Member Info for Blubay

It has no bearing on share price, none.

It’s neither good nor bad news, just a bit of housekeeping before the AGM. The small payment in shares was agreed before the EWT. You could speculate whether the release date has any significance but it would be just speculation.

It’s a small payment in shares for well services agreed prior to the EWT, about £150k

You’re the one asserting that you’re right on the basis of incomplete information. It’s a bet that you chose to take but it’s by no means a certain one. You’re just as likely to be wrong as the rocket rampers are. Never bet more than you can afford to lose 😉

“Data collated and evaluated by the Company's subsurface team, was integrated into a feasibility study, which was submitted with the Mining Licence ("ML") application, and demonstrates to the Mining Commission of Tanzania the viability of the southern Rukwa Helium Project”

The whole basis of the audited accounts (writing down the mining costs) is based on the auditing assumption that Rukwa remains a commercial focus for the business. The method requires the company to convince the auditors of this. I agree we have no indication yet of the expected ROI, so market caution is fine, but you’re make malicious assertions. You’re suggesting the directors have lied to their auditors and the market.

“Our main focus in the year ahead, once we have received the Mining Licence for which we have applied, will be on advancing the southern Rukwa Helium Project towards development.”

If you believe that to be true then can you explain why the company announces to the market in RNS that its “primary focus” remains in Tanzania, and why is it paying to retain its licence areas in Southern Rukwa?

How does this type of comment help anyone? There's no reason why the ML application would be rejected, and the business of the AGM is just routine and of very little interest. The Q&A discussion might be more informative if we're lucky. Could do with an update progress report on the Colorado project.

The share price holding above 5p despite the very low volume, seems settled and not fading. Looking forward to the next piece of news in the jigsaw to move things on towards commerciality in the new year.

If the ML was officially approved there would be news, they couldn't keep that from the market

It's just a renewal of authority for the same annual contingency as last year (representing approximately one-third of the issued share capital), not an instruction to issue, nothing out of the ordinary.

You said “ the mean average recoverable for Tai alone is 4 Bcf I would think they’re looking at 10 Bcf for the Rukwa Project.”

Sorry to be unclear but we simply don’t know what the recoverable is. The ‘prospective’ for Rukwa in 2021 was estimated at 138bcf unrisked and 25bcf gross with a risked NAV that assumed a ~5bcf discovery. That prospective estimate was updated in a 2023 CPR but we don’t yet have any estimate for the actual discovery (beyond a flow rate from the EWT).

We don’t know what the economically recoverable reserves are for Tai or Irumbula, or anywhere else. We have estimates of prospective (unproven, U) reserves, which were updated for Tai last year. We’re waiting for estimates of the proven/discovered contingent resources (C) or actual recoverable reserves (R). We have to assume there may be estimates in the feasibility study.

For reference…

https://nextinvestors.com/learn-to-invest/oil-gas/what-are-oil-and-gas-resources/

Russia are still exporting helium, they're one of the three biggest exporters in the world.

I've always assumed that it's because it's a non-conventional formation that requires unorthodox modelling, so they'd be prudent to obtain an independent CPR before making any company claims that might be knocked back later by a conventional O&G methodology. The issue is not really the prospective reserves, which are obviously large. It's all about the recoverable and contingent reserves now, and what they can legitimately claim in their financial modelling.

That's just a typically naïve view on these forums about how businesses work. The sole reason for listing on AIM is so that risky small cap companies that have no other means of financing to raise capital through share equity, particularly for early stage exploration companies. It's that simple. If they had other options they wouldn't be listed on AIM. Not 'trusting' an AIM company because they might raise is just stupid. The only question is whether a company is raising capital for activity that adds value or whether they are burning that capital without adding value. For example, there's is a massive difference between raising capital for speculative exploration activity versus capital for commercial development of proven resources, etc.

Your extrapolating from unknowns to present a worst case scenario. There simply is not enough information in the public domain to know the commerciality of the Rukwa project. It's obvious that the combined Itumbula EWT results were underwhelming, taken at face value, with much lower daily helium flow assumptions than the Colorado development well. But you have no evidence at all about the reserve estimates, or the well engineering models that have been applied to those findings in the feasibility study. We do know the model demonstrates 'positive economics for the company' with 20-30 wells, although we don't know what level of RoI that implies. If it was never going to be commercial then they would have abandoned the licence areas in exactly the same way they abandoned their other non-commercial licence areas in Eastern Rukwa and Balangida. And there is no way they would have paid out extra to retain six licence areas in Rukwa project rather than just the two subject to the ML (to play out your assumed 'charade'). It's reasonable to suggest that the Rukwa project is on a larger, longer and costlier scale than the project they originally planned for Tai (6 wells) and yes that raises different financing implications for a small company on a first project. So yes, it's fair to assume that Colorado was also a get out of jail card on that score, due to the near term revenue. But you're extrapolating a level of catastrophe way beyond the evidence available so far.

I don’t disagree, both types of posting are fictional

You’ve posted this coming every day since the last placement and been wrong every day. There isn’t likely to be a placement this year, let alone at this share price.

Seems a waste to maintain a short CFD position here now with such low volatility and pending several potential pieces of positive news, spud dates, ML etc. Lots of better opportunities on AIM for that.