Member Info for asimpleinvestor

@spantrout Post whatever you want it’s not about right or wrong, because there will always be someone who disagrees and someone who agrees. That’s just how sharing information works. But if your goal is to bicker, insult, or abuse, then expect the same in return. Other people’s opinions of you don’t matter its not a popularity contest; any information you share is valuable to somebody if it’s easily verifiable from other independent sources.

A year ago it was all hope and excited and lots of promises a year later milestones have been missed a lot of fluff has been shared with some minor news in between and not much in the way of contracts grants or revenue, so people are acting cautiously. Nothing wrong with that, at least people are still invested.

My optimism will remain supressed for as long as the share stays in suspension.

@skeir1 Reform might be fine for emptying the bins, but running the country is another story. With waste collection, there’s a third-party contractor involved, so the only drama comes if they forget to pay the bill. On a national scale, they’d have to roll up their sleeves, and that’s not their style. Locally, when responsibility calls, they simply step down.

@STP That'll be The Sir Thomas Gerard but its unlikely you will find them there, they prefer the Robin Hood across the road.

@88 Just imagine if you had provided the context yourself rather than just blind figures.

That’s your take on the final figure, but what’s missing are the structural reasons behind it (context). The specific £5.4 billion widening of the deficit between May last year (£17.9bn) and May this year (£23.3bn) comes down to a clear imbalance on the ledger: total spending shot up by £9.1 billion, while tax revenues only grew by £3.7 billion.

A massive chunk of that spending growth is structural. The pension triple lock uprating alone adds £6 billion to the welfare bill this year—translating to roughly £500m of extra spending for May alongside other inflation-uprated benefits. I mention pensions specifically as pensions accounts for 55% of the benefits bill. Combine that with a £2.2 billion rise in day to day public service running costs and a massive £4.1 billion spike in inflation linked debt interest from recent energy shocks, and it becomes clear that spending was structurally locked in to outpace tax receipts.

The reality is that the public is caught in a fiscal paradox: there is little appetite for tax increases, yet borrowing to cover the resulting shortfall and paying the interest attached is viewed with equal disdain. The only way to meaningfully decrease these costs would be a sustained period of negative inflation (deflation), but that would be a cure far worse than the disease, inevitably triggering widespread job losses and long term wage stagnation.

Did you expect them not to? Common sense would tell you debt interest would increase as its proportional to expanding borrowing and has been increasing between 2008 -2020 and exponentially from the pandemic costs onwards. Benefits and investment will have increased as they increase exponentially every year at this time driven by uprated benefits criteria and ongoing public development commitments and public service costs increased due to increased costs at the point of use, that's what inflation does it makes things cost more.

The only way benefits, investments and public services would cost less is if they were cut so I assume you are one of those who think the triple lock should be removed from pensions and instead pensions should be frozen which would have saved the government £6 billion this year alone.

@czql5v Between £1.20-£1.40 at EOY along with dividends from the current £1.04 is still reasonable ROI for a UK share and between 5 and 14 times the rate of inflation.

@Warrie I thought ALRT had an ATM facility so it wouldn't need any large highly diluting fundraising or has that completed. Either way I was under the impression they have a good stash of cash to cover cash burn for a good while yet.

A low pound is good for exports, manufacturing and productivity, as it makes us competitive so I'm not sure what the fuss is about

I'm 15% up which is something of a miracle i didn't expect to go into profit until after the consolidation. Who knew!

I can think of two posters who will be peeved off at that news and will make silly claims like I'm not even invested blah blah!😁

@Ezhik, valuing a resource company with an artificial 5x P/E on initial, early stage ramp up volumes is fundamentally flawed. It completely bypasses the value of the assets themselves.

The current market cap reflects the fact that Helix possesses 355 million cubic feet of proven, recoverable helium with a net revenue potential topping $115m to $220m. You cannot evaluate a mining or gas play solely by tracking the initial trailers leaving the yard while assigning a value of zero to millions of dollars worth of proven reserves in the ground.

As for the jibe about Bo Sears not managing the business the man has literally just purchased an entire drilling rig and drilling company (TSD LLC) alongside managing the 100% offtake deal, the Inez re-entry, and regular geological reporting. Vertically integrating the company to control their own drilling schedule and cut operational costs is textbook asset management. Two RNS updates and a major acquisition in the weeks since the AGM is an incredibly active pipeline.

