Exhibit 99.1

Evaluation of the Prospective

Resources of the March GL

Greenland License

As of September 1, 2025

Digital Report Notification

This report has been prepared in a fully digital, auditable, and legally compliant format using a PDF/A standard (ISO 19005-1, 2 or 3).

Sproule ERCE professionals have also signed the report using independently verifiable digital signatures for authentication purposes. For more information regarding digital reports, digital signatures, and their verification, please visit Sproule ERCE Digital Signatures.

This document is strictly confidential and solely for the recipient’s use and may not be reproduced or circulated without Sproule ERCE’s prior written consent. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose or use the information in this documentation in any way.

Table of Contents

Tables

Figures

Mr. Robert Price

March GL Company

Suite 400, 3400 E. Bayaud Avenue

Denver, CO 80209

To Mr. Price,

Pursuant to your request, Sproule Incorporated (Sproule ERCE) created an independent report that reviews the four relevant geological reports

In order to validate levels of Prospective Resource Assessments in

These resource assessments have been done according to PRMS standards using the P90 (1U) \ Pmean (2U) \ P10 (3U) ranges and nomenclature. Standard Geologic Chance of Success (Pg) and Chance of Commercial Development (Pc) have been assessed for 3 drilling prospects. The purpose of this report will be both to give an independent validation of the exploration potential and to show that beyond the current drilling campaign there are already a large number of identified prospects, with associated volumes, and that within the greater basin as exploration continues with additional seismic data there is the potential for continued discoveries.

This resource evaluation was prepared in compliance with both SEC and PRMS evaluation standards as of October 1, 2025. The resources have been estimated using the reserve and resource estimation guidelines outlined by the Petroleum Resources Management System (PRMS), as revised June 2018. The Company currently holds 2,000,315 gross acres and 1,400,220.5 net acres of undeveloped mineral leases in Greenland. March GL has indicated to Sproule ERCE that it currently has 70% WI in the oil and gas mineral rights to the following licenses in the country of Greenland:

It is important to note as of the date of this report that the Company has no proved, probable, or possible oil and gas reserves. The Company has not drilled any wells on its properties and thus has yet to have the opportunity to establish the commercial viability of any hydrocarbon accumulations. All estimates of potential future recovery are prospective in nature and highly speculative. By definition, no reserves can be attributed to undrilled acreage until penetrated by a wellbore and adequately tested. Sproule ERCE was not requested to evaluate the economic potential of the March GL licenses however the IPT September 2025 report prepared for March GL was made available to Sproule ERCE and reviewed. Questions concerning the development costs, current timing and staging of equipment and materials needed to conduct exploration in arctic environments and the current contracts should be referred to the IPT report. The March GL Greenland project is an undrilled frontier basin and thus needs to be risked accordingly. Sproule ERCE has provided detailed geologic and commercial risking guidance later in this document.

Table 1 shows the estimated volumes of gross and net unrisked recoverable prospective oil from all fifty-eight identified prospects by 80M. The detailed full list of the fifty-eight prospects is found in Appendix A.

Table 1: Summary Gross and Net Unrisked Recoverable Prospective Oil Volumes (Million Barrels)
by Formation and Prospect.

“Prospective Resources are the estimated quantities of petroleum or other commercial gases that may potentially be recovered by the application of a future development project related to undiscovered accumulations. These estimates have both an associated risk of discovery and a risk of development. Further exploration, appraisal and evaluation are required to determine the existence of a significant quantity of potentially recoverable hydrocarbons.”

** The Aggregated Sum of all 58 Prospects is an assumption that every horizon on every prospect is productive. Sproule ERCE has also evaluated the risked volumes and presented those volumes in a table under the chapter Risk later in the report.

The values presented in this report are based on ownership interests provided by March GL. Any changes to these inputs may justify revisions to the reported valuation amounts.

Many of the formations stack vertically, overlaying each other in a stratigraphic position which allows for the testing of multiple formations with a single wellbore. The March GL plans have identified several locations and high-graded three locations for the immediate drilling and testing. These locations are designated as OPW-1, OPW-6 and OPW-9. Statistical analysis of the range of recoverable oil resources, in millions of barrels, for all potential targets in each of the three locations is presented below, in Table 2. and represents the first three well sites identified by March GL from the 80M Report and also verified in the GCA report.

Table 2: Gross Unrisked Prospective Resources for the Initial Three Drilling Locations.

