Member Info for RachT2

Amusing stuff – the desperation to ramp is showing, even if it means twisting the facts.

Let’s be clear: I never claimed there was a strong case for KoBold to re-acquire the Disko licence. What I actually said was that there may be a stronger case for KoBold to seek a licence without 80M as a partner – a very different point. But of course, that nuance seems to have been conveniently overlooked in order to support a familiar ramping narrative. Predictable.

If there were a genuinely strong case for KoBold to continue at Disko, then they wouldn’t be walking away from a 49% stake in exchange for an uncertain 2% NSR. This is a company with deep technical resources, extensive data on the area, and firsthand experience working with 80M. And yet, they've chosen to exit. That tells you a lot.

For a project once hyped as "the next Norilsk," KoBold’s withdrawal speaks volumes. Clearly, they had compelling reasons – and a vague royalty arrangement doesn’t come close to offsetting that decision.

A little perspective, perhaps?

Dismissing the idea outright as "balderdash" seems a touch strong. It’s naive to assume that KoBold lacks either the capability or legal pathway to pursue a licence in Greenland independently of 80M. In fact, one could argue there’s a stronger case for KoBold to do just that — especially given its proven track record of advancing its global projects with technical rigour and financial backing.

Can the same really be said of 80M? Let’s be honest — Greenlanders are far from naïve (and for the record, not all are Inuits — careless comments can be unintentionally offensive). The local authorities can see what most observers see: a company that's had various iterations and been active in Greenland for the best part of 20 years, yet with little tangible benefit to show for it — either for Greenland or its people.

How many of 80M’s licences have translated into producing assets or meaningful economic contribution to the region? Have shareholders seen sustained value creation over the years? The answer appears to be a resounding “no”. Yet oddly enough, successive boards — especially some of the current directors — seem to have done quite nicely for themselves.

That contrast shouldn’t be ignored.

Surely there are more than 2 options available to Kobold? Like, for example, Option 3 - Surely a much more likely variation of Option 1.

Option 3. KoBold holds onto 49% and spends no money---->80M does not own 100% and therefore fails to find a partner----> No exploration work---->MLSA cancels the licences—--->Kobold picks up the newly available licence (for peanuts) and owns 100%.

Do you imagine for one minute KoBold hasn't considered such a strategy? It seems that you may have overlooked such an option. It's highly unlikely that Kobold hasn't already considered it, together with many other options available to them. They certainly have the means and capability to secure a redundant licence, should they deem the project worthwhile.

There’s been no shortage of commentary pointing to the strategic importance of Greenland to the US and its allies. Acquiring full control of a potential “next Norilsk” would be quite the coup for KoBold, if the geology stacks up.

And let’s be honest—if the Greenland authorities were choosing between KoBold and 80M as a long-term partner, which would they favour? One is a highly capitalised, tech-driven company with a strong track record. The other, well let's just say, has seen little tangible progress across any of its assets. From a government perspective, the decision would seem clear.

Continued ...

As for the suggestion that Kobold “decided, for their own good…” to give up their 49% stake in exchange for a 2% NSR to support 80M’s efforts in finding a new partner — if you believe that, you’ll believe anything.

The idea that Kobold, a well-capitalised and strategically astute business, would simply hand over its position out of generosity doesn’t add up. Why would it go out of its way to assist a partner that appears to have stepped back from the environmentally driven objectives that originally underpinned the JV? Kobold, to its credit, has not deviated from those principles.

Throughout the partnership, Kobold held the stronger hand. With the Disko drill now shelved, any future exploration campaign would require 80M to fund its share on a dollar-for-dollar basis — something that appears to be well beyond its financial capabilities. Kobold, however, could have retained its 49% interest at no cost, effectively blocking any third-party involvement and keeping the door open for a return on their own terms.

Yet they chose to walk.

Accepting just a 2% NSR — which may or may not ever yield a return — from a project that was once described as “the next Norilsk” is telling. Kobold had access to all legacy data, plus results from their own recent work. Their decision to exit completely suggests a clear, informed judgment.

