Member Info for Blubay

As usual, your reliance on AI generated posts is giving you false information that sounds plausible. There is absolutely no mention of “98%” anywhere on those pages, or anywhere in the document other than on slide 19, where it is defied as “lift grade”. Please stop with the AI it’s confusing and just makes stuff up.

It’s literally on BNL’s corporate presentation!

What’s the problem? It’s a good business decision to go for early sales of a lower grade product rather than install a more expensive purification plant. You don’t need to pretend it’s “high grade” when it doesn’t need to be. In the future they might invest into that market. For now they are not doing that, which is sensible. The CO2 is very high grade.

It means what it says. It’s very commercial, there’s a big market for it at the price point. It’s sold as ‘lift grade’ helium, which is basically the balloon filling market, welding gas etc. lots of uses.

See flow diagram on slide 19 of BNL’s latest corporate presentation

https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-03040461-6A1304736

The plant is set up to produce 98% purity helium which is low to mid grade gas. Either (a) it goes to customers in that market, (b) offtaker takes it to a helium refinement plant where they further purify it to 99.99%. In the future BNL may add additional components to refine high purity helium on site, which commands a higher offtaker price. It’s all set out in BNL’s publications.

The helium produced in Colorado is low-mid grade, hence the commercial modelling of mid price customers. But it’s well balanced out by the high grade CO2.

It’s neither wrong nor right. The test results were inconclusive because they were unable to wholly separate the flows from Basement and Karoo (after attempting to use a packer). This meant they were unable to conclude whether the suggested dilution from the aquifer was in the hole or permeating the reservoir. As the RNS says, the conclusion is that they will now move on to develop a new forward plan to drill new wells to appraise fractures in other parts of the licence area. It doesn’t put them back to exploration or negate the discovery. It just means they have more appraisal work to do than they hoped for before the test.

‘Maximum’ sales gas running at constant full capacity and mid price = 2,200 Mscf helium (c. $1m) plus 44,500 Mscf CO2 (c. $1m) minus operating costs (c. $600k) = c. $1.4m pre tax revenue per month. Probably prudent to think closer to $1m until market proven (or c. $6m per partner per year pre tax), which is still double the original commercial estimate after adding the high grade CO2.

See slide 11 in the BNL presentation. That’s net of land owner royalties but gross of all operating costs, plant leasing, taxes etc. They model a ‘maximum’ of 2,200 Mscf output per month at a mid price of $475 (around $1m per month) but you’d need to be extremely cautious with that as it’s a fundraising presentation.

https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-03040461-6A1304736

Three trailers per week would be roughly the maximum nameplate capacity of the plant output if I they they could it at 100% every day of the year, although that’s not likely.

Ben - “ Given esp target $4m and a tube trailer contains roughly $100k then there will only be 40 trailers per year ”

Are you thinking of gross value rather than net accrual to the partners?

At full capacity the first processing plant might output a maximum of 2,200 Mscf helium per month, which would be nominally around 3 tube trailers a week, or 150+ trailers a year. You’d have to allow sufficient headroom from the maximum design capacity though, plus downtime and stability of inflow, and initially the plant might be running closer to half that capacity until sufficient wells are tied in. But it’s substantial.

Probably yes, on the balance of probabilities and no snags having been announced. But obviously no guarantee until there’s confirmed announcement.

They announced two weeks ago that they’ve already made arrangements for short term spot sales of helium (while seeking longer term customer deals). If the amine unit was functioning correctly after install then the processing plant should be operational by now (but just helium initially).

"It was a theory. We are yet to find out whether it plays out."

It was also the least probable hypothesis based on the available data. All the technical data at the time pointed towards managed inventory selling into liquidity as the most likely explanation. Unless supported by inside information it was pure ramping based on a vaguely plausible fiction. It was also exactly the same whale accumulation script used during the CLN pump and dump last year. People have short memories.

Under HE1’s Articles of Association as a BVI company the shareholder/representative has four days to notify them. They’re then bound by the AIM rules to notify the market without delay (basically within three days).

I agree, I’m also positive about the company’s long term future and been here for five years already but unfortunately if you do choose to take a balanced or cautionary approach to evidence based risk you’ll get rounded on by multiple accounts. The amount unsupported ramping on this share is massive, not to mention all the self fulfilling AI generated posts, although well matched by the amount of unsupported shorting. I guess some have too much invested to be comfortable with discussion of risk.

No, they’re in appraisal stage where they are attempting to move from prospective and contingent resources to proven reserves. They have already passed the discovery stage and mapped out a series of drill targets for testing basement fractures across a wide area. You can see those in the CPR.

Like most Fool articles it looks pretty weak and poorly understood from superficial research. Most of it’s not wrong but it’s not well informed enough to be right.