Member Info for RachT2

SilverFoxd —

Thanks again for the reply. Good to have 2 way conversation.

I think the Barents Sea examples — particularly Barents Sea developments like Johan Castberg — are more relevant comparisons. They are productive, yes, but widely recognised as being at the more “technically challenging” end of the spectrum in terms of development and reservoir integrity. But if JL proves to be as good - win, win.

By contrast, Pembina Field and Buzzard Field aren’t really comparable. The uplift in those regions was relatively modest — measured in the hundreds of metres rather than the 1.5–3 km range being discussed here. That’s a completely different order of magnitude in terms of potential structural impact, with far less associated damage and erosion.

To be clear, no one (myself included) is suggesting that the uplift at JL means there’s zero chance of finding economically viable wells. But it does, in my view, reduce the probability of success and is a factor that should be weighed carefully.

Which brings me back to the Sproule report — I still maintain that the greater downside risks associated with such significant uplift should have been properly addressed, rather than focusing predominantly on the potential upsides.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

SilverFoxd

Thanks for your reply. Interesting topic.

I’ve said from the outset that I don’t subscribe to the idea that 80M is “worth 30% of GLND.” That narrative always felt like a stretch. At best, you could argue

80M currently holds an interest equivalent to ~30% of the asset (JL), but that’s a very different proposition to being worth 30% of the vehicle (GLND). As things progress, I’d expect that percentage to move in one direction only.

GLND, on the other hand, appears to have a broader runway. If Greenland remains supportive of O&G exploration, it’s hard to imagine further licences not being awarded — and if the upcoming drills show promise, GLND would likely be well positioned for future rounds, whether through additional licences or expanded development activity.

There’s also a contrast in pace and execution. The licences effectively sat dormant for years under previous structures, whereas GLND is pushing toward drilling far more quickly (relatively speaking). If you were representing Greenland’s interests, which model would you favour?

Funding is another key differentiator. GLND appears better placed to access capital markets and structured financing, particularly with the personnel now involved. If that proves correct, it could leave 80M increasingly reliant on its minority position rather than driving the narrative itself.

Of course, if the drills are successful, 80M should benefit — but the question is whether it captures that upside to the same extent as GLND. That’s far from guaranteed.

Just some thoughts at this stage, but I do see a potential opportunity emerging to gain exposure via GLND instead.

I am leaning towards adopting Ashton's son's tactic - but I see more imminent upside to the JL drills at this stage. And, as you know, I am not a long term trade4 here.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

LS’s recent purchase could be interpreted as a signal — perhaps not just of confidence, but of positioning. It raises an interesting question: if one is expecting upside (if only temporary) in 80M, is GLND actually the more direct way to play it?

From here on, most material news flow is likely to impact both entities. However, GLND appears set to control a larger share of the asset (~70%) and, at least on paper, may have stronger access to funding and development pathways. If that holds true, it arguably puts GLND in the driving seat as things progress.

There’s also been some chatter around GLND potentially being in a position to acquire 80M on favourable terms — particularly given the overlap at board level. Whether that materialises is another question, but it’s not an angle that can be ignored.

Either way, it adds another layer to the investment case — and perhaps shifts the focus slightly depending on how one views the risk/reward across the two.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

CB —

Still no counter-argument, I see. Predictable — and amusing.

A quick skim through your 80-odd posts shows a fair chunk aimed in my direction - a third in fact. Flattering, of course — but if it’s bothering you that much, there’s always the “filter” button. Might save you the trouble.

What’s notably absent (as always), however, is any attempt by you to engage with the substance. Not a single meaningful rebuttal to the points raised — many of which are grounded in verifiable facts. Instead, it’s the usual whinging that is synonymous with your posts. Always complainting about the poster rather than the content, even if, as now, the posts are highlighting inaccurate, false or misleading information. Comical.

If the facts are wrong, please challenge them. If they’re not, perhaps that explains your continued silence and lack of counter arguments. When I say “lack” - I mean total absence.

Anyway, thanks for the concern about my mental health - it's just fine. Thanks.

All IMHO, of course.

CB —

“Looked into” and “investigated”… for what exactly? Pointing out inaccuracies, correcting errors, and calling out the occasional outright untruth? That’s now grounds for an enquiry, is it?

