Member Info for Blubay

If we have now fully earned our 50% ownership of Galactica, in the drilling phase, then why are we now raising twice as much extra money to bring it into production as BNL? Does this mean BNL need to raise more again and/or that we’re raising double what we need in order to fund next stages?

That’s a very generous characterisation of ‘institutions’ active in this type of situation on AIM. Very few of the banks and vulture funds marshalled in by brokers for AIM capital events are long term investors. Hardly ever is there a TR1 resulting. There’s just not enough ROI security in HE1’s medium term horizon to justify institutional investment, pre-revenue and pre-appraisal. It would be a punt, like it is for all of us, and they don’t gamble. They take the easy money and move on.

Whichever way it goes, I will be quite surprised if the institutional investors manage to end up paying more for their shares than the private investors.

Strings of tiny sell trades being put through for 20 shares (13p)

It's a cash advance convertible to discounted shares. There is no other mechanism outlined for a return on investment (other than in case of default).

"The Investors may elect to convert the £10 million Advance into ordinary shares ("Ordinary Shares") in the Company at any time and in any such proportion as they so choose ... Any outstanding amount of the Advance is repayable by the Company on the date falling 12 months after the drawdown..., either in: (a) cash; (b) Ordinary Shares ... If an event of default occurs, the Advance will be immediately repayable on demand and default interest at a rate of 12% per annum will accrue..."

Think you can safely dismiss anything on a chat board for starters. I think the question is whether you believe the company's best case internal modelling estimates (hopefully to be proven with new information arising from the coming appraisal phase) or whether you believe the independent expert CPR, which takes a more conservative view based only on currently available information (prior to appraisal). The CPR accepts the company's modelling for the purposes of scenario planning (e.g. best case scenario) but applies a cautious probability to achieving it in practice. I guess everyone can choose their own view on the levels of probability they feel comfortable with.

Daily RSI approaching 30, will be interesting to see if that bounces. Intraday VWAP currently 0.694 (which might qualify for a 0.55p retail opportunity if averaged over the ten relevant days)

I think it was fairly clear from previous presentations that, as a pre revenue company with limited cash runway, they had little choice but to accept the terms offered by the investors and brokers. They've done very well to extract so much exploration and development value from the capital markets to be honest. The collateral price of that to shareholders is of course high but not unexpected. I was hoping they'd escape from the net with confirmation of early production in Colorado or a proven CPR in Rukwa but let's hope that works out for them next time around.

MMs still holding 10% spread around 0.68/0.75. Was all 68s earlier then all 75s, small amounts. So far today, the daily VWAP seems to be holding around 0.71p, close to the SP/mid price as you might expect. For anyone interested but without access to premium data services, there's also a free intraday VWAP indicator here

https://shareprices.com/lse/he1/

If the qualifying ten day average ended up the same as today's average then the retail opportunity might come in around 0.57p (but we don't yet know which ten days will be counted for the offer price structure).

The Chinese have almost unlimited development capital and they are only just into the first season of piloting the first production plant to extract commercial helium from geothermal fluids. HE1 is way ahead of the game if this works.

Cope actually set up CF's O&G franchise, as well as her same sector roles at RFC Ambrian , FinnCap and RBC Capital Markets. That, plus her Nomad/Broker roles are exceptional for a small cap like HE1.

I think it’s a great appointment, as I said at the time. I also think it’s good to employ Cope for the corporate work she’s being doing anyway.

Why? It’s a positive RNS but why should anyone be allowed to post misleading information unchallenged? He’s a NED. Cope is taking a new executive role. He’s not.

What is the job that you think he’s going to do that the company is hiding and that he’s not employed to do?

For goodness sake Toffers, do you not understand the basics of what a board of directors is?

https://www.thecorporategovernanceinstitute.com/insights/guides/director-and-a-non-executive-director/

The company lost a NED last year during emergency cost saving. They’re bringing in a new NED with more relevant experience in gas field commercialisation. That’s a positive but he won’t be doing any ‘work’ for the company because he’s not ‘employed’ by the company.

He’s a NED. He’s not an employee. He’s not ‘working’ on anything.

He is coming in as a NED, a ‘non executive director’ role, which means he does not have an ‘executive’ role in the company. He is there to give benefit of his experienced advice and opinion, not to operate or manage a function. Cope is moving from NED to an executive function (although she was fairly hands on anyway).

Colorado has been the most important factor ever since the acquisition, following the EWT results in Rukwa and putting that project on the long track for development. The company’s primary business strategy since 2023 was to transition from explorer to producer before the end of 2025. Colorado was a game changer, offering near term first cash revenue and medium term gas flows equivalent to Rukwa at lower cost. A really good business move. They still haven’t said whether there’s a problem or whether the opportunity has increased. All we know is that the budget has doubled without prior news or explanation from either company. Hopefully we get that explanation at the meeting and that it’s good news.

Tom, the principle is correct (if you accept the premise that all dilution is zero sum and no other factors are in play) but maybe check your AI sums first…

80% of 0.84 is 0.67p (1.5bn shares)

80% of 3.7 is 2.96p (340m shares)

What you’re forgetting is that the market sentiment and valuation factors are always in play. Totally agree that 20% discount for 25% dilution would make no sense if mcap is static, but if mcap growth on positive news is greatest from point of lowest value then that trumps the dilution. You are starting out from the assumption that SP will grow 4x to broker target (and you’re waiting until then before conversion). If you believe that growth is baked in then why on earth are you not buying shares at 0.62p for 5x? Where is the growth after 3.7p?

I haven’t suggested that MREX acted improperly but they will have been working on scenarios and book build for some time, as it’s not an easy sell. The whole point of AIM is to raise risk capital for companies that are too early or too insecure to raise capital in any other way (otherwise they wouldn’t list there). The Nomads, brokers and MMs all play their role in that, often multiple roles. HE1’s primary strength is that they have the board expertise to play this market, which most other explorers lack.