Member Info for RachT2

I recently posted to offer my opinion on what a p**s poor deal 80M got for its assets in Finland - assets it had repeatedly told investors were of strategic value. LOL. Well Enonkoski was so valuable it has disappeared altogether (ie worthless?) and Hammaslahti and Outokumpo were only worth £250k combined. Looks like the BoD at Jay / 80M might have been issuing statements that have misled investors for years. Quelle surprise. Some on this board are pinning their hopes on the retention by 80M of the rights to industrial gases on those areas it has sold to MET1 and the hope value of the shares that 80M will hold in MET1. I've previously posted my reasons on why I don't think 80M shareholders will see ANY reward from the industrial gases status so no need to repeat them now - but let's look at the value of any shares held in MET1. 80M's existing holding has already suffered massive dilution during the first 18 months since MET1 IPO'd - down by around 95%, and that will continue at pace. In fact dilution was so bad that within 2 years of floating MET1 has had a share consolidation - way to go. The recent fund raise for MET1 being an example of what lies ahead. It issued optimistic projections / valuations for the Black Schist project using an NPV5 measure rather than the usually more accepted NPV10 measure and then gave a value based on a 20% increase in the resource price. Where did they pluck 20% from? Anyway, an NPV10 measure shows that their projects are probably uneconomic - fancy that. And that's without factoring in the possibility that there might not be any 20% increase in commodity prices. No wonder they've gone with NPV5 and then added a mysterious 20% - LOL. On the day the 'deal' was announced the market (with a huge increase in volume) decided the shares were worth around 50% less. Until this morning it had bizarrely crept back up from that low to equal the level last seen in mid-July '24 (which was still 80% lower than IPO a year earlier).

Apparently the only source of funds available to MET1 was the terrible deal they announced. To pay £2m in order to raise £3m! Eh? Surely that's not right. Of £5m 'raised' they are having to pay £2m to MavDB - a company that specialises in audio transcripts, sells medical and orthopaedic goods and is apparently involved in early stage investments into AI and software projects. Note that it appears to have NO mining expertise / experience at all, let alone any expertise in Finland. Hmmm, £1m per year fees - for what exactly? Very strange deal that one. MET1 must be desperate. MET1's costs run at around £1.4m per year - so that extra £1m to MavDB adds 70% to that cost. Well you don't have to be great at maths to work out that the money from this fund raise isn't going to last long - with plans to accelerate workings and now with the additional expenses of Hammaslahti and Outokumpo there will most certainly be numerous fund raises ahead. Continued .......

CC - my sentiments entirely. The EU will play a far larger part in the affairs of Greenland than Chump - which 'side' would you choose to align yourself with if you were a Greenlander?

I thought I'd post something much more relevant than information about which nobodies are intending to have a jolly in Greenland. LOL

The following must be read in the context that actual ownership of Greenswitch is the subject of ongoing court cases in Italy - so 80M's 'purchase' might be a total disaster if HV turns out not to own it. Wouldn't that be fun.

If Greenswitch is to be the cash cow that the BoD (and some on here) would have us believe (I don't share their opinion) then surely it's in 80M's interests to acquire the remaining shares of HV asap. We are told that the recent fund raise (£1.5m) enabled the purchase of only 24% of HV; despite stating that they intended to acquire up to 49% initially. So they initially need another fund raise (£1.5m?) to buy the remaining 25% (of the stated 49%). Until such time as they do, 80M's balance sheet will only benefit from 24% of any revenue / profit from Greenswitch. Personally I very much doubt whether ANY profit (if there is any) from Greenswitch will be seen until well into 2026. It has some hefty bills to pay and will NOT be running at its most efficient / profitable for many months. The BoD previously told us (and they stressed it in BOLD) that 'Revenue generation is expected during Q1 2025'. Yet another hollow ramp that failed to materialise - LOL. We now know that revenue is now pushed back to Q2 (at the very earliest) at which time 80M will only be benefitting from 24% of any revenue / profit. Unless there is an acceptance that any money flow from Greenswitch is a long while off yet then the fundraise to buy the remaining 25% (of the initial 49%) must have some urgency. That will then leave less than 18 months for 80M to come up with another £6.05m to buy the rest of HV. If it fails to do so it could lose ownership of its stake in Greenswitch and everything it has paid thus far. Tick tock. Tick tock.

