Member Info for Blubay

Are you suggesting they wouldn't check with their Nomad on an agreement to issue new shares? Issuing shares as payment for services could count as a "related party transaction" or a "substantial transaction" (depending on the circumstances), so yes, they should seek Nomad approval.

It depends whether you believe HE1's regulated Nomad sanctioned an agreement for a third party to choose between cash and shares after results, on the basis of insider trading information undisclosed to the market. Wouldn't that be illegal?

You said "They waited however until now to request the renumeration by issue of equity." That's simply incorrect, as the RNS says.

Why are you assuming they have chosen only now to take shares in payment when the RNS clearly says "the arrangement was agreed with the service provider prior to the commencement of the EWT operation"? I may be missing something but I don't understand the logic. Yes, the provider was bullish about the prospects of the EWT when they agreed to accept some shares, and they were right, it's paid off well for them. But I don't understand what the date of admission has to do with it. Surely if today's listing date had been in any way manipulated by them (I don't believe it has) then it would clearly signal that they wanted to trade them this week and not hold them. What am I missing?

No, that's the whole point. They didn't have inside information about the EWT results at the date they agreed to accept part payment in shares for their work. The contract was signed off by 1 July and the RNS clearly says this arrangement was agreed then. Otherwise you're implying that HE1 has since colluded with a third party to profit from insider trading by allowing them to choose the timing of a share transaction on basis of information not available to the market, which I sincerely doubt as that would be illegal.

Sure, they wouldn't be passive. They would have made a considered decision back in June to agree to a portion of their fee in equivalent shares, to be paid after completion of the work, in the hope of gaining from a rise in the share price between the date of contract and the date of payment. They got that spot on and will have made a tidy profit of maybe 25-35% on that part of the deal.

I'm not sure if there's any point to make about timing. They agreed to take the shares back in June/July for work in September and I presume today is just the date for settling up payment of their invoice, as agreed. If the contractor with inside information was given any kind of choice about the date to admit their shares to trading then wouldn't that be more of a sell signal? (but I don't believe that to be the case, I think it's just routine in this case, and any hint of insider trading would have to be avoided anyway).

I'm not negative at all about HE1's long term prospects, but the point of a contractor agreeing to part payment in equity on a risky project is to hedge that risk. They're a service provider not an investment fund. Personally, I'd expect them to just settle up and cash in their winnings rather than riding out further market risk.

If they've made a 25% bonus on that portion of their fee they'll probably just sell the shares now and take the money.

Contract signing was reported RNS 1 July when the SP was around 0.75p, so they will have done well if shares admitted today around 1p

It's completely normal for drilling contractors/services to agree some part payment in equity from early stage exploration companies. It's just a hedge position. Baker Hughes also did it on previous HE1 drills at Tai. Can be early exposure to short term speculation for the drill phase they're involved or accepting shares at a later date based on possibility of the price being higher in the future.

300% that is

It's been a very good year for the company, transformational, going from near bankruptcy to having two helium projects for commercial development in 2025, plus a near 30% increase in share price year to date.

Also, they cannot reveal any information at the AGM that has not been made available to the market by then. Asking why something has not been released or when it is expected is worth doing, but you won’t get an answer to what is in it.

Toffers, you keep imagining deadlines where none exist, all through the process ever since the submission. What happened to your 'three weeks', or an announcement before the US helium summit, or before the mining conference? There is no deadline or implied deadline. All we know is that some other recent projects in TZ have been decided in 'around three months'. It could be tomorrow, it could be Christmas, it could be in the new year. The only indication we're likely to get is if there's pre-emptory move in the share price, if there's a leak.

Quite an expensive administrative error for the sake of a single digit typo but still legal requirement to correct at earliest opportunity (intraday if necessary) to avoid misinforming the market.

It's not 'cloak and dagger'. The services for the EWT were contracted in July and there was an RNS then. Terms of payment are commercially sensitive though so you wouldn't expect them to be announced (although companies quite often do announce that a contractor has taken part payment in shares). The timing is less usual. You'd expect a well contractor to accept shares that might rise on short term speculation of results rather than getting them months later after pricing in news, but they may have had a contract option to choose later between cash/shares for balance of payment, in which case it might seem more bullish. No way of knowing without inside info.

It's completely normal for exploration companies to negotiate part payment for drilling services in share payments. It's a very small amount and it was agreed months ago before the EWT. The board always has authority to issue shares within the limits voted on at the AGM every year. They have shareholder permission!

For the EWT the well services were contracted to SLB and Geolog, plus any local ancillary providers

Pete, it’s only £150k not £15m 😉