Member Info for RachT2

Bez / ennuff / LWHL - thank you for your kind words gents (or ladies?).

enuff - I think that's always been the way to play Jay, I'm grateful for small but multiple gains here and there. Even if things come good for Jay I think it highly unlikely to be as good as some people are speculating. I expect share holder value to suffer further along Jay's twisted path - there will be too many dilutions worsened still by greedy options regularly being dished out and excercised. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) the 'usual suspects' and perpetual bulls will lick their wounds and start posting soon enough; they need to convince others (and maybe themselves) that all is rosey with Jay - despite the many many red flags. The SP see-saw will perpetuate, thus creating more chances to profit. I think one such opportunity may be upon us.

Well today's laugh has been supplied by Jay itself. I've posted for the last few months that a fund raise was imminent and that it would be at a discounted price of around 0.30p - well today has confirmed my suspicions, EXACTLY. Hopefully all those that chose to ignore the fact that RM and his chums have repeatedly misled shareholders in the past now appreciate that it is utter folly to rely on pretty much anything the Jay BoD may tell you, or indeed, those posters that continually repeat their BS. How many times have they recently said they wouldn't be diluting, or indeed fund raising? How many times previously have they issued misleading dates and targets for various projects? Perhaps some people still believe that a leopard can change his spots - well this leopard sure isn't looking any different than it ever has done. They've recently diluted shareholders by another 22% by buying an associated company, WF, at an artificially inflated price - a company with less than £200k in the bank, no chance of getting a partner and no chance of furthering its 'projects'. They will dilute shareholders further by around another 21% whenever they decide to acquire the rest of WF for yet more Jay shares, which of course they will do as shareholders recently voted through the ridiculous terms of the acquisition granting RM and his chums carte blanche on timing - irrespective of the value of WF. So that combined with today's dilution makes KNOWN dilution to be around 60%+. Way to go Jay.

Despite posts to suggest otherwise it's pretty obvious that Jay DO NOT have any buyers waiting in the wings ready to stump up cash for any assets. They obviously DO NOT have any state agency or government department waiting in the wings ready to supply funds. They obviously DO NOT have any company worth it's salt ready to partner it. We are told that £1.5m (less costs so probably £1.4m) will fund all of this -

Preparation for Disko 2025 fieldwork as well as stakeholder engagement;

Preparation for White Flame Jameson Environmental Impact Assessment and drilling consultation;

Resampling and partner engagement at the Company's Outokumpu industrial gas asset in Finland;

Site surveys and regional sampling at the Company's Thule Copper project;

Continued maintenance and engagement on Hammaslahti a historical state owned copper mine in Finland; and

General corporate and working capital purposes.

If you believe that I'd suggest you're deluded - Kobold's drill in Disko alone was to be around $11.6m - and Jay has to meet half of that now. More fund raises ahead, certainly by the end of the year as they'll have to have funds in place before Kobold will commit.

Redknight - are you sure you bought 2.14m - be interested to know how many do you have now? You do have a history of issuing strange holding figures

On 19/3 you told us he had 7m

On 29/4 you told us bought an extra 2.223m

So that's 9.223m

But within days you told us you had only 7m. Had you mislaid 2.223m shares :-) I did ask at the time but answer came there none.

For anyone still convinced that Hydrogen will be Jay's saviour - this from a report in 2022, link to full report below.

Liquid hydrogen is characterised by several appreciable limitations and challenges that restrict its current use. These include:

• Economics: hydrogen liquefaction is an energy-intensive process. Current processes have specific energy consumptions (SEC¶) of between (11.9 and 15) kWh kgLH2−1 which is (35 to 45)% of the lower heating value of hydrogen. This contributes significantly to the current specific liquefaction cost (SLC||) range of (2.5–3.0) US$ per kgLH2.

• Cryogenic loss: boil-off loss associated with the storage, transportation and handling of liquid hydrogen can consume up to 40% of its available combustion energy.

• Safety: liquid hydrogen is not a common global shipping commodity. The lack of safety standards and regulation around hydrogen-based processes (especially at large-scale) could impede the establishment of liquid hydrogen supply chains.

• Scale: currently, the largest single liquefier has a capacity of 32 tonnes per day (TPD), and the total global capacity is 350 tonnes per day. By 2050, the Hydrogen Council has estimated that 10% of total hydrogen demand, or 0.17 million tonnes per day, could be transported by sea. To ship even a modest fraction of this amount as liquid will require a substantial scale-up of liquefaction capacity. Achieving this goal will likely help mitigate the challenges of energy cost and economics.However, the technical challenges of scaling-up the necessary equipment (compressors, turbines and coldboxes) items are significant.

So from these points -

1. if one used the hydrogen stock itself to supply the power for the liquification process that would consume approx 35-45% of your stocks calorific value - that's pretty uneconomic.

2. There is a further VERY appreciable loss of hydrogen during the storage, transportation and handling processes. Which brings me back to my point of Greenland's geographic location and its distance from market.

