Member Info for Blubay

You know as well as I do that they already had working capital until at least end June 2025 a year ago, before cutting costs (relinquishing uncommercial prospecting licences, retiring NED etc) and then raising again. Are you suggesting that the auditor prepared false accounts or that CFO was lying to the market at the AGM?

No, it also included an addition to working capital contingency

No, the last raise was at the end of August.

This has been answered over and over again. According to the AGM the week before Christmas, the company has sufficient free cash for 12 months. They have no debt. All planned operations in Colorado are also fully funded. No placements are planned and categorically there will be no placements in the next quarter. If there are any future share raises then shareholder approval will be sought in advance. It could not be clearer.

Zoffy - "This suggests the funding situation may not be as robust as initially presented."

You may have misunderstood. The State-16 well is already drilled and tested to bring on stream for production, once it can be tied back to the processing plant (adjacent to Jackson 31). An independent engineering assessment was completed back in July to establish the initial production flow estimates. That makes it more cost robust not less. It's already done. HE1 are funding the next 5 wells, to make up the 6 (Jackson 2, 4, 27, 29 and 31 ). These aren't complicated well designs (shallow, vertical, no side tracks, using a standard water well rig), budgeted under $500k per drill. There are of course prospecting risks associated with any drilling project, but on a scale of risk this phase of this project doesn't look particularly high risk.

Tuvok - “What is the cash position here”

As reported at the AGM, the company has free cash for 12 months and no debt. It is also fully funded for all planned operations, which covers development of the Colorado project up to cash generation within 6 months. In addition, the Board confirmed there will be no share placements in the next quarter, and withdrew their authority to issue any future shares without prior shareholder consent. I don’t think they could be clearer than that.

The initial six Galactica Pegasus drills are being paid for by HE1, not by BNL, so there is no impact to the planned budget, which is fully funded and fenced in HE1’s accounts (liability for any unforeseen costs would be split 50-50).

Broomtree - "That’s the weakest excuse for an RNS I’ve seen in a while!"

No it isn't. BNL issued the announcement to ASX so HE1 is therefore obliged to inform its own market at the earliest opportunity, hence the rather hastily mirrored RNS.

"it is written into the exploration license that it will be received on certain conditions. "

There shouldn't be any real licencing difficulty on the mining side, so clarifications would be more likely around the ESIA implications. That's to be expected, it's a new industry in a remote region. They propose to drill 25-30 wells within the margins of an ecologically protected area (game reserve) and to process a lot of deep ground water in an area under a regional water management plan. It's not O&G wells or open cast mining though, it's non-toxic, very low road traffic impact etc so I guess the water management plan might be the main point for more detailed clarification. Water offtake would offer major economic gains for local farmers if it's well managed and doesn't deplete local community aquifers. Other new irrigation schemes have been very welcome there as long as they're appropriately managed with stakeholders but additional permits will be needed for any water use or discharge in the Rukwa basin.

https://www.rukwabasin.go.tz/

HEX estimate sustained flow 2,000 mscf/d of ‘raw gas’ with helium at 1.1%, so maybe a bit above 20 mscf/d of helium at $500 = c. $4m per year gross. Each well is assumed to drain a wide area of finite trapped gas reservoir across a porous field.

But sure, give us your alternate numbers, which you continually refuse to do. If you have no numbers you have no argument.

That’s not true though, is it? Even as a base case, HE1 estimate a sustainable stimulated flow from ITW-1 above 6mscf/d helium, based on 5.5% in gas from fluid (plus hydrogen). At a hypothetical $500 mscf mid market assumption that would be above $1m a year gross from that well (plus sale of hydrogen). Total project cost of $75-100m / 25-30 wells (including processing plant) is maybe $2.5-4m per well. Hypothetically that’s $30m per year revenue and probably a minimum of $10m per year profit to HE1 even if they gave up say 50% project equity, and servicing say $5m per year debt repayment. Thats not allowing for any well engineering improvements or any cost savings from geological knowledge, batch well drilling or new infrastructure, and not including any additional revenue from hydrogen, thermal or water users. You could argue about whether it might or might not prove more commercial than the Colorado project but I don’t think there’s any doubt it’s commercial. I’d guess a bare minimum of $100m profit over a ten year licence and more longer term (remember it’s effectively a never ending helium tap not a finite trapped reservoir).