CC - Thanks for your reply. No wonder I was / am confused. If I didn't know better I'd think you are intentionally trying to confuse me 😃 You claim to use a micro investment strategy for 80M and kindly post a link to an article that informs us of exactly what attributes of a company to investigate / research when using a micro investment strategy. You then tell us that actually you ignore every suggestion listed in that article and instead choose to look solely at the performance of other companies and to infer a direct value (for 80M) from their performance(s)! You pay no heed to the balance sheets, management performance / history etc etc. Bizarre strategy you've got there. It is clearly not the strategy featured in the article you posted or indeed one that the investing community consider to be a micro investing strategy. But, as ever, good luck with your investment - and your chosen strategy. I'm pleased to have made you laugh - I hope you were as amused as I am.

CC - thanks for your prompt reply. Although it has left me none the wiser regarding your believe that Micro > Macro investing is preferable for 80M. As a long term investor (who now makes a living from my investments) I am well aware of Micro Vs Macro investing - the link you kindly posted gives a good summary of factors to take into account when favouring one strategy over the other. Let's look at your chosen Micro strategy and see how that fairs for 80M - The points below are copied verbatim from the article in your link and my comments follow in uppercase.

Key elements of micro investing

Financial statements: Micro investors scrutinise a company's financial statements, including the balance sheet, income statement, and cash flow statement. These reports provide insights into a company's financial health and profitability. OH DEAR, THAT'S NOT A GOOD START - THEY HAVE A LOUSY BALANCE SHEET, ARE PERPETUALLY LOSS MAKING AND ARE ALWAYS HAVING TO RAISE FUNDS (AT EVER LOWER PRICE POINTS).

Competitive analysis: Understanding a company's position within its industry is crucial. It provides insight into a company's competitive strengths, market share, and potential for growth in comparison to its rivals. 80M HAS NO COMPETITIVE STRENGTHS - HISTORY SHOWS US IT HAS BEEN A PERPETUAL DISAPPOINTMENT. OTHER COMPANIES (EG AMAROQ MINERALS) LEAD THE WAY.

Management evaluation: The competence and integrity of a company's management team can significantly influence its success. OH DEAR, OH DEAR - VERY POOR TRACK RECORD (BOTH AT THIS COMPANY AND OTHERS?).

Growth potential: Micro investors analyse a company's growth prospects by evaluating its products, services, market trends, and innovation potential. Companies with strong growth potential are often favoured. IN OVER A DECADE ITS GONE NOWHERE - SO THAT'S ANOTHER OH DEAR.

Valuation: Determining whether a company's share is undervalued or overvalued is central to micro investing. Valuation methods involve assessing a company's price-to-earnings ratio, price-to-book ratio, and other metrics, or building discounted cash flow models. PERPETUAL LOSS MAKING OUTFIT THAT HAS JUST OFFLOADED ITS 'STRATEGICALLY VALUABLE' FINNISH ASSETS FOR A MEASLY £250K - PRESENT MARKET CAP EXCEEDINGLY GENEROUS.

Might I be so bold as to suggest that Micro investing isn't a suitable strategy if one wants a financial reward from dealing in 80M. I am grateful for you posting the link and I refer your attention to the 3rd point - management evaluation. That quite clearly states that 'The competence and integrity of a company's management team can significantly influence its success.' I'll rest my case.

CC - 'micro factors are more important than macro factors for 80M,...' - eh? Care to explain? I haven't a clue what you mean here 😃

I did laugh at the way you delicately described my recent posts as - I 'have a point on strategy and messaging'. In fact I was calling out repeated blatant ramping statements that the company has made and which it has then repeatedly failed to follow through on. You make it sound almost an irrelevance - a mere transgression in company 'strategy and messaging'. Unfortunately it's a highly questionable method of 'strategy and messaging' that has pervaded for years and been employed on many occasions to big up multiple projects that have then failed. And cost shareholders dearly. Yet even now you ask - 'If they are not going to be fast tracked why say it.' Why did they make such similar ramping statements many times previously about all of those projects I've recently highlighted (and more)? Can't you smell the coffee yet? 🤔 Or maybe you've yet to wake up? 😃 They make such statements to big up their projects and attract investment. But alas, as time has shown, the company often then doesn't go on to do what the BoD stated it would do and the projects are worth little or nothing. Quelle surprise. I believe Industrial gasses at either location to be a non-starter, I'll not bother to repeat all of the reasons I've previously listed as to why. Present holders of 80M shares will see little or no reward from either location from industrial gasses. Let's just see if those phrases you have highlighted ("intensify", "rapid", "fast tracking" and "expanding") have been used appropriately to describe 80M's progression of it's remaining interest in Finland. Based on the many previous examples of the company failing to follow through on its stated aims I'm guessing that none of those phrases will prove to be appropriate.