Who are you proposing to run this grand investigation — and when does it start?

Or, here’s a novel idea: instead of your usual cry baby theatrics, try engaging with the actual content. Is there anything I’ve posted that you can factually challenge, correct, or add to with a constructive argument?

No — didn’t think so. Just the usual complaints because the view expressed doesn’t align with your own.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

JK —

Another “quality” piece of US promotion — truly ramptastic stuff. Shame it doesn’t stand up to even basic scrutiny. It’s riddled with inaccuracies; just a few highlights:

Claims RP acquired the JL licences in 2013 — he didn’t

Says he’s held them since 2013 — he hasn’t

Positions him as a key figure behind WFE in 2013 — he wasn’t

Suggests he built up stakes in JL via MarchGL — he didn’t (and currently owns nothing directly)

States he contributed the licence in exchange for 7.3m GLND shares — again, incorrect; it’s not his licence to contribute

Mentions $100m required for drilling — yet we’re also told it’s “fully funded” at a materially lower figure

And that’s just for starters…

But yes — aside from the factual inconsistencies, it’s a great story.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Ashton —

Are you not even slightly embarrassed at how low you have now gone? Once again, rather than addressing the substance of the post, you’ve opted to attempt deflect — this time by dragging in a third party. Reading, counting and referencing SOMEONE ELSE'S posts instead of engaging with the actual point? That rather says it all. Sad. Pathetic. Desperate.

Now, back to the topic — the uplift point. It’s not complicated. Standard geology doesn’t suggest a 50/50 outcome — it indicates that the DOWNSIDES ARE MORE likely than the upside being promoted. That isn’t controversial, it’s widely accepted.

I’d imagine most readers have taken the time to check this for themselves by now — it doesn’t take long.

So instead of sidestepping yet again, perhaps try addressing the point directly. Go on, grow yourself a backbone. Your continued reluctance to acknowledge that uplift at JL is more likely to introduce risks (faulting, leakage, seal breach, structural disruption) than conveniently deliver only positives serves only to further illustrate your duplicity and deceit. You are denying facts. That much is plain for all to see.

But by all means, carry on deflecting. It’s becoming a familiar pattern and I don't believe you'll ever change. .

FYI — regarding IlDuce: I’ve filtered them long ago, and as I generally post to advise that I've filtered an individual, I’m not sure why they continue posting in

my direction. They can add another 21 posts if they wish — they’ll go unanswered as well. I’m far more inclined to engage with those addressing the actual content and facts, rather than repeatedly questioning me or my motives - which I've already explained on numerous occasions previously. It seems IlDuce remains firmly in the latter camp. Ah well, c’est la vie.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Ashton —

Bravo. Six examples of what you claim I haven’t commented positively on. As if that’s required when the board is already saturated with the RC’s constant cheerleading. Your usual selectivity is showing — again.

Shall we flip it the other way? I could start compiling the list of over-optimistic assurances that never materialised — many of which you were more than happy to regurgitate and embellish at the time. Or perhaps the negative facts and valid questions you’ve consistently sidestepped when directly asked to comment on. That’s a list that might take a while.

We both know which list comes out longer. And it won’t be yours.

Strange how you think I should leave positive comments when you (by your own admission) totally ignore the negatives and concentrate “only on the positives”. Ironic isn't it? One rule for Ashton and another one for someone with an opposing opinion. Hilarious, pathetic and duplicitous - as ever.

And while we’re here — have you now taken the time to look into the uplift point properly? The one where standard geology doesn’t say “could go either way,” but clearly indicates the downsides are MORE LIKELY than the upside being promoted?

I do hope you — and others — have actually checked. Not “balanced,” not “equal probability” - MORE LIKELY.

But by all means, carry on defending a report that conveniently omits that rather fundamental point. I wouldn’t expect anything different from you.

I suspect you have now established the probabilities. I also suspect it’ll now be quietly ignored — as usual — because it doesn’t quite fit your narrative.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Jeez — now we’ve reached the stage where I’m apparently “training” AI to give me the answers I want. That’s a new one.

Tell you what — in the interests of integrity, why doesn’t everyone just ask a simple, neutral question themselves and see what comes back? No bias, no leading — just basic geology: I asked

“In a rift valley basin like Jameson Land in Greenland is the uplift more likely to cause upsides such as up pressurised reserves or downsides such as faulting, leakage, seal breach, structural damage…?”