3. Like I've repeatedly said - the world just ain't ready for hydrogen from Greenland any time soon. Other supplies will be developed far in advance of anything from Greenland.

4. Even by 2050 it is speculated that only 10% of hydrogen will be sea freight - again, this bears out my point of proximty to end market.

I am of th opinion that Jay is not going to make any money from hydrogen for many many years - if ever.

Link to full report - https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2022/ee/d2ee00099g

8. Well there's a lot of places (UK included) that permit O&G extraction but do NOT allow fracking. It is my understanding that fracking is the most likely way to produce large volumes of hydrogen - do you know different?

9. Hmmm, sorry but I think any 'reasonably-minded' person would very much consider the downsides and lack of prospects of white hydrogen being produced commercially in Greenland (at least for many years to come) and to not blinker themselves with an over optimistic believe that a company with a history of failed promises and assurances will miraculously overcome all of the obstacles and succeed where others have failed.

Ashton – you appear to be frustrated with my opinion of Jay, I assure you the feeling is mutual. :-) Once again - we will have to agree to disagree as neither of us seems able or willing to grasp the other person's opinion. In reply to your points,

1. Agree. I have however attempted to put a realistic timescale on the chances of Greenland having profitable players in this arena – something you have yet to commit to. When do you think white hydrogen will be produced in economic volume in Greenland? Go on Ashton – stop avoiding the question and give us your best guess. Or continue to avoid the obvious in the believe that everything is rosey for Jay.

2. Exactly my point, is it not? They are spending money in their own back yard, not in Greenland. Again, another salient point you chose not to address and to instead ignore.

3. We all know the figures, why repeat them? The point I made was not that there will be growth in hydrogen demand but what part Greenland is likely to play in that growth. Again, please address the issue – how much and when do you think Greenland will be contributing to the world's hydrogen demand? A similar timescale to the numerous other projects throughout the world - or later?

4. And your point is what exactly? Again, would you please address the actual point I made which is the difficulty of transporting hydrogen – not how much time it takes just to get to Denmark. How are you proposing the hydrogen is transported? Is it to be liquified (like virtually all other gas) or in pressurized vessels? As I've illustrated, both very costly, perhaps prohibitively so. There's no magic wand to solve this important issue - which, again, you have remained silent on. How do you think all of the hydrogen will be transported from Greenland?

5. Again, you are rather side-tracking the issue. The article you provided a link to refers ONLY to investments across Asia – it refers solely to the rapid expansion of clean hydrogen across the Asian continent ONLY. Despite the many players now hunting hydrogen globally there is NO mention of investment by any Asian country outside of Asia. Are you aware of any? Please do share details if you are aware of any.

6. Ok, that is your believe – but again, please address my question of why do you think nobody has sniffed around WF when it was down to it's last £200k? If they have already done so and there was any interest I'd suggest that RM's stunt of arranging for an associated company (Jay) to 'buy' WF would serve to alienate any potential purchasers / partners. What do you think this point?

7. It's proximity to the Artic circle and it's harsh environment is merely one of the many factors that I have raised to indicate that Greenland is unlikely to benefit from hydrogen exploitation any time soon. You should take it in perspective; consider ALL of the other factors I draw to your attention.

Continued ......

Continued.

......no I don't. If it's an equally small poorly funded company attempting to promote itself and raise funds then maybe.

Ashton – wow, lengthy post as you say. However, your post contains a few flawed assumptions.

You are comparing apples with pears to suit your narrative. Minerals, oil and natural gas are all relatively easily transported and extracted and are in huge demand, not so with white hydrogen. Indeed, geographic distance and proximity to harsh environments offers little obstruction to their exploitation. As you point out Anglo, Amaroq etc are already present and active in Greenland, focusing on a variety of resources. But the topic under discussion is white hydrogen – a different matter altogether. The recovery of which will most probably be by similar means to those already used in the O&G industry – is Greenland ready for fracking? I don't think so. Hydrogen has the smallest molecule in the known universe and is not so easy to work with as the minerals, oil and natural gas examples you refer to. Liquifying it needs temperatures of – 253c (natural gas = -162c) which could be prohibitively expensive. It isn't yet very much in demand – how long do you think it will be before the world needs an extra supply over and above what can be sourced closer and cheaper to home? Decades is my guess – what's yours?

The demand for hydrogen will grow, but by how much is the question and how much of that growth is expected to be met by white hydrogen? Estimates suggest 5-8 fold increase of hydrogen demand by 2050 but of that increase it is estimated that very little will be from white hydrogen. Will the world actually need any hydrogen from Greenland's (if there is any economically viable supply) – it would have to be competitively priced for it to make it to market – and that is the stumbling block. In Europe, France, Spain etc are embracing white hydrogen but the German gov.t has said it sees no extraction opportunities in naturally occurring hydrogen. The future for white hydrogen isn't as assured as you imply – particularly from a source with the inherent problems faced in Greenland.

