Member Info for asimpleinvestor

@Nappers

The first actual commercial contract was with the police, not the MoD.

This MoD contract is not a standalone procurement success; it is merely the first step in a long, highly gated evaluation process to ascertain if the product functions effectively at the tactical edge. It will not be automatically extended in three months' time. The operational outcomes will be strictly analysed to decide if the capability is sufficient to clear the first gate of multiple steps before a formal, long-term procurement contract is ever put on the table.

Making grand claims about an immediate corporate re-rate without understanding the rigid mechanics of defence procurement is a mistake. It is critical to understand the actual operational pipeline before projecting a run, otherwise you are simply setting yourself up for an accident. While promotional posts will always secure likes from the standard forum rampers, serious investors conducting genuine due diligence will treat unbacked claims with the derision they deserve. The objective should be providing clear value to uncommitted readers analysing the board, not feeding the hype loop.

@Nappers

Not in this instance. The actual rubber stamping occurred when the previous transparency notice was published back on the 5th June. In government and defence procurement, authorities simply do not issue those formal notifications unless the contract is already effectively guaranteed and the commercial parameters are locked in.

The publication of the notice is the mechanism used to signal the intent to award the contract without a standard competitive tender, meaning the strategic hurdles were already cleared. Today's announcement is merely the administrative confirmation of what was already a done deal.

@maybe_tomorrow Ring them up if you want to trade they will be able to confirm your holding while online systems update and arrange any trades for you that way.

Its just a confirmation from the previous 5th June RNS, nothing new and its already baked in.

That saves me the need to explain the differences in concentration to @Ezhik Thank you @andypaps 👍👍

@Magpie1862 There are no lifestyle issues here. A quiet house late at night simply provides the concentration needed to analyse data and manage investments, which are largely automated to run in the background.

The daytime is reserved for family and estate management, with only brief intervals taken to scan the boards and check for new RNS updates. People structure their working and personal lives differently; this routine is highly efficient for my specific circumstances. Let's keep the focus on the data regarding QHE.

Should trade better now we have fewer shares in issue with greater gains but equally greater losses. Hopefully they will post the results now and the numbers are positive then this will explode.

By the way it was a consolidation not a placement.

@Ezhik No one is suggesting liquefying unprocessed gas; the value relies entirely on product purity. The purpose of the membrane unit is to filter out the bulk nitrogen contaminants at the source, leaving high-purity helium before it reaches the transport or liquefaction stage.

Regarding the logistics: while liquid helium is far denser than compressed gas, the addition of the membrane directly optimises the gaseous throughput. Reducing the trailer-fill time from four days down to two days increases output capacity to approximately 180 gaseous trailers per year for initial operations.

Furthermore, the liquefier is an independent asset capable of toll-processing third-party helium. Just like the recently acquired drilling rig, it can be utilised to generate an alternative revenue stream by processing volumes from other operators in the region rather than relying solely on internal feedstock.

"Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz why are you trying to engage me............your threatening, bullying legal clap trap doesn't bother me one iota! Just do it and let's see who is in the dock eh?"

There is no bullying here; I am simply using your own recorded language and highlighting the applicable legal frameworks. If you cannot handle the scrutiny, do not post the provocation.

It is clear I am not easily fazed. As your recent commentary on the HEX board demonstrates, appealing to your ego completely dictates the way you converse. It is a highly predictable pattern: when fed validation, you are perfectly accommodating. The moment you are contradicted, you resort to throwing tantrums, launching insults, and starting slanging matches. You are exceptionally easy to read, yet too short-sighted to see it.

Even after placings the current total shares in issue are tiny in comparison to similar companies that has gone from exploration into production and now expansion.

If they are still in the process of recovering the downhole equipment or have had to adjust their approach, they simply will not have the definitive flow data yet.

You pointed out these operational complexities yourself in previous posts when the share price was higher and your outlook was considerably more positive. Now that you have reduced your holding and are looking for a lower entry point, the tone of your questions has shifted significantly, even though the underlying regulatory reality remains identical.