I’ve asked multiple AI sources out of interest — and, funnily enough, they all point in the same direction: the downsides are more likely than the upsides.

Hardly groundbreaking — it aligns with standard geological understanding.

But don’t take my word for it — try it yourself using whatever AI source you trust.

Which rather begs the question: why Ashton's eagerness to defend a report that highlights the upside while omitting the most probable consequences of uplift?

No prizes for working that one out.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Ashton —

Tell us something we don’t know.

I’ve already outlined three entirely plausible reasons why Mr Aldridge may have chosen not to reference the far more likely downsides of uplift — there’s not much more to add on that front. I haven’t disputed what is in the report; I’ve simply highlighted what’s not. That only requires one qualification — the ability to read. Thankfully, I've got that box ticked.

But as you’ve made clear on numerous occasions, you prefer to focus exclusively on the positives — so it’s no surprise the report is right up your street.

It really doesn’t take long to establish that what I’ve said is grounded in widely accepted geological understanding. Uplift of this magnitude doesn’t selectively deliver upside while conveniently avoiding the associated risks — quite the opposite, in fact.

Of course, you’re free to ignore that and continue presenting the optimistic angle. I wouldn’t expect anything different from you

Meanwhile, for those less inclined to take a one-sided view, the broader body of geological evidence, history and experience is there to be referenced.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

And thanks to you too, Ashton —

You’ve actually done a better job than anyone in highlighting the flaw here. By drawing attention to what the Sproule report doesn’t say, you’ve effectively confirmed it’s found wanting.

Quite remarkable, really — a paid-for report that manages to emphasise the potential upside of uplift while somehow omitting the far more common and well-documented downsides. Faulting, leakage, seal breach, structural damage… all the inconvenient bits quietly left out. Poor form doesn’t quite cover it.

Because let’s be clear: the likelihood of uplift creating problems is significantly higher than it neatly delivering only benefits. That’s not opinion — that’s standard geology.

So presenting a one-sided view and pretending the risks don’t exist doesn’t make them disappear — it just makes the narrative look selective at best.

But fair play — you’ve highlighted it nicely.

All IMHO, of course.

Chilli —

Fair play for setting out your thinking — I’d agree with your interpretation of the Sproule report.

That said, let’s not forget what it actually is: a paid-for report. The absence of any meaningful discussion around downside risk from uplift could be down to a few possibilities:

They simply overlooked it (unlikely)

They chose not to emphasise it (understandable)

Or, more realistically, they assumed it was so well understood / documented it didn’t need spelling out

After all, uplift and its potential downsides aren’t exactly niche concepts — they’re Geology BASICS.

Whether they explicitly mentioned it or not is largely irrelevant. The risks associated with significant uplift — fault reactivation, seal breach, leakage pathways, structural fragmentation — don’t magically disappear just because they weren’t highlighted in a report.

Suggesting otherwise is… over optimistic, to put it politely. LOL.

JL isn’t some geological unicorn where uplift has conveniently delivered only upside (overpressure) while avoiding all the well-known downsides. That’s not how these systems work — ANYWHERE.

If anything, choosing not to address those risks explicitly reflects more on the quality and integrity of the report than it does on the underlying geology.

All IMHO, of course.

Chilli

Again, I'd agree with your reasoning. But respond as -

Yes, plenty of major oil basins have seeps AND large fields — North Sea, Maracaibo Basin, Middle East, etc

But here’s the key point: They did NOT undergo the kind of large-scale uplift (~1.5–3 km) being discussed for JL. That matters.

Those basins stayed:

Deeply buried

Well sealed

Continuously charged.

Result: giant, intact accumulations

In contrast, basins that have seen significant uplift and erosion tend to show:

More surface exposure and seeps

More fault reactivation

Higher risk of trap breach and leakage

Result: typically smaller, more fragmented systems

So the “look at the North Sea” argument misses the key difference.

Are there similarly uplifted areas that have seeps AND large oil fields?

It’s not just about having oil. It’s about whether it stayed trapped — and in large enough accumulations to be economically viable. And once you introduce large-scale uplift, the comparison starts to fall apart.

