of the overly optimistic narratives.

For every positive biofuel story out there, there’s often a counterbalance. A good example is the Greenergy story referenced. Some citep their expansion plans—yet conveniently ignore that Greenergy shut its Immingham plant in May 2025 due to market conditions and competitive pressure from cheap U.S. imports. The "expansion" being referenced dates back to January 2024, and is now well out of date.

Here's a short list of recent closures and disruptions in the biofuel space:

1. Vivergo bioethanol (ABF, Hull) – UK’s largest bioethanol plant. Now facing closure by mid-Sept 2025 unless the government steps in.

2. Grangemouth (INEOS, Scotland) – Closed Q1 2025 after years of losses and import competition.

3. Shell Rotterdam SAF plant – Construction paused mid-2024. Launch likely delayed into the late 2020s.

4. Braya Renewable Fuels (Canada) – On "warm idle" since Dec 2024 due to low margins and unclear U.S. tax policy.

5. Multiple U.S./Canada biodiesel plants – Idled across states/provinces due to subsidy issues and oversupply.

6. Vertex Energy (Mobile, AL) – Paused renewable diesel production in May 2024; reverted to fossil diesel due to poor economics.

You get the picture 😉

I fully support reducing reliance on fossil fuels—and biofuels can and should play a role. But let’s be clear: the sector is volatile, capital-intensive, and policy-sensitive. Not all projects succeed.

So when a member of 80M’s BoD comments that a part-owned asset (Greenswitch) is “for sale, but only if commodity prices rise”, that should raise alarms. There’s a real chance that the sale never materialises, especially if newer, more efficient plants come online and outcompete on price.

Be careful what you wish for. The narrative is not as clean as some bulls would like you to believe.

CB – I never said you made that claim, so let’s not deflect. However, Ashton described your interaction with Rod McIllree as you - 'and the other shareholder were engaged in an intense conversation with Rod McIllree ……..'. If that’s accurate, then your post was surprisingly lacking in substance. If it wasn’t an intense discussion, then Ashton was clearly mistaken, and all you took away from your discussion with RM was that Greenswitch might be sold if commodity prices improve. Either way, thanks for sharing – even if it was just that single revelation / bombshell.

Apologies for posting again, but this needs to be said.

The resident perennial bull — often apparently acting as a proxy for management — repeatedly commented that 80M’s acquisition of Greenswitch represented a transformative strategic shift. According to them, the revenue from this downstream asset could potentially fund the company’s broader exploration ambitions, possibly avoiding the need for further dilution. Any attempt to challenge the viability of this thesis or the true value of the asset was dismissed as mischief-making or baseless negativity.

Now, however, we learn that Greenswitch is earmarked for sale — but only if commodity prices rise. At current levels, the asset is either worth very little or, more bluntly, next to nothing. In fact, other biofuel plants are shutting down and new builds are being cancelled due to weak demand and falling prices.

You genuinely couldn’t make it up.

Will the proxy who so confidently backed the strategy now acknowledge the miscalculation? Unlikely.

CB – No surprise your report was slow to appear – the contents speak volumes.

Apparently you were in an “intense meeting” with RM, yet the only output is a vague two-liner suggesting 80M might sell an asset they only partially own — and only if commodity prices improve. That's not a strategy — that's a stall.

We are told that Q3 and Q4 are supposed to be interesting and positive. In case it's escaped your notice - we've now entered Q3. It is now the 3rd consecutive quarter where supposedly “positive” developments have so far failed to materialise. Q1 was meant to deliver revenue via Greenswitch — it didn’t. Q2 hinged on the long-delayed plant restart — apparently still no action. Grants were said to be imminent months ago — where are they?

Now we’re told they’re waiting for commodity market conditions to improve. Is that the latest excuse to explain away the lack of real progress? Are they delaying listing the asset until commodity prices rise, or is this simply cover for the fact that no credible buyer is in sight?

