Member Info for Blubay

The Colorado project is at commercial start up stage, hopefully shipping first gas to customers this month, and hopefully developing increased capacity this year.

The Rukwa project is at appraisal stage, prior to establishing bookable reserves and an investment decision on commercial development if and when the appraisal validates that.

You’re welcome to your opinion. For the avoidance of doubt, I offer no financial advice of any kind. Feel free to buy, hold or sell as you please. Just DYOR good luck

“Those that holds and do not sell regardless end up in a Gamestop scenario where the shares will increase and increase to to find sellers. Regardless of little tricks that may be used to hold the price, this can only be shortb term.”

Good luck, just remember you may also become someone else’s exit liquidity.

Go to HE1’s London stock exchange company page, scroll down to the company address (where it says Overseas Company). Go to the HE1’s web page and look up the Articles of Association. Go to Companies House and compare the two companies with the same name. One is a UK establishment of the other.

Probably by the same method as his previously advertised whale who was buying up all the CLN issue shares as a long term investor and would never dream of selling them. That one turned out to be a convenient fantasy for the pump and dump brigade, let's hope this one proves otherwise. There also was no 8.2 million trade booked at 4.30pm. There was a string of somewhat dodgy looking trades booked earlier above price at 0.85p for tiny share numbers. Someone trying to edge up the ticker for a sell perhaps. The UT was 0.8p for just £650 and in line with preceding bid/offer price trades so there was very little anomaly to resolve at the end. But we can watch for a late report in the morning perhaps...

What are you expecting to read in tomorrow's 7am RNS?

Toffers - Helium One Global Ltd is a BJVI registered company. It's registered address is listed on the exchange. It's UK establishment happens to have the same name registered at Companies House.

So the relevant party is supposed to notify HE1 within four days and the company has a couple of days to notify the market.

Depends how keen they, the broker and the company are to play by the rules. If the company is notified that a shareholder passes 3% there should be a notification 'without delay', often interpreted to imply 2-3 trading days as would be the case for director dealings, but the company's Articles of association stipulate four days...

"Any notification required to be made under Regulation 25.3 must be made in writing to the Company within the period of four days from the day on which that obligation arises, and, to the extent that a Shareholder is not lawfully able to make such notification, such Shareholder shall use his reasonable endeavours to procure that the relevant person notifies his interest to the Company within such four day period. The period for the submission of any notification to the Company may be extended by the Directors at their discretion."

Surely on a basis of average industry expectations a sustained and optimised production test wouldn't commonly anticipate flow results much exceeding the ESP test (demonstrating maximum lift )? The reservoir might stabilise and respond differently of course and that might improve or decay but peak values from the ESP test aren't like to replicate in sustained production are they? Please correct my misapprehension if it's wrong.

Please point me to one lie or piece of misinformation?

I have no other aliases, I only follow three AIM shares and the other two are on long term ice the past year. This one has a more interesting company story and I believe they have long term investment potential. I'm very optimistic about the company's future because of the unique access to capital markets and commercialisation expertise that they have. I don't see any contradiction at all in taking a long term view of the business and a shorter term view of the share price. They're not the same thing. I've been very consistent in only selling or buying on published news and will carry on doing that as long it continues to make me more money than cheering the SP up or down. DYOR GLA

Do the maths, draw your own conclusions

The average over the test period was 15,000 bbl/d fluid, containing 5% raw gas, with a helium concentration of 5.4% within that gas.

'Operationally strong' means that the test operation went well, as planned without hitches or delays. The actual test results were weaker than expected but not a disaster. They now need to design a new work programme and drill more wells to try and prove up the commerciality but hopefully there's a wealthy partner who can help them raise the funds needed to achieve that goal. I do wonder if their latest Chinese partners might be interested after witnessing the data from the hole from an insider perspective. We'll see. Two steps forward and one step back is OK, it's all progress.

Why have you omitted the parts of the results that are of greatest relevance to the conclusion?

Perhaps because of profit taking from the pump and dump into poor test results?

The test results were within the range of possibilities modelled by the company and the independent competent person's report but they were overall at the low end of those models. They were able to flow more fluid than the worst case but not as much as their production scenario assumed. They flowed much less gas within the fluid than expected in the model, that was very low. However, the helium concentration within that gas lived up to expectation and might possibly be better than expected at lower levels if they can find a way to tap it in future. They now need to drill more wells to test the model again or revise it, for which they need more funding and they're hoping to find a farm in partner to help them do that. That might involve some kind of cost sharing for equity sharing perhaps, like HE1 did for BNL in Colorado but no details on the search yet.

On the engineering side, they point to the likelihood of water from the Karoo level diluting richer helium resources coming from Basement level, which they were unable to test conclusively due to lack of isolation between the two. It's a plausible hypothesis so that's another plus, in theory for the moment, hopefully to be proven on testing new wells.

The company used the very top end flow rate for scenario planning at 20,000 bbl/d to strengthen the investment case. The CPR adopted the company's low case of 12,300 bbl/d. So the results come in above the low assumption of the CPR but below the scenario used for modelling feasibility (about a quarter less flow than modelled). The gas water ratio is more significant, that's very low compared to the modelling (0.05 compared to 0.25) but it does align with the lowest modelling estimate (P90) so it's not out of range. The average helium concentration looks bang on estimate though so that's reassuring for a sustained test period. They now plan to raise investment to drill new wells based on the new knowledge and to try to target improved well performance that way.