Member Info for RachT2

"The offering is expected to close on April 29, 2026,..."

What part of that do you not understand? No announcement yet - so it's still open.

If it's still open it hasn't yet managed to raise the required funds.

The fund was announced on the 27th and "expected to close on April 29,". That's 2 days when I last looked.

It's very simple.

Ashton

Thanks again for expressing your concern - bless. You really needn't concern yourself.

Let's remind ourselves of some of your claims that haven't, shall we say, aged very well.

You posted (in response to LWHL -

“23.4.24 LWHL - You say: "Perhaps they have simply not had ANY interest, at any price, for these assets?"

Not so. There has been an interest from at least one party. I attended the General Meeting in February 2024 and came to find out from a member of the Board of Directors that a potential buyer from South Asia was engaged in talks with JAY about the sale of assets.”

Wow, 2 years later and we're still waiting for the South Asia entity to buy in. In fact, we're still waiting for ANY update on ANY interested party from South Asia.

Care to update us on that one?

All IMHO, of course.

Ashton

Now that did make me laugh. This is entertaining - and it is providing ample opportunity for me to repeatedly illustrate what a scheming character you really are.

“Hedging my bets”? It will either be successful or not - I don't know (and stated as much), but equally, NOR DO YOU. Despite your LIE to the contrary. Binary outcome - weird how you twist me stating the obvious as me “hedging my bets”.

I suppose it's rather like the time someone on here praised you for calling the bottom. Unless the company had gone to zero there was always going to be a bottom - absolutely ANY FOOL could eventually call it if they called it often enough and for long enough. Kerching - that's what you did. That's the level of your insight - ramp a share all the way down through a loss of near 98% over a period of several years and then self congratulate for calling the bottom and telling everyone (that would listen); just how well you had done and how you had averaged down. You had averaged down so much from a “large six figure” purchase at 9.1p that you would of have had to have invested over 200X your initial investment to break even. Lucky you - some people you “hoodwinked” for all those years and who might have been tempted to buy on your advice might not be so fortunate as to have your obvious large reserves of cash. But never mind eh? You're okay. Lie a little here, lie a little there, fabricate nonsense, over estimate figures, issue “certainties” and a range of assurances that fail to materialise - it matters not to you. It's your MO.

Nasty.

Over to you. Keep ‘em coming if you wish. I've plenty more “material”.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Ashton —

What a specimen — genuinely comedic. Thanks again for the humour.

Talk to you in a couple of days? You LIED today. What's relevance is a couple of days? As it stands, you’ve made a very confident claim with zero confirmation to back it up. And then fabricated some co*k and bull story when your LIE was called out. People can see that for themselves. You're only fooling yourself at this point in time.

You might be proven right — but given the track record of your previous “dead certs,” there’s every chance this ends up being another miss. Yet again.

And when it does? Same routine as always — no acknowledgment, no explanation, just straight on to the next piece of overconfident nonsense as if nothing happened. Rinse and repeat.

As for your concern — appreciated, but unnecessary. I’m perfectly calm. Calling out unsupported claims, over-optimism and outright inaccuracies / lies / deceit is straightforward enough — and, if anything, quite entertaining.

If you’d like to deprive me of that enjoyment, there’s an easy fix — stop posting speculation as fact and dial back the ramptastic claptrap. But I know that's not in your nature - so hopefully we both get to enjoy your nonstop claptrap and inaccurate posts for, at least. the foreseeable future.

As always, everything IMHO, of course.

“Great news.” “Fantastic,” is it? Seriously? LOL.

Only on this board could a ~60% discounted fund raise, announced weeks after IPO and following ~90% redemptions, be spun as a positive. That isn’t “fantastic” — it’s a big flashing neon sign that things have not gone to plan.

And, as usual, the market seems to agree. Both here and in the US, the price action is telling a very different story to the RC’s constant fairytale narrative.

