Member Info for asimpleinvestor

@Newuncle I’m not attacking anyone, just sharing the figures provided by RMD and the company. There’s nothing wrong with dilution if it benefits both shareholders and the company, but that doesn’t mean you should follow blindly without considering how it impacts your investment.

So, Zag, you don’t believe RMD’s own figures, which are exactly the ones I’ve used. Saying I’m wrong is basically saying RMD is wrong, and if they are, then they’re not the saviors you think they are, are they?

@tricky125 The argument that nuclear weapons serve as a vital deterrent is a cornerstone of Realist IR theory. The North Korean case demonstrates how the acquisition of nuclear capabilities can shift an adversary's strategy from "maximum pressure" to diplomatic engagement, as seen during the 2018–2019 summits. From a geopolitical perspective, Iran’s regional rivals and the West view its nuclear programme as a threat to the balance of power, while proponents of the "Nuclear Peace" theory argue that a nuclear-armed Iran might paradoxically stabilise the region by creating a Security Dilemma that forces all parties to avoid direct escalation.

Israel’s refusal to confirm its nuclear status is a calculated strategy known as Nuclear Opacity or Amimut. By maintaining this "open secret," Israel achieves the psychological benefits of deterrence without triggering the formal legal obligations or international sanctions that follow a public declaration. This ambiguity also provides diplomatic cover for allies like the United States, who would otherwise be legally required to address the nuclear status of a non-NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) signatory. This policy is designed to prevent a regional arms race while ensuring that adversaries remain cautious of Israel's ultimate "second-strike" capability.

The shift in media coverage regarding the casualties in Palestine can be analysed through the psychological concept of Psychic Numbing. Research suggests that as the death toll of a conflict rises, the public’s emotional engagement often decreases; the human brain can readily empathise with an individual tragedy but struggles to process the horror of "tens of thousands" as anything more than a statistic. This is exacerbated by Compassion Fatigue and the standard media cycle, which prioritises "novel" events over protracted crises. Consequently, even as the intensity of violence remains high, it often loses its position as a lead story in Western outlets, leading to the perception of public and institutional immunity to the loss of life.

Regarding the legality of civilian casualties, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is governed by the principles of Distinction, Proportionality, and Necessity. Under the Geneva Conventions, the killing of civilians is not "ok" in a legal sense, but the threshold for a war crime depends on whether the civilian harm was "excessive" compared to the direct military advantage sought. Currently, the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are the primary venues for investigating whether these legal thresholds have been crossed. The perceived lack of accountability often points to the limitations of international enforcement mechanisms when major global powers or their allies are involved.

@broomtree Buy the rumour, sell the news.

The answer is what I posted. If you can’t be bothered to follow the thread and only focus on the last post instead of how the discussion developed, this suggests you put the same effort into doing your due diligence which, in this case, is a big fat zero.

There’s always a reason to pull back and a reason not to. The decision usually comes on the day whether that’s tomorrow, the next day, or sometime after. Either way, it’s all cyclical; nothing ever moves in a straight line. To pretend otherwise is to kid yourself.

Its okay I found the company https://stirlingversal.com/

Do you have a link?

"You would assume that institutions or PIs who know RMD as well as the Grand chief will be looking to invest. Yes there will be dilution, but get in early and add through placings is how smart investors work for long game."

Everyone who’s currently invested has already gotten in early, but is today still too soon? Once dilution ends, those holding shares now could see them worth only a fraction of yesterday’s value. Future investors might be better off watching the trajectory after dilution rather than buying in before getting diluted into oblivion.

@JamesTrader71 That question has already been asked and duly answered. If it is of interest to you then you can read back to earlier posts, as you will find your answer there.

@troublesome I prefer to hedge and invest in both renewables and fossil fuels along with advanced tech to drive them.

I hope so but have a feeling if there is a pullback it will settle around 120p

@Onlyif We haven't stopped drilling the North Sea and West of Shetland just stopped issuing new licenses. There are roughly 284 active oil and gas fields in the UK North Sea and currently 30 active rigs in the UK North Sea drilling new sites as well as 6 exploration wells forecast in the West of Shetland and 15 in the North Sea (Central/Northern) over the coming year.

@lloydyboy "Sticky hands" only work when the supply is tight. Yesterday’s RNS did the exact opposite it increased the total supply by 50%. Even if retail doesn't sell a single share, the market still has to absorb 16.6 billion new shares held by institutions who are already sitting on a profit at anything above 0.03p.

