Member Info for thetriplestar

Https://www.newsnationnow.com/business/helium-iran-war-chipmakers-concerned/

🚨🚨🚨 ONE ATTACK IN THE MIDDLE EAST JUST PUT THE ENTIRE TECH INDUSTRY ON LIFE SUPPORT 🚨🚨🚨

Iran bombed Qatar's helium plant. 33% of global supply is gone. Overnight.

Here's who's bleeding right now:

🇰🇷 South Korea — 64.7% of all helium imported from Qatar ($226.9M). Samsung and SK Hynix fabs are on a countdown clock.

🇹🇼 Taiwan — home to TSMC, makes 18% of global chips. Said "monitoring situation." Translation: quietly panicking.

🇯🇵 Japan — major chip fab and MRI manufacturer hub. First to run out if Qatar outage extends beyond 60 days.

🇸🇬 Singapore — regional semiconductor hub. Heavy Qatar helium dependency flagged by Scientific American.

🇮🇳 India — imported helium from Qatar for thousands of hospital MRI machines. MRI costs already rising, scan delays starting.

🇩🇪 Germany — hosts Linde HQ, major industrial gas distributor. Helium spot prices up 100%. Linde and Air Liquide rationing supply.

🇺🇸 United States — federal helium reserve running down for years. US chip fabs still exposed. HP, Dell, Lenovo warned enterprise buyers: 15-20% price hike incoming.

🇬🇧 United Kingdom — NHS hospitals with MRI machines facing supply tightness. No domestic helium production.

🇫🇷 France — Air Liquide headquartered here but cannot produce new helium. Distribution-only country.

🇨🇳 China — imports helium for chip fabs and MRI. Could accelerate its own helium exploration in Siberian region. Strategic play.

🇦🇺 Australia — Exporter, one of few alternatives. Helium production from Amadeus Basin, but NOT enough to fill Qatar's gap.

🇶🇦 Qatar — the source. Offline since March 2. CEO says 14% of capacity PERMANENTLY damaged for up to 5 years.

12 countries exposed. 33% of global supply gone overnight. Zero substitutes. No restart timeline.

This isn't just a war story. Your next laptop, your next MRI scan, your next phone — all of it runs on helium you didn't even know existed.

Prepare accordingly. 🚨🚨🚨

They clearly state we should expect news next week. I’m buying into that as well.

Moving steadily towards consistent operations" is exactly what you want to hear from a new producer. It means they aren't rushing and breaking the equipment to chase a single headline. They are building a sustainable cash machine. For a company with A$76M in tax losses, every extra percentage of gold they "optimize" in these 200-tonne runs goes straight to the bottom line once they hit full tilt.

Remember the shareholder (COCO) who was worried about "sorting dirt and hoping"? This update is the direct rebuttal. They aren't "hoping"; they are "bulk sampling to refine and optimise." This is a disciplined industrial process designed to turn that 938oz Phase 1 target into a predictable monthly revenue stream.

It's worth noting that no member of the current ECR board has ever sold a single share. For a guy like Chris Gibbs—who has built multi-billion-tonne projects like Halleck Creek—to take 50% of his pay in "paper" that he can't sell without the market noticing, is a massive vote of confidence. He’s essentially betting half his livelihood that the "dirt" he’s digging this weekend is going to be worth significantly more than the cash he’s giving up.

When a Director who takes half his pay in shares (as Chris Gibbs does) heads to a site for a "1,000-tonne weekend," he’s usually looking for a specific "Proof of Concept" to show the institutions. If they successfully process that 1,000 tonnes without a mechanical breakdown and show a clean gold pour on Monday, it effectively silences the "it's just a hobby" critics like Mr Cocobeans ...

The "Weekend Warrior" Logistics

Throughput Capacity: The Raglan wash plant is rated at 60 tonnes per hour (tph). Processing 1,000+ tonnes over a weekend (roughly 16–18 hours of actual run-time) means the plant is finally being pushed to its commercial limits rather than just being "tested."

The "Grade" Calculation: If they hit their conservative estimate of 0.12 g/bcm (roughly 0.08g per tonne), 1,000 tonnes of material could yield approximately 80 grams (~2.5 ounces) of gold in a single weekend. At current $5,000/oz prices, that’s roughly $12,500 in gross value from just two days of work.

