Member Info for Blubay

That’s not a trading band, it’s just the bid/offer spread. The SP dropped so low after the problems with Voyager that they ran out of decimal places on the ASX listing. The smallest possible spread remains a large disincentive to trade.

This is completely untrue. During a sustained period of stabilised flow testing they were ‘not’ able to flow ‘commercial’ quantities of helium on this occasion. There’s a good explanation for this and it may well be overcome with a different well in another location, using the knowledge gained. That’s precisely why they’re now looking for new funding to develop a new forward plan to drill new wells and conduct new appraisal tests. How is this not self evident from test results?

Https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-03064722-6A1314892

Triple, with the best will in the world could you perhaps stop posting teams of AI generated filler text and think for a minute.

Or both scenarios could be true simultaneously, they’re not contradictory. News of commercial production at Galactica is due and should give a welcome boost. If there is a decent rerate then it’s also an ideal time to raise the next stage funds for Rukwa, to negotiate with any prospective partner, whether by borrowing or by raising equity. Having more options open will be a big step forward anyway.

“ because they hit 9.2% Helium and 16,400 bpd flow rates, they’ve proven the "Prize" is world-class.”

Why do people post these kinds of partial and misleading claims? Is it a lack of understanding or some other reason? The ESP flow test averaged 5.5% helium concentration. That’s 5.5% of the gas liberated from the water. The gas yielded was about 6% of the volume of water (around 15,000 barrels a day of water). So that’s 5.5% of 6%, or approximately 0.0033% helium by volume of the liquid pumped. You can’t just post the highest sample reading and the volume of water and expect it to make sense out of context. A farm in partner needs to understand how the gas water ratio can be increased, as well as the odds of hitting higher helium concentrations.

Triplestar- the market advantage that HE1 has is that they are not ‘just geologists’, their USP among the junior players is their expertise in capital markets and commercialisation. Agreed they have some vulnerabilities but there are strengths too.

There is no ‘quick’ route to production in Rukwa Toffers. It’s a long term project currently at the appraisal stage not the development stage. First they need to prove that helium can be liberated from the basement to the surface in sufficient quantity to evidence proven reserves at a low enough extraction cost to demonstrate the commercial viability. The first test was promising but inconclusive so that’s what they’re now looking for help with, to prove up the reserves. Most majors want the minor to carry the risks of exploration and appraisal so they can capitalise on near to market opportunities from beleaguered companies (as HE1 did buying into Galactica).

“If you are not prepared to lose you will never have anything meaningful.”

Theirs not to make reply,

Theirs not to reason why,

Theirs but to do and die.

Into the valley of Death

Rode the six hundred.

Maybe it swallowed the Chat GPT trader

Looks like they may have shifted 10m shares yesterday at the offer price, which is encouraging although it would only be AUD $50,000

The new system started in mid November and there’s a 12 month transition window for existing directors to comply. For an overseas company like HE1 the prompt is UK establishment’s registration anniversary (30 November) but I’m sure the compliance officer we’re paying for will ensure it gets done.

You can protest as much as you like MC but it’s in the record that you posted completely fake information and were caught doing it. You’ve done it multiple times but posting fictitious sources with non existent quotes from made up page numbers is out of order. False and misleading information.

I have no idea why MC's fake AI generated information gets so many recommendations, is it some kind of team tagging?

In the US market 'crude helium' could be anywhere from 50-99% purity (e.g. biproduct from natural gas) and high grade helium above that. Purity is denoted by the number of 9s, for example Grade 6.0 helium would have six 9s = 99.9999% (semiconductor manufacture, scientific research, lasers, MRI machines). For comparison...

Grade 5.5 (99.9995%) - chromatography, spectrometry, lab research

Grade 5 - as above, also weather balloons, but widely used for lower grade applications, including balloons (it's just the industry standard grade)

Grade 4.8 to 4.7 (99.998%) - high grade industrial, military, cryogenics, welding, diving, etc

Grade 4.5 - common industrial uses, sometimes healthcare

Grade 4 (99.99% and below) = “balloon grade" (which BNL call the "lift market"), also leak detection, air bags.

BNL's Pinon plant is intended to produce 94-98% pure helium initially. In the future they might stretch to purifying their gas further onsite. The liquefiers for higher grades buy lots of balloon grade gas, preferably above 98%.

Of course it is MC. That's the whole point and exactly why I queried your entirely false claim and your entirely fictional source references. You made it up, it was false information. Exactly as I posted, BNL identify two routes to sell the helium from Pinon - (a) "sales to the lift grade market" and (b) trucking to a helium liquefaction plant where it can be purified to high grade helium for the premium price market.

There is no reference to "high-purity gaseous helium" anywhere in the document, not one. Your AI LLM made it up. There is one reference to "high purity CO2"

MC (AI generated nonsene) - "The document (specifically on Pages 8 and 11) refers to the product as "high-purity gaseous helium" and specifies an output purity of "98%+". It does not use the colloquial term "lift grade.""

> Open the document ffs - there is no reference to "high-purity gaseous helium" or to "98%+" on page 8. Page 8 is literally titled "Carbon Dioxide"!

> Go to page 11 - there is there is no reference to "high-purity gaseous helium" or to "98%+" on page 11.

It's complete misinformation. It's AI generated garbage like all the other nonsense you post.

> Go to page 19. That is the only reference to "98%+" anywhere in the document. I've literally posted the screen shot for you below. There it shows the two routes for the plant output , either for "Sale to the lift grade market" or to offtakers who to take it away to purify to high grade helium at another plant.

I've read all the documents, that's why I'm querying your false assertions.

No one is disputing what the RNS says Toffers. The question is about the nature of the new forward programme of work, and how the market should price in its various costs and risks. At the moment we don’t know the work planned as they haven’t had time to plan it yet, which is to be expected. We do know they need to drill more wells for appraisal, we don’t know where or at what price. No doubt we’ll find out over the coming weeks.

If you can’t be bothered to actually read the document here’s the screen grab

https://postimg.cc/9wMjx8TQ