Member Info for Blubay

I've no idea what personal pronouns Dr Mshiu uses. It doesn't alter that fact that you can't signal reserve volumes from surface gas concentrations. The tools within Dr Mshiu's specialism have indeed signalled potentially large reserve volumes in the Rukwa basin but that's another story.

It wasn't anywhere near as awkward as last year's AGM

The ML is not contingent on the CPR, it's the other way around. The financing negotiations are contingent on the CPR, the CPR is contingent on sharing data from the feasibility study. All of that process is contingent on the ML.

I don't doubt her credentials but the quote being used out of context is misleading. Concentration does not indicate volume. There may be lots of other signals of volume from seismic, down hole geophysical data, and sub-surface modelling but those estimates haven't been published yet.

It's not blocked, they don't have to resubmit the accounts if they don't want to. Storm in a teacup. Only about 4% of voting rights were exercised on a non-binding advisory resolution, and about 2% were against the resolution (i.e. about 96% didn't vote and 98% didn't vote against the resolution). It's mildly awkward PR but the Board can proceed as it chooses in this situation I think.

Yes, but why post it three times when it's factually incorrect? The politician has clearly misunderstood or conflated the published information. Concentration does not signal volume, period. This was explained and you've simple copy and pasted it again.

You've posted this three times. Could you back and maybe read the comments?

Great information as usual Pete. You would hope that a government contribution in kind would be the improvement of transport infrastructure. They've focused on international investment to trans-African rail connectivity but regional road connectivity into Rukwa is essential if they're going to realise their strategy to open that region up for economic development more generally (as well as specifically for a helium, hydrogen industry etc).

It is a bit misleading Toffers, the % concentration says nothing about the volume. The 4.7% (or 5.5%) is the helium concentration in gas sampled at surface, which in turn comes out of the liquid flowed from basement. It's not the % concentration of helium in the liquid, so you don't get 4.7% of the well flow in helium (and you can't compare it with a free gas flow like in Colorado). On the plus side, the potential volume from the basement appears to be practically infinite so that is indeed 'huge' by any measure.

No activity? They're building out an entire commercial development project in Colorado, starting with 6 wells and processing plant, leading to 15 wells, and building out from there to potentially 30 wells. How on earth is that 'no activity'?

Too late Recal, looks like it's bounced quite hard above 0.8p as expected.

Roger - there is a distinction between 'opinion' and misleading or false statements which are deemed by deemed by LSE moderators to be market abuse.

That's complete nonsense. The next support is not 0.6p. It's far more likely to bounce at or above 0.8p or at 30 RSI

Do you not understand the basics of diversification and business risk management strategy? Of course it's an insurance or hedge, so what? That's good business sense. But it's not hedging the risk you are inventing (Rukwa being a non-starter), it's hedging the risk of Rukwa not generating income within 6-12 months. Originally, Rukwa was envisaged as a short to medium term project with 6 wells from Tai, possibly shallow targets. Now it's 25-30 wells and a longer time frame. The near term project plugs that gap and fulfils the company's strategy to be revenue generating in the first half of 2025.

Recalibrate88 - can you not get it into your head that the 'secondary play' is an asset not a liability? It's fully funded and near term revenue generating, as well as diversifying and derisking reliance on a single longer term project. They spent a year looking for suitable project acquisition targets. What on earth is not to like about it?

It's been in a trading range for quite a long time, pending further development news (or for other reasons according to the various conspiracy theories). It will probably bounce where it's bounced before, somewhere around or above 0.8p. Daily RSI dropped to 30 the first time and oversold 26 the second time, it's approaching 30 again this week so probably time for a reversal.

Yes, just some round numbers for illustration. But I do think some realism is needed from those touting billions per year. The optimal flow for ITW-1 was estimated at 6,000 cf per day, so a bit more than 2mcf per year from one well, or 50-60mcf per year from 25-30 wells of the same capacity, or >0.5bcf over ten years. The engineering model may well improve on that for the production wells but it’s unlikely to be ‘billions per year’. On the other hand, it’s potentially a never ending supply!

Why would there be a placing when the company have just stated categorically that there are no plans for a placing, that there will not be a placing in the next quarter, and that the board have withdrawn their authority to make any placing without shareholder consent?

Just for illustration, if the project budget was $100m and syndicate banks loaned $50m to the SPV and purchased 50% equity for $50m then the SPV only needs to repay around $5m a year plus interest over a 10 year mining licence. Anything above that, minus opex, is profit, which might be split 50-50 as in Colorado. E.g. $30m annual revenue ($1m per well) minus $10m opex and debt payments might result in say $10m surplus pa to HE1. Just for illustration, multiply up or down per modelling of the wells. or different equity proportions.

HE1 don’t need any money to build a processing plant if the proposed plan works out. The usual approach is to seek project funding from banks etc with equity partnership (its also a requirement in TZ to give their national banks first option on SPV finance).