Member Info for MCNol

@Poppy 3

The only thing "wrong" with Bens_Sipp comment is the use of the word "square"—change that to "cubic" and the math is solid...

@Broomtree your response is a classic example of "selective memory" and "technical gaslighting.

Claiming that Colorado wasn't intended to support the wider portfolio ignores the Chairman’s own statement in the March 2025 results, which explicitly tied US revenue to 'future investment requirements across the portfolio.'

To suggest Colorado is too small to help Tanzania is to fundamentally misunderstand junior mining finance; revenue doesn't need to build the final plant—it just needs to stop the constant 'survival placings' that have historically hammered the share price...

Furthermore, using the current 0.45p price as 'proof' that dilution is the only variable is the ultimate lagging-indicator fallacy. The dilution of 2025 is in the price; the revenue of 2026 is not...

Betting that a company will stay at 0.45p while transitioning into a producer—filling trailers with gas worth up to $102k a pop—isn't 'realism,' it's just ignoring the RNS feed. ..

If you want to trade based on what happened last October, go ahead, but the Pinon Canyon Plant doesn't care about your sentiment—it only cares about throughput...

@BigBeasty aka @ThisshareisFubar

Predicting 20 billion shares assumes the company stays trapped in an 'exploration-only' loop, but that cycle officially broke in December 2025. With Stage 1 production now live in Colorado and the first tube trailers currently filling at Galactica, the company has shifted from 'spending capital' to 'generating cash.'

At an operating cost of just $13/Mcf and current helium spot prices, the US project is specifically engineered to provide the non-dilutive funding required to develop Tanzania. If the ITW-1 pump test validates a 1:4 gas-to-water ratio as in the model.

The company moves from a 'placing risk' to a 'farm-out target' for major industry players. Betting on a jump to 20 billion shares isn't a market forecast; it’s a bet that the physical plant currently sitting in Colorado—and the helium flowing into trailers right now—simply doesn't exist...

@Broomtree your view is clearly rooted in a history of AIM disappointments...

It ignores the fundamental shift from "exploration" to "production" that is currently underway...

The "fanciful" revenue argument is being tested in real-time by a physical plant with an operating cost of $13/Mcf and a clear 82.6% net revenue interest, designed specifically to break the cycle of "serial fundraises" that Broomtree fears...

Furthermore, dismissing house brokers as merely biased overlooks the fact that their targets are based on the same Sproule/ERCE independent reserves data that institutional lenders use for project financing. ..

Ultimately, Broomtree is betting on a repeat of the past, while the current data suggests a transition toward a cash-flow-positive future where the "need to dilute" is finally replaced by the "ability to scale"...

In short Broomtree is judging the company by its past (missed deadlines and dilution) when she should be judging it by its current week (first gas and active pump tests)....

When "First Sales" RNS confirms the margins we’ve calculated, the "fanciful" argument officially dies....

@hope2gain

To hit your break-even point, the company’s market capitalisation would need to rise from its current £42 million (at approx. 0.45p) to roughly £250 million, assuming no further significant dilution from the current 9.3 billion shares in issue...

This roughly 6x increase is achievable through a "value-inflection" staircase: first, confirming the $14M–$20M in annual revenue from the Colorado project provides a stable valuation floor (potentially lifting the price toward 1.0p); second, a successful ITW-1 ESP test in Tanzania would allow the company to convert its findings into "2P Reserves," which are the "bankable" assets institutional investors require to justify a higher rating.

Currently, house brokers like Panmure Liberum maintain price targets in the 3.2p to 3.7p range, suggesting that once the "proof of concept" in the US and the "reserve certification" in Africa are complete, the market's "fair value" for the company actually sits well above your break-even target...

@Bens_sipp

Every stock on the London Stock Exchange has an EMS. This is the maximum number of shares a Market Maker is legally required to give you a firm quote for instantly...

For Helium One, the EMS is typically around 200,000 shares.

If you ask for 5 million shares (which is 25 times the EMS), the computer doesn't know how to price it without moving the market. It rejects the "Automated Quote" and asks for a "Manual Quote" from a human trader...

The fact that you could get a quote for 20 million shares recently proves that liquidity is increasing. As trading volume rises (currently around 40m–70m shares a day), Market Makers become more comfortable handling large blocks because they know they can find a buyer or seller on the other side quickly...

Many retail apps (like HL, AJ Bell, or IG) use automated systems that give up if they can't get an instant electronic quote. This doesn't mean you can't sell; it just means you'd have to call the broker's "Dealing Desk" to do it manually...

When the "First Revenue" or "Tanzania Results" RNS drops, volume will likely spike to 200m+ shares a day. At that level of frenzy, getting a quote for 5m or 10m shares becomes effortless because the "Market Depth" becomes a vast ocean rather than a shallow pond...

As usual @Blubay you use real numbers but twist the context to sound more doubtful than the data actually suggests....

Blubay has stated "The company's production modelling is based on a maximum 20,000 bbl/d liquid production."