The repeated pattern of over-promising and under-delivering is wearing thin. It’s time the board stopped spinning optimism and started delivering results. Investors deserve better than vague outlooks and missed milestones.

A long but worthwhile read - thanks for posting Ashton. It is a positive vision – but let’s keep some perspective

The Greenland Government’s latest mining initiative is an impressive and ambitious step — their intent to position Greenland as a significant mining jurisdiction is clear, and they’re clearly open to greater engagement with companies and governments. That’s an encouraging signal. However, as CC rightly highlights the stated goal of establishing (an additional?) 8–10 producing mines will require a huge number of exploration projects to be launched — and realistically, the majority will fail. That’s not pessimism; it’s the nature of the industry.

Even under normal conditions, the statistics are sobering. For every 1,000 early-stage exploration projects, only about 1–5 ever result in a producing mine. Of those that do identify a mineralised deposit, only about 1 in 500 advances to a stage where resource estimation, drilling, and economic evaluation begins. From that point, only 10–15% make it to the Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) stage — and around 70% of those still don’t pass the PFS (which makes you wonder why Dundas hasn't been a more prominent target for advancement). Even among the projects that do pass the PFS, roughly half never reach the construction phase. In other words, somewhere between 995 and 999 out of every 1,000 projects fail to deliver any return to investors — they absorb capital, lose shareholder value and yield nothing.

So, if Greenland is serious about building (an additional?) 8–10 mines, then at the very least 1,600–2,000 exploration projects may be needed to generate that result — meaning perhaps 1,590–1,990 of them will ultimately lose investors money. Even if their new policy framework improved outcomes by a (very optimistic) third (by utilizing existing / improved data, improving access to funds etc), you’re still looking at 1,060–1,326 failed projects before hitting those 8 –10 producing mines.

We must also consider that improved regulatory standards — such as requiring renewable energy over cheap diesel plants and generators — while a very welcome step in environmental terms, will raise initial project costs. Long-term, that's a good thing, but in the near term, it may deter marginal players or amplify early-stage risk.

Advancements in AI-driven exploration, like those pursued by KoBold, could potentially improve efficiency and aid in advancing Greenland's blueprint — but notably, KoBold recently exited Greenland. Was that a retreat from the jurisdiction itself, or just from its partnership with 80M? Personally I believe we'll see Kobold back in Greenland at some stage - but maybe not with 80M as a partner.

In short, I think Greenland’s mining blueprint is to be applauded — but investors should remain grounded in the realities of exploration risk and development timelines.

CC – Honestly, you're not the only one finding matters tiresome.

You’ve openly admitted that you don’t understand financial accounts, yet you continue to argue points that rely on precisely that knowledge. Posting on topics you clearly don’t grasp isn’t just unhelpful — it undermines the quality of discussion for others trying to engage seriously.

Your statement – "I do know however that assets are not necessarily amortised. So you may look at one year's accounts to further your agenda. I won't." – perfectly highlights the issue. Nobody is claiming all assets are amortised; that’s a basic principle. Amortisation applies to intangible assets — and in this case, the company itself clearly states that such amortisation only begins when the pre-production phase is reached. It’s all there in black and white.

If you're unwilling to make an effort to understand the accounts, then perhaps don’t comment on what they supposedly do or don’t show. By all means, keep posting — but don’t expect others to take your views seriously when they’re based on a self-admitted lack of understanding.

CC - I haven't got a clue what you are trying to say in your post, please elaborate. Of course, not all assets are amortised; amortization applies to intangible assets only. Indeed, 80M themselves state that intangible assets are not amortised until 'pre-production phase has been entered into'. What assets do you suppose come under that umbrella?

Did you notice the amount of the impairment charges? They suggest that some assets are now considered to be worth significantly less than the Board had previously assessed. Isn’t that a clear indication that certain asset valuations were overstated and have since been revised downward?

