Member Info for Blubay

I don't understand your point Punter/Cat. That's exactly what I said, which is supported by the updated numbers - c. $2m p.a. net accrual to the company from a full capacity processing plant, plus the CO2 revenue.

Just looking over the slides for Galactica production estimates (Slide 14). Maybe someone has a better grasp on it from the presentation.

At full processing capacity, with 6-8 wells and the CO2 processing stage added, they are projecting 22,200 Mscf of 98% helium and 32,000 tons of beverage grade CO2 per year. At the mid range price for lower grade helium (say $450) and a moderate price for high grade CO2 (say $300, more or less depending on market shortages like last year), that could be c. $10m per year gross per gas stream = c. $20m (with a margin either way for the market).

From the helium stream they envisage $2m per year accruing to HE1's 50% net share (implying 40% margin split two ways). That's without any CO2, which could add anywhere from 50-100% more. The implied opex seems fairly high but guess that's also due to the lease financing on the plant. The overall return on cumulative shareholder investment seems marginal but on the plus side debt free going forward.

The initial processing system will start with helium from 3 wells, before gathering in the other wells and the CO2, so maybe 10,000 Mscf helium per year as a starter, maybe $4-5m gross, minus opex, split between the two companies?

It was good to see the number of proposed wells for Rukwa more clearly articulated though, rolling out towards a target of 66 wells in total, which is a huge long term infrastructure over that wide licence area, if it can be financed and delivered with new roads, processing plants and water management schemes.

Lots of concrete project development and some genuine operational milestones achieved, great progress on geology and drilling, but the business side of things comes across very poorly in these presentations. Apart from being incredibly nervous, it's hard to grasp the sense of a confident business strategy or a quantifiable business plan, other than being opportunistic and not ruling anything out. Totally understandable that it's an early stage company but they could really improve in confidently communicating very basic numbers. Everyone understands there are lots of risk-opportunity considerations at this stage but they need to set out the business plan. They'd be taken to pieces if they made that pitch on Dragon's Den! It's a pity when they're at such a positive turning point.

The US helium market is quite fluid at the moment (no pun intended) with varying demand and new producers coming on stream. They mentioned the mid range price for business planning , so maybe $450, which I think is on track with the original plan. BNL are still touting for sales so it depends on local supply and demand and probably what quantity and security of supply they can offer, as well as the quality. I think they pitched at 98% on the slide, which is the lower grade helium market rather than high end industrial use (and matches the price estimate). The beverage grade CO2 will be easily sold and lucrative. So it looks like the helium comes in on target and the CO2 might be worth more than expected. With luck that might amount to a bit more than the original $2m plus 50% estimate at acquisition, once developed.

Https://www.bluestarhelium.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/61303353.pdf

Far be it from me to suggest anyone might want to delay the testing. I'm simply reiterating that first commercial revenue from Galactica by this year end has always been the prudent business priority ever since the acquisition was announced and Rukwa was redefined as a longer term project. The whole point of diversifying through near to market project acquisition was to mitigate the risks of overreliance on Rukwa, following the EWT. I think it's a really good strategy and I hope they manage to expand on Pegasus or move on to acquire working interests in other new projects too.

The formal meeting business is procedural but in the past there has been very informative board presentations about the state of operations and accounts etc. although a bit thin on corporate/business strategy.

Each project is a derisking process. Most of the risks in Galactica have been removed. The wells are drilled, the gas is flowing, funding is in place, the processing plant is procured and under construction, they are negotiating for customers. Rukwa is at an earlier stage. There's a geological discovery based on one well, awaiting appraisal to establish the gas flow, if proven then more wells need to be drilled, and finance for that development is not yet in place. The immediate risk in Galactica is minimal, maybe a construction snag, winter weather etc. The immediate risk in Rukwa is an unknown test result, whether the best case scenario used for modelling the feasibility study is proven, on which depends the assumptions about production and the final investment decision. If you were maintaining a corporate risk register then surely your first priority would be to bank Galactica as a gas producing field and fulfil the central corporate strategy objective of transitioning from explorer to producer before end 2025?

I just think it makes best business sense to ensure they have Galactica on stream (bird in the hand) before playing their cards for the test results from Rukwa (bird in the bush). It's just sensible risk mitigation of known versus unknown.

I'm fairly confident BNL will turn on the first tap before year end as per revised schedule, at least for a trial run. The initial gathering system is only drawing on three wells I think, proof of concept, commission the processing plant, then tie in more wells. They might even start branching out to drill new infill wells before piping out to the more distant ones. Looking forward to an update soon. Either way, I have no doubt they'll have commercial gas flowing from Galactica before they risk the extended pump test in Rukwa.

There's been an RNS update on the Rukwa project every quarter, so the comms haven't been bad. All seems to be progressing broadly as planned, allowing for the well-known long lead times for operations and equipment imports to rural Tanzania. I wasn't really expecting the ESP test to be conducted before first commercial gas comes from Galactica anyway, just at a basic level of business risk mitigation. That has to be the priority milestone for this year.

Which leading geologist was that?

Just to clarify, the hypothesis in the RNS is that "the helium is sourced from the Basement and below, and we will be attempting to produce from this area at increased rates using the ESP as artificial lift". What that means is that the gas water ratio should be higher at the basement level than at the intermediary or shallow levels (where it should be more dispersed/degassed under less pressure/temperature), so if they can increase the flow coming from deeper down, using the pump, they hope it will bring more fluid to the surface at the higher ratio and concentration.

The more data they have the better they can model and the more they can de-risk. As explained in the CPR, the company has modelled a best case scenario which they are hoping to prove up. The downhole sampling produced varied readings and they believe the test may stabilise towards the upper end of those results.

Scientific studies repeatedly show that impulsiveness, hype, herding and overconfidence are the highest risk investment behaviours (excessive caution might deprive some investors of potential gains but it doesn't lose them actual money). Retail investors most commonly lose money when they buy into over optimistic price beliefs and then fail to realise their gains. They lose money by mistakenly holding onto shares during periods of sustained price decay. Around 70% of AIM shares lose value if held passively over time. Retail losses are driven by ignoring market reality in favour of FOMO beliefs. As an example, Investor A holds their HE1 shares from 0.9p down to 0.3p while Investor B sold their HE1 shares at 0.9p to buy them back at 0.3p. Who has more money now? Don't shoot the messenger.

Which bit of the independent CPR do you consider to be "negative carp and ballacks"?

You don't care what the chance of success is in Rukwa? Why is that?

From the CPR...

"Unlike conventional gas discoveries, the helium is accumulated, transported and stored in water aquifers and as such no specific trap is defined. It is possible that gas-water ratio and helium concentrations will decline with water production over time. However, it is impossible to estimate if and how this will occur at present."

"Contingent Resources are those quantities of gas estimated, as of a given date, to be potentially recoverable from known accumulations, but the applied project(s) are not yet considered mature enough for commercial development due to one or more contingencies."

" there is a greater than 90% chance of exceeding the Total 1C and less than a 10% chance of exceeding the Total 3C."

So, over the first ten year mining licence period...

1C was 2,674 Mscf (early stage production system, 'on hold') + 6,816 Mscf (central production facility, 'unclarified') = more than 90% chance of 9,490 Mscf

3C was 98,922 Mscf (on hold) + 248,232 Mscf (unclarified) = less than 10% chance of 347,154 Mscf

2C mid risk estimate was 22,414 (on hold) + 56,254 Mscf (unclarified) = 50% chance of 78,668 Mscf

Why not read the independent Competent Person's Report (CPR)?