Then we get the usual headline act…

Claiming the raise must be successful because another agreement has been signed. That’s not analysis — it’s pure GUESSWORK presented as fact, AGAIN

There is no confirmation the raise has completed, let alone at the full amount, yet we’re told to assume it has. Based on what? Wishful thinking? Cloud cuckoo land?

Followed by the HV gem — confidently stating revenue in H1, when the company itself carefully says “revenue visibility.” Not quite the same thing… unless, of course, accuracy is optional when there’s a narrative to maintain. And we’re still waiting on that restart, aren’t we? After how many missed dates now? Rinse and repeat.

For those with short memories, this is the same source who was:

“100% certain” Disko would be drilled in 2025 - so “confident” he posted to say so on 14 different occasions!

Equally adamant there would be no fund raise by year end - oops, wrong again.

Repeatedly confident on timelines that quietly slipped - spot the pattern?

When those calls fail (as they invariably do), is there any accountability? Any acknowledgement? Any apology? Of course not. It’s straight on to the next bold claim, as if the last bovine excrement never happened.

Call it what it is — a stream of overconfident, inaccurate assertions dressed up as insight - all courtesy of "hoodwinker" - as has always been thus.

The market isn’t buying it. It never has. The question is — why should anyone else?

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Kerching — and there we have it.

After all the confident assertions, it turns out Ashton does not actually know whether the funding has been secured. Instead, we now have the latest theory: an agreement with Halliburton somehow magically confirms the fund raise has been successful. Hilarious. Desperate. Ridiculous.

Of course it does. Because that’s exactly how it works, isn’t it? Sign a service agreement and — voilà — the cash must already be in the bank. You really couldn’t make it up.

Following that logic, I assume when the MGD deal was signed, GLND were just winging it? Same for SD — all done on a handshake and a bit of optimism, presumably. But for Haliburton, oh no, funds need to be assured. What utter nonsense.

So, have GLND actually raised the full $70m?

No idea. Nobody does — because there’s been no confirmation.

But not to worry — Ashton has stepped in with some top-tier deduction: the raise must have succeeded because it was priced at a hefty discount. Yes, clearly the hallmark of overwhelming demand.

We’ll find out soon enough. Until then, it remains what it is — speculation dressed up as certainty, and the usual stream of absolute claptrap. Ramptastic.

All IMHO, of course.

SilverFoxd —

As you’ve no doubt already concluded, Ashton can’t possibly know that they are fully funded at this stage. Unless there’s an official announcement he can point to, it remains what it has always been — assumption dressed up as fact.

Or, to put it more simply… ramping.

Still, this is the board where accuracy often plays second fiddle to confirmation bias, so it’s no surprise the post picked up the usual recs. Consistency, if nothing else. Amusing.

IMHO, of course.

“Great news”. “Fantastic,” is it? Really? LOL.

$4 — that’s quite the achievement. A roughly 60% discount to a $10 IPO price that’s barely a few weeks old. Clearly a ringing endorsement from the market.

And let’s not forget, this was the same IPO the RC assured us would be met with overwhelming demand… which translated into, oh dear …… a ~90% level of redemptions. Stellar.

Then, barely two weeks later, we’re back with the begging bowl — and not just at a slight discount, but miles below even the so-called “indicative” $8.64. Turns out that was over optimistic too. Who’d have thought?

All that “promotion” from RP & LS — interviews, streams, the lot — apparently didn’t quite have the intended effect. Some of us did suggest it looked a bit desperate at the time… but never mind.

And those “savvy” US investors who were supposedly going to pile in? They seem to be voting with their feet (and wallets). Curious, isn’t it, how the much-talked-about “one phone call” to secure funding didn’t materialise earlier — perhaps when the price was somewhat higher? LOL.

Still, let’s be fair — if they do manage to raise the $70m, then the drills may well go ahead. That said, the current pricing rather suggests the market isn’t exactly brimming with confidence in the outcome.

After all, if success were seen as likely:

Why raise at all, so soon?