You also state - 'Previous expenditure on Hammaslahti and Outokumpo are irrelevant especially in the light of the industrial gasses. discovery.' I beg to differ - they wasted money on both sites - pure and simple. You are putting all of your faith in the discovery of industrial gases. What discovery are you referring to? I can only find a statement that tells us they used the wrong machine and only sampled at / near to surface. Any interpretation of the reading presented from that erroneous combination is flawed at the starting line.

Ashton - usual antics, disregard and distraction. Totally ignore my recent posts and instead tell us the vice president's wife is having a jolly. Unbelievable. Have you nothing to say regarding my recent posts and the additional red flags highlighted? I pointed out that the value estimations you had placed on 4 of Jay / 80M's 'assets' had actually overvalued them by a factor of 166 X. You could at least apologise - if not only to the poster that you so vehemently challenged when they had suggested such assets were worth very little. Of course, they were proven to be correct and you were very very wrong. I also pointed out that your beloved company and certain members of its BoD have repeatedly misrepresented the 'strategic' value of certain assets and also repeatedly issued value adding projections (for those projects) that then failed to materialise. Certain of those projects then simply disappeared without trace. Austria, Thunderstone and Enonkoski - what happened to them? You have repeatedly informed us of your close connection(s) to the BoD of 80M; I think it is inconceivable that you have not queried the disappearance of these 'strategically valuable' assets with them. If not, why not? Had you indeed made such an inquiry I suspect you might have received either no response to your query or one that was contrary to your own excessive bias and chose not to share it with us. I'd be very pleased to be proven wrong and for you to enlighten us all as to what has happened to all the projects in Austria, Thunderstone and Enonkoski. Although I somehow doubt you'll respond or apologise.

CC - thanks for your response. Perhaps you should of added the explanatory addendums but it would surely have rendered your post meaningless / irrelevant. You say - 'in a reasonable timescale.......... or a timescale that justifies priorities over other assets.........or even a value comparable with other assets'. Those exact same metrics could be applied to every one of the 999 out of 1,000 mines that fail. One day Rodney ...........

I think Mark Twain was most astute - "A mine is a hole in the ground owned by a liar".

I'm on a roll this morning 😃. The post I made earlier pointing out Ashton's abysmal value estimations prompted me to look at the Finnish project he thought had the most value, Enonkoski. Well the more you dig (get it 🤣) the more this company's BoD raises some very pertinent questions. In fact I think it stinks. I've already posted to query what happened to the 'strategically' valuable assets in Austria and of Thunderstone - both obviously duds as Jay / 80M just ceased to mention them. No notice to investors at all - just swept under the carpet. Rinse and repeat and move on to the next 'here and now' story. It is increasingly apparent that this is becoming the BoD's preferred tactic - tell investors they have great assets in an attempt to bleed them for money but when they turn out to be duds switch to silence. Well I've found yet another 'strategically' valuable 'asset' that just seems to have disappeared. In an RNS of the 24/7/23 we are told that the Hammaslahti Project, the Enonkoski Project and the Outokumpu Project are all owned by Jay's 100% owned subsidiary - FinnAust Mining Finland Oy. Well we all know that Enonkoski was a dud and that Rio consequently walked away - but the RNS of that news from Jay was (as always) ramptastic and bigged the situation up implying how fortunate Jay was to retain 100% of the licence. LOL. Then silence. Fast forward to the RNS of 2 days ago telling us that MET1 is acquiring 100% of FinnAust Mining Finland Oy - can anyone spot any reference to the 'strategically' valuable Enonkoski project? All I see is Hammaslahti and Outokumpu. That makes 3 duds that they don't want investors to be aware of (Austria, Thunderstone and now Enonkoski), all of which were bigged up and claimed to be valuable. But rather than come clean and inform their investors / the market they (as usual) simply ceased to mention them. Appalling standards for the BoD of a listed company.

