Member Info for RachT2

CC / IvR - I have previously stated that I like to see both bull and bear posts. That hasn't changed. If I were to block THE most prolific ramper I'd be denied the ability to provide bearish counter arguments to the majority of the hollow, proxy like ramptastic nonsense that appears on this board.

What I do concede though is that engaging with Ashton is utterly futile. The selective manner in which he deigns to respond to observations, queries, red flags etc merely serves again to highlight the excessive and unyielding bias he has towards 80M. Following the suggestion that he is a proxy I've looked over some of his posts and they certainly do resemble those one would expect from a proxy - and he has often claimed to be in direct contact with the Co. Yet CC was unable to elicit a single response from the company regarding his recent legitimate query regarding a possible breach of AIM Regulations. Fancy that. On one occasion Ashton announced that he had established that at least one poster on the board was an ex-employee of Jay. Now that sort of information doesn't appear on RNSs. Of course, he wouldn't name them yet. Strangely he never has.

Ashton - Is that your evidence? Basically, you are unable to prove that none of the Kobold 7 are matches for any of the 20+ previously highlighted by Jay. "Kobold did confirm bla bla…." Of course they, just like their partner, said quite a few things that turned out not to have actually been reliable, did they not? But as always, your blinkered perspective, or proxy position, means that you'll simply ignore the many other messages that put a contradiction on the integrity of their statements.

Ashton, credit where it’s due—you’ve finally responded to one of the red flags I raised. But it’s disappointing you continue to ignore the many others and instead fall back on the same blinkered “look to the future” argument. Meanwhile, the market clearly hasn’t shared your optimism about JAY / 80M during all the time you've been ramping it. So who’s more likely to be right—the entire market or just you?

Back to the point: I’ll respond this time, but if you persist with your regular child like tactic of “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours first” routine, don’t expect the same courtesy again. Put up or shut up.

On 1 Feb 2022, JAY stated:

"Bluejay's assessment and investigation over the last several years has identified MORE than 20 drill-ready targets on licence holdings at Disko-Nuussuaq. Of the targets defined, notably, there are seven large conductive targets previously defined by Vismand Exploration and Avannaa Resources and reconfirmed by Bluejay."

Unless you can show the exact locations of those MORE than 20 drill-ready targets, there’s no way to prove the current Jay/Kobold targets are either new or original. If you’re so very confident, track those targets down and show us that NONE matches the Kobold 7. Should keep you busy.

As you said: “No deflection or diversion—just produce the evidence.”

Ashton is once again attempting to spin a failing narrative, but the effort is becoming increasingly hollow and transparent. The U-turns and revisionist takes aren’t just unconvincing—they undermine credibility. Let’s break down the latest round of questionable assertions.

“KoBold could be under pressure from its high-profile investors to make rapid progress.” Based on what evidence? If there’s a credible source to support this claim, it should be presented. Otherwise, it’s yet another example of speculative commentary masquerading as analysis.

You’ve repeatedly posted that Greenland—and by extension, Disko—is of strategic importance to the U.S. and its private sector. Has that position changed? If not, why would KoBold walk away from a pre-existing agreement (and foothold In the country) tied to a supposedly high-value asset? Your argument seems misplaced.

“KoBold has raised US$938 million. Can it continue raising further funds?” Of course it can. Backers like Bill Gates and Breakthrough Energy don’t suggest a lack of confidence. To now question KoBold’s future funding ability completely contradicts your earlier posts, which (when it suited you) you rellished in their strong capital base and high-profile support.

“Seven priority targets have been identified at Disko.” That statement misleads by omission. These targets were already outlined by Jay before KoBold’s involvement. If they’re different targets, show the evidence. Otherwise, let’s not rewrite history to support a shifting narrative.

Now to the suggestion that KoBold made a shrewd move by spending a “PALTRY” $13.4 million. If the asset is as prospective as previously claimed, why not commit an additional “PALTRY” amount—the approximate cost of the agreed drilling—to secure a 49% stake? By your own past logic, a successful campaign would have significantly increased Disko’s value. Choosing instead to walk away and accept a 2% NSR—of undefined value and uncertain realization—doesn’t align with that strategy. It’s a contradiction that weakens your new position. Risk it all for less than 1.5% of the capital already raised? Really?

And no doubt, if another partner emerges, you'll be back to promoting it loudly. Yet you now describe KoBold’s exit terms as a “lucrative deal.” That’s a contradiction.