In fact 20,000 bpd isn't a "theoretical ceiling" they hope to hit; it is the technical specification for the production phase. Blubay implies this is a "best-case risk," but in engineering, if you design a plant for 20,000 bpd and the well naturally flowed 2,701 bpd on a tiny choke (36/64ths), reaching 20,000 with a high-powered ESP (Electrical Submersible Pump) is a standard mechanical uplift, not a "miracle"...

Blubay has stated "The GWR could come out better... if more free gas can be flowed."

In fact this is actually a pro-HE1 argument disguised by Blubay as a doubt. The current modelling (1:4 ratio) assumes the helium is mostly dissolved in the water. If the ESP test shows "free gas" (bubbles of pure gas not trapped in water), the helium output skyrockets beyond the 6,176 scf/d estimate. Blubay is accidentally highlighting that the 5.5% concentration is the floor, not the ceiling...

Blubay has stated "I disagree it [5.2%] can be treated as a baseline... we can't know that yet."

In fact we actually do know. The September 2024 EWT (Extended Well Test) wasn't a quick sniff of gas; it was a sustained flow test. You don't get "sustained averages" of 5.2% and 5.5% over a multi-day test if it's just a lucky pocket. In mining and gas, once you have an EWT result verified by a third-party lab (which HE1 has), that is your baseline for commercial modelling. To claim otherwise is to ignore standard industry reporting codes (like JORC or PRMS)...

Blubay as usual is is moving the goalposts. She is treating proven EWT data as "guesses" to justify her caution....

@Blubay it looks like you are stuck three technical "traps"...

"BPD" "barrels per day" means oil.... At ITW-1, BPD refers to water. We have to pump massive amounts of water to "lower the pressure" so the helium can escape. Some "investors" find the idea of a "helium company pumping water" counter-intuitive...

Blubay mentions readings have "varied widely." This is true—concentrations spiked to 7.9% in the Karoo and 6.7% in the Basement. Skeptics like Blubay argue that a "sustained" 5.5% is too optimistic, while the company argues it's the baseline...

The ESP pump being used right now is a test tool, not the final production plant. Blubay is confusing the test pump's limits with the reservoir's potential...

The technical "overhang" phase for the BNL has officially begun today with the allotment of the new shares at A$0.005. While the shortfall is significant, the active participation of directors and the confirmation of "operational refinement" at the plant suggest the company is waiting for a "Success RNS" (like first revenue) to clear the remaining shares in one go.

For us, the focus remains on news of the first tanker departure and the ongoing de-watering results from the ITW-1 pump test in Tanzania...

The "First Revenue" RNS could drop at any time now that the shares are allotted...

We are currently at day 14 of the estimated 21-day ESP test window...

and watch for a "Notification of Underwriting" or institutional placement announcement from BNL...

@PeakyBrum

Your estimation captures the project's medium term potential perfectly, though the immediate "Stage 1" numbers are slightly more conservative...

Based on the 20 January 2026 RNS, each trailer has an estimated gross value of $59,500 to $102,000. At the current filling rate of approximately one trailer every two days (roughly 3 per week), the plant is generating an annualised gross revenue of $9.3 million to $15.9 million.

While this already covers operating costs of approximately $13 per thousand cubic feet and landowner royalties of 17.4%, the real leap to a steady $14 million+ profit occurs in H1 2026. This is when the planned infill drilling and the addition of the CO2 liquefaction unit will ramp up throughput to 5 trailers per week, turning what was once "waste gas" into a second high-margin revenue stream.

For a company like Helium One (HE1), their 50% share of this cash effectively creates a self-sustaining bank to fund their larger Tanzanian ambitions without further diluting shareholders...

@Broomtree the company officially confirmed on 20 January that the "first off take helium tube trailer" was on location and "receiving saleable gas."

A trailer takes 36 to 48 hours to fill at the current plant throughput...

f that first trailer began filling on or around the 20th, it would have been completed by the 22nd or 23rd...

We are now 10 days past that update. In a "Success Scenario," the first trailer has likely already left, and a second or third is currently in the filling bay...

Companies often wait to announce "First Revenues Received" rather than just "First Tanker Departed."

The off taker usually tests the purity at their own facility before the "sale" is finalised in the accounts...

HE1 and BNL likely want to announce a "batch" of sales or a "stabilised production rate" (e.g., "We are now shipping two trailers per week") rather than micro-managing every single truck movement in the news...

By the numbers, 1 to 3 trailers have likely been processed by now. The "straightforward" reality is that the next RNS won't be about one truck; it will be about the start of the recurring revenue stream...

@Broomtree I appreciate this does not fit your agenda however, the January RNS has already confirmed that technical teams are on-site specifically to meet 'initial short-term off take agreements.'

The tube trailer isn't sitting there hoping for a deal; it's there because a deal is already in place. The JV is playing it smart by using short-term contracts first to capture the high spot-market prices while they negotiate the big, long-term partnership for Phase 2. The tanker is being filled because the gas is already sold—the only thing left to see is the 'Revenue Received' RNS...

@Zoffy is wrong about the actual setup at Pinon Canyon. They are assuming a traditional oil-well model, whereas the Colorado project uses a modern "Modular" gas-gathering system...