And why at a 60% discount, rather than a premium?

“Great news” and “Fantastic” apparently. You couldn't make it up.

Oh, and let's not forget - I don't recall a statement saying that the fund raise was successful. Anyone spotted such a statement? Ramptsstic comments such as - “Since the fundraising efforts are out of the way, …..” might be a tad premature.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

And I almost forgot - here's another example of an attempted “hoodwink” from, you know who -

In their latest post we get a paragraph on the Sproule report for the Tunu project (already somewhat irrelevant given the very different geology to JL)… followed, rather bizarrely, by references to the size of the Prudhoe field and the Maracaibo Basin. Why?

It’s a crude bit of misdirection — throw in some huge, well-known oil provinces and hope it adds weight to the argument. The OBVIOUS problem being: neither Prudhoe nor Maracaibo have been shown to host ANY white helium reserves. Oh, dear, fancy that.

So what’s the relevance to white helium being present at JL? NONE. ABSOLUTELTY NONE. Just big names, big numbers, and a hope that no one joins up the dots.

Disingenuous? Yes. Surprising? Not in the slightest.

And I'm the one trying to “hoodwink” people? I don't think so.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Time for a quick reality check, as the (RC’s) helium narrative is starting to drift into something rather… questionable (to say the very least)..

Some of the RC are now pushing “white helium” — i.e. a standalone, economic helium discovery. That’s a very specific claim.

If JL is what it’s been sold as (a North Sea-style hydrocarbon basin), then yes — it may contain trace helium, like virtually every gas field worldwide. But: trace helium IS NOT white helium

White helium requires a completely different geological setup — basement-driven systems, focused migration, and minimal hydrocarbon dilution. In other words, pretty much the OPPOSITE of a classic oil basin… which is exactly what JL is supposed to be, is it not?

The latest leap of logic is that because helium at Pulsar’s project is sourced from basement rocks, and those same rocks sit beneath JL, that somehow supports the case here.

Let’s be blunt: that’s misleading.

Basement rocks sit beneath virtually EVERY sedimentary basin on the planet — including the North Sea. By that logic, everywhere is a helium play. How many O & G fields have an associated economically viable white hydrogen reserve also present? Show me some.

The key point being glossed over:

Pulsar = non-hydrocarbon, basement-dominated system

JL = hydrocarbon basin (or so we are repeatedly told)

Those two models don’t naturally coexist in the way being implied.

So the reality is likely:

JL may have trace helium — that's entirely expected and normal

Large-scale white helium — hmmm, highly unlikely, to say the least

As ever, the RC’s narrative shifts to whatever sounds best on the day — accuracy optional.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

If you think Ashton's childish acronym means I'm trying to hoodwink you - check the facts yourself. It isn't me who is doing the hoodwinking - and it never has been. Anyone attempting to hoodwink their audience never engages with the awkward FACTS and instead attempts to deflect attention. Sound familiar?

Interesting, predictable and amusing, to see JL now being touted as a helium play.

Slight problem though — we are repeatedly told it’s analogous to the North Sea. So let’s stick with that for a moment.

The North Sea, driven by Jurassic source rocks like the Kimmeridge Clay Formation, has produced enormous volumes of oil and gas.

What it HASN'T produced is commercial helium.

Yes, trace amounts exist — but nowhere near economic levels. NO helium industry, NO meaningful extraction, NO revenue stream.

So which narrative are we going with?

If JL is North Sea–like, it’s a hydrocarbon system — NOT a helium play.

If it’s a helium opportunity, then it’s not comparable to the North Sea being used to support the oil case.

You can’t really have it both ways.

Helium requires a very different geological setup. Simply pointing to “it’s like the North Sea” doesn’t work.