Refining the Model: Chris Gibbs isn't just there to watch dirt move. He’s there to monitor the "recovery efficiency." As you noted from the photos, they are dealing with sticky clays; Gibbs’ expertise is likely focused on ensuring the water pressure and trommel speed are perfectly tuned to catch the fine gold before it washes out with the waste.

The current Helium One board has been in place for several years, and it’s important for shareholders to assess the results over that period.

Share price: Since IPO, the stock has gone up and up initially, reaching around 15 p in early 2021 on the back of exploration news. But it has since fallen sharply, repeatedly dropping below 1 p, and has remained largely flat for long periods. Investors who bought early have seen their investment erode dramatically despite repeated promises of progress.

Equity raises: To fund operations, the company has repeatedly issued new shares at prices far below the highs:

2023: ~2.44 billion shares at ~0.25 p

Early 2024: 313 million shares at 1.5 p

Mid 2024: 1.6 billion shares at 0.5 p

2025: ~185 million shares at ~0.54 p

Share count: Issued share capital has expanded dramatically — from around 600–820 million shares at listing to over 9 billion shares today. That’s a 15x+ increase, massively diluting early investors and eroding per-share value.

Taken together, the combination of price stagnation, repeated equity raises at low prices, and extreme dilution shows that the current board has delivered limited tangible returns to shareholders despite years of tenure. Investors are entitled to ask: after all this time, has the board maximized shareholder value, or has the company been structured more for management continuity than for investor returns?

JBATCH - you make a fair point — much of what Sarah Cope does now as Head of Governance & Compliance is essentially oversight, compliance, and corporate governance, functions that a NOMAD is already set up to deliver for AIM companies.

Appointing her as a permanent executive comes with a high salary, share-based payments, and contractual protections, which could be costly to unwind if circumstances change. Before moving to a permanent structure, shareholders are entitled to ask whether these duties could be fulfilled under the existing NOMAD arrangement, which is designed for compliance and governance oversight without creating long-term financial obligations or the need for costly disposals.

The issue isn’t her credentials — it’s whether the company is creating avoidable long-term cost and financial inflexibility by turning a role that NOMAD could handle into a permanent, high-cost executive appointment.

Bluebay - It’s true that many of these executives have prior experience at Orca and other resource companies, but the concern for shareholders isn’t their CVs — it’s how they’ve been paid and the structures they’ve built around themselves here.

Over $2 million was paid last year to just five executives and directors, in a pre-revenue company heavily reliant on discounted equity raises. Combined with massive share dilution, the effect is that shareholders are funding a significant board cost before seeing tangible value delivered.

The point isn’t that they lack experience — it’s whether the current remuneration, contractual protections, and dilution strategy truly align with shareholder interests or just insulate management. That’s what needs scrutiny.

It's actually a good sign that the board hasn't given a day-by-day "dated timeline" for the next 18 months. In mining, if you promise gold on a Tuesday and it rains, the market punishes you. By giving "Phase 1" targets and "Seasonal" goals (e.g., "Production before Easter"), they are being professionally prudent while still giving us the hard numbers (938oz target) we need to calculate the value. The shareholder is asking for a "timetable," but Nick Tulloch is giving us a "Business Plan."

Sure, the board is important — but do we really need five top-tier, high-paying executives at this pre-revenue stage? Last year alone, these five received over $2 million in total remuneration, including salaries, bonuses, and share awards, while the company is still heavily reliant on discounted equity raises.

The real question for shareholders isn’t titles — it’s value for money. Are we seeing proportional returns for the capital we’ve provided, or are we overpaying before the business even delivers?

Shareholders should take a serious look at executive and board pay in the context of Helium One’s current stage and funding history. According to the audited accounts for the year ended 30 June 2025, total reported remuneration for five senior executives and directors was US$2,096,325, broken down as follows:

Sarah Cope – Head of Governance & Compliance / Executive Director: US$243,597

Graham Jacobs – Finance & Commercial Director: US$674,021

Lorna Blaisse – CEO: US$816,307

James Smith – Independent Non‑Executive Chairman: US$204,577

Nigel Friend – Independent Non‑Executive Director: US$157,823

This total includes salary, bonuses, and share-based payments valued at grant date.