Finally, the phrase “I prefer to look to the future” doesn’t absolve the past. The track record includes inflated projections, downplayed regulatory risks, and a clear lack of delivery to shareholders. These issues deserve acknowledgment—not dismissal.

CC. Serious question. Have you conducted a recent SPF check? Sun protection is no joke—experts agree, letting your nose turn a suspicious shade of mahogany is frowned upon. Proceed with sunscreen.

CC – It appears that the AIM Regulations Team is currently reviewing the matter. Hopefully, any potential shortcomings in the two companies’ approach to their fiduciary duties and obligations to shareholders will be appropriately addressed.

CC. I thought it might be constructive to explore an alternative channel to help address your query. However, based on your post and your own admission of not being ‘intelligent enough’ it now appears that your own assessment may indeed reflect your level of intellect. As always, I wish you all the best with your investing – based on your conduct, it seems you may well need it. 😉

On a more substantive note, it may be worthwhile for an interested party to consider contacting the AIM Regulations Team to request clarification or a response from one or both of the related companies.

Ashton, It’s disappointing that there has been no acknowledgment from you of the BoDs' apparent disregard for shareholder interests. There has also been no comment on the lack of disclosure regarding material, price-sensitive information—something the BoD has a clear responsibility to communicate.

Several of us, including CC, are still awaiting a response. Yet rather than addressing these important concerns, your latest post once again suggests a positive outcome for 80M, without addressing any of the fundamental issues at hand.

Let me ask you directly: Have you asked the Board whether they have sold 100% of their holding in MET1? Or is it that, because the answer might contradict your consistently optimistic narrative, you're choosing not to pursue it?

I’d welcome your candid input on this matter.

CC. It is certainly disappointing, though not entirely surprising, that the company has failed to respond to what appear to be multiple attempts to seek clarification. For a shareholder asking legitimate and relevant questions, the lack of engagement is troubling. Unfortunately, if the company is prepared to push the boundaries in other areas of market regulation, then it seems unlikely they would show any greater regard for shareholder transparency.

There does appear to be a willingness to disclose information selectively—particularly when it suits the company’s narrative. For instance, certain individuals such as Ashton seem to have privileged access, and are quick to disseminate information via this BB. It gives the impression that he may have a direct line to the Board. Perhaps he could be encouraged to raise this specific query—whether the company sold its entire holding in MET1 or only 6.25 million shares—as this is clearly a matter of material, price-sensitive information that should be clarified.

Ben. With respect to the Kobold deal, I must respectfully disagree. The company has relinquished a 49/51% interest in a project that has repeatedly been compared to Norilsk in terms of potential. In exchange, they have retained only a 2% royalty on a figure that remains undefined and may never materialise. That a well-capitalised organisation like Kobold—backed by influential investors—would accept such terms is difficult to rationalise. Should they ever need to raise further capital, there is little doubt they could do so with ease.

Some have argued that U.S. strategic interest in Greenland could enhance Disko’s value, particularly if it can serve as a counterbalance to Russian operations such as Norilsk. If Disko holds the potential we've been led to believe, Kobold’s exit from the partnership raises questions. Is it a case of the project falling short of expectations, or are there deeper strategic conflicts at play? Kobold’s commitment to environmental sustainability may have clashed with 80M’s pivot towards hydrocarbons. When Kobold joined the project, Jay described them as “a credible and reliable partner that shares our commitment to environmental sustainability.” That stance appears to have shifted following RM’s ascension and the sale of WFE to Jay—potentially motivated more by personal gain than strategic coherence.

CC – no problem at all. I must admit, I’m finding it difficult to interpret the figures involved—perhaps that was the intended effect?

I've requested clarification from MET1 regarding the apparent discrepancy between their RNS, which stated that 80M had reduced its holding from 15.52% to zero, and 80M's own claim that only 6.25 million shares were sold. I’ll share any response I receive as soon as it's available.

Regarding your other points:

1. Response to Ramping Posts:

The claim that I “never fail to respond to anyone who puts a positive spin on 80M” is inaccurate. I often choose not to respond to the more obviously opportunistic posters, particularly those who appear suddenly and post exaggerated or misleading information aimed at ramping. Their commentary often speaks for itself. Similarly, I don't always reply to longer-term bullish contributors when I have nothing substantive to add. A quick review of my post history would likely show that I don’t engage with every optimistic post.