Which raises a key question: what did Kobold see in the data that led them to step away? Or could their decision have been influenced by 80M’s apparent pivot toward fossil fuel-related assets?

I have to agree with CC — it's looking increasingly unlikely that the Disko drill will take place this year. Several posters have previously questioned the feasibility of a 2025 drill, yet the most vocal optimist (or proxy) repeatedly insisted that it was a certainty. It now appears there’s been a shift in their stance. This change in tone puts their previous overly bullish posts into perspective. Not only were their drilling assurances questionable, but their asset valuation projections have also proven to be wildly overstated — with actual values reportedly coming in at less than 1% of what was suggested. While it's still possible Disko may be drilled in 2025, I wouldn't be placing any firm bets on it at this stage. Ramptastic ….

4.4.25 At the General Meeting I attended on 13 January 2025, Rod McIllree informed the attendees that Disko would be drilled in 2025.

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

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, which must mean he was satisfied with the funds being available for the fieldwork.

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!

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

21.1.25 Another option I would like to throw into the mix is that 80M sells some or all of its Finnish assets to KoBold and uses the money for drilling Disko.

17.1.25 Thechuckster - As regards to Disko, 80M informed the market in April 2024 that the company intended to plan for 2025 field activities in late 2024. So, through this communication, the company has already informed the market of its intention to carry out fieldwork this year.

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.

14.1.25 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.

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

24.9.24 As for the news items regarding drilling at Disko in 2025, 80M was confident enough to​ include this statement in the RNS on 11 May 2024: "The Acquisition (of Sedimentary Hosted Copper Project) comes as part of the Company's new growth strategy to secure ​h​igh-quality copper and industrial gas projects whilst CONTINUING TO PROGRESS DISKO TO DRILLING IN 2025."

Continued .....

CC – Sorry, but I’m struggling to follow the logic of your post. Since Kobold got involved, TYM’s share price is down around 77% – but let’s not forget it had already dropped 99.5% before their involvement, and it had no sign of being able to monetise anything at all.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Kobold partnership has been a negative for TYM? That TYM shareholders would somehow be better off without Kobold’s technical expertise, funding access, global profile, and credibility?

Are you really trying to convince us that 80M is in a stronger position now that Kobold has walked? Come on.

Thanks all for your replies. I note the resolution to issue vast numbers of shares without the need to seek prior shareholder approval has been passed yet again. As I've commented previously; turkeys voting for Christmas. You'd have thought investors might have had enough of unchecked dilution and BoD enrichment by now - apparently not. Bizarre.

Yet again, we see a disappointing level of communication from the Board. Today’s RNS confirms that all resolutions were duly passed at the AGM, but fails to specify what any of those resolutions actually were. Instead, it directs stakeholders to the company website for further details — which, unhelpfully, contains an identical copy of the RNS, offering NO additional information whatsoever. This gives an increasingly consistent impression of poor attention to detail and operational inefficiency.

CC. As for the suggestion that the loss of Kobold could be a “blessing in disguise” — that view seems unrealistically optimistic and borne of desperation. Kobold is widely recognised as a technically advanced, well-funded, and agile partner, with the ability to move projects forward at pace. To suggest that their departure could somehow be beneficial appears to overlook the substantial value and credibility they brought to the partnership. It’s important to acknowledge this as a setback rather than attempt to reframe it as a positive development.

Looks like more smoke and mirrors to me. A newly formed Cayman Islands entity has now acquired a company called Greenland Exploration Ltd (GEL), which is apparently a partner of another newly formed outfit — March GL. We’ve heard of March GL (set up purely, it seems, to “partner” 80M), but there’s been no mention of GEL until now, and I’ve yet to find any solid information on them.

So now we have Pelican Acquisitions Corporation partnering with March GL, who in turn is supposedly partnered with 80M. Did anyone know that GEL was already involved with 80M? I certainly don’t recall it being disclosed.

What changes for 80M? Not a great deal on the surface. They’ll still hold 30% if two drills go ahead, but perhaps March GL now has better access to funding to push Jameson Land forward. That said, I sincerely hope this doesn’t turn out to be another version of the Jay / 80M setup — where new projects are trumpeted, entities are created and funds raised, but no real progress or return for investors.

