Member Info for Chilli300

Isn't hat 10–20% chance of success is actually what creates the asymmetry here? In a frontier basin, the market prices in a high likelihood of failure, which is why valuations tend to stay low. If a well comes in and proves a working system, that probability shifts very quickly and you're going to see a really sharp re-rate. (and quick !) So the upside isn’t coming from certainty — it comes from the fact that success would materially change how the whole basin is valued.

The flip side is that the odds are what they are, which is why it’s a high-risk play in the first place. And between now and into H2 there will be trading opportunities as each part of the logistical and operational pieces come together - or not as the case might be (which weirdly also present other opportunities to trade on further updates to any snags or challenges. What you also have in the mix is Disko / Italy and even Finnish updates that might surprise us to keep bobbing along

Isn't hat 10–20% chance of success is actually what creates the asymmetry here? In a frontier basin, the market prices in a high likelihood of failure, which is why valuations tend to stay low. If a well comes in and proves a working system, that probability shifts very quickly and you're going to see a really sharp re-rate. (and quick !) So the upside isn’t coming from certainty — it comes from the fact that success would materially change how the whole basin is valued.

The flip side is that the odds are what they are, which is why it’s a high-risk play in the first place. And between now and into H2 there will be trading opportunities as each part of the logistical and operational pieces come together - or not as the case might be (which weirdly also present other opportunities to trade on further updates to any snags or challenges. What you also have in the mix is Disko / Italy and even Finnish updates that might surprise us to keep bobbing along

Https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2037431/000182912625008407/pelicanacq_ex99-1.htm

Exact Sproule wording (from the report)

“Recovery factors that have been used to calculate estimated recoverable oil have assumed normal pressure gradients in order to be conservative however the tectonic history that has been documented by outcrop mapping and by seismic interpretations has shown considerable burial and uplift which can result in overpressured reservoirs. If any of the reservoirs are overpressured this can result in higher-than-expected recovery factors, thus a greater volume of oil being produced.”

So rightly or wrongly in my wording they’ve clearly taken a conservative base case, but are flagging overpressure as a possible upside linked to the basin history. Key word being can — it’s not proven, but it is explicitly acknowledged. Which is kind of that I thought I'd said originally

Panman fair

To be clear, Sproule don’t explicitly talk about uplift introducing downside risk in the report — they only reference it in the context of potential overpressure and upside, and note they’ve used conservative recovery factors as a result. My point there wasn’t that Sproule are calling out both sides directly, more that the same burial/uplift history they reference is generally understood geologically to introduce both upside (overpressure) and risk (potential leakage/trap integrity issues). So that part is more my interpretation of the geology, rather than something explicitly stated in the Sproule report itself. I think we’re still broadly aligned though — Sproule are flagging one possible outcome (overpressure), and the wider debate is really about how that same history may have impacted preservation.

Feels like the latest LBI MD&A finally ties a lot of the moving parts together.

At its core, LBI has now clearly shifted from being a passive investment vehicle into something much more active — with Lions Bay Resources (LBR) as the main focus, targeting a vertically integrated gold business in South Africa.

On Vantage, the structure has evolved. The original US$40m whole-of-group bid has now been split, with the real focus on Barbrook (~$17m). That’s important because Barbrook has now had creditor approval (mid-April), so it’s the closest thing we have to a “live” transaction. Lily/MIMCO is still in play, but feels more optional and more complex.

Funding is the key swing factor. LBR has already put ~$10m into escrow, but the remaining payments (especially the 90% creditor component) are still dependent on funding proposals and final approvals (including Section 11). So progress, yes — but not done yet.

Where it gets interesting is how MET1 sits across all of this: ~19% of LBI (equity exposure) + Loan to LBI at 20% (secured) + Security over LBI’s key assets (including LBR stake, Fidelity shares, etc.) + Direct stake in Fidelity as well

So MET1 isn’t just “invested” — it’s structurally embedded across the whole platform.