CC – Your comment is quite misguided. The accounts are clearly stated, why would I attempt to present the loss as anything other than what is reported. I’ll assume your misunderstanding stems from your lack of familiarity with financial reporting. You've previously acknowledged that more advanced investing strategies aren't within your intellectual capability — even those requiring only a basic grasp of balance sheets — so it's not surprising you may find year-end accounts challenging as well.

You seem a little worked up — perhaps the warm weather isn't helping. That said, you shouldn’t mistake my decision not to post specific supporting details here as an inability to do so. I’m under no obligation to meet your demands, nor will I jump to your tune. If you genuinely wish to verify what I’ve stated, you know where to look — good luck in trying to disprove it.

As for your comment: "in the future, please don't make such outrageous and unsubstantiated claims if you are not able to back them up with evidence." — now that you’ve set the bar so high for others, I trust we can expect the same level of rigour from your future posts. I’ll be sure to flag any speculative or overly optimistic commentary from you that lacks clear evidence, just as you’ve requested of others.

Anyway, enjoy the rest of your day — it’s rather pleasant where I am.

Didn't the current BoD do well? The loss for the Company for the year ended 31 December 2024 was £8,704,742 - that compares to a loss for the year ended 31 December 2023 of £1,023,812. A round of applause required?

“It appears that the AIM Regulations Team is currently reviewing the matter.”

I stand by that statement — it reflects the understanding I reached through my own research efforts.

If you’re looking to confirm or dispute it, and want specifics such as names, contact details, or a case reference, then I’d suggest contacting the AIM Regulations Team directly. Given your frequent emphasis on your own research abilities, I’m sure it would be easy enough for you to follow up and obtain the information you require.

Crikey — the desperation really is starting to show now. Trying to link my post to a group of disgruntled U.S.-based investors is quite a stretch — even by your usual standards. You clearly understand the points raised (you come across as a reasonably intelligent chap), yet you continue to distort the facts to fit your bullish narrative.

To clarify: my post on 23rd May referred specifically to conflicting reports regarding the sale of 80M’s holding in Met1. One source stated that the entire holding had been sold — which, by your own calculations, would be 10,888,017 shares — while another source reported a sale of only 6,250,000 shares. Both figures cannot be correct.

CC contacted 80M on more than one occasion to seek clarity and got nowhere. Interestingly, despite your claimed access to the 80M BoD and your apparent willingness to speak on their behalf, you’ve never addressed or explained this discrepancy. Makes one wonder why not?

As for Romain Picard, I don’t have any further information — but I agree it would certainly be interesting to know the outcome of their previous claims. Hopefully someone else can shed light on that.

Good luck.

Interesting article yesterday - highlights below. Puts some real perspective on some previous claims that Disko could be the next Norilisk - of note, In 2023, Norilisk had an average of 80,562 employees. In the same year Greenland's entire population was 56,853. It's pretty obvious that the people of Greenland have no desire to see a large influx of outsiders arriving on their shores. They are quite happy with small scale projects that directly enrich local communities and projects that embrace the most stringent of environmental standards. Good on them.

Greenland, despite possessing vast mineral reserves and past ambitions from the U.S. to acquire it for these resources, is not interested in becoming a major mining superpower.

The country's minister for business and mineral resources emphasized a desire for only 5 to 10 active mines at any given time, prioritizing high environmental, social, and governance standards.

Concerns about the environmental impact and the uncertain economic return from mining activities, particularly with an unstable market for rare earths, contribute to Greenland's cautious approach.

Around a decade ago, a team of geologists published a paper that warned of unrealistic expectations for Greenland's mineral potential. It states, "Even if estimates of the quantity and quality of ore in a geological deposit are well documented it is difficult to translate this into economic potential and even more difficult to predict a specific revenue for Greenlandic society." Minik Thorleif Rosing, one of the authors of the report, said that the situation remains relatively unchanged since the date of publication.

Full article here - https://tinyurl.com/2c6etvwh