The Sproule report is correct regarding over pressure - uplifting can do that. But that exact same uplifting is more likely to destroy the traps by erosion, unloading, fault reactivation and fracturing.

What you don’t really see globally is:

A rift shoulder basin with ~2 km uplift + widespread seepage + simple geology + giant, intact, North Sea–style fields.

That combination is rare to non-existent. Yet some are trying to tell us all are present at JL. Maybe, maybe not - but the odds are worth noting.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

SilverFoxd —

I think points 3 and 4 ultimately lead to the same place — the only difference being that option 4 likely comes with greater urgency and larger backers stepping in.

Even if the first two drills deliver positive results, the reality is that two wells prove very little in isolation. Regardless of how encouraging they might be, you’re still looking at dozens — if not hundreds — of additional wells to properly define size, quality, pressure, continuity, and commercial viability across the field. That’s just the nature of the process.

Two wells alone won’t be enough to move the dial for serious development capital, particularly from the “big players” some are expecting to step in. There’s a long road between initial success and full-scale development. So 3 & 4 are both likely to result in a “move to appraisal wells.”

Chilli —

I agree with your summary, and as I’ve said previously, the biggest question mark for me remains the extent of the seeps.

Yes, seeps confirm the presence of hydrocarbons — but they also indicate leakage. The more seeps, the greater the leaks. Worth considering that such leaks have likely been depleting hydrocarbon reserves for MILLIONS of years. They didn't start leaking yesterday.

Add to that the scale of uplift JL has undergone — estimated at 1.5–3km or more — and you’re looking at a structure that has likely experienced significant fracturing, faulting, and disruption. That’s not a trivial consideration.

Just consider the analogy: if the ground beneath you were forced vertically upwards by several kilometres, would you expect the underlying structure to remain intact and uniform? Of course not — it would be heavily altered.

JL has undergone exactly those kinds of forces. The North Sea, which it’s often compared to, hasn’t experienced the same degree of uplift and structural disturbance.

So the question has to be asked — are they comparable? Personally, I think not. But, like everyone, I hope ECONOMICALLY VIABLE reserves are found.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Thanks for posting Chilli - that's a pretty good summary of what is known.

Well well — funny how there’s been radio silence on here regarding the UAE’s recent shift in strategy. Not exactly surprising though, given it doesn’t fit the RC narrative.

Plenty of noise about how the closure of the HS is somehow a game changer for 80M — yet, once again, reality gets conveniently sidestepped. Even if RP’s rather ambitious timeline of selling oil in under two years actually materialises (and that’s a big “if”), the likelihood is the HS will be open again by then — meaning zero benefit. But let’s not allow inconvenient timing to derail a good ramp.

As I’ve said before, being in a position to sell oil inside two years — particularly in the Arctic — would be an outlier. Highly optimistic at best. More likely just another example of timelines being… stretched. Time will tell, as always.

Now, back to the UAE.

A long-standing OPEC member stepping away from the cartel is not exactly trivial. Once the HS reopens, the logical outcome is increased supply pressure — particularly if the UAE and Saudi decide to compete more aggressively for market share. Two of the lowest-cost producers in the world ramping output doesn’t exactly scream “supportive pricing environment,” does it?

So let’s play that forward:

Even if the drills are successful, you’re then looking at a backdrop of potentially falling oil prices, rising supply, and increased competition from the cheapest producers on the planet.

Which raises the obvious question — why commit $billions to development in a high-cost, logistically complex region for what could end up being marginal returns?

Feels rather familiar, doesn’t it?

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Bob —

“Who cares how the money was raised…?”

Well, clearly not you or (seemingly) anyone that recs your post. Comical. Some of us, however, place a bit of value on things like integrity, accuracy, and realistic expectations from those supposedly leading a company we’re invested in. But yes — minor details, for some. apparently.

FWIW, I am actually pleased this particular episode looks to be drawing to a close — although, notably, there’s still no official confirmation of the amount raised. Small detail again, I suppose. No doubt of no interest to you either. LOL.

That said, this could well set up for another short-term spike. If so, I’m sure the RC will be dusting off the old playbook and cranking the claptrap-o-meter back up to full capacity in an effort to give it a nudge.

