Member Info for Blubay

I thought the Chairman and CEO gave a very fair and diplomatic summary in the RNS. Operationally and technically the test went well (i.e. the pump worked and kept working). The results gave them 'valuable technical insight' and added to their 'understanding'. Lifting and managing large quantities of water also helped to show the 'production potential'. The gas results are the critical part. You need to go back to last year to recall exactly what the purpose of this test was. As the CEO said about it in the 8 December RNS...

"We remain hopeful that by being able to increase the flow rate from this discovery well using an ESP, we will see increases in the helium concentration and gas-water ratio. ...This will hopefully enable us to advance our contingent resource classification towards bookable reserves and further progress this development to the production stage."

The helium concentration did not increase (although it did hold up well, which is good). The gas water ratio simply collapsed (but that might be due to unexpected dilution in the well from the intermediate aquifer). The pump wasn't able to flow liberated gas up from the higher temperature basement as hoped for due to the water (95% of the flow was water). The test doesn't advance the resource classification yet but they're keen to prove it and push on 'towards development' but first they need to do more appraisal on new wells because this one hasn't yet proved up. It's inconclusive but it's not a disaster. They proved again that the helium is there and can be brought to surface. These things happen, it's an innovative play for a big prize, the theory is still good and exciting. They'll try again with the new knowledge gained, hopefully with a funding partner. I don't think they'd announce that if they weren't optimistic about a partner.

Yes Pete, totally agree that the forward development programme remains inconclusive. The immediate focus seems to shift on to appraisal of other locations to gain more knowledge about the basement play and it’s entirely possible that Itumbula remains on the back burner during that new work. I wouldn’t want to imply that it was being abandoned.

Sure, the RNS wording is admirably crafted. The pump worked operationally and did indeed increase the fluid flow by a good amount and that’s a nice headline. But cross reference the model they set out to test and the conclusion they draw. They set out to test the capacity of the 20,000 bbl/d pump on which the feasibility study models a ‘typical’ development well. They got it up above 16,000 and stabilised at 15,000. That’s good news, it exceeds the low case of 12,300 modelled in the CPR but it’s short of the best case. There could be many reasons for that, to with the pump, the well conditions, the reservoir, or the water disposal. The helium concentration was good, on target for the model. The gas water ratio was really disappointing for the model, possibly because of dilution from the intermediary aquifer. They need to improve on 0.25 from the EWT not drop to one fifth of that. The conclusion says that they need to look elsewhere in licence area and drill new appraisal wells, which I take to mean instead of progressing with the plan for five EPS wells at Itumbula

I’m trying to keep an open mind. There’s clearly a large position being worked. I accept it ‘could’ be accumulation or distribution but the balance of probabilities certainly suggests distribution. We can’t be more conclusive than that so I’m naturally suspicious of any kind of categorical claim to the contrary. My concern is added to by the pattern of what happened during the pump and dump surrounding the CLN distribution. I’m completely open to the possibility that those posters were naive or misled but they were categorically wrong and would have lost a lot of money if they followed their own advice. Once bitten twice shy.

I'm open to all possibilities and I eagerly await the 7am RNS tomorrow, which you promised today. My difficulty is that know you were categorically wrong in peddling that utter nonsense about whale accumulation throughout the CLN debacle and recommending investors to buy or hold during the inevitable price collapse from 0.9p when you were trading the same drop. Consequently the odds of the current narrative playing out are also in question. But I do hope you're right, that would be good news.

Again, please feel free to believe whatever you like, just consider the evidence. There is indeed overwhelming evidence in the trade prints of negotiated or algorithmic execution, and that does suggest a large market participant shifting a very big position with minimal/managed price aggression. However, the repeated absorption at lower prices leans more toward distribution rather than accumulation (which is exactly what happened when our familiar 'whale' friend offloaded into retail exit liquidity on the CLN deal. It 'could' of course be either accumulation or distribution and the bid/ask flags 'may' provide clues. However, there's also a clever game in using decimal places to position block sells at the midpoint of the total average spread so they get flagged as 'buys' on retail aggregator websites. Watch this space... DYOR

North - "MCNol, good to see you back. I have taken your advice and Binned a few, Thanks for your commentary yesterday. I am just going to have another small top up, on the drop."

And there you have it. A fake 'whale' accumulation narrative, supported by cramming public boards with AI gobbledegook, fake friends and supporters, encouraging investors to block out any contrary opinions, and to 'top up' in order to provide exit liquidity for big sellers. Desperate, why do people never learn from these bulletin boards?

Sorry you feel that way. I try to base decisions on evidence rather than opinion, mainly because there’s so much manipulation of opinion on public discussion boards. Anyone with even a basic familiarity of CLN financing would have know instantly the implication of no price floor and no tie in period. And yet ‘expert’ opinions peddled an entirely false ‘whale’ accumulation theory and ‘top up’ invitations to encourage retail demand and provide exit liquidity.The past week’s events have seen exactly the same market play, rinse and repeat, pump and dump. The emperor has no clothes. But each to their own. GLA DYOR

It mystifies me Crypt. Can you give an examples? Are you suggesting I was wrong to sell shares on the CLN deal RNS announcement, or to buy them back on the end of CLN announcement, or to sell them on yesterday’s results announcement. As far as I can see those were each sound evidenced based decisions that maximised protection of capital and return on investment. If you had instead bought shares on the CLN ‘whale’ rumour you would have lost more than half your money. If you had bought on basis of yesterday’s disappointing results or ‘whale’ rumour you would have lost a third of your money. Coincidentally the two whale rumours came from the same source. Draw your own conclusions.

What good news are you expecting to land?

Get a different broker. HL is dreadful for real time liquidity on small AIM stocks

Indeed, but it was well played and a great deal of money was made yesterday. It was a great opportunity.

The Forward Plan outlined in the RNS seems more exploratory in nature, or at least speculative in appraising the fractured basement hypothesis at different targets across the licence area. My reading between the lines is that they’re now suspending or abandoning development at Itumbula (where the production pilot was to be developed). I may have misread.

EPS = Early Production System

As far as I can understand from the RNS, the EPS plan (five wells and plant) is not now going ahead following the Itumbula results because there is a now a revised plan to test different locations in the licence area by drilling new test wells targeting other basement fractures. I may have misunderstood.

A large language model will produce a statistically predictive text string, not necessarily factual information. If the corpus of source material is reliable then the text string may be accurate. If the corpus is LSE chat boards it won’t be.

The London Stock Exchange of course

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/stock/HE1/helium-one-global-ltd/company-page

I’m open to persuasion. I’m just observing that there was no 8.2 million trade at 4.30pm. There was no 7am RNS today. There was no whale trading behaviour. But there was a lot of exit liquidity spiked by a creatively worded RNS and supported by a well curated narrative, just like the CLN announcement. Same voices, same narrative, same game. I may be wrong.

It was a pretend whale, just like the pretend whale that was buying up the CLN conversion shares last time

You’ve literally pasted that from an LLM

It’s a good start. For explanation, have a look at the Competent Person’s Report (CPR) published last year by Sproule ERCE. You’ll find it on the News section of HE1’s website. That should show you the parameters of what they were looking for and what they have found.