It is noted that the third well, OPW 9, targets two prospects, GA and NK2, that are targeted in the first two wells. Thus, the information gathered in the first wells, OPW 1 and OPW 6 will be used to reduce the risk of the third well OPW 9. The volumes of oil attributed to OPW 9, if successful, are not independent of the volumes that are also assigned to the same prospect in OPW 1 or OPW 6 thus they cannot be aggregated. Individual and composite risking values are presented in a later chapter in this report. Sproule ERCE has not independently evaluated any of the fifty eight prospects but was only requested to review the methodology used to calculate the in-place and recoverable volumes.

All drilling locations identified by 80M have been interpreted on 1,798 Km of 2D seismic data with a line spacing of three to five kilometers in License 2015/13 and eight to twelve kilometers in License 2015/14. This is considered a reconnaissance level density of seismic data and as more data is acquired to infill this grid, and particularly if 3D data is acquired, then future interpretations will be anticipated to detail additional prospects. All reports identify multiple additional leads and identify that the older Devonian to Late Carboniferous strata have reservoir potential that has yet to be fully quantified. Recovery factors that have been used to calculate estimated recoverable oil have assumed normal pressure gradients in order to be conservative however the tectonic history that has been documented by outcrop mapping and by seismic interpretations has shown considerable burial and uplift which can result in overpressured reservoirs. If any of the reservoirs are overpressured this can result in higher-than-expected recovery factors, thus a greater volume of oil being produced.

Sproule ERCE is a professional consulting firm with experience in petroleum engineering, geology, reserves reporting and property evaluation. Results of this appraisal report are certified as unbiased, reasonable assessments of the quantities of the prospective oil volumes as of September 1, 2025 for March GL interests. These estimates, although considered reliable, may, in fact, be considerably more or less than reported. Reductions or additions to the estimated volumes may be due to, but not limited to, changes in Federal regulations, future well damage or stimulation, drastic changes in product prices, and changes in operating costs.

Sproule ERCE’s compensation for this report is not contingent on the estimate of reserves, resources or future income attributable to the properties. Sproule ERCE and its employees do not have any interest in these properties. This report was completed at the request of March GL and was prepared for the exclusive use and sole benefit of March GL.

The estimated reserves, resources and valuations presented in this report are based on geological and reservoir engineering work performed by Sproule ERCE. All the accounts, records and data required for this evaluation were furnished to Sproule ERCE by March GL. The ownership interest and other factual data provided to Sproule ERCE by March GL were accepted without independent verification. Sproule ERCE staff did not conduct a site inspection of the properties presented in this report.

Report Qualifications

The reserves, resources and valuations indicated in this report are estimates only and should not be considered as exact quantities. They represent our best judgments, after having utilized generally accepted engineering, geologic and economic procedures.

Sproule ERCE carried out such tests as was considered necessary to check the veracity of the production data, operating costs, and engineering procedures. In evaluating the information at our disposal, we excluded from our consideration all legal and accounting matters. This report has been prepared assuming the continuation of existing regulatory and fiscal conditions subject to government regulations. There is no assurance that regulations will not change. Any changes, which cannot reliably be predicted, could impact the ability of March GL to recover the estimated reserves and resources.

Statement of Risk

It is Sproule ERCE’s opinion that the estimated reserves and resources, and other reserve and resource information, as specified in this report are reasonable and have been prepared in accordance with the generally accepted petroleum engineering and evaluation principles as set forth in PRMS reserves definitions. However, while these estimates are prepared with reasonable care, unforeseen changes in future well and field performance, the impact of offset drilling, changes in market conditions and sales contracts, along with changes in operating conditions and associated costs may all impact the actual

ability to recover the reserves estimated in this report and, subsequently, generate the estimate cash flow. As a result, any use of or reliance on this report needs to recognize such risks and uncertainty, and Sproule ERCE makes no warranties concerning the ability to realize stated reserves or future estimated revenue in this report. "This document contains forward-looking statements. Actual results may differ materially due to [specific risk factors]. Important factors that could cause results to differ include geological uncertainties, drilling risks, commodity price volatility, and regulatory changes.

Neither Sproule ERCE nor any of its employees have any interest in the subject properties. Neither the employment to conduct this study nor the compensation for this study was contingent on Sproule ERCE’s estimates of reserves and future income. This report has been prepared for the sole and exclusive use of March GL. Use by other parties, or for purposes other than those expressed by March GL, is not authorized without written consent by Sproule ERCE.

