Publications

Four decades of failed restarts meet a valuation built on fantasy tungsten prices, just as cheaper competing supply comes online.August 27, 2026 – Blue Moon continues to champion Springer as its saving grace. But its valuation, restart timeline, and “strategic US supply” status crumbles under the slightest scrutiny; built on a price with no basis in forecast, against a field of better-funded, better-resourced, and faster-moving competitors.The tungsten price Scotia relies on will trigger new competition: S&P's $360–480/mtu structural cost estimate is the level at which over 85% of ex-China tungsten projects become profitable to build. Springer needs roughly $1,100/mtu just to break even - nearly three times higher than the price its rivals’ studies assume.The race has already begun. South Korea's Sangdong and the UK's Hemerdon mines both began production in July 2026. S&P has identified another 11 ex-China projects that could add nearly 20 kt of new capacity by 2030, with a further ~20 kt stalled only on financing or permitting.Springer’s Q4 2027 start date coincides directly with this window, meaning Blue Moon is investing at the top of the price cycle and asking shareholders to wait for a return until after its rivals have already undercut the price.Springer's history contradicts the “brownfield advantage” story. Since the late 1900s, Springer has sat mostly idle, shuttered, or being prepared for a short-lived restart, some of which never came to fruition.Every study ever done on Springer contradicts its current valuation. Its only published economic study, the 2012 PEA, used $400/mtu and produced just $22.8m of NPV. Applying that same price to Scotia's own model produces a negative $267m NPV. Even Scotia's own long-term price assumption turns the valuation negative if applied from inception.Scotia's $348.7m Springer valuation (39% of Blue Moon's total NAV) rests on a tungsten price of $2,200/mtu held for seven straight years. This is a figure the model doesn't source, and no comparable project has ever used it. No peer study (Sangdong, Hemerdon, Mt Carbine, Sisson, or Springer's own 2012 PEA) has ever been priced above $450/mtu.In an inflated climate, almost any tungsten mine can be transformed from a turd into a lump of gold. The problem starts when rival mines built on that same price signal actually turn up. Springer has spent four decades proving that a restart story is not the same thing as a durable mine.

On August 28, 2026, Viceory sought information concerning BMM's Nussir project from the Ministry of Climate and Environment & the National Environmental Agency in Norway under the Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Act.Our requests seeks the following records:Every submission, meeting record and calendar entry between Norwegian authorities and Blue Moon, Nussir ASA, or their advisers, including any lobbying after the Supreme Court judgment.Norway's formal approval of Nussir's "Strategic Project" designation under the EU Critical Raw Materials Act. This a document that must exist, that no one has seen, and that committed the government to the project's feasibility eleven months before its dumping permit's legal basis collapsed.All correspondence with the European Commission and the EFTA Surveillance Authority concerning Nussir, the CRMA, and the Water Framework Directive.The Ministry's internal, "not yet completed" assessment of the judgment, including whether it exists at all.Records of the legally required consultations with the Sámi Parliament and reindeer-herding districts before the permit amendments Blue Moon announced seven days after the judgment, or confirmation that none took place.The full decision basis for those June 2026 approvals, including how the objections of Norway's own Institute of Marine Research were handled.Norwegian law grants a separate, stronger right of access to environmental information. We will publish what we receive.

August 24, 2025 - Viceroy wrote the the EU Commission to reassess the status of Nussir as a Strategic CRMA Project, on the grounds that recent developments raise serious doubts as to whether the project still meets Article 6(1) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1252.We requested that the Commission:confirm its awareness of ESA's 23 April 2026 Letter of Formal Notice; and advise whether Article 6(1) conditions are met considering our supporting evidence.We note that under Article 7(11) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1252, the Commission "may... withdraw the recognition of a project as a Strategic Project" where it "finds that a Strategic Project no longer fulfils the criteria laid down in Article 6(1) or, where its recognition was based on an application containing information that is incorrect to the extent that it affects its compliance with the criteria laid down in Article 6(1).”