As usual, the RC adjusts the story depending on what sounds most appealing on the day.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

SilverFoxd —

Credit for trying to engage with invest — I filtered them a while ago. Life’s too short to wade through reams of what looks like AI-generated waffle with very little substance. And now we’ve apparently reached the desperate stage where Ashton needs to entertain the idea of some grand “master blueprint” conveniently known to an anonymous poster. You really couldn’t make it up. Hilarious.

Ashton —

Here we go again. Rather than addressing the actual points raised, we get the usual attempt at deflection and to pigeon hole me into one of your little boxes. It’s almost impressive how consistently you avoid the substance.

So, for the avoidance of doubt (again):

ANY thoughts on the scale of the warrants being issued?

ANY comment on the pre-funded warrants?

Or are we sticking with the well-rehearsed strategy of looking the other way and hoping no one notices? The silence is so telling - ironic you fail to appreciate that.

You’re very keen on telling others to “think outside the box,” yet seem remarkably comfortable staying inside one labelled “whatever the BoD last said.” Perhaps worth a quick peek outside now and again — it can be quite enlightening.

Yes, I’ve been wrong before — I’ve said that openly. It happens. What’s more telling is the running scorecard of challenges I've correctly made to your proxy like claims and assertions. You’ve picked out one miss (well done), but we could be here all week if we started listing the over-optimistic calls that you've made that haven’t quite stood the test of time. I’d need to block out a fair chunk of the calendar — possibly until HV restarts… or Disko drills… or JL drills… whichever comes first. No rush then.

On that note of downstream “expertise”, how's that coming along

Downstream revenue “imminent” over a year ago

Multiple missed restart dates

Now waiting on what… restart number five?

Anything to add? Or shall we file that under “best not discussed”?

Likewise:

Fund raises that were “not happening”… until they did

Timelines that slipped… repeatedly

Projects confidently forecast… then quietly deferred

First 2 drills fully funded.……. really?

Some of us flagged those issues at the time. Others seemed quite content to take the brochure at face value and stay in our box. Different styles, I suppose.

And here we are again — same script from you, just a different day.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

VikR —

“It is my unequivocal duty to defend…” — outstanding. ROFL. A one-man guardian of “true potential” across multiple boards. Tireless work.

Even more impressive is the portfolio construction — a whole collection of “asymmetric opportunities,” all apparently discovered at the same time.

Statistically remarkable. And the execution? Constantly “averaging down” across several positions simultaneously. Truly elite — most investors only get the chance to be wrong one share at a time.

As for the recent highlights (last 10 days) for a mix of the shares you "defend" (your own words/ my uppecase):

“AVERAGING DOWN every step of the way”

“had to AVERAGE DOWN today”

“out with a 3k LOSS… before I LOSE THE WHOLE LOT”

“lost all faith here”

“Hope to RECOVER SOME LOSSES”

A masterclass in… something. Not entirely sure what, but certainly consistent.

And of course, the daily trade updates. Riveting. Particularly given you’re “not bothered whether anyone else buys or not.” Strange way of showing it — broadcasting every buy, sell and average like it’s a market-moving event. I can only assume the City is hanging on each update.

Still, fair play — not everyone can turn a run of losses into such a compelling narrative.

All IMHO, of course.

More top level entertainment for the board today.

Ashton confidently informs us that “for a fundraise to successfully close…” an “effective” notice is required. Completely WRONG — but no matter, it racks up a healthy number of recs anyway. Clearly, accuracy takes second place to reality. Comedy classic..

VikR —

The irony is almost impressive. I don’t seem to recall many of your contributions when the price is heading south or when sells are dominating — odd, given how vocal you are on the way up. Not just here either, but across the numerous collection of boards where you post the same dross. Consistency of approach, if nothing else.

And the classic line: “I’m not bothered whether anyone buys or not.” Of course not — which presumably explains the near-daily updates on your supposed holdings. Reassuring stuff. I’m sure the market is hanging on every share count update with bated breath. Oh no, that's right, nobody gives a stuff about what you claim to be holding either.