Ashton. In late 2023 in response to a poster who had queried your comments questioning the value of those 'assets' you had said Jay could be selling (to avoid another fund raise) you repeatedly posted saying that they were worth far more than the poster had suggested. Ramptastic. Obviously your decision to invest (and repeatedly average down) in Jay / 80M was / is based on what you perceive(d) its assets to be worth. On the 29/12/23 you posted your estimate of the value of the 'assets' at -

Dundas - US$22m

Kangerluarsuk - US$34m

Thunderstone - US$5

Enonkoski - US$27m

Hammaslahti - US$7.5m

Outokumpu - US$7.5m

Regarding the last 4 'assets' on the list. Well we now know that Thunderstone is worthless and the Finnish assets are only worth £250k. That is less than 0.6% of the value that you suggested those 'assets' were worth. Oh dear, your valuations have been shown to be EXTREMELY inaccurate. Let's just hope that your abysmal standard of estimating values doesn't extrapolate to the rest of 80M's assets. LOL.

PS As yet you have not replied to my challenge with your guess as to the level that the next imminent fundraise might be set at. I'm guessing 0.22p. What's yours?

CC - referring to the WHOLE of the Finish assets you state they - 'could never realise value'. When, and why, did you come to realise that bombshell? The BoD have always told us it's worth significant amounts to shareholders yet you state different. I can't recall you posting that opinion before.

CC - your post refers twice to concentrating on the 'here and now'. For you it appears to be perfectly acceptable to ignore the many former misleading / ramping / BS statements issued by the BoD in their attempt to source ever more money from investors. If I am investing in a company I (unlike both you and Ashton) prefer to have a very strong regard for the BoD's previous trustworthiness, reliability and performance. The 'here and now' latest wonder story the BoD creates is of minimal interest to me if all of their previous wonder story projects have failed and shareholder value has been decimated. I also pay regard to how well individual BoD members have performed while at other companies. Concentrating on the 'here and now' is why 999 out of 1000 mining projects do nothing more than bleed investors of their money, enrich the BoD and ultimately fail. Suggesting that the paltry amount received from the sale was great because it 'reduces cost, increases focus and more importantly helps with the here and now on projects' is, quite frankly, laughable. So you readily excuse the BoD for the many many previous statements telling us how wonderful / valuable the Finnish assets are, only to find it's actually worth peanuts. Obviously no other company was interested / prepared to pay more - surely that tells you something. And yet you are desperately trying to put a positive spin on the sale. Amazing. For fun let's review some ramping comments previously made about these 'valuable' Finnish assets and of course the usual idle talk of 'strategic investors' and partners. Still, let's ignore all the misleading and unreliable past statements and concentrate on the 'here and now'. LOL

…'we remain fully committed to expanding our exploration efforts and delivering meaningful, long-term value for our shareholders'. / '...an increasingly critical resource for advanced technologies- further enhances the strategic value of this project. These results underscore the significant opportunities that lie ahead for Hammaslahti, and we remain fully committed to expanding our exploration efforts and delivering meaningful, long-term value for our shareholders.' / 'We have only begun to scratch the surface at Outokumpu. We are committed to accelerating our work program ….' / '...development of industrial gasses, and illustrates our commitment to maximize shareholder value.' / 'our advanced discussions with several strategic investors and possible joint venture partners.' / 'It marks an important step towards a more balanced focus between our Finnish and Greenlandic assets and our intention to drive value creation across the entire Bluejay project portfolio. At modest expenditure we expect to be able to fast-track the near-mine exploration at Hammaslahti into a Mineral Resource Estimate for this brownfields site. The project benefits from excellent modern infrastructure, including high voltage power, heavy rail, and a double-lane paved highway adjacent to the former mine