Personally, I’ve filtered most of that dross — far more useful to watch what the market does and DYOR than to wade through the usual bulletin board nonsense. After all, the market — both here and in the US — doesn’t pay the slightest attention to what’s posted on here. My contributions included. So if you don't like to read my opinion - use the button marked FILTER.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

I’m genuinely struggling to understand why anyone is surprised by the muted share price reaction to this “fully funded” announcement. Unless of course you fell for the RC’s claptrap.

Weren’t we told — repeatedly and with great conviction:

“MarchGL will fund 100% of the costs…”

“March GL will fund 100% of all drilling expenses…”

And, of course, reinforced on here, embellished and with the usual flourish — wealthy backers, deep pockets, effectively a done deal.

Ah… except that’s not quite how it’s played out, is it?

Because what that actually seems to have meant was:

GLND — the IPO vehicle — would fund it, NOT MarchGL

And when that IPO didn’t exactly go to plan:

~90% redemptions

Trust gutted

Share price under pressure

Immediate need to raise cash

…suddenly “fully funded” didn't mean “fully funded” and required a rather urgent trip back to the market.

So “MarchGL will fund 100%” really translates to:

“GLND will fund it… provided the IPO works and / or we can raise the money afterwards.”

A very different proposition

And those supposedly deep-pocketed backers? Interesting how their existence hasn’t prevented a discounted raise, warrants, dilution, and all the usual trimmings. Almost as if they weren’t quite the blank cheque some were led to believe. Quelle surprise.

But yes — let’s all act surprised that the market isn’t exactly celebrating.

In reality, the market is doing what it tends to do — applying a bit of common sense and discounting a narrative that has shifted more times than the drilling timeline.

Some of us pointed this out weeks ago — IPO risk, funding dependency, overconfidence in the messaging… but that was, of course, dismissed at the time. Standard procedure.

Funny how it doesn’t look quite so far-fetched now.

And now Ashton has promoted himself to translator. And will be adding even more positives at every opportunity. Hilarious.

Thankfully the market won't, and never has, believed the utter nonsense he spouts. Talked the share up relentlessly for years while it steadily lost over 97%. What a guru.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Now that’s more like it — at least something concrete to work with.

On the face of it, it appears to be positive news. However, it’s worth noting what’s not being said. There’s confirmation of the offer closing and a description of the offer terms, but no explicit figure for the amount actually raised. Perhaps they’re still finalising the numbers — we’ll see.

Yes, RP states “fully funded,” but we’ve already seen that phrase used rather loosely before — including, apparently, (as highlighted earlier) by a BoD member across both 80M and GLND. So I think it’s fair to treat that with a degree of caution until it’s backed up by formal filings.

For a definitive figure, we’ll need to wait for the official documentation. One thing that does seem fairly clear, though — this doesn’t look like an oversubscribed raise.

That said, depending on how the details land, it might present an opportunity in the near term.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

SilverFoxd —

I think you may be a touch premature with the apologies — particularly to Ashton.

Only yesterday he was confidently stating that the fund raise had been completed and the money secured. The “evidence”? A deal signed with Halliburton… apparently that’s now sufficient to confirm cash in the bank. No filings, no official announcement — just speculation presented as fact. Not exactly a first, either.

So let’s just line this up properly.

Yesterday: Ashton — “fully funded”

Today: RP — “fully funded”… via a video, not an official filing

And then there’s this gem posted by Ashton on 9/3/26 (my uppercase):

“The money [for drilling] is ALREADY RAISED,” McIllree said, citing “high profile shareholders” including Paul Glazer’s Glazer Capital. Where 80 Mile had budgeted $35 million for the first well, the Americans have committed $70 million for both."

Fast forward to where we are now:

Company attempting to raise $70m

No confirmation the raise has closed

Share price below the offer price

No official funding announcement

You can’t have it both ways. The money cannot be “already raised” and simultaneously needing to be raised again weeks later.

So at least one — and quite possibly more — of these claims is complete and utter nonsense. Yet they’re presented as fact, repeated, and, unsurprisingly, receive the usual recs.

And today - “And don't forget, we can expect Disko drill results well before Jameson Land.” Another minor detail being conveniently overlooked / side stepped - they have yet to raise funds for that too! But, as ever, never one to let accuracy / reality spoil a chance to ramp.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.