The NEA’s temporary permit recommendation is grounded in a enormous reduction in Engebø’s disposal quantity and offers no route back to full operational capacity.August 20, 2026 – Yesterday afternoon, the Norwegian Environment Agency (NEA) published its professional assessment recommending that Nordic Mining’s Engebø project be granted a temporary permit to continue dumping tailings into Førdefjorden.The basis of that recommendation relies on an extreme reduction in tailings disposal by Engebø, which would allow the fjord to retain its “good” environmental assessment rating, and avoid the need to prove a “overriding public interest” exemption to deteriorate the fjord. An application of the same calculation standard to Nussir would require disposal in Reppafjord to be cut by 79-95%. The project is dead in the water.Nussir, and Norway’s Environment Minister Andreas Bjelland Eriksen, know that they cannot rely on the Critical Raw Minerals Act (CRMA) to prove overriding public interest. CRMA Article 10 explicitly states that strategic projects “may be considered to have an overriding public interest provided that the conditions set out in [the Water Framework Directive] are fulfilled”. The Water Framework Directive (WFD), which forms the basis for EFTA Surveillance Authority’s (ESA) intention to seek Nussir’s permit revocation, is a priority for the EU over critical minerals.In April 2026, Norway’s Ministry of Climate and Environment answered an EU consultation on reforming the WFD with a remarkable admission: "the [Water Framework] Directive effectively establishes an absolute limit, prohibiting projects that may degrade a water body below good status due to pollution", and even projects with the EU's own strategic-project stamp "might still not be approved under the WFD."Unlike with Engebø, the NEA is legally bound to enter consultation with the Sámi community in relation to any permitting issues because of the 2021 Fosen ruling (HR-2021-1975-S). The NEA will not be able to rush a “temporary permit” recommendation with a short-window consultation during Norwegian public holidays, rejection of applications for extensions, and the “suck it and see” mentality with regards to environmental surveillance.Our analysis shows a temporary permit would leave Engebø surviving on life support. Replicating that at Repparfjorden leaves Nussir with two tragic options: shrivel far enough to escape the legal test, at which point the mine's value falls into deep negatives, or continue burning cash while it meets its inevitable fate.While it is not our primary focus: this report also address some of the NEA’s garbage reasoning on granting even a “temporary” permit to Engebø: a mine that produces no critical minerals, has faced astounding municipal and political opposition, and is so severely unprofitable that the Norwegian government may be left with the cleaning bill.

On 18 August, 2026, Viceroy requested that the OSC investigate whether:Blue Moon's April 2026 Prospectus Supplement omitted a material fact;the prospectus contained a misrepresentation within the meaning of applicable securities legislation;the issuer, its officers and directors complied with section 56(1) of the Ontario Securities Act;the underwriting syndicate discharged its due diligence obligations; andinvestors who participated in the C$156m financing possess statutory rescission or damages rights under Part XXIII.Letter attached.

August 13, 2026 – Earlier today, Blue Moon Metals CEO Christian Kargl-Simard hosted a cozy fireside chat with brokers where he dismissed our work. Given the context of that discussion, we anticipate Blue Moon’s response to our report will be poor.Kargl-Simard refuses to acknowledge the established fact that the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) has issued a Formal Notice for the revocation of Nussir’s PCA permit.He then explicitly states that the Supreme Court's judgment applied only to Engebø, and had no bearing on Nussir. We reiterate that this case, pursued by the EU, was against the State of Norway for issuing the permits.Not only did the court find that the permits were invalid – they also stated they “cannot... be repaired retrospectively”.Kargl-Simard then reminded brokers that Nussir is a designated Strategic Project under the EU Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA).After receiving its designation: Nussir obtained an offtake agreement with Hartree for effectively all of the mine’s output.Hartree has just signed up as a “leading participant” in the landmark EXIM-funded ‘Project Vault’ deal and reiterated a “long standing commitment to supporting American industrial end-users and manufacturers”. This explicitly disqualifies Nussir from retaining its designated Strategic Project status under CRMA upon reassessment, which is due prior to the commercialization of the mine.Kargl-Simard also takes issue with our analysis of Springer and Apex. We reiterate that our assessment of the Springer feasibility was derived from “management best estimates” provided to the sell-side, and simply corrected for objective errors.Lastly: brokers note that Blue Moon is planning various news-flow items for Springer and Apex over the next few months. This, we could have guessed.Today’s report provides greater detail into our conviction and rebuts CEO Kargl-Simard’s poor response.