Typical Ashton - again, rather than address the issue you choose to ignore the actual news and attempt to deflect attention. The issue today is that virtually all LTHs will have been shocked to find that an asset they have repeatedly been told is valuable / globally significant / great for shareholder value etc etc turns out to be worth peanuts. Unless you were already aware of just how little it was worth you also must have been shocked at today's news. Of course, to show that shock would have been contrary to your extreme bias and your perpetual ramping of 80M - so you (as usual) instead deflect and ignore the issue. Do you address the fact that the Finnish assets are worth only £250k and some confetti shares? No, you question LWHL about their interpretation of the data. Then attempt to deflect attention away by attempting to bring the conversation around to JL, and then onto Disko. Laughable. Same old Ashton. Why not have the gumption to address the issue of today? Equally amusing, you then have the gall to say 'I would like to see people who claim to see more balanced posts practice what they preach.' LOL. I assume your comment is aimed at either myself and / or LWHL. Surely you've not read the posts we've both made today thoroughly? You've obviously missed the balance. I pointed out the positive - they actually got something for it rather than their normal practice of just letting an 'asset' slip into obscurity when it proves to be worthless. That is honestly the ONLY positive I can see here. If I was really pushed I could also see the fact that 80M BoD can no longer BS their investors about the worth of their Finnish projects as also being a positive. But that's it. What positives do you see? If I do see a positive I'm not averse to posting - but thus far, I've yet to see ANYTHING positive from this company. We'll have to agree to disagree. I post my own opinion on the various FACTS that are available; and you post yours. You see 80M as being a great investment; presumably you think it's a well run company, staffed by a trustworthy and reliable BoD, with a great record of improving shareholder value and with a rosey future ahead of it. At this moment in time I don't!

In reply to your question re ''(vi) obligations on the parties to jointly operate the production of industrial gasses under the Licences with Metals One receiving a management fee on eligible expenses in respect of such operations." I would consider that as a positive covenant, almost certainly unenforceable on anyone other than the original purchaser. So 80M could initially struggle to get even MET1 to abide by it and surely all MET1 has to do (if it wants to be sole beneficiary of any value from such gasses) is to transfer the holding to another entity. Perhaps another company with the same staff / BoD? So even if 80M appear to have retained rights over gasses enforcing such perceived rights may well prove difficult / impossible. But I'm no expert in international law so

What's that I can smell - the usual farmyard aroma surrounding an 80M RNS. Not quite 5 months ago 80M tells us 'The detection of geological hydrogen and helium at surface at the Hammaslahti Project aligns with 80 Mile's broader strategy to diversify its resource base and expand its industrial gas portfolio. These measurements build upon previous exploration successes and offer a unique opportunity to position the Company as a leader in hydrogen and helium exploration in Finland. In light of these findings, 80 Mile intends to continue and intensify its gas sampling programme across its Finnish licenses, further evaluating the region's industrial gas potential.' All of which was obviously complete and utter rubbish - they didn't intensify their gas sampling programme (or at least haven't informed the market that they have) and are most certainly not a leader in this space; or indeed in ANY space.

At the same time Eric gave us yet another example of the reliability and trustworthiness we've become accustomed to experiencing from his utterances. Over to you Eric for another shameful ramp that didn't materialise - ''The detection of hydrogen and helium at Hammaslahti is a major development for 80 Mile, reinforcing the exceptional potential of this region for industrial gas resources. Hydrogen is a key component in the global shift towards cleaner energy, and the presence of helium - an increasingly critical resource for advanced technologies- further enhances the strategic value of this project. These results underscore the significant opportunities that lie ahead for Hammaslahti, and we remain fully committed to expanding our exploration efforts and delivering meaningful, long-term value for our shareholders." Oooops, £250k and some confetti shares? Wow, amazing! But at least we now have a good idea of what Eric perceives as 'long term value for our shareholders'. On a slightly brighter note, at least they got something for it - unlike some of their other dud 'assets' that they simply cease to mention and let fade away. 🤣

Oh dear oh dear. There's a realistic indication of the worth of 80M's Finnish assets - £250k. So all the talk of selling assets to raise funds has resulted in not one credible company showing any interest. Instead we have MET1 (who haven't got a pot to p**s in) acquiring it.