As for a buyback, that’s a non-starter. QHE just raised £5m because they don't have the spare cash to fund the infrastructure for Sagebrush and Coyote Wash. You don't dilute by 33% just to buy the shares back; you do it because the journey to "gas in the tubes" is expensive.

The talk of oil is a distraction the Leadville perforation next week is all about 2.76% helium. Proving flow is a great milestone, but it doesn't delete the 50,000,000,000 shares now in issue. We aren't in "explosive" territory yet; we're in the "massive absorption" phase where every tick up requires hundreds of thousands of pounds in fresh buying power.

We don't supply biofuels yet. The only biofuel in our product portfolio is bioMSAR™ Zero which is still in the R&D stage with commercial launch targeted for 2030. Our other products are either fossil fuels or co-processed blended fossil fuels.

"So much negativity what has changed from yesterday other than we have raised £5 million, got US institutional investors on board and now we are looking for the helium at the bottom of the well."

@Robsaunders99 33% dilution

@dusterhater It’s not just about the total £; it’s about liquidity friction. Yes, the market cap is the ultimate valuation, but the structure of that cap determines how much effort is needed to move the needle.

In HEX, with only 130m shares, the "float" is tight. Small buy orders can clear the order book and move the price rapidly. In QHE, because we have 50 billion shares, we have a massive "denominator effect." Yesterday’s 33.3% dilution added 16.6 billion shares that weren't there on Thursday. To move the price even 1 tick now, you need to churn through roughly £250,000 worth of stock in a single direction.

If share count didn't matter, companies like PREM wouldn't bother with 1:10 consolidations to "reset" their price action. Success at the wellhead is great, but if you have to shift 10 billion shares just to see a 20% gain, you're fighting a level of mathematical gravity that HEX simply doesn't have to deal with. It's not about "shares per £1," it's about the total volume required to move 50,000,000,000 units. With HEX you get fewer shares for your money, but you get significantly higher underlying value per share.

@Robsaunders99 Having better roads than Tanzania is a plus, but it doesn't solve the "paper" problem. The comparison to HEX is the one that really stings they managed to advance their US assets while keeping a tight float of ~130m shares. Because QHE has 49.9 billion shares, we need 380 times the buying power to get the same percentage move as HEX.

Also, your valuation is a bit behind; with the new shares from today, we’re already at a £15.2m market cap. To hit your £50m target, the price has to triple to ~0.10p, which means finding buyers for another £35 million of net value. A "farm-out" would be great, but until the ink is dry, we are still dealing with the reality of 16.6 billion new shares issued at a discount today. The "kerching" only happens if the volume can actually lift the weight of 50 billion shares.

Https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/QHE/1635-million-institutional-placing-27uevku1e5he447.html

@Africanskies I’m not saying it’s impossible, just that the mechanical hurdle is significantly higher now. Every dilution makes the "pointer" heavier. Before today, a 0.01p move cost the market £3.3m; now it costs £5m. If we need more cash before the gas is actually sold which is likely given the £5m is for "planning and long-leads" that share count could easily head toward 60 or 70 billion.

We saw it with PREM and HE1: success at the wellhead is great, but if you've diluted the share price into the basement to get there, the volume required to actually "multibag" becomes astronomical. You aren't just fighting sentiment; you're fighting the math of 50,000,000,000 shares. With perforations at the Leadville Formation scheduled for next week, the market will soon see if the "flow" is enough to overcome the "weight" of the new paper.

@steakpie We’re on a share forum to discuss data, and the data today shows a significant shift in the capital structure. Firstly, official LSE volume today was around 1.7 billion shares, not 11.5 billion. Trading 3.5% of the company isn't the "massive" volume shift needed to clear a 50-billion-share count; it's just a standard high-liquidity day.

As for being invested, I sold my holding at the open this morning at 0.0315p before the full weight of the placing kicked in. Nothing in today's RNS suggests a positive "re-rating" is imminent when you’ve just added 16.6 billion shares at a discount. The "pointer" won't move until we see tens of billions in volume to absorb that new supply. Success at the wellhead is a great prospect, but the math of the share count remains the dominant mechanical factor for the price and it isn't in positive territory to warrant reinvesting yet. It’s interesting how a difference of opinion based on raw numbers causes such a reaction no need for the "alternative facts" on volume!