That’s not true though, is it? Even as a base case, HE1 estimate a sustainable stimulated flow from ITW-1 at >6mscf/d helium, based on 5.5% in gas from fluid (plus hydrogen). At a hypothetical $500 mscf mid market assumption that would be >$1m a year gross from that well (plus sale of hydrogen). Total project cost of $75-100m / 25-30 wells (including processing plant) =

I totally get where you're coming from, it's useful thinking, but I do think there are some big assumptions in there, especially over 3-5 years, and talking about project economics rather than companies (which might acquire multiple projects, might dilute, or enter new partnerships, or take on new debt etc). I assume when you mention 'dividends' you mean return on investment for shareholders?

The past few months trading range has been roughly 0.85 to 1.2p, which suits me fine although I totally understand that it concerns some people in a different position. It doesn’t surprise me at all that the AGM uncertainty was heavily traded again within that range. I’m not trading so it doesn’t alter my opinion that the AGM presentations were very positive for the medium to long term. Others are welcome to a different opinion of course.

Initial flow tests on exploration wells might be indicative, and provide proof of concept, but they’re not really predictive of scaling up to production fields. Rukwa is still at the stage where further appraisal is needed to inform the commercial development. There’s some starters for discussion in this thread but beware of direct comparison. Without knowing the reserve estimates, the well and field engineering, how many wells, the grade of helium, the value of any parallel gas extraction, off taker markets etc, it’s going to be difficult to compare whole projects from single well tests.

I’m not sure I’ve flipped anything. I’m still happy holding my shares within the recent trading range. There has never been a deadline for the ML. Rukwa is a longer term project. The immediate operational focus should be on early cash flow from Colorado in H1 2025. Unless something goes wrong that’s already funded. I see no current reason for further dilutive capital in that timeframe. I thought the AGM helped to confirm all of the above. Does that help?

Your catastrophising as usual. There is no slippage other than the obvious one, reported in the last RNS, not anything particularly 'cloudy'. If there was other reportable slippage it would be reported, they've always done so in the past.

No one in the company ever pretended the ML would be awarded in 'weeks', that was an invention of certain posters here getting over excited. The only suggestions ever made by the company were on the project GANNT chart (licencing and commissioning phase September-March) and a CEO interview that vaguely mentioned 'after around three months' as a norm for other companies recently.

On the AGM it would be very easy for you to ask the company for clarity instead of speculating. Less than 4% of shareholder votes were exercised at the meeting, no voter raised a concern or even a question, and the accounts still stand as final, so you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Without broaching any confidences, the board is fully aware of shareholder fears about dilution and has therefore clarified that they will seek approval for authority as required in the future. That's been one of your concerns so you should be delighted at this point. Merry Christmas.

It's intriguing that this share is so under the radar, with barely any trades, when it's so close to an inflection point in the business plan, pipelining significant new custom to turn revenue positive within weeks and declaring technological and sales development backing from two huge international players. The past dilution will have wiped out a lot of early investor interest but that clearance ought to be a buy signal for any share when the chairman puts in quarter of a million at placement price. And it capitalises on the current AI investing trend. All looks very promising for a revival here if the planned customer pipeline plays out.

AIM's always a gamble and much more reliable for trading than investing. But I think as long as you're not throwing more than you can lose then there's no harm picking a horse or two to run with. That's my approach anyway. I would never put more than about 15% portfolio on AIM but I like to follow one or two companies that I think have a half chance of breaking out in a transformational way within a year or two, maybe in a niche market (HE1 has taken a bit longer unfortunately, but QED is on the gallop now, with RDT just under starters orders). Makes life interesting anyway, relieves the boredom of regular money making stocks.