On Fidelity, it’s LBI’s largest listed investment by value. Between LBI (~36%) and MET1 (~13%), there’s a meaningful combined exposure to that Peru copper-gold system.

Arguably this is shaping up as a multi-layered play — South Africa (LBR/Barbrook) + Peru (Fidelity) — with MET1 sitting across both via equity, debt and security. But the key point remains the same: a lot of the value only really unlocks if the South Africa deal completes. Barbrook approval is a step forward, but funding + final approvals are still the gating items. So progress is real — but we’re still in execution phase, not endgame yet.

Https://www.sedarplus.ca/csa-party/records/document.html?id=c8356b63de2ae7a64bab240d0968fa71dc480019cb4087e3ee0c2004d1b43081

So essentially housekeeping. It’s not on a fixed timetable like results, but companies are required to update the market whenever their share count changes so investors have an accurate number to base holdings on. In practice you’ll often see these at month-end or after something like a placing or options being exercised. In this case it likely ties back to the recent activity around the share incentive plan — they issued 100m shares into the EBT back in Feb and have since been allocating shares to management under that scheme, so the overall share count has moved. This RNS is essentially just updating the market with the latest total after those changes, rather than signalling anything new.

So weirdly I seem to own just under 0.3% of the company

The latest RNS is just a routine “Total Voting Rights” update, so nothing to get excited about. It simply confirms the company now has about 1.235 billion shares in issue and no treasury shares, which is mainly used so investors can work out their percentage holdings and whether they need to report them under FCA rules . There’s no new operational news in here—no deal, no funding update, no change to the story—just standard housekeeping that companies put out from time to time.

Rachel

Fair way of framing the risk, to be honest — uplift is definitely the key variable here and it cuts both ways.

I’d just be a bit careful about drawing too clean a line between “North Sea = intact” and “uplifted basins = broken”. There are parts of the North Sea and Norwegian margin that have seen inversion and uplift and still retained significant accumulations — it’s just that they’re better constrained because they’ve been heavily drilled.

I agree with your broader point though — once you introduce ~1.5–3 km of uplift, preservation becomes the main question, not generation. And yes, that absolutely increases the risk of leakage, fault reactivation and trap breach.

Where I’d probably differ slightly is on how definitive that makes the outcome. Uplift can degrade systems, but it doesn’t automatically destroy them. It really comes down to timing (when hydrocarbons migrated vs uplift), seal quality, and how robust the traps were to begin with. You can end up with anything from heavily depleted to largely intact depending on how those factors line up.

On the Sproule point, I think we’re actually saying the same thing — they’re acknowledging that the burial/uplift history introduces uncertainty, not just upside. Overpressure is one possible outcome, but it sits alongside the exact risks you’ve outlined.

So I think we’re broadly aligned on the core point: the system clearly worked, but the real question is how much is still there and recoverable. That’s not something analogues can fully resolve — it’s what the first wells are there to test.

Two sides on here from what I can see – “not commercial” vs “government backing changes everything.” Reality is probably somewhere in the middle no?

The Tanzania articles / update is genuinely important. The State Participation Agreements and messaging around becoming a strategic helium supplier shows this is now part of a wider national agenda, not just a junior explorer story . That reduces a chunk of historic risk around permitting and jurisdiction, and it puts real weight behind the project. But they're effectively saying show us the money.

It doesn’t solve the core issue, which is still commercialisation. They’ve proven helium is there at good grades, but turning that into scalable, profitable production is the next step. It’s not just about resource – it’s about flow rates, processing and whether it all works economically in the field .

What the government involvement does is shift the balance slightly. It improves the chances of funding, a partner, or faster progress, but those things still need to actually happen. That’s likely why the share price is where it is – the market is waiting for something tangible like a JV, funding clarity, or proof of scaled production.

So overall, definite progress – especially politically – but the story is still at the stage where execution matters more than narrative.

