Member Info for The-Hat

As a PM in the O&G sector, this is a common misunderstanding I run into with long-lead items.

In the project world, a long-lead item is not just an item with a very long delivery period. It is any item whose delivery time has the potential to drive or impact the project schedule.

These items are usually identified early, tracked closely, and prioritised to make sure they are ordered in time and do not end up delaying the project.

Also, “long lead” is a relative term. It depends on the overall duration and critical path of the project. On a short project, an item with a 4–6 week lead time could absolutely be considered long lead. On a much longer project, even an item with a 6-month lead time may not be critical if it does not affect the schedule.

So it is less about the length of the lead time and more about whether that lead time can impact the project schedule.

A long lead item is not necessarily an item that takes a "long" time to deliver, it is an item that is determining the schedule. It could be a 4 week delivery or a 4 month delivery. You could have something that takes 6 months and not be a long lead item as it may not be needed until the end of the project.

It's a chunky grant whit a low strike price imo. If the strike price was higher I'd be more ok with as I have no issue with them being rewarded. A meaningful stake is a stretch, a meaningful gift more llike.

Tech transfer complete...

It seems to be the thread that contains the offending post that get deleted not just the post itself.

They cannot raise the 7m without a prospectus, so we will know before it happens. They won't need the 7m for at least 6 months.

Logical order & dependencies

1. CTP Restructure – internal, legal process to separate the relevant subs.

Usually 4–8 weeks minimum for ASIC filings, transfers, and legal sign-offs.

2. Ministerial Consent (NT) – approval for change in ownership of permit interests.

Commonly takes 2–3 months (can stretch to 4–5 months depending on completeness and government workload).

3. Santos JOA consent – likely parallel to ministerial consent. Santos will review the new ownership and confirm operational suitability.

Realistically 4–8 weeks, possibly longer if legal amendments needed.

4. Shareholder vote & Prospectus –

Prospectus preparation + FCA review ≈ 6–8 weeks.

5. EGM (extraordinary general meeting) notice period in the UK: typically 14–21 days once circular published.

Fundraise (£7 m) – cannot occur until the Prospectus is approved.

So fundraising is one of the last steps before completion

Maybe they have been made insiders...hence what they can post would be limitied.

How much does it cost governments treating but not curing cancer?

HEMO buyout—Condensed from what I had Chat GPT work through.

TL;DR: If HEMO’s AML CAR-T (HG-CT-1) delivers clear efficacy + clean safety and looks registrational, a £1–5bn takeout is defensible on peer-style revenue multiples; pre-POC it’s likelier a big partnership than a full acquisition.

Back-of-envelope peak sales

US+EU AML R/R pool ≈ 23k/yr → assume 35% eligible → ~8k; 50% penetration → ~4k tx/yr.

Blended price ~$425k/tx ⇒ ~$1.7bn peak sales (ex-RoW).

Cell-therapy M&A often ~2–4× peak sales ⇒ $3.4–$6.8bn EV ≈ £2.7–£5.3bn.

What a buyer might pay (depends on when)

After strong Ph2 / reg-ready data: ~£1–£3bn (up to £4–£5bn with paediatric/earlier-line or payer momentum).

After early Ph1 but eye-popping efficacy + RMAT/BTD: more likely partnering (e.g., $200–$500m upfront + equity + milestones) than a buyout; £0.5–£1.5bn possible but not base case.

At/near approval with reimbursement: £3–£5bn plausible (2–4× credible peak sales).

Reality check

Prior cycle outliers: Kite $11.9bn / Juno $9bn (hot market).

Today’s tape is tighter; execution, CMC scale-up, and payer access matter.

Dials that move the number

Eligibility (25–45%), penetration (30–50%), price ($350–500k), competition (other AML cell/bispecifics)

✅ CLAIM 6: Hemogenyx owns the platform, has in-house manufacturing, and expanded IP

✅ Supported by public disclosures.

Hemogenyx has emphasized:

Full platform IP ownership

In-house GMP manufacturing facility in New York

Plans to expand into pediatric AML and ALL

➡️ Verdict: These are strong strategic assets that are undervalued in most early-stage biotech valuations.

