London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

What I find interesting here — and this is more of a “join the dots” thought than a firm conclusion — is the people and playbook behind the basin, not just the individual companies. If you look at Neil Herbert’s track record, it’s not just about building a single asset. It’s about positioning early in a district, building a narrative, and then monetising at the right point in the cycle. UraMin is the obvious historical example of how that can play out when the timing, capital and narrative all align. Now if you overlay that thinking onto Rukwa, you’ve got multiple entities with overlapping people (Helium One, Rift, Pulsar etc.) A basin that is now starting to be described externally as “proven” New entrants (like Rift) explicitly positioning themselves as “third mover” with a more capital-efficient strategy. (New in the sense of listing not presence in the region) That starts to look less like random exploration companies and more like a basin being progressively de-risked and structured. Where it gets more speculative — but still interesting — is whether there are larger pools of capital sitting behind or watching this evolve, similar to what we’ve seen in other commodities. The Red Basin uranium narrative is a good comparison, where early-stage positioning, technical validation, and then VC-style capital stepping in at the basin level becomes the real value driver. (Subatomic Industries Corporation is backed by 8VC and Overmatch Ventures) I’m not saying that’s definitely happening here — there’s no hard evidence of that yet — but if you did start to see:

Strategic partners coming into Rukwa (farmout process) Larger capital backing multiple plays in the basin Or consolidation between players… then it would start to look a lot more like a basin-scale investment thesis, rather than a single AIM explorer trying to build a project. So for me, the question isn’t just “does Helium One work?” It’s “is Rukwa quietly becoming something bigger, and who ultimately funds and controls that?” You look on the RIFT website and specific wording. "Today's supply depends almost entirely on byproduct extraction from oil and gas, where concentrations sit between 0.05% and 0.3%. Both low-grade and fragile." "Primary helium delivers higher grades, strategic independence from hydrocarbon markets, and stronger supply resilience. It's high-value, ISO-transportable, and doesn't require pipeline infrastructure. With demand accelerating and legacy sources in decline, the world needs a different approach." Then you look at the table they provide Topaz (Pulsar) 10% UPEPO (Rift) 5.6% ITUMBULA (Helium One) 4.7% and link Herbert to that top three, then you will start to see what I mean.

I think those are all fair concerns to be honest, and probably the right questions to be asking at this stage.

On management and whether they’re up to it — I’d say the recent RNS flow suggests they’re recognising the scale of the task rather than trying to go it alone. The key line for me was the formal farmout process now starting, which basically says they’re actively looking for an industry partner to help fund and develop Rukwa. That doesn’t feel like a team trying to do everything themselves — more like prove it up technically, then bring in someone bigger to take it forward.

On the funding side, I agree it’s likely a bigger number than many expect. But again, the strategy looks like partner + phased development, not balance sheet funding. The recent raise was relatively modest and seems more about maintaining momentum while that partner process runs.

With Galactica, I don’t think it was ever meant to fully fund Rukwa — more like a proof-of-concept and early revenue stream. (But I don't know in detail the nuances of what's been said and hasn't over x time by management or other) What we’re seeing now is first gas, tube trailers being filled, and initial sales happening, with longer-term contracts still being worked through. So it’s moving, just early in the ramp.

On the lack of clear revenue / offtake detail — I’d agree that’s still a gap. But it does look like they’re in that messy middle phase where things are being stabilised and commercial terms are still being finalised, rather than fully locked in.

One thing I would add though, which is quite interesting, is how the wider market is now starting to describe the basin itself. Rift’s IPO doc is already referring to Rukwa as a “proven basin” with a validated working helium system, based on adjacent discoveries . That’s quite a shift from where they were a couple of years ago when it was still pretty much conceptual.

So I guess where I personally land is that there are real risks around funding, execution and scale. But at the same time, you’ve now got technical proof, third-party validation, and a move toward bringing in partners, which is probably exactly what you’d want to see at this stage. Definitely not a slam dunk — but also not just a “story stock” anymore either. Enough for me to dip my toe in lightly, what I think you have is a basin consolidation strategy playing out over many years with Neil Herbert in the distance orchestrating.. BWTFDIK

Is the debate on here mixing up two separate things – dilution at GLND, and what actually creates value for 80M in the first place.

Yes, GLND is raising (or will raise) more money. Yes, that brings dilution, warrants, and likely some overhang. The bears aren’t wrong on that. But the bit that’s getting missed is that GLND is surely also the reason this investment case exists in a meaningful way at all.

Before the deal, 80M had 100% of Jameson – but it was 100% of a very large, very conceptual basin with no realistic path to funding multi-well drilling. Owning all of something you can’t drill doesn’t tend to get rewarded by the market. With GLND, that drops to 30%, but it becomes 30% of a funded, drill-ready project with a defined timeline. That’s a completely different proposition.

Isn’t the trade off 100% of an unfunded concept vs 30% of something that is actually getting drilled. (or not as the case might be)

Isn’t the second scenario potentially worth more, even if it comes with dilution along the way? Isn’t that dilution part of what enables the value to be realised in the first place? Or have I missed something very basic?

Although it’s right to focus how that dilution feeds through to 80M. As far as I can see it’s not happening directly at 80M – they’re carried no? – it’s happening inside GLND. So the impact is indirect, via whatever valuation GLND ends up holding.