And now Ashton infers we should actually pay attention to some AI derived nonsense - apparently they know the “master plan”. ROFL. That's the funniest one of the day. Thanks Ashton.

All in all, more fine examples of pointless noise on this board — though admittedly, the entertainment value remains high. Keep smiling.

All IMHO, of course.

Prompted by my post yesterday correcting Ashton’s misunderstanding of the “effective” notice, I’ve taken a closer look at the GLND fundraise — and it’s starting to look as though LS’s claims about being able to simply “pick up the phone” for financing may have been, shall we say, a touch optimistic.

A read-through of the S-1/A and the structure of the raise is fairly revealing.

If demand were strong, you’d typically expect a straightforward equity raise. Instead, we’re looking at shares being offered at $8.64 with a full 1-for-1 warrant attached. That’s quite a sweetener. I struggle to recall any raises needing warrants on a 1:1 basis — historically you tend to see ratios more like 1:5 or 1:10. It’s not exactly the hallmark of a heavily oversubscribed offering. Of course, the warrant exercise price will be key — but even so, this level of incentive suggests demand may not be quite as robust as some would have us believe.

Then there’s the inclusion of pre-funded warrants, which is also telling. These are essentially shares in all but name, typically used to navigate ownership thresholds (e.g. 4.99% / 9.99%). So despite the narrative about targeting PIs, this does hint at attempts to bring in larger players — whether institutions or high net worth individuals — but in a controlled and structured manner rather than through outright conviction buying. These instruments can be converted into shares at almost any time without further payment, so they’re effectively deferred dilution.

Which brings us neatly to the issue of future overhang. If (or when) those warrants are exercised, you’re looking at a meaningful increase in the share count. That kind of forward dilution tends to weigh on sentiment and can act as a cap on the share price.

At this stage, the ~$70m is just the headline ambition. The key points will be:

Whether it actually prices at or below $8.64

How much capital is ultimately raised

Whether further sweeteners are required to get it away

We’ll only get clarity on that once final terms are confirmed (likely via an 8-K).

Make of it what you will, but the structure doesn’t exactly scream “high demand, take it or leave it” pricing power.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Ashton

“For a fundraise to successfully close…”........ – you've got that wrong. Pretty basic error.

An “EFFECT” notice simply means the SEC has declared the registration effective, i.e. the company now has permission to proceed with the offering. It DOES NOT indicate the raise managed to “successfully close”. In fact it DOES NOT imply ANY level of success. There is still NO guarantee at that stage that any meaningful funds will actually be raised.

I think there may be some confusion here between an EFFECT notice and a Form 8-K. The 8-K is typically where the market gets confirmation of what has actually happened—whether the raise has closed, how much was raised (if anything), the pricing, number of shares, numbers of warrants, etc.

So yes, we may be awaiting an EFFECT notice, but that’s largely procedural. The filing that really matters—and the one that will tell us whether this has been a "successfully closed” or not—is the 8-K.

All IMHO, of course.

Ashton —

Pedant, as always.

So, in simple terms, the plan was:

1. Use the SPAC (PELI trust) to bring retail investors along

2. Encourage them to stay invested through 2026

3. Supplement that with institutional funding via project finance or a PIPE

Result: fully funded project

Nice and neat.

Ooops. Now for some reality:

1. ~90% of investors rejected LS’s plan and redeemed

2. Hmmmm - as above, most / all of the PIs encouraged to enter via PELI seem not to have considered LS's plans to be a worthwhile bet

3. No visible PIPE, no obvious institutional backing materialising

And an almost immediate fund raise announcement… which rather speaks for itself

So we’ve gone from “retail + institutional funding” to what now appears to be…………retail.

Have I missed any meaningful update about institutions coming in post-float? Because all I’m seeing is a shift in tone — suddenly it’s all about PIs. Funny that.

And, of course, we’re told LS can simply pick up the phone and have the whole thing financed tomorrow. Yes, Larry… I’m sure it’s just a case of not having got round to it yet.