The 'opening the taps' argument ignores the fact that in gas production, the reservoir itself is the storage. The Pinon Canyon plant is a modular setup—its job isn't to store gas, but to 'clean and compress' it...

The January RNS confirms they have a 'Recycling Container' on-site to maintain flow stability without needing multi-million dollar storage spheres. The tube trailer is the storage. Once the first sale is confirmed, the goal is a constant cycle of trailers so the 'taps' never have to close. It's 'Just-In-Time' logistics, which is far more cost-effective for a junior producer than building a permanent tank farm...

Zoffy is thinking like a 1970s oil man; HE1 is operating like a 2026 tech-enabled gas producer..

@zoffy is describing a "Gas Station" for trucks; HE1 is running a "Refinery."

The times Zoffy has quoted (30 minutes to 4 hours) are for a facility that has huge pre-filled storage tanks ready to dump gas into a truck...

The Pinon Canyon plant is a "modular" facility processing gas directly from the wells. It doesn't have massive storage spheres yet...

The trailer can only be filled as fast as the plant can "clean" the gas and the compressor can "squeeze" it. At the current Stage 1 capacity (approx. 2 million cubic feet of raw gas per day), the plant is producing refined helium at a steady rate that naturally fills a 170,000 scf trailer over 36 to 48 hours....

@northfork

Filling a helium tanker is like forcing air into a high-pressure scuba tank rather than pouring liquid into a barrel. Because helium is a light gas, it won't just flow in; instead, a powerful compressor physically "cramming" the gas into the trailer's steel tubes. This machine squeezes the helium until the pressure inside the tanker is roughly 200 times higher than the air around us. This process has to be done slowly over 36 to 48 hours because squeezing gas creates a lot of heat, and the equipment needs to stay cool to ensure the tubes are packed safely and at full capacity for maximum profit...

You're right that Colorado is intended to be self-funding, but the 'Collateral' mention is actually the masterstroke. By turning Colorado into a revenue-producer, HE1 finally has an asset they can borrow against to fund the massive Tanzania development without constantly diluting us at 0.5p...

The 'self-fund' model for Phase 2 in Colorado is simple math... Helium pays the OpEx, and the 'High Grade' CO2 (the larger part of the profit) funds the drills.

We don't need BNL to be rich; we just need the gas to keep flowing so HE1 can use the US assets to leverage the African ones. The evidence of the 'Cash to get there' is in the millions HE1 had at the last reporting—more than enough to clear the Colorado 'Hump'....

@Broomtree

A standard helium tube trailer holds approximately 170,000 standard cubic feet (scf) of gas...

Based on the current plant capacity at Pinon Canyon (designed to handle ~2.0 million cubic feet of raw gas per day), the filling time for one trailer at full tilt is roughly 36 to 48 hours...

You don't "leave it sitting." These trailers are leased or owned by the off taker (the buyer). As soon as the trailer is pressurised to the correct level and the purity (98%+) is verified, a tractor unit (truck) arrives to haul it away...

At full production, the plant is designed to fill roughly 5 trailers per week. That is a constant cycle of "Fill, Swap, Ship...

he idea that a filled tanker 'sits around' ignores how offtake contracts work—the buyer wants that gas as much as we want the cash; it’s moved as soon as the valves are shut.

As for the 'self-funding hump,' you're right to look for evidence. But remember: HE1 didn't enter this JV to be a junior partner; they entered it to get cash flow for Tanzania.

If the 'combined cash' is tight, HE1 has the balance sheet to take the lead. I'd rather bet on a plant that is already filling its first trailer than wait for a 'perfectly funded' explorer that hasn't even broken ground...

HE1 isn't choosing one or the other; they are doing both...

Colorado is the "ATM" that pays the bills and keeps the lights on...

Research suggests CO2 sales could add an extra 30-50% on top of helium revenue with almost zero extra drilling cost...

Tanzania is the "Ticket" that could make the company a billion-dollar player...

HE1 could function as a finance partner, but Blubay is wrong to see it as a weakness. Most successful energy companies (like the "Majors") operate exactly this way—using stable production to fund exploration....

@Blubay you are missing the forest for the trees when it comes to Helium One's role in this partnership...

BNL's chart is technically "broken" because of the ASX price rules. But they are wrong to think this stops the project...

Whether BNL's chart is "ugly" or not, the helium in the tanker is worth the same amount of US Dollars. HE1 gets 50% of that cash regardless of whether BNL can move its decimal place...

BNL’s illiquidity is HE1’s advantage. While the Australians are arguing over a 0.001 cent spread, HE1 is trading freely in London, pricing in the 50% share of that Colorado revenue. As a HE1 Investor we are in the "cleaner" horse for the race...

@Blubay you are fundamentally wrong about the market mechanics and confusing a "rule for the company" with a "shackles for the share price....

If we get the 'First Sales' RNS next week, that A$4.4m shortfall won't sit there for three months—it'll be snapped up by a fund in a single afternoon.

The 'ceiling' only exists as long as there is no news. The moment the revenue starts flowing, the shortfall goes from being an 'overhang' to being 'fully subscribed,' and the market price leaves 0.005 in the rearview mirror...

I'd rather be positioned before that placement is announced than trying to chase it afterward...