Member Info for LOTM-13

Hi Scott22

I'll try & see if I can get on that forum.

In the meantime, if you just give me your advfn username I'll be able to PM you & you should be able to read it but obviously by the sounds of it you can't reply to it, but I'll give another contact method.

LOTM

The name calling etc really needs to stop. People need to be civil to one another.

Why are we having all these heated discussion ?

Because the company hasn't been clear & informative with its announcements.

If it had been clear & informative I don't think the share price would be at its current level, it would either be much higher or a lot lower & investors would have a proper idea of what's actually going on.

My main problem stems from watching the AGM & the evasiveness that was displayed by the board during it & it seems to have continued since then with unprecise announcements that leave too much to individual interpretation of the wording rather than simple unambiguous facts.

Personally I think the decision to buy the drill rig was the right one, but to then hide the cost of its purchase & the cost of the repairs in the way they did was totally wrong. No openness or transparency is coming back to bite them.

Just like the fan fair of the "company led placement" with no explanation as to what the company's role in it actually was because clearly none of the directors bought shares in it & if it was the directors who brought investors to the table - on what basis did they do it ?

LOTM

Rogerjolly,

I think solstace has answered your question, re where the stimulation has come from .....

"Since the inside volume of the drillpipe is considerably less than the volume of the annulus outside of the drillpipe, reverse circulation can bring bottomhole fluids to the surface faster than normal circulation for a given flow rate. Two potential hazards of reverse circulation include lifting cuttings and other junk into the drillstring and the rapid flow of reservoir fluids to the surface in a kick situation."

Or are you still trying to say that's not stimulation ?

LOTM

Hi joe80

No problem :)

Hopefully it helps you in future to see things through a wider lens - like some geologist's running a drilling op ! - yes I know that one really shocked you!

Back in 2015/16 he helped a lot of people with info on PANR - not to mention wellhead photo's from going to site for us.

Hopefully he can help people make money here by knowing the questions to ask & the answers we should be getting back from them.

We both hate to see people getting burned & try to be as realistic as possible.

Good Luck

LOTM

Hi Legalwolf,

At the moment I don't think you should be comparing Noble & Helium1 at all.

Noble haven't drilled to any great depth yet (not even 500M), not even to the bottom of the Karoo & are dealing with conventional reservoirs (with net & gross pay) similar to the upper reaches of Tai-3 & there 1st well had a gas cap.

Itambula West-1 is targeting something completely different at much deeper depth's connected to the deep seated faults & fractured basement.

https://www.helium-one.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/21-08-11-Hannam.pdf

Might help

LOTM

Skippysb01

"I suggest people re watch the interview to understand why they haven't disclosed that level of uncertainty yet. You can decide if you trust the CEO or not."

Its not uncertainty - flow/pressure/size of resource/ is information they have & should have been made public weeks ago - only we didn't know they actually had that information available to them until the Interview - hence the alarm over it not being released.

Now the uncertainty maybe around the "basement play" since its not a normal reservoir as such, so might be like "shale" used to be prior to 2002. In which case it will need working out, but could still be explained to investors in laymen's terms.

"flowing freely" might seem semantic stuff, unfortunately in this case its not.

joe80

Was ripping my posts apart when I passed on my geologist friend's comments about RC & it causing the flow to surface a couple of weeks ago & yet here he is today now making the exact same argument as my geologist did !!!

Skippysb01,

When someone I trust & who has worked in the industry all there life & has a lot of Helium experience, tells me they can't make head nor tail of the announcement & interview as to what is or isn't really there - then how on earth are ordinary investors going to make informed decisions ?

You tell me

Give him the data & he'll be able to answer many of the questions we all have .........

LOTM

The helium concentration is well above the level that would be considered commercial with helium being the primary source of revenue, (I don't think that's in doubt) but there has to be enough of it there & for it to flow at an acceptable rate to be commercially viable.

The Jury is still out on those other 2 factors, although pre-drill indications were that there is enough in place at Itambula West (4.6 BCF net to HE1), but still to be publicly confirmed afterwards in actual numbers.

The crux of the matter then becomes the flow rate & decline curve of a well.

Flow rate determine how many wells you'd need to drill to supply a PSA facility & is a massive factor regarding costs & profitability when wells are looking like costing $3M a piece.

The company say's it has this information but has chosen not to disclose it to shareholders yet (flow-rate, pressure, net pay, gross pay etc).

This is highly unusual.................

Without it, it is virtually impossible to work out a value for the company & by extension an appropriate share price.

Hence the muted response since the announcement & interview.

To be honest the company is being its own worst enemy here by not providing full discloser to the market, because ordinary investors in effect don't have a clue as to what's going on.