It has been Sproule ERCE’s pleasure to prepare this analysis for March GL. If you should have any questions concerning this analysis, please feel free to contact us.

Report Preparation

The report entitled Evaluation of the Prospective Resources of the March GL Greenland License was prepared by the following Sproule ERCE personnel:

	Project Leader Preparation of: Geological Evaluation
	Preparation of: Engineering Evaluation

Responsible Member Validation

The following Responsible Member of Sproule Incorporated certify that our internal quality control process has been followed in accordance with our Professional Practice Management Plan.

The Issuance Date of this report is the latest date on which a Responsible Member of Sproule ERCE validated this report.

Certificate of Qualifications

Jeffrey Aldrich, L.P.G., P.Geo.

I, Jeffrey B. Aldrich, Principal, Geoscientist of Sproule ERCE, 870, 1700 Broadway Street, Denver, Colorado, USA, declare the following:

Certificate of Qualification

Mark Stouffer, P.E.

I, Mark Stouffer, Senior Petroleum Engineer of Sproule ERCE, 870, 1700 Broadway Street, Denver, Colorado, declare the following:

Certificate of Qualification

Alexey Romanov, Ph.D., P.Geo.

I, Alexey Romanov, Principal Geoscientist of Sproule ERCE, 900, 140 Fourth Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta, declare the following:

March GL requested Sproule ERCE to review prior reports that March GL held in its files and delivered to Sproule ERCE in order to conduct an independent review of the hydrocarbon prospectivity of the three licenses and prospective resources that could be discovered with future drilling programs. Figure 1, below, is the location of the three licenses in Eastern Greenland.

Figure 1: Location Map (from Company).

The Jameson Land basin, in Greenland, is a large Mesozoic and Paleozoic sedimentary basin (>8,000 km² license area), that remains a frontier basin with no commercial discoveries, but abundant leads and prospects identified mostly from sparse 2D seismic and analogue outcrop studies, Figure 2.

Figure 2: Geologic Map of Jameson Land Basin, Greenland Showing 2D Seismic Database (From Company).

The basin contains thick sedimentary sequences (up to >20 km locally) from Permian through Jurassic, overlain by Tertiary volcanic cover and extensive intrusive igneous bodies affecting seismic imaging. Recent reports (2024) provide a state-of-the-art petroleum system audit with detailed seismic interpretation limited by data quality and sparse control. Historical archival work (1987 and earlier) contextualizes basin formation, stratigraphy, structural complexity, and petroleum play assessment including source rock quality and reservoir characterization. Despite uncertainty and data limitations, multiple independent investigations agree on the presence of:

Estimated prospective volumes remain uncertain but range from billions of barrels in place, with migration modeling suggesting good charge potential particularly in the Permian carbonate build-up plays and Jurassic sandstones. Future work hinges on additional seismic (2D/3D), targeted drilling, and geochemical calibration to reduce risk and clarify trap/reservoir distribution [GaffneyCline, 2024]; [ARCO Geological Report, 1987].

The Jameson Land basin history initiated with late Paleozoic extension during a post-Caledonian orogeny, the basin is a northwest-trending fault-controlled rift basin with a complex structural history involving wrench faulting, extension, and gravitational sliding. Sediment thickness varies with paleotopography and tectonics; the main depocenters include the deep southern Jameson Land sub-basin and the shallower Scoresby Land sub-basin. The basement underlying the sedimentary section comprises Archean-Proterozoic crystalline complexes with complex polyorogenic deformation and late Caledonian orogenic overprints.

Sedimentation spans from Devonian through Cretaceous as shown in Figure 3, summarized as:

Figure 3: Stratigraphic Chart

Table 3: Play Summary.

Table 4: Summary Table of Leads Relative to Basin Depth.

The Jameson Land Basin has decades of exploration history primarily conducted by ARCO Oil and Gas Company from 1985 to 1990. There was no exploration activity for twenty-five years until White Flame Energy (WFE) then won an open tender for blocks 2015/13 and 2015/14 in 2014 and applied for and won 2018/40 in 2018. In 2025 80 Mile (formerly Bluejay Mining) acquired White Flame Energy. Over the course of this time the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS) has conducted several geological and geophysical investigations.

ARCO’s work consisted of acquiring the 2D seismic data, outcrop sampling with geochemical analysis, and airborne gravity and magnetic data acquisition. WFE and 80M have both reprocessed much of the 2D seismic data as has the Greenland Geological Survey. Despite decades of evaluations and multiple prospects identified there has yet to be a single exploration well drilled in the Jameson Land Basin. ARCO’s decision to withdraw from Greenland has been attributed to the sharp oil price decline of 1986. Thus, to date, there are no commercial oil discoveries in the basin despite decades of surface exploration.