Regarding my comment about other white hydrogen projects being further advanced and better funded your comment of 'so what?' seems rather flippant. I have posted several times before and very recently about RM's 'style' of directorship and indeed asked you directly for your opinion – your silence on the matter is deafening. Do you think that sources of funds, government depts and large reputable companies will think positively about such a character with history and display of avarice? What has changed in Greenland? WF patch is still the same is it not? Why did RM and his chums not manage to secure a partner or funds for WF? Why did it get down to it's last £200k in the bank before they arranged for Jay shareholders to bail it out? Doesn't look like the hugely in demand asset you seem to think it is. Do I think they'll get a partner for Jameson in the next 12months – define partner. If it's a large reputable well funded company or government department then

Excellent article - thanks for posting Ashton. I truly hope (and believe) that white hydrogen will one day go a very long way to making mankind's insatiable thirst for power as green as possible. However, I think the chances of Jay making any appreciable progress / profit in that arena are close to zero - at least for many years hence. Surely it is far easier and less expensive to source, produce and supply white hydrogen closer to the relative market than it is to produce it miles away and in an area affected by its proximity to the arctic circle. The US, Spain, France, etc etc all have companies hunting white hydrogen and the majority are further ahead in their strategy than is Jay - and arguably better funded. I think of Greenland as being a potential additional supply of white hydrogen once demand has outstripped other less expensive local supplies - that might not be in our lifetime. ES refers to 'Good projects' attracting funds - I just don't see Jay's locale and opportunities as being 'good' at this moment in time. Sorry!

I also think Jay really have shot themselves in the foot by declaring oil and hydrocarbons as their target- certainly as far as Breakthrough are concerned and therefore quite possibly (as I said several weeks ago) with Kobold.

Just for info. Apologies for the repeated posts earlier today. I've found out why all of my posts were shortened by LSE each time I posted them - I had an angled bracket (less than sign) in front of the first figure and bizarrely LSE algorithms choose to delete everything after that symbol. You live and learn :-)

CC - couple of points by return

Indeed WF might be fair value at £2.75m - although with less than £200k in the bank and absolutely NO sign of any partnerships or funders to take it forward I would argue even that is steep. But let's just for argument sake say Jay SP gets to 5p (fantastic, fingers crossed) that will value the remaining 49% of WF at over £21m - even if it is actually worthless. Is that money Jsy shareholders want to give to RM and his chums? Or is it money they would rather see spent on developing all the other projects? I know which one I would prefer.

To use your phrase - the big boys see RM's shenanigans the same as we all do. Might Jay not fair better with out such a character at the helm? Look at his history at Jay and all the other companies he has been a director of - it doesn't look impressive. What has he achieved in Greenland / Finland in all the years there? Where are the mines, where are the partners, where are the profits? All we've got is more unproven claims of resources, more losses, deals that have failed to materialise and now an interconnected deal that will reward him for continuing in the exact same manner.

Indeed WF might be fair value at £2.75m - although with

CC - couple of points by return

Indeed WF might be fair value at £2.75m - although with

Apologies - I had posted a substantive reply but most of the post disappeared when posted - I'll try later.

CC - couple of points by return

Indeed WF might be fair value at £2.75m - although with

CC - couple of points by return

Indeed WF might be fair value at £2.75m - although with

CC - couple of points by return

Indeed WF might be fair value at £2.75m - although with

CC - couple of points by return

Indeed WF might be fair value at £2.75m - although with

CC - couple of points by return

Indeed WF might be fair value at £2.75m - although with

Thanks CC

Yes, I may well be in the minority and I obviously have an entirely different opinion than yourself. I abhor the fact that RM and his buddies can (and probably will) buy the rest of WF for c. 421,350,000 additional Jay shares (a further dilution of around 21%) even if WF is worthless and Jay shares have soared. It may be all about risk but the RISK is that WF is a dud and RM and his chums pay themselves £millions for it - at the expense of Jay shareholders. If Jay make it good in Disko (or elsewhere) and the SP rises to previous highs - RM will not only benefit from the rise in the shares he has already bought at a low price (having sold out completely at a higher price - and not advising the company, as regulations state he must) he will also benefit from the excessive additional options he has already granted himself at lowish prices and now he'll gain an additional (bulk) share of the additional 421,350,000 he will get Jay to pay for WF. That's pure greed (greed rarely if ever seen in quoted companies) all at the expense of Jay shareholders - I'm puzzled as to why you think that is even remotely acceptable. Something we'll just have to agree to disagree on.

CC - morning.

Jay shareholders voted to acquire 100% of WF - to be bought in 2 tranches. The second tranche is an option and I quote -

'THE EXCERCISE OF THE OPTION IS SOLELY AT THE COMPANY'S DISCRETION'

There is no requirement to have a shareholder vote or arrange an AGM - oh nothing so formal, RM and his chums will decide on the matter. If Jay's SP takes off do you really imagine for one minute that RM and his buddies won't give themselves a pay day? A pay day at the expense of Jay shareholder value.

'