2. Posting Frequency:

While it's possible I’ve become one of the more frequent contributors on the board, the notion that bearish sentiment now outweighs bullish sentiment isn’t supported by the overall thread history. Despite the positive narrative the company continues to present—and that is frequently echoed by some posters—shareholder value has declined over time. There have been multiple fundraises, several overly ambitious projections that have failed to materialise, and assets previously described as “valuable” have quietly been dropped. Red flags worthy of attention I'm sure you'll agree. Kobold’s recent exit, surrendering a 49% stake in exchange for minimal value, also raises serious concerns.

3. Finnish Asset Deal:

Yes, I was openly critical of the deal involving the Finnish assets. Despite the Board’s prior enthusiasm about the potential of those resources, they were ultimately sold for £250k, some shares in MET1, and rights to industrial gases. At the time, the transaction did not seem to reflect the previously stated optimism. While MET1’s share price has since risen significantly, it was understood that 80M would be unable to monetise their stake until December. You yourself have mentioned that MET1 might be overvalued. In hindsight, 80M appears to have managed to capitalise earlier than expected, but hindsight always brings clarity. My initial assessment was based on the information available at the time. I stand by that call and am comfortable to revisit this matter in 2026.

Ashton, your nonsense about nothing more than semantics is unproductive, irrelevant and boring. Your flippant disregard for the many red flags I raise as being nothing more than FUD is equally unproductive, irrelevant and boring. Let's discuss more pertinent matters.

Shareholders were initially informed that Greenswitch would be in production and generating revenue by Q1. This has clearly not occurred. We were subsequently told the delay was due to a lack of feedstock, only to later learn that the real issue was the plant refurbishment, which had not yet been completed. So nothing to do with feedstocks then? This raises questions: was there a misunderstanding, or were stakeholders misled?

We have since been advised that, despite the plant having been idle for seven years, three phases of works remain outstanding. This does not reflect well on HV / Greenswitch’s operational efficiency. Even so, the projected timelines for completion and restart were described as "conservative and achievable." With May nearly over, we now await confirmation that Phase 1 has been completed and production has commenced—but expectations are understandably muted. Tick tock.

It’s worth considering whether ongoing uncertainty and underperformance are contributing to broader challenges in the sector. After all, production is only part of the equation—market demand is equally critical. Repeated reports such as the following do little to inspire confidence:

“Greenergy, one of Britain’s four remaining biodiesel plants, is at risk of being shut because of competition from subsidised American imports, in the latest sign of distress in the biofuels sector.”

These market conditions could have significant implications for Greenswitch’s commercial viability.

Ashton, your persistent attempts to score points are becoming tiresome. Anyone who has followed this board for a reasonable length of time will be well aware of the numerous occasions on which your posts have proven to be inaccurate or misleading. Unlike you, I won’t bore readers by listing those examples, though there is certainly a substantial collection. To be fair, I don’t place all the blame on you — you appear to function as a mouthpiece for the 80M Board of Directors, frequently echoing their overly optimistic narratives. Unfortunately, both you and the company consistently omit key details when it suits the message. What became of the Austrian assets, Enonkoski, Thunderstone, and others that were once promoted as highly valuable? They’ve quietly disappeared from updates without explanation.

I do sincerely hope 80M is able to secure a partner for the Disko project. It’s increasingly possible that you may be right in suggesting an announcement on that front is imminent. One wonders when the Board was first informed of Kobold’s decision to exit and when the termination agreement was actually signed. You've not mentioned any recent meetings between Kobold and 80M — the last you referenced involved a sizable delegation from Kobold. Could it be that the decision to terminate the partnership was made then? It certainly seems plausible.

As for the bearish commentary I post: I would gladly reduce it if the Board refrained from issuing over-optimistic projections and repeatedly failing to meet targets. Furthermore, previously “valuable” projects are quietly dropped with no shareholder updates or any attempt to explain why such 'valuable' assets are no longer considered 'valuable' and have become not even worthy of a mention.

And yet, you continue to portray 80M as a compelling investment opportunity — a view not apparently shared by either Bill or Geoff. 🤣

Thank you for your response. However, are you certain that MET1’s disclosure is inaccurate? Reporting a reduction in holding to zero percent is an unambiguous statement.