P.S. You haven’t congratulated me yet for correctly calling the spike and retrace in the days/weeks after the float — must have slipped your mind. Perhaps you were a little too busy still being confident the share price would stabilise and climb into the drill news.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Ashton —

Thanks for the reply, but if anything it rather reinforces my original point.

As you’ve outlined yourself, LS was initially targeting institutional investors — either via project finance or a PIPE — with PIs effectively “along for the ride.” That’s fairly standard. What appears to have changed is the outcome, not the strategy. With no visible PIPE and little sign of institutional backing, the narrative now seems to have pivoted toward relying totally on PIs. Hard to read that any other way.

Then there’s the comment about being able to “make a phone call” and get the whole thing financed. Who exactly is on the other end of that call? Institutions? High net worth individuals? Either way, it does raise an obvious question — if it’s that straightforward, why wasn’t that call made earlier, at a higher valuation? Why not make that call and have that party buy up PELI shares in the market, thereby reducing or even avoiding the huge redemptions and the now rather obvious need to pass the begging bowl around to PIs?

Instead, we’re left with a heavily reduced trust following significant redemptions and a need to return to the market much sooner than expected. If the funding really was that readily accessible, you might have expected a different sequence of events — perhaps securing it earlier and avoiding the current situation altogether.

As it stands, the timeline and shifting narrative do seem to raise more questions than they answer.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

SilverFoxd —

I’d agree with you.

I commented previously on the rather remarkable timing of the “we only want PIs” narrative — which, purely by coincidence I’m sure, seemed to surface just as it became clear there were no PIPEs and very little in the way of institutional interest. Fancy that.

Then, as if by magic, the emphasis on attracting PIs ramped up even further once the scale of the redemptions (~90%) became known. Again, just one of those things, no doubt. If anyone can point to examples of this strategy being promoted before those events, I’d be delighted to see them. I won’t hold my breath.

We’re also told LS could simply pick up the phone and get things moving — yet somehow couldn’t persuade 9 out of 10 investors to stay put. Had he managed that minor detail, the trust might still be sitting around the ~$86m originally touted, rather than the ~ $11m left behind. And, quite incredibly, they now need to raise ~$70m. Truly uncanny timing.

Given the supposedly compelling economics — unprecedented rapid route to market, low break-even, etc — you’d think that phone call would have been made already. What’s not to like, after all? And if it really is that straightforward, why set the “indicative” raise price ~17% below the IPO price from just a couple of weeks ago? Why not make that call at a higher valuation and issue fewer shares? Odd way to go about it if demand is supposedly there. Of course, the RC will no doubt have an entirely different opinion - based on………..err, nothing in particular.

More broadly, it’s difficult to think of many companies that actively prefer the uncertainty of retail investors over the scale and stability of institutional backing. Institutions tend to do their own due diligence; PIs, on the other hand, can sometimes be a little more… receptive to optimistic narratives. LOL.

I hope I’m wrong, but it’s starting to look like the funding route may lean heavily toward retail. And if that’s the case, it perhaps tells its own story.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Those pesky MMs at it again… LOL.

GLND now down to $4.82 as I type — not far off half of the “indicative” $8.34 they’re hoping to raise funds at. Which does rather beg the obvious question: who exactly is going to pay close to double the prevailing market price to acquire shares?

So much for the RC narrative of “savvy” US investors piling in. At the moment, they appear to be doing precisely the opposite.

It’s also starting to make that ~$70m raise look, shall we say, a touch “over optimistic” — a phrase long-time 80M followers will be more than familiar with.

And it’s worth remembering what the filing actually outlines: if the raise doesn’t hit the required level, the options aren’t exactly bullish — delays to drilling, scaling back to a single well, or potentially no drilling at all. Oh, and don't forget the enormous level of redemptions.

Still, the RC will no doubt still be telling us that the share price of GLND is an irrelevance. Hilarious - as ever.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. Opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.