Member Info for asimpleinvestor

@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.

@blatav1, the reason those three sentences cannot be posted comes down to the specific nature of the data points you mentioned.

The sequence regarding Inez has already been made public, so further updates are redundant until the situation changes. Trailer counts are simply standard operational logistics; tracking product leaving the yard belongs in the financial accounts under sales figures, not in ongoing PR updates.

Crucially, moving from the current 99.995% to 5 9s purity is highly material, price-sensitive information. When that milestone occurs, it requires a formal RNS disclosure by law. Until then, management cannot offer unofficial, partial updates on daily site metrics without risking regulatory complications.

I sold shortly after that occurred and bought £1 back to keep an eye on the share in my active page. I’m glad I did as it shows 49% down at the moment. Still waiting upon the trial, no sign of any change in Morocco and nothing happening in South America (forgotten where). Have I missed anything out I don't look in very often now.

Thats why a lot of small hard up companies use REACH but still can't bypass the NOMAD fees

@Ezhic Really!

"ASI, I'm not asking to have my hand held thank you."

@spantrout, if I recall correctly, "hand-holding" was the exact phrase Bo used in his interview. No news is standard operational procedure until a material change occurs; it is not a case of liking the situation, but rather what choice do we have?

On the subject of costs, the idea of a £9.99 quick update is a misconception. A basic RNS costs between £150 and £400 just for the dissemination platform fee. On top of that, the text must be vetted and authorized by the Nomad or legal team. If an update requires an ad-hoc or out-of-scope regulatory review, it is billed at professional rates between £250 and £1,200 per hour depending on seniority. Even minor official updates require real budget and administrative clearance.

Right now, the MoD is the only customer we know about. If there are others, we’ll find out when the time comes, but for now, we can only discuss what we do know, not what we don’t. Any additional customers would be considered price-sensitive information, so the company is legally required to inform the market, even if the client’s name remains confidential.

Helix is now a producer, not an explorer. That means a completely different set of daily operational responsibilities and less time for PR.

The leadership has explicitly stated they will not post pointless updates just to hand hold anxious investors. Their time is better spent building real share value. If there is market sensitive news, it will be published via official channels. Expecting updates on every minor mechanical fix or routine site maintenance is unrealistic; it wastes both time and company capital for no commercial benefit.

@SeasiderDan93

The timeline aligns directly with standard MoD procurement pathways, which carry far more weight than what an executive of the company suggests in a promotional interview.

The official transparency notice explicitly states that Project STRONG is a short-term, 3-month prototyping phase running from June to September 2026. Moving from a £226,000 technical trial to a full, production grade rollout requires passing formal MoD evaluations, security accreditations, and subsequent annual budgetary approval windows. Defence procurement cycles follow these strict institutional timelines regardless of corporate rhetoric. I will stick with how the government works and MoD policy guidelines

The first rule of investing in companies looking to gain military contracts is simple: never believe what the BoD says until it has been confirmed by an official government source or sources.

These links will give you a basic understanding of what is actually involved in the procurement process if you are interested:

Notice Types & Statutory Timelines: https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Home/NoticeTypes

Defence & Security Contracts Guidance: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/procurement-act-2023-guidance-documents-plan-phase/guidance-defence-and-security-contracts-html

MoD Procurement Infrastructure: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-defence/about/procurement

MoD Forward Acquisition Pipeline: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mod-acquisition-pipeline

On a plus note unemployment figures down, immigration figures down, plus inflation down and if you like tech stocks they're jumping for joy, well at least mine are anyway. If figures continue in the same vein, we may see a drop next time which would be a boost for my energy stocks but a downer for my banking stocks and of course a downer for the meagre amount of cash I have saved.

Looyds has seen a small drop today (0.02%) currently but a gain yesterday and almost 9% gain over the last week.

Not going to happen before at least the long end of 2027 its currently only just entering stage one of the testing and evaluation phase it has much to prove before we are looking at deployment contracts

@gasman I hate to say it but ZagEgypt is correct. In relation to your follow up question the Section 793 identity audit and the Section 593 valuation report are the formal legal prerequisites required before these shares can legally be issued to the lenders whomever they may be.

I was thinking that too but chose to stay quiet. Think it may be a case of buy the rumour sell the news

@TheExsanguinator You should have read the RNS yesterday it would have saved you the need to post.

@PixelsIt isn't DH that is creating this operational opening, but the government itself. Over the last decade, the MoD has been forced to reform its procurement frameworks via specific initiatives designed by policymakers to give small, nimble companies a direct route into defence contracts.

DASA (Defence and Security Accelerator) was originally announced in the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review and formally launched in September 2016 by the then Secretary of State for Defence, Sir Michael Fallon, as part of the Defence Innovation Initiative to bridge the "valley of death" for tech SMEs.

NSSIF (National Security Strategic Investment Fund) the corporate venturing arm for dualuse tech was developed out of decisions made in 2017/2018 under Fallon’s successor, Gavin Williamson, alongside the British Business Bank to scale up the deployment of agile technology across the national security and defence community.

These programs were explicitly designed because old style, bloated prime contractor infrastructure cannot keep pace with the modern requirements of rapid technological warfare.

The company is certainly taking commercial advantage of these regulatory shifts to overcome the historic SME access barriers you mentioned, but they are following existing policy rails rather than laying them. The way some RNS announcements are framed can make it sound as though the company is at the vanguard of writing government policy, but the reality is far different. They are adapting to a preexisting procurement pivot that the government mandated to curb the exact over budget, slow moving prime contracts you highlighted.

@MG01 ALRT is focused on "in-the-field" tactical AI, situational awareness, and secure information dissemination rather than large scale cyber warfare or defensive enterprise cyber security.

Those broader cyber defence sectors require massive infrastructure investments and are already heavily dominated by established primes with exceptionally deep pockets. ALRT's strategic positioning with Whitespace and the Collective OS is specifically targeted at deploying agile decision support tools at the tactical edge.

Punter loves to report posts but goes ape if you report him or gives him a taste of his own medicine and becomes your own personal stalker for months after the event. Better to filter him as I have done and leave him to rant to himself. We can count the seconds before he comes blazing on here to shout me down with a mouthful of abuse. Pity all I see is a little green box.

Nowt new then

@VikR So if the disconnect between the market cap and potential is so wide, are you buying up chunks of the 50 billion share float at these higher prices to help lift it? Market makers don't arbitrarily hold down a company with a £13m–£15m valuation; they react to order flow. The only logical way the market cap increases is if buyers actually deploy serious capital to absorb the immense liquidity and drive the bid up. Until that happens, the potential remains entirely disconnected from the reality of the order book.

16 minutes and counting