Member Info for Blubay

I understand your caution Pete, which is entirely fair, and I would assume the open hole flow observation was not as impressive as the concentration (although the magnitude of the latter massively offsets the requirement for the former). To be honest, I just keep it in context of the company's generally tight lipped approach to releasing commercial information in general. They publish reams of geology but the commercial side has always been largely kept behind the scenes (despite massive commercial expertise on the board). I really don't have any major concerns about this being a transformational discovery, everything points to that. I do think future corporate moves may surprise though. Remembering back to the rig purchase, they played a very tight game by showing their weak cards on other negotiations and pulling that ace out at the end. I have a hunch they have another ace to line up on the corporate/commercial side.

Exactly this 5085, how do you tabulate your 2P estimates of reserve without a reserve? At the end of the day you end up with an estimate of recoverable but showing your working to the O&G investment community is going to be interesting.

Yesterday I guess

What's your basis for that calculation?

It's very simple Pete, because it is not fully analysed yet and it presents a problem for analysis because it's a novel geological play. They are working to strict O&G protocols since they restructured the company from a 'mining' company to an 'O&G' company (under the direction of the leadership crew shipped in from Orca Energy). The problem is that this new fracture play is not a gas reserve in the traditional O&G sense so it can't be modelled with those models, and requires a different model. That is going to take a bit of time.

Not a chance of a JV announcement in that timescale. There is no way partners would enter formal agreement without the confirmed data analysis and commercial estimations, costings etc.

My assumption is that the capex will be higher than estimated even if the opex comes in lower. The original development plan was based on tapping into collection pipe work feeding from six production wells, using a modular purification and liquidation plant. But that was based on a pure helium reservoir play, and might depend if the gas mixes from the fracture play were similar or different from different wells. It just makes it a bit more complex/novel as an engineering challenge I guess

Yes, she mentioned reduction in capex from a geothermal power plant but I think she meant opex ;-)

The bigger engineering challenge is how to process this gas with the helium/hydrogen mix. That's not straight forward and requires novel technology development. I wonder if they would go back to deepen Tai to basement and see if they can tap a more straight forward product in the short term while they work this one out. But if they can come up with a commercial solution for Itumbula then they might look towards Balangida for a repeat performance, rather than Eyasi. But no doubt we'll get a plan or a new shareholder presentation with the analysis note in due course.

Neil made his 20 posts before 7.30am, probably had a job interview to get to

You have a target of 2.7p to sell and you're talking the share down every ten minutes? How the hell does that work?

That makes no sense at all. It doesn't matter how many billions of second hand shares people want to swap on the market, the company doesn't get a bean from that. The only way the company raises capital is by drawing in primary investors, or leveraging finance against assets, or forward selling production.

Did you watch the video?

Yana arrived here 29 January, the day of the results RNS

It's way off to be honest, be realistic, one step at a time

Surely you have closed that short by now?

Yes, another 10% dilution around 3p (discounted from say 4p) would be worth twice the last one at 1.5p (and enough for a drill) and not make any appreciable difference to a rising SP. There will be already a small bunch of investors keen to persuade Liberum to give them a discounted entry point when the data has been confirmed in analysis.

I think you can be pretty confident the samples may be going to Oxford noble gas labs at some point. The important clarification is that they don't need to wait for that in order to proceed with development plans.

Very helpfully not getting themselves sued for what is widely known practice more like!

When was the last time you saw LSE ‘admin’ pin a company promoting post to the top of a discussion board? I presume they’ve had a strongly worded solicitor’s letter 😉

The Tweet and video are really significant clarification - using the ‘D’ word and referring to commercial levels of helium. LB absolutely clear that they have ‘found it’.

Importantly, they do have ‘flow data’ in the analysis. And independently tested PVT lab. Therefore they are NOT waiting for lab samples in order to proceed!

But she rightly makes the point that you can’t apply standard O&G field/reservoir parameters to commercial estimates for the type of fault extraction they are looking at. What they have is a gas producing system rather than a passive trapped reservoir (like natural gas). That makes the commercial investor analysis report an interesting challenge because it relies on a novel formula. But absolutely huge potential!

The geothermal power option is also a boost for an off grid production plant and reduces capex.

On the other hand, they will need to go back to one or other well for more work and that will cost money. The hydrogen is both a boost and a technological/cost challenge.

Trying to keep tight lipped about partner discussions going on in the background but already talking about a possible future announcement ‘as and when feasible’.

PS. They are watching discussions on LSE, god help them 🤣