The market’s lacklustre response says a lot. “Doors blown off”? Hardly. Right now, it just feels like more layers of structure without any real substance.

Back-of-the-Envelope Financial Breakdown – 80M. Here’s a simplified financial overview based on available info and reasonable assumptions - always open to correction.

Capital Raised: £1.5m via recent placing, with approx. £1.45m net after costs.

HV Acquisition (Initial 24%): £800k in cash plus a sizeable equity component.

Cash Burn (Last 6 Months): Estimated at ~£200k.

Asset Sales:

Hamm and Out: £250k

Kangerluarsuk: $500k (~£370k)

MET1 Holding: Initially confusing due to conflicting disclosures from 80M and MET1. However, recent updates show both now confirming a reduction from 15.52% to 0%. This implies a full disposal. Using Ashton’s previously stated (and fair) estimate of 10,888,017 shares, and applying a generous 35p average price (peak value around 9 May 2025), we get £3.81m. Realistically, the average sale price was likely lower—so let’s conservatively call it £3.5m.

Total Estimated Cash Inflows:

£1.45m (placing)

£250k (Hamm and Out)

£370k (Kangerluarsuk)

£3.5m (MET1)

= £5.57m

Less:

£800k (initial HV acquisition)

£200k (recent cash burn)

= £4.57m available

Upcoming Commitments:

Further £800k likely needed to acquire the additional 25% of HV → brings available funds to £3.77m

Possible share of Greenswitch capex (full cost = £1.9m; 80M’s assumed 25% = £475k) → leaves around £3.3m

The Drill Question

No revenue from Greenswitch yet—despite upbeat commentary from the BoD—so any Disko campaign needs to come from the remaining cash.

Full Disko drill previously costed at $11.6m, and with inflation and logistical pressure, now likely closer to $12.5m (£9.2m).

With ~£3.3m potentially available, 80M currently has funding for less than a third of the expected drill cost.

So:

Do they scale the campaign down—fewer holes or shallower depths?

If so, how will the market react to a revised drill programme that falls short of the threshold KoBold previously felt was necessary?

Either way, the Disko asset remains a strategic headache. 80M’s exit from the KoBold JV has left it with full control—but also full funding responsibility. And where is the money coming from to proceed with Dundas and Thule. I'd be disappointed to see Dundas sold off merely to raise funds to adequately drill Disko.

Unbelievable (or maybe not), it once again falls to a shareholder to highlight an overly optimistic and potentially inaccurate statement within the company’s official communications. Contrary to the assertion made in the recent release, it appears that Dundas may NOT be progressing towards near-term production.

Of greater concern is the nature of a reported exchange between a shareholder and a member of the Board. The question allegedly posed (seeking clarification on whether the inclusion of a particular phrase was intentional) raises significant issues. It suggests that the shareholder knows more than the BoD member, or that a disconnect between the Board and the company’s actual operational status exists, or more plausibly, a growing lack of confidence in the accuracy and reliability of the company’s public disclosures. That the most bullish of shareholders is now highlighting the potentially inaccurate content of official statements is indicative of this erosion in trust.

Regrettably, some bullish shareholders have sought to downplay the issue, suggesting the language used was simply “standard text” and should not be taken “literally.” What tosh. Investors must be able to rely on the full accuracy and integrity of all regulatory announcements. These communications form the foundation upon which investment decisions are made. While it may be convenient to attribute such issues to the NOMAD, the responsibility ultimately rests with the Board. The consistency and credibility of company statements are vital to maintaining shareholder confidence, and at present, that credibility appears to be under serious strain. Little wonder that the market reaction to even "good" news is disappointing / muted these days.

Ashton, it has become evident that your valuations were significantly overestimated and lacked a solid foundation from the start. Now that these enormous inaccuracies have been highlighted, you appear to be backpedalling with disclaimers and qualifications, yet notably, there’s no acknowledgment or apology for how far off the mark your projections were. On the rare occasion a prediction proves accurate, you're quick to draw attention to it and claim credit. Both you and your sidekick, CC, maintain that you're unfairly criticised, yet there's a consistent pattern of self-promotion—regardless of whether your assessments are entirely inaccurate or occasionally correct. The overall impression is unconvincing and, quite frankly, nauseating.