@spantrout, let's put it another way. Bo has explicitly RNS'd the specific equipment purchased for filtration and production. If you look at the technical specifications of that modular system, which is easy to do if you have access to the internet, as you have otherwise you won't be reading this, it tells you exactly what it can and cannot achieve. Bo has simply communicated what the machinery is rated for based on those manufacturer specs.

If you read back through the filings, identify the processing hardware in use, and look up its operational limits, you will see exactly what can be accomplished. You will also understand what additions and costs are required to scale from the current filtration setup to achieve consistent 5 9s or 6 9s purity. In relation to 5 9s we had to wait for a filtration module before we could move forward to production so that in itself provides your answer.

It is called due diligence. It isn't the company's job to hold your hand and lead you up the path. It is up to you to research the technical gaps the company hasn't detailed for you, just like the rest of us do. If you're unwilling to do that, then you need to ask yourself some serious questions such as whether investing in shares like this is really for you. You appear to want everything handed to you on a plate at the company's expense in terms of time and money, while doing nothing for yourself.

@Stratton-Oakmont for most institutional investors, the main trigger point is the total market capitalization rather than the number of shares in issue, although they tend to avoid shares priced in the hundredths or thousandths of a penny.

@spantrout, you are correct that there has been a step change in communication, but it is the predictable lull that occurs when an explorer prioritises all immediate resources on bringing its first helium assets online.

Questioning the plant's capability or the allocation of capital are valid investment considerations, but framing them as dark, unanswered mysteries ignores standard corporate practice.

The plant's capability is fundamentally answered by the commercial supply contract at spot prices. A commercial counterparty does not sign an offtake agreement for product that fails to meet marketable thresholds.

Regarding the £1m earmarked for a well: capital allocation is naturally fluid during a transition to production. Funds are redeployed where they are most urgently required to secure first gas and revenue infrastructure. Any shifting of corporate cash will be fully detailed in the audited financial accounts, which is where balance sheet data belongs not in casual PR statements.

It is worth remembering that the company is not a single-project entity. There is a substantial development pipeline sitting behind the immediate helium production push, including future targets for hydrogen and argon.

The current quiet phase is an operational necessity to secure initial revenue. As those secondary pipeline assets progress and move into their own active exploration and development phases, the news flow will naturally increase again. However, two separate updates since the results of the AGM less than three weeks ago isn't exactly radio silence.

@spantrout, I am not the one who is concerned; I am entirely happy with current proceedings and accept the operational reality. You are the one expressing anxiety and making a mountain out of a molehill over a minor fluctuation in the share price.

If you have questions that are not material to the share value, ask the company directly and you may receive a response. If you don't, you can try directing them through the Nomad. However, if the information is material to the share value, they are legally required to ignore private individual queries and will issue a formal RNS only when they are ready. Outside of that, you are simply stuck between a rock and a hard place.

"The sequence was made public last year on Inez entry yet somehow they managed to inform ppl every step of the way, why not now?"

Ask them? Or if they're not answering you ask the nomad to pass the message on then they can bill them for their time too, after all costs isn't an issue is it. Are you sure it doesn't come down to hand holding? Your queries suggest otherwise.

@blatav1, that is what was stated at the AGM. Whether it was a factual update or just a slip of the tongue that got tongues wagging, I don't know. We will have to wait for a formal update to see if it stands, or if it was just a Freudian slip to be forgotten.

Either way, I'm not overly concerned. The bottom line is that the company has still managed to secure a supply contract at spot prices, which is what matters most for the bottom line.

@spantrout, the context around Inez is being overlooked here. The issue with Inez was openly disclosed last year, and the market was explicitly informed at the time that the well was being sidelined until after initial production had commenced.

The strategic rationale was perfectly clear: management chose to focus all company energy and resources on securing first gas and establishing an immediate revenue stream from the other assets. Generating that initial cash flow to fund future expansion was prioritised over spending limited capital on troubleshooting a single sidelined well early on. The recent re-entry update on 26 May only occurred because those production milestones and the 100% offtake framework were securely in place, exactly as originally planned.

It seems that not only are updates missing the frequency you require, but you are also struggling to retain the information that is provided. Having fewer filings to digest might actually help focus your mind on the established timelines and operational milestones ahead. Constant running commentaries often do more to obscure the big picture than clarify it.