LOTM

Hi Scott22,

I've left you a message on the HE1 BB over there.

Thanks

LOTM

Hey Scott22,

Do you use ADVFN by any chance ?

LOTM

Which of the 4 Argon isotopes they recovered to surface as well.

Was any of it the isotope that sells for $thousands per MCF ?

LOTM

Hi joseywales & Walkietalkie

I see your both still trading SYNT.

I'm just sitting on the sidelines for now as far as SYNT is concerned, clearly £1.49 wasn't the top.

GLA

LOTM

I posted this over the weekend

The 8th Sept report https://www.helium-one.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/21-09-08-Hannam-note.pdf

Reveals quite a bit of info (although not the actual number of shares in issue at the time!)

From the $75M & 9p share price I'm going to say 650M shares in issue back then so everything will need to be divided by 6 on a per share basis to get to the current 3.7Billion in issue.

At that time the Itambula prospect was assigned an estimate of 5.4 BCF gross & 4.6 BCF net & a risked value of $45M & an unrisked one of $267M for the Helium using a price of $250 per MCF.

The value per share nearly doubled for a $150M increase in the Helium price to $400 per MCF whereas the current price is $650 or $600 if you wanted to be ultra safe.

It doesn't state anywhere in the document what % of Helium they were using in the gas stream to calculate these valuation numbers & as I've been trying to educate investors, this is a vital part of the calculation because of the electrical cost of recovering Helium as the prime income stream of the project.

Until we have a flow-rate & other info we also don't know how close 4.6BCF net of recoverable Helium is to reality.

Also having thermal power will do wonders to lowering that electric cost & thus increasing gross margins.

If you apply what's said in the document & I'm not in anyway saying it's numbers are right then you'd come to a value estimate along these lines just for Itambula.

20.7 BCF of recoverable Helium listed therefore 4.6 BCF = 22.2% of that number.

The risked valuation therefore becomes (22.2% x £0.609) the £0.609 comes from £0.247 + £0.428 to get the figure for $600 per MCF Helium. Which comes to £0.1353 per old share or £0.0225 with the current number of shares in issue.

The unrisked valuation comes to (22.2% x £3.40) or £0.755p per old share & £0.1259 per current share.

So you could say the current share price should be somewhere in between those numbers, because Itambula West-1 has de-risked the prospect somewhat.

How much has it de-risked it? well that again would be another debate.

The more you personally think its been de-risked then you also have to increase the valuation a bit more to allow for thermal power further down the line. As well as the risked valuation you place on HE1's other prospects as the numbers only cover Itambula.

Just to re-iterate these are not my numbers, I've simply updated the ones in the report on the company website.

Do I personally think they are in the ballpark - hard to say without knowing the % Helium used in the calculation, disclosure of the other key metrics like recoverable Helium at Itambula will hopefully come in the next update on the project.

Someone pointed this link out to me which is worth including & viewing

https://www.helium-one.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/21-08-11-Hannam.pdf

Especially on page 6 & could well explain (show) the 3 zones they tested including b

Clearly with there not being a surge of buyers 1st thing upset the plans of a few this morning going by the big dump trades that occurred in the 1st couple of minutes

1.288M @ 2.328p

2.845M @ 2.305p

Big ouches on those sell trades

LOTM

Just a morning reminder for anyone new to HE1 & who is thinking of getting involved possibly after viewing Thursday's CEO interview with LSE.

The MM's will start by using an opening price that is higher than last nights closing price. They will then move it higher before bringing it back down usually around 8:10 - 8:15 this pattern happens around 90% of the time & I don't expect today to be any different.

So if you're wanting to buy some HE1 shares, you're better to sit it out those 1st few minutes otherwise you'll get burned by the MM's & that's not a good introduction to owning the stock (Yes I got badly done with one of my top-ups because of it) It might be hard to sit it out for those few minutes but you'll be thankful you did & you'll end up getting more shares for your money.

The MM's here do like a good tree shake.

GLA

LOTM

Hi Peakybrum,

Helium is a niche market, but supply is less than demand & has been for many years now. As fossil fuel demand drops so will Helium production as its a by-product of LNG in several countries. Thus exasperating the situation.

Is a 4.7% Helium content enough for a project to be financially viable with no other income streams from it ? The answer is YES. At $600 per MCF for Helium a 2% concentration is viable, possibly even a slightly lower figure than 2% if you had the right gas mixture, so that a good percentage of the not wanted elements could be seperated out before the gas stream goes into a PSA plant.

Electricity is a major factor in the equation, so if you have cheap electricity it either increases your gross margin or turns a marginal one into a profitable one. Having thermal energy at Itambula will do wonders for the economics.

