Member Info for CrustyPete

Blubay, in my view they will also need more capital if they decide to drill again anytime soon. They have after all kept the Rig "hot-stacked".... JV and Debt finance for Production Facilities and off-take but not, I suggest drilling more wells.

So the "working capital" might be covered for the stated 12 months but not I suggest Capital to drill any new wells.

That said I do not think they will be looking to drill more wells until they have the ability to monetise the gas they uncover - so post JV or debt funding. So by that time the sp will be much higher.

An alternative view?! Really? Some of your assertions would have required a vivid imagination to create as they really are gross exaggerations....

"Any potential delays in the permit process could significantly affect the timeline of the project" - nonsense. A delay of two, three, four weeks would NOT cause a significant delay. And why should there even be one?

"indicating regulatory challenges that could delay progress." Maybe but then again it is just as likely that they may get approval sooner than the indicated 3 months and even if it dragged on into the New Year would that be probelmatic? I doubt it.

"The decision to relinquish three prospecting licenses in eastern Rukwa could be viewed as a setback." Really? Only by those looking for something to cristicise. Had we decided to pay to extend these the BoD would eventually have been criticised for wasting shareholders money and not concentrating on "production".

"it might also raise questions about the viability of their overall project and their ability to properly assess potential helium reserves." Quite the opposite - maintaining the licences is far more likely to make them vulnerable the above criticism. It shows they recognise the relative value of those assets they are keeping and wish to concentrate on.

"HE1 reliance on partnerships ....... may raise concerns about the company’s independence and its ability to execute projects on its own." Conversely it shows that the BoD recognises the prudence of diversification and the value that early revenue and production will bring to the company's balance sheet and their ability to raise capital and fund Rukwa production.

"They face strong competition from companies with more established helium operations" More established companies and in more established Geographies, hence the value of diversifying into the US. Moreover the Helium market is undersupplied, prices are rising and there is room for many more entrants to that market.

So Zoffy as I said to every negative slant you pose there is at least one alternative counterpoint. HOwever where I fundamentally agree is that the BoD still have to prove their ability to monetise Rukwa. That, to me , is the name of the game, all else is just a side issue. There is still risk involved in the Rukwa equation but, as I have stated several times, for me at least the risk, reward ratio is a very attractive one and, as I am now playing my largely with my historic He1 profit that is a risk that I am very happy to take.

Well Zoffy thankfully if we ever need someone to come up with the most negative possible slant on any news, positive or negative, we can always rely on you to provide it! Evidently negative spin rules in your world - what a miserable place it must be inside your head.

It goes without saying that for every negative view that you spout there is also a positive stance that could be taken on it, as I am sure every subsequent poster will point out.

Who pays you to come up with this doom mongering soin? Or are you just a bipolar scaremonger?

Goodness me Sharebel is trying to tell us all that He1 will "need money". Blimey what a revelation! An AIM listed Exploration company with no income needing money?!? What next? What an Investment Guru you are! Thank you Sharebel for pointing out the bloody obvious.....

However they won't need any in the short term and by the time they do the sp will be a lot higher than it is now and they certainly won't need money for Galactica any time soon.

Keep peddling your scaremongering trip Sharebel if nothing else it gives us all a laugh...

Sharebel's characterisation of the situation is so outrageously flawed that it is ridiculous - he doesn't even realise that we are Farming - in to a couple of licenses not buying the bloody company. That we have already raised the money and that the drilling of 15 wells is "self-funding".

Pure invention. Better to keep your mouth shut Sharebel, the more twaddle you spout the more you prove what ignorant idiot you actually are.

"not much action before Xmas"

Agreed Ssccss and what will that first piece of action be? A Cap raise? Not in 2024 we have been told but 2025 is less than three months away....

Yes I agree with some posts below that we are all now held captive for a long haul. As some have said, another AIM style marathon. I had hoped this might have been different but it looks unlikely now.

Lack of money worries in Cameroon maybe but not yet in Namibia or South Africa..... all cap raised with this dilution are allocated to Cameroon. Will still need more capital for Namibia and elsewhere.

If it is to be a takeover target any potential buyer will likely wait for the above funding boxes being ticked.

That said I think nay future raise will be similarly received as this one, that is, very positively so anything is possible.

I wonder whether that is the consequence of the perception that raising capital in the UK for AIM listed Biotechs is really tough. Merck did have a collaboration with 4D Pharma for its Microbiome products to support Merck's KEYTRUDA treatment but, before that could be completed 4D Pharma went into Administration, unable to raise Capital to continue its product development and Trials.... The IP and assets of 4D Pharma were eventually sold to a privately backed US Biotech.

Scancell is a far more established business but being UK listed still suffers with the perceived problems of UK listed companies accessing investors. I even read yesterday that to "save" the UK Stock Exchange the Govt were being advised to scrap AIM entirely.... What might be the implications of that for existing AIM listed Companies?

Anyway one and all I will leave you to it for a day or two - I am off to France for a couple of days. Hopefully home to see the Galactica project approved and "closed" and then a statement regarding the outline of the drill programme.

Once that happens the sp will surely start its inexorable rise!

Fingers crossed.

Well personally I am not suggesting that there is any obligation to pay BNL any additional funds for our purchase of our 50% - I am suggesting that, if the cost of drilling each of the initial 6 development wells exceeds the stipulated $450k ceiling, any additional cost is split 50/50.

"does it matter"? Let's hope not Folio; let's hope there is no "overrun" and it becomes a total irrelevance. Indeed let's hope there is a cost saving!

Agreed Blubay. Your understanding is my understanding.

Yes MCNol that is what I was referring to.

McNol, I am afraid that I cannot find the reference that Blubay alluded to but, I too, recollect reading that any cost of drilling the initial 6 wells above the $450,000 "limit" per well, is due to be split 50/50 between BlueStar and He1....

I will continue to "dig" around.

Well I would have agreed with your summation BG and indeed that may well prove to be the case. HOwever somewhat surprisingly (for me at least) at the AGM TW did state to me and another attendee that they were expecting much more upside from NT1 than from NT2 after the re-working. Though he did not put figures on either. He did say that the previous drill had compromised that upside for NT2 but that it did not justify the expense of re-drilling the well entirely - they are better off using the capital for a totally new well in a new location. I could only conclude that he rework of NT2 provides a better ROCE.

Before or after indeed OBG - that is the big question methinks and no-one seems to know the answer, I fear?

The positive is that whichever way it goes it should not adversely affect the date for ARA and AREX to achieve production - and AEX really does need that income as soon as possible.

Sorry ignore most of that - I was confusing two different conversations. However the underlying sentiment holds true - offshore Wells are hugely more expensive than onshore for many reasons.

One is offshore and that adds hugely to the overall cost (and infrastructure) - the two onshore wells should not be anything like that.

Only because of the final UT trade (at 0.32p from memory) taking the closing price down on Friday. We have simply seen it "correct" itself this morning.

Or maybe after a JV and/or Debt Funding has been negotiated and announced. Successful negotiation sometime requires keeping your cards close to your chest.