If GLND holds a strong valuation (say $300m+), then even with dilution, 80M’s 30% looks very valuable and the current share price is clearly too low. If GLND settles closer to ~$200m, then what we’re seeing in 80M today probably makes sense. And if GLND struggles (multiple discounted raises, weak sentiment), then that’s where the downside pressure comes from.

Arguably the current 80M price already seems to assume a fairly conservative outcome. The market is effectively pricing GLND closer to $200m than the headline numbers being talked about. Isn’t a lot of the dilution fear looks like it’s already baked in? Also knowing the market isn’t always rational.

At the same time, mrket doesn’t look like it’s giving much credit to the rest of the portfolio either. Doesn’t Disko have a funded JV and real drilling coming (or not), but until there’s a discovery it’s being treated as optionality. Dundas biggish, permitted resource, but without a funding route unless I’ve missed something, so any look through NAV is heavily discounted. Even Hydrogen Valley, with a chance to bring near-term revenue, is only getting limited recognition and isn’t getting the fancy linked in coverage that the oil (if there is any) is getting.

So you end up with a situation where:Jameson is being valued (but conservatively), and everything else is sitting there as nominal

Arguably you don’t need everything to work for that to change. One thing moving – GLND holding valuation, a discovery at Disko, progress at Dundas, or revenue from Hydrogen – is enough to shift how the market looks at the whole company.

The backdrop has shifted with the helium market itself. I think I've heard somewhere that the Qataris have said 5 years to get supply back to normal, and that's if Trump decides to keep his fingers off the trigger.

This article for me highlights that 27–30% of global helium supply has effectively been taken offline, with prices jumping what 40–100% in a matter of weeks. Given how critical helium is to semiconductor manufacturing (and the lack of substitutes), this isn’t just a cyclical squeeze — it’s a 100% a strategic supply issue. And that's starting to look like a stating the blody obvious statement as I write it. And even if you look at recycling (and actually lack of near term impact that actually has) and medical side of things, securing a new basin scale supply even at this stage of development is at the very least a discussion piece from multiple potential participants.

When you overlay that with HE1’s position and actually characters like Neil Herbert and RIFT moving in near term with a Basin wide strategy potentially playing out in the background, the farm-out starts to look a bit different. It’s not just about bringing in a partner to help technically — it’s about who might want to secure supply. Industrial gas majors like Linde, Air Liquide or Air Products suddenly make a lot of sense in that context, as do state-backed or strategic players exposed to the chip supply chain. Even the CenerTech/CNOOC angle becomes a bit more interesting and probably aligns with the Chinese probability.. It doesn’t mean anything directly, but it does show that serious operators are already involved at the engineering level and have seen the system working firsthand. Yes it needs a few tweaks but they've been fairly open about the fact that a farm in is the next logical step. So the question for me is less “can they find a partner?” and more “who actually needs this enough to move early?” Because in a tightening market like this, securing upstream helium supply is absolutely a priority rather than a nice-to-have. If anything, a supply shock like this probably broadens the field rather than narrows it. South Korea, Taiwan, the US — they’re all heavily exposed to helium supply through semiconductors, so the incentive to secure upstream supply isn’t limited to one region. And yes I agree on the likelihood being more Asian market based if anything because of Tanzania's Geographical reality for shipping to US markets etc etc etc Exciting times ahead...

Bluebay

What’s interesting about Rukwa —from some early reading here — is that it sits right on the boundary of the “groundwater helium” idea, but it isn’t actually doing what people think it is.

Yes, the system is clearly fluid-driven. The company itself reference a “gas in solution” play, there are seemingly very large volumes of water being produced, and the data shows mixing between basement-derived fluids and the Karoo aquifer. That’s exactly the kind of setup that makes people think this could be about extracting helium directly from groundwater.

Is the key point here that the helium isn’t dissolved in the water at the point of production? The company from what I can see is explicit on this: the helium remains in a free gas state under reservoir conditions. In other words, whatever interaction happened between helium and groundwater has already taken place deeper in the system, and the gas has already come out of solution before it reaches surface?

So what you actually have at Rukwa is a hybrid system. Groundwater is clearly playing a major role in transporting and influencing the helium, but nature has already done the difficult part by separating it into a producible gas phase. The well is producing a fluid system — water plus gas — but the helium itself is not being extracted from the water at surface.

You could almost think of Rukwa as a natural version of the idea — where geology has already “cracked the code” by liberating helium from solution before we ever touch it. Unless I'm reading it wrong?

Rukwa shows the process works in nature — the question is whether anyone can replicate that commercially without relying on a gas reservoir.

Sinopec’s Xianyang plant is possibly the only demonstration plant that deals with Helium from Groundwater?

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sinopecs-first-geothermal-power-production-pilot-project-connects-to-grid-302297203.html

And some patents / engineering concepts

https://patents.google.com/patent/CN105800573A/en

The technology is arguably there, challenge is improving economic viability for low-concentrations of helium

There is also an EU-backed CRM-Geothermal project, led in part by GFZ Potsdam developing a membrane-based extraction method for helium from geothermal fluids

https://www.gfz.de/en/section/inorganic-and-isotope-geochemistry/projects/crm-geothermal

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for Chilli300

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for Chilli300

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Please enter at least 2 characters

No results found

Search results

Recently viewed

Trending