The outstanding Risks -

Flow rates of the wells - unknown, (as will be the wells decline curves)

Actual reserves - unknown at this time - waiting next RNS to hopefully bring a little clarity to the matter.

If both of the above are within acceptable parameters then the chances of success are extremely high indeed.

Capex is not that big a number. If you've got a proven reserve that will last at least 5 years at least one of the 3 major Industrial gas company's in the world will lend you the money to build the plant & gathering system to harvest it.

That's roughly where its at.

LOTM

Hi 5085,

They won't need the Amine unit at Itambula given the negligible amounts of CO2 in the gas stream - so that reduces the capital cost there.

LOTM

Hi Chesh,

Thanks, I didn't look at the earlier Hannam reports to be honest but the link you provided is great for showing what they potentially have drilled into on page 6 & could well explain (show) the 3 zones they tested including basement.

LOTM

I found this https://www.helium-one.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/21-09-08-Hannam-note.pdf on the company website

Which reveals quite a bit of info (although not the actual number of shares in issue at the time!) If someone had the exact number that would be great ?

From the $75M & 9p share price I'm going to say 650M shares in issue back then so everything will need to be divided by 6 on a per share basis.

At that time the Itambula prospect was assigned an estimate of 5.4 BCF gross & 4.6 BCF net & a risked value of $45M & an unrisked one of $267M for the Helium using a price of $250 per MCF.

The value per share nearly doubled for a $150M increase in the Helium price to $400 per MCF whereas the current price is $650 or $600 if you wanted to be ultra safe.

It doesn't state anywhere in the document what % of Helium they were using in the gas stream to calculate these valuation numbers & as I've been trying to educate investors, this is a vital part of the calculation because of the electrical cost of recovering Helium as the prime income stream of the project.

Until we have a flow-rate & other info we also don't know how close 4.6BCF net of recoverable Helium is to reality.

Also having thermal power will do wonders to lowering that electric cost & thus increasing gross margins.

If you apply what's said in the document & I'm not in anyway saying it's numbers are right then you'd come to a value estimate along these lines just for Itambula.

20.7 BCF of recoverable Helium listed therefore 4.6 BCF = 22.2% of that number.

The risked valuation therefore becomes (22.2% x £0.609) the £0.609 comes from £0.247 + £0.428 to get the figure for $600 per MCF Helium. Which comes to £0.1353 per old share or £0.0225 with the current number of shares in issue.

The unrisked valuation comes to (22.2% x £3.40) or £0.755p per old share & £0.1259 per current share.

So you could say the current share price should be somewhere in between those numbers, because Itambula West-1 has de-risked the prospect somewhat.

How much has it de-risked it? well that again would be another debate.

The more you personally think its been de-risked then you also have to increase the valuation a bit more to allow for thermal power further down the line. As well as the risked valuation you place on HE1's other prospects as the numbers only cover Itambula.

Just to re-iterate these are not my numbers, I've simply updated the ones in the report on the company website.

Do I personally think they are in the ballpark - hard to say without knowing the % Helium used in the calculation, disclosure of the other key metrics like recoverable Helium at Itambula will hopefully come in the next update on the project.

LOTM

Hi Selangore,

The costs are for the test PSA, your not going to have geothermal electricity available in 9 month's are you. That saving will come for a full scale development.

They are meant to be on the conservative side regarding production - yet others are already saying they are to optimistic!

If you don't like them, that's fair enough, I'm not offended.

Only time will tell if they were close or not.

LOTM

Hi Blubay,

I can only go by the past info I have, way back then I think the size of test plant I'm talking of 2 MMCFGD was around $6M but you've got nearly 20 years of inflations etc to add on to that price etc, so I think $15M for that & the gathering system is in the right ballpark.

I don't know what size of plant (capacity wise) they were thinking of Cryogenic plants are also a lot more expensive.

If the wells can't produce at least 0.3MMCFGD from that depth etc its going to be very difficult to justify commerciality, once you've taken in the capex cost of drilling the well etc, unless they are long life & that's a whole new debate.

What I listed should be achievable inside 9 months.

Hi BasilAlderman,

The only thing I see is them doing is signing an offtake agreement with one of the 3 major gas players for them to fund the cost of the plant & gathering system.

I don't see a takeover as remotely possible, Helium is a niche market, there are no big players in it. The major gas company's aren't interested in owning & running such a business & its too niche for the major oil & gas company's to be interested in.

Now there might be the remote possibility for a mid-tier player to take an interest if it wants to diversify away from oil & gas, but which of them it could possibly be would be anyones guess.

GLA

LOTM