Panman / Rachel / other

The overpressure comment is not highlighted as such in most RNS/news summaries and sits there in the full tech report / annex material

What Sproule actually done from what I can see is model the resource using normal pressure gradients as a conservative base case, which is pretty standard at this stage one assumes.. Their wording from what I could find was:

“Recovery factors were modelled assuming normal pressure gradients (conservative case), but the basin’s burial and uplift history could result in overpressured reservoirs, which may lead to higher recovery factors and greater produced volumes.”

So the uplift/burial angle is really being flagged as a possible upside — if overpressure is there, recovery could come in better than what they’ve currently assumed.

The key word is “could”. They’re not saying overpressure has been found, just that the history of the basin means it’s a possibility. It’s basically them saying they’ve taken a cautious view, but there may be some upside if things behave more favourably downhole.

What’s interesting is it’s the same uplift that’s being talked about as a risk elsewhere. On one hand, you’ve got the argument that uplift could have caused fracturing and leakage. On the other, if the system held together, that same process could trap pressure and actually help recovery. Both are perfectly plausible — it just comes down to how well the seals held and how everything evolved over time.

So I think it’s fair to say Sproule are pointing to a genuine upside, but it doesn’t cancel out the risks. At this stage, neither overpressure nor depletion is proven — they’re both possibilities, and it’s the drilling that will tell us which way it’s gone.

That's how I read it anyway.

RachT2

Completely agree on the wells point. Even if the first one or two come in strong, you’re only really proving something is there — not how big it is or whether it’s commercially viable. As you say, you’re straight into appraisal after that. It’s a long road, and I think some people are definitely getting ahead of themselves on the “majors piling in” angle.

On the seeps, I get what you’re saying. They do point to leakage, but they also prove the system has worked, which is probably the bigger hurdle in a basin like this. I’m not sure it’s as simple as more seeps = less left though — a lot of big basins globally have seeps and still hold decent accumulations. Feels like it really comes down to whether that leakage is local or more widespread, and that’s something we just won’t know yet.

The uplift point is probably the one that matters most. 1.5–3km is significant, no question, and it does raise valid concerns around trap integrity. But equally, uplift doesn’t automatically mean everything’s been lost — it depends on timing, seals, structure etc. There are examples both ways.

From what I've read the basin clearly generated hydrocarbons, but the big unknown is how much of that has actually been retained. That’s what the drill bit will tell us.

As far as I can see no 3D seismic have been done? And that main concerns could be age / preservation / migration

So I suppose they know geological theory places it there - tectonics / etc etc so they’re not trying to perfect the model — they’re trying to find out if there’s anything there at all. And it's quite binary the outcome

Is that about right?

Crucially, there is direct evidence that the petroleum system has been active. Oil seeps, bitumen staining, and hydrocarbon residues (including oil-filled fossils) have been documented across the basin. Geochemical analysis links these hydrocarbons to the Jurassic source rocks and shows strong correlation with equivalent systems in offshore Norway. This confirms that hydrocarbons have been generated and migrated within the basin. The geological analogy to producing regions such as Haltenbanken in Norway, the North Sea, and parts of the Barents Sea further reinforces the concept that the basin shares the same fundamental ingredients as major hydrocarbon provinces.

However, despite the strength of the geological model, there are significant risks. The basin remains entirely undrilled, so none of the play concepts have been tested. While source rocks are present, their maturity varies spatially, and migration pathways may be limited in some areas. The Tertiary uplift of 2–3 km introduces a real risk to preservation, as it may have breached traps and allowed hydrocarbons to escape. Trap geometries are defined primarily on 2D seismic, which adds structural uncertainty, and the overall estimated chance of success is around 1 in 10.