It’s worth noting that, on the same day the 6.25 million shares were reportedly sold (9 May), MET1 also announced an increase in the total issued share capital due to the exercise of warrants—raising the share count from 65,354,750 to 70,154,750, an increase of 4.8 million shares.

15.52% of either share count equates to significantly more than the 6.25 million shares 80M stated were sold—specifically, 10,143,057 shares (based on the pre-warrant figure) or 10,888,017 shares (based on the post-warrant figure).

Prior to the sale of the Finland projects, 80M held 6.25 million shares in MET1 (post-consolidation). As part of the Finland asset disposal, 80M was entitled to additional MET1 shares—specifically, “such number of ordinary shares in MET1 that equals 10% of the issued share capital as enlarged by the issue of new ordinary shares pursuant to the exercise of all warrants.”

Therefore, based on this information, 80M should have held significantly more than 6.25 million shares in MET1 on 9 May. If they only sold the 6.25 million shares as stated, the logical conclusion is that 80M still holds a substantial number of MET1 shares. Is that your interpretation as well?

Continued...

I imagine in the fullness of time we'll get to know the actual facts but today's RNS (from 80M) mentions only the selling of the initial holding of shares (6.25m after consolidation) - but the MET1 news states a TOTAL exit of 80M’s entire holding (from 15.52% to zero) which, as Ashton has confirmed, is nearer 10.888m shares. Now both sources can't be correct so why the differing figures? In this instance I agree with Ashton's tally (but we could both be wrong) - so is 80M again talking rubbish or is MET1 mistaken?

CC - valid questions. Thanks for your comments, always good to know my efforts are appreciated 🤣🤣😉

Oh dear, oh dear. I'll get accused (again) of being a FUD spreader - but this is not good news, it really isn't. The rampers will desperately try to paint a rosey picture and the BoD has done more t**d polishing, just like they did when Rio walked away. Anyone care to remind me what became of that ‘valuable’ asset that was to be advanced anytime soon? Oh, that's right, Enonkoski has simply disappeared. Talk of the market having overlooked this or overlooked that is complete and utter c@@p, the market NEVER overlooks a single thing. If you're lucky to get in / out before the market knows something you can make a fortune. But once news is out only an idiot (or a ramper) will imply you can outpace / outsmart the market; despite what Amy will try to tell you. Amy (and Ashton indirectly) also tell us they're likely to have another partner lined up already. Really? So let's all agree this is substantial share price moving news; are the rampers inferring that the BoD of 80M sat on the news for so long they were all the while in discussions with a third party? Or that they have been in discussions with a 3rd party long enough for that 3rd party to have done due diligence etc? Unlikely eh? Irrespective of those concerns, the chance of another 3rd party having quite the same level of cache, credibility and kudos as Kobold are next to negligible. 80M will not of wanted Kobold to exit so surely it's unlikely that they were courting a ‘lesser’ 3rd party. Will any new partner be yet another company that has been formed in the last few weeks solely for this instance? Yet another company that.nobody knows anything about? Just like HV and March GL? Kobold’s exit will most certainly have devalued Disko, even if 80M have retained 100% and go on to drill it themselves. Let's not forget that Kobold were due to spend $11.6m on this project, and that was some time ago. Allowing for subsequent inflation that figure will now be nearer $12.5+m. Where on earth is 80M going to source even a fraction of that? Sure, it has just received £1.97m - my arithmetic tells me that is less than a quarter of what was planned / needed.

If Disko really is worth as much as some rampers tell us it is, why, oh why, would a highly respected, experienced and EXCEPTIONALLY WELL FUNDED outfit like Kobold walk away for peanuts? They've sacrificed 49% of this ‘enormously’ valuable asset for some used equipment and a 2% NSR - income that may never occur, or if it does, won't be happening for years and years. Kobold hasn't taken this decision without due diligence and prior expert knowledge (and they should know) - yet here we are, they have kissed goodbye to 80M. Makes you wonder what they know doesn't it?

Continued....

EB - 'more objective about your posting. Seems you are constantly trying to warp things to fit the narrative you want.' says the perpetual bottom feeding ramping flipper - talk about hypocrite. You ramp incessantly on your latest share of interest - same old tactics every time, big it up and try to belittle others with an opinion contrary to you own. A look at your BS on RBD, ATM, TIR etc etc is comical. The price graph for the shares you are vocal about all follow the same pattern - shareholder value down 95+%, then you start peddling your crap telling everyone what a great buy it is. Predictable BB nonsense. Still, good luck to you - it's one way to make money, but long term holders shouldn't listen to a word you say.