Sproule ERCE reviewed the volumetric spreadsheets of 80M and GCA. GCA’s spreadsheet was limited to ten prospects while 80M evaluated fifty-eight prospects. Of the ten prospects that were evaluated by both companies there were both similarities and major differences between the two approaches. GCA used a more simplistic deterministic, single volume approach while 80M provided three different assessments that all used ranges of Low Case to High Case assessments. Both companies assessed the Geological Risk of the prospects and both companies provided some explanation as to the methodology of the choice of reservoir factors used such as porosity, net pay, shape factor, water saturation, and formation volume factor.

Sproule ERCE calculated a probabilistic range of Original Oil in Place (OOIP) and a Gross Recoverable Oil for each individual prospect of the fifty-eight prospects on the 80M list. As the GCA single factor was within the Low to High range of 80M and the 80M range was reasonable and matched data from the ARCO and GUES reports Sproule ERCE used the 80M reservoir parameters as inputs to the probabilistic runs. Sproule ERCE set the distributions of the factors as noted in Appendix A and the values used can be reviewed in Appendix A. The results of the probabilistic runs are shown in Appendix B.

March GL has transmitted to Sproule ERCE maps showing three proposed drill locations for the Phase I Exploration Program. Figure 4, below.

Figure 4: Detail Map of March GL’s Drilling Locations for OPW 1 and OPW 9

Figure 5: Detail Map of March GL’s Drilling Locations for OPW 6

The three locations, OPW1, OPW6, and OPW9 each target multiple reservoirs. Thus, by drilling each well it will de-risk several of the formations of the next wells and inform decisions of where best to advance the exploration program on a go-forward basis.

The first location, OPW1, targets the most horizons, by having potential reservoirs at the KS1 (Kap Stewart), GA (Gipsdalen), GC (Gipsdalen), GB (Gipsdalen) and G3/G4 (Gipsdalen).

The second location, OPW6, advances the program by targeting new horizons; the NK2 (Kap Stewart), G2 (Gipsdalen), and PF (Wegener Halvo).

The first two locations have a rig and logistics contracted for mobilization in the second quarter of 2026 and the spudding of the first well in the summer of 2026. The company has contracted with third party service companies that have extensive arctic experience, in Siberia and in northern Canada.

The third location, OPW9, has one new horizon, the KS2 (Gipsdalen), and if there is positive encouragement from either of the first two wells there are targets in the GA horizon (derisked with information from the OPW1 well) and the NK2 horizon (derisked from the OPW6 well).

The Company has not drilled any wells on its properties and thus has yet to have the opportunity to establish the commercial viability of any hydrocarbon accumulations. All estimates of potential future recovery are prospective in nature and highly speculative. By definition, no reserves can be attributed to undrilled acreage until penetrated by a wellbore and adequately tested. Prospective Resources are the estimated quantities of petroleum or other commercial gases that may potentially be recovered by the application of a future development project related to undiscovered accumulations. These estimates have both an associated risk of discovery and a risk of development. Further exploration, appraisal and evaluation are required to determine the existence of a significant quantity of potentially recoverable hydrocarbons.

Each prospect has an individual risk of discovery which is stated as the inverse as the Chance of Success (CoS). The Geological Chance of Success (Pg) is defined as the product of the CoS of four factors: the chance of adequate reservoir development, the chance of adequate seal development, the chance of adequate source rock development, and the chance of adequate trap development. In frontier basins the typical Pg for a target prospect formation is between 5-10%. Both 80M and GCA had access to detailed prospect level information and provided individual prospect level risk analysis. 80M provided it for all fifty-eight prospects while GCA provided it for only the ten largest prospects. Sproule ERCE evaluated both the 80M and GCA Pg estimates for the ten largest prospects and determined that GCA was both more conservative and appeared to be more consistent. Thus, Sproule ERCE adopted the GCA methodology, by formation, for the rest of the un-risked prospects. The Pg estimates shown are

either the GCA estimates, or if GCA did not provide an estimate then the Sproule ERCE calculation of what GCA would have estimated the prospect Pg. If a new exploration well has the opportunity to drill for multiple untested target formations, then each formation must be evaluated independently for their unique Pg value. To determine the CoS of the well, the chance that at least one of the formations will be a success, it must be first determined what the composite failure case, aka Chance of Failure, (CoF) is, what the chance is that every target formation is a failure. The CoS of the well is then 1-CoF.