As recently as August Eric was (as I commented at the time) jumping on the hydrogen / helium bandwagon and telling us just how great Finland was. Even stating 'We have started dialogue with European groups with regards to progressing future work streams in a manner that is not dilutive to existing shareholders.' So holding only 10% (of such a wonderful asset) instead of 100% is not dilutive. WTF Eric - looks like another rather misleading RNS, but reliably true to form. So now 80M will only hav a 10% stake in MET1 - and MET1 will now need to have even more fund raises to progress work on its existing projects and the 'asset' acquired from 80M. MET1's recent fund raise was at a 53% discount and 80M were in no position to subscribe for more shares - the value of 80M's share (in MET1) was reduced from £3.25m to a low of £140k - a 96% drop. £250k is likely to be it - there doesn't look like much prospect of gaining much else from this 'sale'. Helium and hydrogen are a nonstarter. 80M will be diluted to near oblivion during the many many years while awaiting for any value to be realised here. FinnAust (with Clayton onboard) held these 'assets' over a decade ago since which time FinnAust (with Clayton and then RM onboard), Jay and now 80M have talked them up relentlessly. But yet it's true worth today is a mere £250k!

Clayton now acquires the area he knows has gone nowhere in the decade since it was last in his stable. Still, he can now tell his MET1 punters how wonderful it is and keep his own gravy train going. These guys all appear to have very similar MOs. But note this - less than 1 in a 1000 mining prospects ever make it to production. So for every 1 success there's 999 that just take punters' money, enrich the BoD and come to nothing. As I've recently pointed out, they just let dud 'assets' slip into obscurity and hope nobody notices. What happened to Thunderstone? For some time prior to RM joining FinnAust (and for some time after) the company claimed to have projects in Greenland, Finland and Austria. But one day the 'assets' in Austria simply ceased to be mentioned. In RNS of 19/9/2016 Austria was mentioned but just over a week later in the RNS of 27/9/2016 there was no mention. And Austria was never mentioned again! A whole country's 'assets' simply swept under the carpet - obviously more duds the BoD wanted investors to simply forget about.

All in all a very disappointing start to the day.

Well at least we both started the day with a good laugh 🤣

Wow, if you are chilled you are one cool dude. Even at an average of 0.3p that's c. £60k you've got invested. I don't mind telling you I would not be chilled having c. £60k invested here. Are you sure it's not keeping you up at nights? - your posts were made at strange hours 😃 Still, money is always relative.

Anyway, considering the sums you say you've got invested here I really do wish you good luck.

Ashton - I've recommended your post! Thanks for posting all the info re Chump / Greenland - your posts on this matter are seemingly balanced and apropos.

'3p+ this summer' - HaHaHaHa PMSL. Carrying on dreaming CB. That's a very poor attempt to ramp.

Very misleading of you to say 'Rach constantly insists it’s all going to end in tears.....'. I do nothing of the sort, I merely point out the many many red flags; you can interpret those facts and information as you wish. It may indeed all end in tears - you need to define 'tears'. Loosing 99% of the value of an investment could bring some to tears, well there's probably a few lths in that position already. If going forward there is more dilution, fund raises, no sales, no profit, etc then perhaps more investors will be reduced to tears? Has FinnAust produced any profit or successfully partnered a business to produce income in all the time it's been going? Clue - NO. It's changed it's name a few times and enriched certain BoD members but lths have seen enormous losses. If by 'end in tears' you mean collapse / bankrupt / taken private then those are all possibilties, but I'd expect the BoD to keep their gravy train rolling for as long as they can. Usual tactic, whip up a new 'fantastic' project to entice punters - and simply let the duff ones fade into history. Thunderstone being a good example.

'Soon I hope' - you are beginning to sound desperate in your attempt to ramp - 80M must have been a poor investment for you so far, even though you have posted your acknowledgement of the skulduggery often evident within the AIM. And yet you seem to think that isn't applicable to 80M? Bizarre.

Why would Anglo be interested in 80M? It has it's own enormous licence close by and could of snapped up 80M at anytime in the last decade. Rio partnered - but then parted company. One or 2 billionaires might invest - Bill & Jeff did, but that hasn't gone anywhere fast.

Anyway, dream on and good luck with your investment.

Surely Chump's unacceptable rhetoric will only serve to drive most Greenlanders toward a pact with the EU. How much clearer do they have to make their message - yet Chump persists with his annexation ideaolgy. He's a danger.

Big increase in the usual daily volume today. Romain Picard (looks like his claims have fizzled to nothing) noted that such volume increases have often been a pre-cursor to a fund raise. Watch this space 😉