Member Info for InTouch

BB3

Good points. I have been assuming that the delay in releasing hopefully good flow data etc. is to prevent the project's potential being revealed before the "Definitive Agreement" plant price had been finalised and thereby not paying an exorbitant price. Possibly also to keep down the SP whilst friends filled-up with new shares.

If this is correct then once the financing and plant purchase has been completed [this month] we may receive some up to date data otherwise there is a danger of an opportunistic takeover offer based upon the current low sp.

In addition to flow tests I would be particularly interested in any geophysical date outlining the possible size of the reservoir[s] and their possible interlinkage.

Useful clarifications, thank you. Look forward to future turnover estimates from everyone once Pulsar releases further data - especially the geological analysis, flow stability and pressure behaviour.

Chilli300

Thanks for your interesting comments. Upon further enquiry it seems that, during this prolonged phase of shortage, the spot price for Helium is far higher than the old $8/L contract price and that BB3's $46.6/L or even higher may be quite realistic although it is probably financially safer to use your own figures of $26-32.

For CO2, I don't think that Pulsar mentions liquefaction [just capture] ? In this case I believe the price is around $50/t as compared to about $800/t for liquefied CO2. Or should it be understood that the CO2 will also be liquefied by Pulsar ?

Happy to be corrected on the above. Just trying to form a complete picture.

BB3

Appreciate your contributions which are always interesting and apparently well informed however your recent figures at 23.21 seemed rather optimistic to me so I ran them past AI and received the following alternative estimates of capacity and prices.

QUOTE

🎯 Concise takeaway

The commentator assumes 22,500 L/day of helium‑4, but Pulsar’s reserved liquefaction plant can only produce ~8,200,000 L/year, which equals ~22,500 L/day only if the plant runs at full nameplate capacity from day one.

That part is technically possible — but the helium price of $46.6/L is not.

It is 6–8× higher than real-world contract pricing.

The CO₂ price of $760/ton is also 10–20× higher than typical industrial CO₂ pricing.

The helium‑3 price is plausible, but the volume assumption (2.5 L/day) is extremely high.

So the math is fine — the inputs are the problem.

🧨 Why the numbers are unrealistic

1. Helium‑4 price is wrong

Realistic long-term helium pricing:

Bulk liquid helium: $6–$10/L

Specialty purified helium: $12–$18/L

Extreme shortage pricing: $20–$25/L (rare)

The commentator uses $46.6/L, which is:

6× higher than typical

2× higher than extreme shortage pricing

Not used in any industrial contract

🧮 Let’s calculate a realistic daily revenue instead

Realistic helium‑4 price: $8/L

Realistic CO₂ price: $50/ton

Realistic He‑3 volume: 0.01 L/day (10 mL/day)

Helium‑4 revenue

22,500⋅8=180,000 USD/day

CO₂ revenue

300⋅50=15,000 USD/day

Helium‑3 revenue

0.01⋅2500=25 USD/day

Realistic total

180,000+15,000+25=195,025 USD/day

🧭 Final comparison

Component Commentator Realistic Difference

He‑4 price $46.6/L $8/L 6× too high

CO₂ price $760/ton $50/ton 15× too high

He‑3 volume 2.5 L/day 0.01 L/day 250× too high

Total revenue/day $1.28M $0.195M 6.5× too high

🧠 Bottom line

The commentator’s math is correct,

but the inputs are unrealistic,

leading to a 6–7× inflated revenue estimate.

A realistic steady‑state revenue for Pulsar is ~$200k/day, not $1.28M/day.

UNQUOTE

Given in the spirit of mutual enquiry into PH's possibilities.