In summary, the Jameson Land Basin is a fully developed, multi-play petroleum system with thick sedimentary fill, multiple high-quality source rocks, stacked reservoirs, proven hydrocarbon generation, and strong analogues to prolific producing basins. At the same time, it carries classic frontier basin risks: no drilling validation, uncertainty around trap integrity and hydrocarbon preservation, and reliance on indirect geological evidence. The geology supports the potential for a world-class hydrocarbon system, but until it is drilled, that potential remains unproven.

From a petroleum systems perspective, the basin is unusually robust on paper because all key elements are present. There are four main source rock systems: Upper Permian marine shales (oil-prone and high quality), Triassic lacustrine shales, Lower Jurassic shales, and Upper Jurassic marine shales equivalent to proven North Sea sources. Basin modelling indicates that hydrocarbon generation began as early as the Late Triassic and continued through the Jurassic and Cretaceous, with peak expulsion occurring between the Jurassic and Eocene. Importantly, this generation largely predates the major Tertiary uplift, meaning hydrocarbons had time to form before any potential leakage events. Migration is interpreted to be relatively local and lateral rather than fault-driven, due to limited post-Triassic faulting and the close proximity of source and reservoir units, which reduces reliance on complex migration pathways.

Reservoir quality appears strong across multiple intervals. Key reservoirs include Upper Permian carbonate platforms and reefal build-ups, Triassic sandstones deposited in alluvial and lacustrine systems, and Jurassic marine sandstones with good porosity and permeability observed in outcrop and core. Additional secondary targets include older Carboniferous clastics and deeper water Jurassic turbidites. Sealing is generally effective, as many of the same shale units act as both source and seal, which is a favourable configuration that reduces the risk of long-distance migration and seal breach. Structurally, traps include carbonate build-ups, stratigraphic pinch-outs, and fault-bounded closures, many of which have been mapped on seismic data. Multiple large drillable structures have already been identified.

Is this a fair Geological Summary of where this stands?

https://data.geus.dk/pure-pdf/GEUS-R_2016-31_web.pdf

The Jameson Land Basin in East Greenland is a large, classic North Atlantic rift basin formed during the breakup of Greenland and Norway following the Caledonian Orogeny. It sits along the Atlantic margin and represents one of the last undrilled basins of this type. Structurally, it is a fault-bounded basin with up to ~17 km of sedimentary fill, indicating a very deep system with sufficient burial to generate hydrocarbons. The basin evolved through multiple tectonic phases: early continental deposition in the Devonian–Permian, followed by active rifting in the Permian–Triassic that created grabens and deposited carbonates, evaporites and red beds; then a passive margin phase during the Jurassic–Cretaceous dominated by marine sedimentation; and finally a Tertiary phase marked by magmatism, uplift and erosion of approximately 2–3 km. This full tectonic lifecycle is important because it encompasses burial, maturation, and later uplift, all of which directly control hydrocarbon generation and preservation.

Stratigraphically, the basin contains a complete and highly prospective sedimentary stack. The lower section comprises Devonian to Lower Permian continental clastics. Above this lies a crucial Upper Permian interval containing shallow marine carbonates (reefs and platforms) alongside organic-rich marine shales (notably the Ravnefjeld Formation), creating an ideal juxtaposition of reservoir and source/seal. Overlying this are Triassic sequences of mixed lacustrine shales and sandstones, followed by Jurassic marine shales and sandstones. The Upper Jurassic shales are particularly significant as they are equivalent to the Kimmeridge Clay Formation in the North Sea, one of the most prolific oil source rocks globally. The succession continues into the Cretaceous before being affected by Tertiary uplift and volcanism. Overall, the basin contains multiple stacked reservoir intervals and several high-quality source rocks across different stratigraphic levels.

Unless I've missed something

Lions Bay Capital doesn't update any RNS' particularly well and their last on there is June 2025 something like that

Sedar Plus is where they get populated and currently on Financial Statement and MDA on there

So in effect no tangible update

Keep an eye on LBI sp

Https://x.com/i/status/2048324394175300024