🎯 Overall Assessment

FACTUAL ACCURACY: The core assertions in the statement are mostly factually sound and rooted in biotech context.

STRATEGIC REASONING: The argument about market behavior (e.g., withholding efficacy data for deals) is a common and legitimate biotech practice.

TONE: While defensively written, the author effectively counters bearish sentiment with well-structured facts.

✅ Summary:

✔️ Accurate: Most AML CAR-Ts don’t reach human trials.

✔️ Valid: Hemo's initial safety results exceed expectations.

✔️ Reasonable: Lack of efficacy disclosure ≠ absence of efficacy.

✔️ Contextually correct: Early remission is highly valuable in r/r AML.

✔️ Strategically sound: Hemo is in a rare, promising position.

I posted your response in to Chat GPT for those who doubt..

⚠️ CLAIM 1: "Most similar trials sadly fail" – Most early-stage AML CAR-Ts never reach human dosing

✅ Largely true.

Supporting evidence: AML is notoriously challenging for CAR-T therapies due to:

Lack of ideal targets (AML antigens often appear on healthy cells).

Poor in vivo CAR-T cell persistence.

Complex and fragile manufacturing for hematologic malignancies.

A 2021 Nature Reviews Drug Discovery report highlighted high preclinical attrition rates for AML-targeting CAR-Ts.

➡️ Verdict: This statement is factually sound and consistent with the broader biotech landscape.

✅ CLAIM 2: "Hemo CAR-T successfully dosed two patients with no CRS, neurotoxicity, or DLTs"

⚠️ Conditionally true, based on limited disclosures.

Hemogenyx announced in Q1 2024 that two patients were dosed safely, with no cytokine release syndrome (CRS), neurotoxicity, or dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs).

However, this information came from company press releases, not peer-reviewed sources.

➡️ Verdict: Assuming accuracy in company-reported data, this exceeds the safety performance of many early AML CAR-Ts.

❓ CLAIM 3: "No clinically significant efficacy is proven" is an assumption, not a fact

⚠️ Technically correct but speculative.

Hemogenyx has not published objective response data (e.g., CR, MRD status, or survival metrics).

The absence of public efficacy data doesn’t mean there’s no efficacy — it simply means efficacy is unconfirmed.

Suggesting “hints of efficacy” aligns with standard biotech behavior, especially before partnerships or fundraising.

➡️ Verdict: Saying "no efficacy is proven" is accurate in a regulatory or peer-reviewed sense, but calling it a strategic assumption is fair.

❗ CLAIM 4: "Durability takes a long time" is misleading in r/r AML

✅ Mostly true in this context.

In relapsed/refractory (r/r) AML, even short-term molecular remissions (MRD-negativity) are clinically meaningful, particularly for bridging to transplant.

Early responders in trials like those for Cellectis or Autolus have often shown value without long-term follow-up.

FDA has granted Breakthrough or RMAT status to therapies based on early, deep responses.

➡️ Verdict: Durability does matter, but early efficacy can be highly valuable in aggressive cancers like AML.

🔍 CLAIM 5: FLT3-targeting CAR-Ts are rare and valuable

✅ True.

Hemogenyx’s program is one of the few FLT3-targeted CAR-Ts in human trials.

FLT3 is a high-value AML target, especially in FLT3-ITD mutant AML, associated with poor prognosis.

Many programs targeting FLT3 (e.g., from academic centers or startups) haven’t reached human trials.

➡️ Verdict: Hemogenyx is indeed working in a scarce and valuable niche.

✅ CLAIM 6: Hemogenyx owns the platform, has in-house manufacturing, and expanded IP

✅ Supported by public disclosures.

He

Because you might not be the only VC HEMO are talking too and while you're playing hardballl thinking you're going ot get a bargin another VC will have done a deal.

It's the same dealy?

Only 15 trades today, last trade was £500, ffs give it a rest.

So the board did a rain dance because they wanted the delay, or, are we saying the floods aren't real?

I think he is referring to the clinical staff/doctors not the the patients.

And if they find helium it will go up.

Is not the adjustmennt due to the dilution?

This isn't news to investors, funding was always needed, the only question is from where.

They were not hand sorting ore, they were being selective with material used from the ROM pad.