CC, whilst I thank you for your reply I'm left wondering why you've shared your qualifications—they have no relevance regarding your lack of knowledge of AIM regulations, nor do they explain your dismissive tone toward contributors who may not currently hold shares in your preferred company.

"diverting tactic": I simply cited the applicable AIM regulations that the Board of Directors at 80M should have followed. If you believe it is acceptable for 80M to disregard regulatory obligations and fail to notify (its own) shareholders of a development that is substantial, price-sensitive, and involves a related party, that is your prerogative.

As for the statement “If he thinks it’s a good deal, it’s a good deal,” I assume that was meant as more humour. If not, it’s difficult to take seriously. Who is Zinky, and why would their change of opinion carry any weight? Relying on such arbitrary sources for your investment advice suggests your investment strategy is seriously flawed.

I’ve previously stated that I do not want 80M to fail. I've previously benefited from trading its price volatility, capitalising on the predictable cycles driven by overly optimistic announcements. Unfortunately, even positive news is now met with lacklustre market response—perhaps an indication that investors are beginning to lose confidence due to a pattern of under delivered expectations.

CC. Yawn? How comical - you really are becoming quite the joke(r). Claim to have some financial qualifications and claim to invest using a micro investing strategy; but then admit that you aren't “intelligent enough” to perform even the most basic of tasks required to use that strategy. So actually turns out that you don't use a micro strategy - despite your claim. Now you are posting your lack of knowledge about fundamental AIM regulations. It appears that your claimed qualifications count for very little. You then compound your obvious ignorance by being dismissive of an opinion contrary to your own merely because it comes from someone who hasn't confirmed that they are a share holder in 80M and to question whether they should even be posting on this board. I wonder what you will post next to highlight your level of ‘intelligence’. I can't wait.

I do apologise for highlighting your lack of credibility, but I'd hate to think that potential investors were swayed by the bullish posts of someone who has such a poor knowledge base and has described themselves as not ‘intelligent enough’. All the best and good luck with your investment.

CC – Your Understanding of AIM Regulations Appears Flawed

You have stated that you were a Chartered Financial Planner and IMC qualified, yet your interpretation of AIM regulations suggests a troubling lack of comprehension. Unfortunately, it seems you're not alone in this misunderstanding, as evidenced by others on this board.

You wrote: “I agree they should provide an RNS but is it a legal requirement?”

Let’s clarify that with reference to the AIM Rules for Companies, easily verified via any reputable source, including ChatGPT or Google.

The sale of the entire holding by a company—particularly one that constitutes well over 10% of its market value—is both material and substantial by any reasonable standard. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. This situation is clearly governed by the following rules:

AIM Rule 11 – General Disclosure of Price Sensitive Information

A company must issue an announcement without delay if a development—previously unknown to the public—would likely result in a significant movement in the share price. This includes any material disposal.

AIM Rule 12 – Substantial Transactions

Any transaction qualifying as a substantial disposal requires notification to the market. If deemed a fundamental disposal, shareholder approval may also be required.

A “substantial transaction” is defined as one where any of the class tests (assets, profits, turnover, etc.) result in a figure of 10% or more.

AIM Rule 13 – Related Party Transactions

If applicable, further disclosure obligations may arise.

Summary:

If a company listed on AIM disposes of its entire holding in another business:

If the holding is material to the company’s operations, financial position, or valuation, Rule 11 mandates immediate disclosure.

If the disposal triggers any of the class tests at or above 10%, Rule 12 requires market notification, and possibly shareholder approval.

To excuse the Board for what appears to be a clear breach of these obligations—particularly when the transaction is material in scale—is to ignore established market regulations. Such failures undermine investor confidence and will not go unnoticed by institutional investors or potential partners in the future.

EB – Your proposal that 80M should walk away from a binding agreement simply because “more often than not these agreements are not adhered to” is both baseless and irresponsible. If you are going to make such a sweeping claim, you should be prepared to provide concrete evidence to support it.

Encouraging a company to break its contractual obligations not only undermines its credibility but also invites serious reputational and legal consequences. If 80M were to follow such advice, it would be viewed as untrustworthy and uninvestable—an outcome no serious business should entertain.

These are the tactics of poorly governed companies on the fringes of the market. I would hope 80M has not fallen to that level.