August 12, 2026 – Blue Moon Metals (TSXV : MOON) is a critical-minerals fairy tale built on a Norwegian copper project and two idle American mines bought for scrap value. Our investigation suggests Blue Moon’s Norwegian flagship cannot be lawfully mined, its American assets values are wildly overstated, and management systematically concealed adverse findings. BMM’s only real business is shameless self-promotion.Viceroy is short Blue Moon Metals. In our view, it is an ideal short: a company centered around a hastily acquired pipe dream, haphazardly held together by a flimsy permit on the brink of folding, and promoted to Canadian retail investors via paid stock promoters who almost exclusively represent shit businesses.PLEASE READ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER

June 30, 2026 – On June 26, 2026, Abaxx Management held an analyst call with ATB. Management continued to contradict themselves, and unleashed their promotional ‘non-operational’ weapon, Jeff Currie, to prime the pump. Amongst other things: Abaxx appear to have announced that Open Interest is incentivized! Yes, we had given them credit for this, but appears we were too generous.This report outlines contradictions by management when investor calls are managed by a friendly host.

June 26, 2026 - Viceroy's letter to the OSC and CIRO, requesting and investigation, is attached below.Viceroy Research have published several research reports exposing misconduct at Abaxx Technologies Inc. (Abaxx), dating back to 11 June 2026. Abaxx moved its listing to the Toronto Stock Exchange this year and raises capital from Canadian investors. Their conduct reflects poorly on the integrity of Canadian markets. We ask both authorities to investigate.Abaxx presents itself as a fast-growing commodity exchange winning organic adoption. The trade-level data, the company's own admissions, paint a different picture. The Abaxx Exchange volume appears manufactured, dominated by incentives, and industry adoption is paid for. Selective disclosures mask the true nature of the business, compromising Abaxx’s integrity in the market, and the integrity of its Exchange. There are repeated circumstances in which material corporate developments appear to have been anticipated with unusual specificity on investor forums prior to public announcement.We thank Abaxx for also requesting CIRO investigate trading data.

June 24, 2026 – Abaxx’s milestones are measured in volume and connections, and the inference is that one drives the other. This is a fallacy. Abaxx themselves conceded that market volume is “dominated” by incentives.A member is admitted here, a client is plumbed in there, Josh Crumb prints a molecule on his porcelain throne, publishes it on twitter, and still there is only BS churn on the Exchange.On 24 June 2026 Abaxx admitted Yongan International Financial as its newest member, effective 29 June. Abaxx VIP shareholders (the #29ers) were apparently leaked this information days ago. Yes, we have infiltrated your shareholder channels, and no, we have not traded on the information.Fortunately: Abaxx has already contacted CIRO to investigate trading on the exchange! We have pre-emptively sent all relevant messages (including DMs) from our infiltration of the Abaxx #29ers to the Canadian Securities Regulator. We may publish these at a later date.

Abaxx pays physical cargo players for exchange indexing on contracts. It then promotes LNG contract indexing to shareholders as organic.In March 2025, Abaxx announced that “two Asia-based counterparties” had agreed to trade an LNG cargo with the transaction price indexed to Abaxx GOM LNG futures. It continues to say that the “adoption” of the Abaxx exchange in this transaction represents “confidence in the strength of [Abaxx’s] contracts”.In a discussion with Abaxx CMO, Shanmei Lim, it was revealed that Abaxx pay “cash bounties” for “physical players” to index their cargo to Abaxx, who “do not even have to trade on our exchange”."So one of the things that we're actually trying to do now is we're trying to incentivize the adoption of Abaxx as the LNG reference. So we're actually incentivizing physical players right to actually use our price to index their cargo.And they do not even have to trade on our exchange. They don't need to trade futures, but we're actually offering like a cash bounty if they're willing to have Abaxx as a reference in their contract.And where we're offering a pretty attractive number there and we've got more than one cargo, you know, I think with budget it, probably between 8 to 10 cargoes because for us, the moment you get adoption as a reference, that's when the participants initially need to hedge their risk, right? And ultimately, that should somehow fall back to us in terms of trading for our units." – Abaxx CMO, Shanmei LimNowhere on their 25 March 2025 announcement does Abaxx disclose that these LNG reference contracts are only obtainable with “cash bounties”.Abaxx has been paying “cash bounties” for over a year for LNG contract adoption. How many of these counterparties have hedged risk on the Abaxx exchange?

Abaxx’s investor call rant gives no answers, plenty of excuses, and endless entertainment.June 19, 2026 – As predicted, Abaxx management’s aversion to criticism and Josh Crumb’s big mouth provided zero answers and plenty of entertainment in yesterday’s conference call.