Good spot, Botham — appreciate you sharing. This should provide some short-term support for the share price. Encouraging to see that Kangerluarsuk has a defined value and that 80M are seeing some benefit from the sale.

That said, Ashton may not be quite as pleased. The asset has been valued at $0.5 million in its current state, rising to $2.0 million if advanced to a point where a PEA, scoping study, or equivalent confirms economic extraction potential. This is a significant discrepancy compared to Ashton’s previously stated valuation of $34 million.

To put it into perspective, even the higher $2 million valuation equates to just 5.88% of Ashton's figure — a margin of error that mirrors the overestimations he also made regarding Hammaslahti and Outokumpu. Another example, perhaps, of overly ramptastic forecasting.

CC. Duh - you're mistaken once again. Let's just say that I now have a vested interest in the share price rising from this point. I'm anticipating forthcoming updates regarding Greenswitch and/or Disko. Regardless of whether the news is positive or negative, I expect the Board will present it in their usual optimistic manner, which may well result in a short-term spike in the share price.

CC. Game? No. You and Ashton increasingly resemble Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee—both seemingly intent on silencing my posts, even at the risk of jeopardising your own ability to contribute here. It’s an odd approach. If my posts truly bothered you, a simpler option would be to block me. The fact that you both continue to read and engage with them suggests you do find them of value, albeit for your own reasons. If so, I’m happy to oblige.

As a reminder, Ashton would no longer be posting had I accepted his wager. He was 100% certain there would be no fundraising towards the end of 2024—he was wrong. I declined his bet for the same reason I’ll decline yours: such challenges are little more than childish attempts to suppress alternative, fact-based opinions that do not align with your own.

Let’s simply agree to continue posting our respective views and interpretations of the facts relating to the company. That way, readers are offered a balanced perspective, rather than the one-sided bullish narrative you seem eager to promote.

Good call, CC — we both highlighted that MET1 was significantly overvalued.

I remain unclear on the exact number of MET1 shares that 80M sold, as this is now allegedly under investigation by the AIM Regulation Team. However, it is clear that 80M timed their sale very well — credit to them for that.

That said, I disapprove of their decision to disregard an agreement not to sell until December 2025. Other companies and financial institutions may well view such behaviour unfavourably, but the reality is that the sale cannot now be undone.

The MET1 share price is now beginning to reflect underlying fundamentals. There are currently over 625 million 2p warrants outstanding, with approximately 100 million already exercised. Notably, no TR-1 notifications have been issued to indicate increased holdings — which is telling. It appears likely that the new shares are being sold directly into the market for (gullible?) retail investors to absorb.

With such a large number of 2p warrants still to be exercised, I anticipate further downward pressure on the share price. While the company does benefit from the 2p proceeds of each warrant exercised, this is offset by the dilutive effect of an expanding share count — a dynamic that may not yet be fully appreciated by all investors.

In my view, MET1 shares are likely to trend back towards the 5p level by December 2025 — coincidentally, the date by which 80M had originally agreed to defer any sales. A 5p valuation would represent a more realistic reflection of the value of the Ham and Out assets, rather than the inflated price recently driven by retail speculation — with some (gullible?) investors still paying over 20p for shares newly issued for 2p. Well done to anyone that played that huge spike.

Ashton, or anyone else, got any news on Kangerluarsuk?

It, like Thunderstone, used to be listed as an asset at the end of Jay's RNSs - but both have disappeared (since July '24) - Thunderstone no longer even referred to on the 80M web site. A maiden drill for Kangerluarsuk was proposed in summer 2023 with funds from the Toward Net Zero. As we all know that money raise turned out to be a bit of a farce and was cancelled - so no money to do the maiden drill. Money was raised shortly afterwards with Sand Grove and M&G but that was distributed to other projects and the drilling of Kangerluarsuk was cancelled, statement -

"Kangerluarsuk, remains a high priority target for Bluejay, however, due to unforeseen sea-ice conditions, we have been unable to progress with our intended maiden drilling campaign. As soon as it is feasible to do so, Bluejay will re-plan and resume its maiden drilling campaign.''