For a company that remains pre-revenue, heavily reliant on discounted equity raises, and has seen massive share dilution, these figures are substantial. Shareholders are entitled to ask whether these pay levels are proportionate, how they were benchmarked, and how incentives align with delivering real value — not just retaining management.

Transparent governance and pay-for-performance alignment are critical. The question is simple: are these remuneration levels justified given the company’s current stage and the cost borne by shareholders?

You’re right Batch, that as Head of Governance & Compliance, she isn’t running the company day-to-day or making deals. But she was only appointed to this governance role recently. Before that, she was expected to be a key driver — a “rainmaker” tasked with creating shareholder value and helping secure funding.

The concern is that during that period, the company has seen massive dilution and limited visible returns for shareholders. Coupled with her track record of past directorships in companies that are no longer operational, it raises legitimate questions about her suitability for a role responsible for governance and protecting shareholder interests today.

It’s not about her compliance duties — it’s about whether her prior experience demonstrates the ability to deliver tangible outcomes for shareholders in this context.

Sarah Cope currently serves as Head of Governance & Compliance / Executive Director. Her public track record shows extensive experience as a director and NED in higher-risk AIM companies, but many of these past entities are no longer active:

Anglo African Oil & Gas plc – Director 2018–2022, now dissolved

Cottage C H Limited – Director 2015–2018, now dissolved

Sarah Cope Holdings Limited – Voluntarily struck off 2019

Tenaz Energy plc – Director briefly in 2021, resigned after 1–2 months

There is no evidence of wrongdoing or regulatory issues. However, shareholders should note that as Head of Governance & Compliance, she is responsible for overseeing company governance, regulatory compliance, and alignment with shareholder interests — yet her prior experience is largely in companies that are no longer operational.

This raises a legitimate question for investors: does her past experience translate into delivering governance that protects shareholder value in a pre-revenue, heavily equity-funded company like Helium One, or is it primarily advisory experience without operational track record?

One concern many shareholders have is visibility and engagement from the leadership team. With the exception of CEO Lorna Blaisse, who is rarely seen outside scripted presentations, most of the board — including the executives and non-executive directors — has minimal public profile.

Sarah Cope, Graham Jacobs, James Smith, and Nigel Friend are largely unknown to investors. Shareholders rarely hear updates, commentary, or strategic insights from them directly. For a company that relies heavily on investor funding and has seen substantial dilution over the years, this lack of visibility is worrying.

Transparency, regular communication, and demonstrable involvement are key aspects of governance. Investors have a right to know who is making decisions, how they are steering the company, and whether remuneration and incentives are tied to real shareholder value — not just a distant board structure.

We also paying for these two guys - what a team of 5! Milking it!

• James Smith (Independent Non‑Executive Chairman): US$204,577

• Nigel Friend (Independent Non‑Executive Director): US$157,823

That’s roughly US$1.73 million combined for those three roles in a single year, including salary, bonus and share-based payments.

This is in the context of a company that remains pre-material revenue, has relied heavily on repeated equity raises, and has seen issued share capital expand into the billions. Many shareholders have experienced significant dilution over that same period.

The question isn’t whether executives should be paid — it’s whether these levels are proportionate for an AIM-listed development-stage company funded largely through discounted placings. Investors deserve clarity on:

• How these pay levels were benchmarked and against which peer group

• What specific performance hurdles justify bonuses and share awards

• How remuneration aligns with shareholder returns

• Whether pay would flex downward if milestones are missed

When shareholders are repeatedly asked to fund the business at low placing prices, it is entirely reasonable to expect visible restraint and strong pay-for-performance alignment at Board level.

Of course companies need to raise capital — that’s not the issue. The question is how it’s raised and on what terms. Issuing large amounts of equity at deeply discounted prices (for example sub-1p placings) can be extremely dilutive for existing shareholders and locks in value transfer to new investors.

There are alternatives boards can consider depending on timing and leverage — structured funding, strategic partners, asset-level finance, staged raises aligned to milestones, or waiting for stronger pricing after de-risking events. Even when equity is necessary, pricing discipline and structure matter.

Shareholders aren’t arguing against funding the company — we’re asking whether capital has been raised in the most value-protective way.