If you genuinely believe Bo and the board are intentionally withholding price-sensitive information in breach of AIM rules, the correct course of action is to contact them directly, lodge your formal inquiry, and await their response.

Initial flow test results for Inez #1 were published by Helix in an RNS on 10th September 2025. The published data for that specific lower zone test includes:

Absolute Open Flow (AOF): Estimated at 1,157 Mcf/day.

Helium Grade: Assayed at 1.2% helium (with the balance being primarily nitrogen).

Maximum Surface Pressure: Recorded at 1,541 psi.

Management noted that the initial flow rates were heavily constrained by "skin damage" caused by dense drilling fluids during the completion process. They resolved this by acidising the well, which significantly improved delivery to commercial rates.

The lower flow rate compared to Linda #1 (3,850 Mcf/day) and Darwin #1 (2,750 Mcf/day) was expected due to the significantly smaller test interval used at Inez, which was perforated over just 55 feet (compared to 218 feet at Linda and 236 feet at Darwin).

Good link Punter there is that 99.95% figure again, not the hoped for 99.99%

The AIM Rules for Companies strictly dictate what constitutes price-sensitive information, not the management team. If an operational development falls within the scope of information that could materially affect the company's valuation, it must be disclosed immediately via an RNS.

Conversely, if a minor delay or operational hitch does not meet that threshold of materiality, disclosure is entirely at the company's discretion, outside of statutory financial statements and accounts.

Flow rates constitute price-sensitive information that can materially affect the valuation of the company. Because of this, Bo has no choice but to publish them via a regulatory announcement under statutory AIM disclosure rules; withholding material results is simply not an option.

Don't forget Argon

The disclosed figures for the raw gas flow rates and helium assays are detailed below:

Linda #1: Sustained flow rates of 3,850 Mcf/day of raw gas on a 40/64" choke, with an absolute open flow (AOF) calculated at over 4,700 Mcf/day. The high-grade helium assayed at 1.2%, with the balance being primarily nitrogen.

Darwin #1: Flowed 2,750 Mcf/day of raw gas, with a helium grade assaying at 1.1%.

Weil #1: Sustained flow rates of 2,300 Mcf/day of raw gas on a 32/64" choke, with a helium grade assaying at 1.0%

The main inlet compressors, pipework diameters, heat exchangers, and the Xebec Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) system itself are engineered to handle the current volumetric flow baseline of 1,500 Mcf/day, expanding to roughly 3,000 Mcf/day once the second US$500,000 membrane is commissioned. This is the absolute limit of the current plant.

If Helix intends to expand beyond 3,000 Mcf/day, they will need to transition from this localized, fast-track early production unit to a completely new, large-scale commercial central processing hub. The current setup is designed to be lean and modular specifically to secure early cash flow from the initial well stock at lower volumes, rather than to act as a massive regional processing terminal.

Two NEDs on the board provides two vital votes in major corporate decisions. This is not a matter of a lack of trust institutional investors do not commit capital if basic trust is absent. Rather, it is entirely about securing direct power and influence within the boardroom.

For once, I find myself in agreement with Punter, which is unfortunate given that I hold a reasonably sized position with an average price of 27.5p.

When a company announces a placing, the share price almost invariably falls to align with the placing price or occasionally drops even lower. Because the market opening tomorrow will in all likelihood see an immediate drop, there is little sense in reducing my holding at this stage. Instead, my plan is to wait for the price to settle and then purchase more shares to lower my average.

Normally, I am not a proponent of averaging down just for the sake of it, but this asset has strong underlying fundamentals, and I do not expect these lows to persist for long. Ultimately, everyone must make their own trading decisions, but Punter is correct here: ninety-nine times out of a hundred, the share price will drop to match the placing terms especially with a fundraising of this magnitude relative to the total market capitalisation.