Well, as far as I know, there's been no sea ice problems since so why no progression of this 'high priority target'?

In April 2024 Ashton advised -

''At the General Meeting on 5 February (which I did attend), Rod McIllree made a brief but positive comment about Kangerluarsuk. I am inclined to think Kangerluarsuk will not be included in the sale of JAY's assets. If this proves to be correct, I am unable to say when drilling might take place.

Forward wind this video interview with Rod McIllree (30 Jan 2024) to 18:45 where he says: "....there is already drill rigs deployed in Greenland, so it could be drilling on Kangerluarsuk or maybe other projects there…''

So what has happened? The 80M web site still states that Kangerluarsuk is awaiting its maiden drill and the last update remains the update on the cancelled 2023 drill due to sea ice. 2 years and zilch. Is it another dud that will slowly disappear from the list of assets? I've got a vague memory (so maybe I'm wrong on this) that RM was supposed to have once said that if Jay had it's time again he would have concentrated on Kangerluarsuk. If it's so 'valuable' why no progress and why no mention now? Has the 'high priority target' become another low priority target as the company moves on to yet more projects?

Ashton - Thank you for supplying the updated info and correct details.

So with May having come and gone some points to consider.

Ashton has told us that applications for any exploration work are required to be submitted before the end of May - doesn't look like an application has been submitted to drill Disko this year.

I've re-looked at some recent co. RNSs regarding Greenswitch. Are they a 'Hit' or a 'Miss'?'.

RNS 19th December '24 - in an effort to get a fund raise away investors told (and stressed in bold) that

'Revenue generation is expected during Q1'. Miss.

'80M expects to be able to finalise offtake agreements for 100% of the anticipated Greenswitch production.' Miss.

'Q1 2025: Restart ESO and biofuels production at expected initial capacities of 5,000 tonnes/year and 10,000 tonnes/year respectively.' Miss.

'Q2 2025: Aim to ramp up biodiesel production to 50,000 tons/year following maintenance and supply chain formalisation.' Miss.

RNS 12th February '25

'The Company remains confident of plant restart in the coming weeks once feedstock materials are received.' Delay wasn't caused by lack of feedstocks - the plant simply wasn't ready, and still isn't. Miss.

'The Company expects to provide updates on feedstock supply and offtake agreements for biofuels in the next two to four weeks….'. No update = Miss.

RNS 11th March '25

Amid loads of waffle about the ongoing refurbishment (despite the plant already having been closed for over 7 years for refurbishment) we are told

'The Directors of HV currently believe the below timeframes regarding maintenance and restart to be conservative and achievable;

Phase 1: Ongoing, due for completion prior to end of May 2025.' Miss.

I make that 7 statements that (like others from Jay / 80M) have been over optimistic and unreliable. 100% Miss rate. Message to BoD - it's better to under promise and over deliver. You really should cease issuing anymore of your overoptimistic ramblings, it's likely that your credibility is already in tatters.

Let's just hope some really good news is forthcoming soon. They have a huge hill to climb to regain any credibility. But on a positive note this report from Sunday Times might indicate a tail wind for Greenswitch, if it ever gets going. 'British Airways will be able to offer cheaper fares than its rivals after making a $3.5bn push into ‘green’ fuel that has unlocked a 40% discount to market prices.'

Since RM has re-joined the co. the market cap has indeed increased two fold but the SP is virtually unchanged, and there's still no clear path to profitability - so no real benefit to individual shareholders, who have actually been massively diluted. The share count has increased FOUR fold during that time. So existing holders now hold around 25% of the company that they once did. But by contrast RM sure has done well for himself, his share count has increased exponentially to now represents (at last figures) 13.04% of the enlarged 3,935,570,185 shares now in circulation. So hasn't he done well? For himself.