Table 5 summarizes the expected range of prospective resources from the first three wells and the geological risking (Chance of Success (Pg)) for each targeted horizon in each well and the overall Chance of Failure (CoF) and Chance of Success (CoS) for each well. The prospective resource volumes that are stated in Table 5 are from Sproule ERCE’s probabilistic estimates.

Table 5: March GL’s First Three Drilling Locations.

The Well CoS for the first well to be drilled in this frontier basin is estimated to be 20% which is very high for a frontier basin. What elevates the chance of success the opportunity to target multiple prospects with a single vertical well. Risked Mean Volumes of single wells are values that are only useful as a ranking measure within a portfolio in order to assess one opportunity against other opportunities as Risked Mean Volumes are not the equivalent of the expected outcomes. Prior to any wells being drilled the current geologic risk assessment has Permian Formations as the highest risk due to high structural and maturity risk. The Ravenfjeld source rocks may be overmature over much of the Jameson Land Basin, however this is not proven. Some theoretical basin modeling profiles indicate that Permian reservoirs may be more gas prone than oil prone, while other place the Permian carbonate reservoirs within the oil window.

Triassic and Jurassic stratigraphic trap reservoirs, such as the Gipsdalen and the Kap Stewart formations, have a risk of seal integrity and trap definition due to the widely spaced 2D seismic lines.

Sproule ERCE was not given access to the seismic database, prospect level maps nor detailed outcrop descriptions and maps. Both the 80M and the GCA individual prospect risking tables were evaluated and based on global undrilled frontier basin averages the GCA assessment of prospect risk was deemed to be both more conservative and more appropriate for the undrilled maturity of the Jameson Land Basin. Therefore, Sproule ERCE has used the GCA prospect risk assessment as the basis for all fifty-eight prospects. With multiple targets the composite CoS of these frontier exploration wells, from 10% to 20%, places them well above the global standard for frontier basin exploration risk.

The risk of development is assessed with the assumption that a discovery is made and therefore the question that needs to be answered is what the chance is that discovery will be developed (Pc). To make that assumption the 2U case is generally taken as the development volume that needs to be reviewed for the probability of development. It is unlikely that every target of every well will be successful, the total volume of all target horizons, therefore the volume used is the 2U Mean volume. In the case of each of the three wells the 2U Mean volume exceeds 100 million barrels of oil. If an oil discovery that exceeded 100 million barrels were made on the March GL licenses, it is logical to conclude that the field would be commercial. However, there are other considerations for the first oil production development facility in Greenland such as allowing for the arctic conditions, access to seaways, obtaining all necessary permits and construction of port facilities thus, the Pc is estimated to be 0.80. The arctic presents operational challenges, however, the location of the first drilling locations are ice free, and near coastlines within the fjords allowing access to the eastern ocean shipping lanes. The Company has been proactive with the Greenland government concerning all permits and environmental legislation required to conduct both exploration and development activities. The third-party engineering firms the company has contracted with are globally recognized as experts in arctic oil and gas development operations and logistics.

Integrating the recent detailed audit (2024) with the comprehensive archival geological and geophysical data (1987 ARCO report) and the 80 Mile assessment:

Future exploration should prioritize improved seismic surveys, geochemical analyses of source rock maturity and lateral extent, and exploration drilling targeting large carbonate build-ups and stacked sandstone units adjacent to mapped source kitchen areas.

The Company is an exploration stage oil and gas company with no reserves. All of the Company’s properties are undrilled exploration acreage. The Company has not established the commercial viability of any oil or gas accumulations and may never do so. Any potential for future hydrocarbon recovery is highly speculative and uncertain. Investors should carefully consider the high-risk nature of oil and gas exploration before making investment decisions.

Sproule ERCE has utilized internal licensed Artificial Intelligence Large Language Models to assist in reviewing provided documentation and organizing sections of this report. All sections of this report have been reviewed by subject matter experts for accuracy and consistency.

Locations

Corporate Headquarters

140 Fourth Avenue SW, Suite 900

Calgary, AB

Canada, T2P 3N3

T +1 403 294 5500

TF +1 877 777 6135

Appendix A: Probabilistic Factors used for Volumetric Analysis

Appendix B: Individual and Total Gross Unrisked Prospect Volumes