Member Info for Twenty-Four

Https://www.tgs.com/technical-library/the-helium-conundrum

That's a good one off purchase! Does seem like loading up is taking place.

Fair enough Casper, :-). However, people keep talking as if Hussar is helium/hydrogen or nothing.

It may not be. A commercial natural gas discovery alone could massively rerate GEX from this market cap, especially with Mt Winter still behind it.

Casper and what about Natural Gas?

Where have they all come from. It's like they've all been employed to start talking about accounts. Many happy to buy in last week and if there is an issue now, then why do so then. Top up on the dips. Each RNS is decreasing uncertainty and worse case scenario is it looks like there is at least Natural Gas at Hussar, with the upside being Helium and Hydrogen as well.

As we know their general overheads are run quite tightly. I'm hoping for at least a bacon butty.

Hi Miker, yes I was there for the conversation on dividends and timeline to production. Like you I'm in it for the long run.

History often repeats in small cap energy and helium plays, particularly during the PRE-SPUD phase where the market re-rates possibility long before commercial discovery.

Examples:

HE1: ~£6m mcap to ~£150m mcap pre-spud. ~7p to 29p before reality and delays later crushed valuation.

PLSR: ~US$15m to ~US$110m mcap during drilling/appraisal rerate.

Invictus: ~A$25m to ~A$150m pre-spud.

88E: ~£15m to ~£120m pre-spud. Classic retail mania followed by post-spud consolidation.

Rockhopper: ~$50m to ~$150m pre-spud. Then actual discovery eventually drove the shares from ~50p toward £1 and later ~£6.

GEX today is still sitting at only a tiny market cap relative to the scale of Hussar alone. My own rough PRE-SPUD guesstimate:

~£60m-£90m market cap purely from Hussar rerating momentum. That would roughly imply: 36p-54p/share on current share count.

Importantly that assumes:

NO Mt Winter value,

NO commercial discovery,

NO production cashflow,

NO basin-wide rerating.

Just a funded Q3 drill rerate.

The really interesting part comes AFTER commercial validation.

Most quoted Hussar in-situ figures use helium pricing around: ~US$335/mcf.

Yet: helium spot pricing has reportedly traded at US$1,000-$1,500, longer-term negotiated contracts still around ~US$700.

At the AGM Mark Wallace, (which I attended) reiterated that estimated production/operating cost equivalents were around:

~US$85/mcf. So even allowing for negotiated off-take discounts and profit sharing with Harlequin, the implied operating margin potential becomes extremely interesting IF commercial flow rates are achieved.

The Harlequin structure also appears designed so GEX does not carry the full downstream infrastructure burden itself, potentially allowing Georgina to retain significant free cashflow exposure without massive balance sheet dilution. AGM commentary on dividends was also notably positive.

Anthony Hamilton and Mark Wallace both indicated dividends had been discussed previously by the Board once meaningful revenue streams exist. If Hussar works commercially and production begins within ~18-24 months as discussed, the valuation discussion changes completely from:

“another AIM explorer”

to:

revenue,

free cashflow,

strategic helium supply,

and potentially substantial dividends.

The key unknown remains: actual flow rates and helium concentrations.

That is what ultimately determines: economics, valuation, and future dividend capacity.

First comes:

execution.

Then flow.

Then commerciality.

Then production.

The next 6-12 months are likely the defining period for GEX.

Back to concentrating on Hussar and then Mt Winter.

A very interesting presentation that has a lot of cross over to where GEX is sitting.

https://presentations.investormeetcompany.com/investor-meet-company/pulsar-helium-inc-ask-me-anything-quarterlies?bmid=0e5b159ce189

Not quite sure what they mean by "New high-impact re-entry targets" in that twitter. My assumption being it refers to the assessment they did of other reentry targets of which there were quite a few. They whittled these down to three, I think, but not quite sure if this was within Hussar area, or Mt Winter permitted area?

Nice one Mike! News came....

I guess the clue is in reading the RNS, "As the Proposed Acquisition is not yet agreed and the Company is currently unable to provide a full disclosure of information on SSSM". It is probaby just a pseudonym.

I, for one, cannot wait for some solid news! It will not come soon enough!

Not sure how we'll end up at £5, delighted if so. I was thinking more like 50p. I don't have enough information to calculate.

The share price will ultimately follow drill results, reserves and cashflow — that’s not opinion, it’s how every successful producer re-rates, including say Pulsar and others. DeadlyNewbie you are doing what you can to suppress a price pre-drill, but it cannot override commercial outcomes once they exist. If GEX delivers a flowing well and converts resources to reserves with an offtake path, the valuation will move regardless of who posted what on a forum. Equally, if drilling fails, the downside is deserved. That binary outcome is exactly why this is a high-risk, high-reward investment — but it is drill results and cash generation, not message-board doubt, that decide the end value. I will await the next RNS(s).

Allegations about individuals, historical grievances and unrelated companies are not evidence of wrongdoing at the listed company today. Matters such as prior bankruptcies, related-party transactions or disputes must be disclosed where legally required, and are assessed by the FCA, NOMADs (where applicable), auditors and the exchange as part of Main Market admission, ongoing reporting and prospectus approval. Georgina Energy’s filings, accounts and RNSs set out remuneration, consulting arrangements, loans, related-party disclosures and cash movements, all of which are independently audited. If any party believes there has been a breach of law or regulation, the appropriate route is the regulator or the courts, not forum assertion. Investors can debate strategy, timelines and risk, but repeating accusations without new regulatory findings adds noise rather than insight into the company’s assets, approvals, funding discussions and execution milestones. I will await the next RNS(s).

There’s a lot of noise here but very little separation between opinion and what has actually been disclosed. The company has been clear that Hussar requires partner or offtake funding and that negotiations are ongoing, which is normal for a remote, high-pressure helium/hydrogen well; approvals only came at the end of October and logistics planning has followed since. The Central Petroleum assets are not “greenfield fantasies” but drilled re-entry wells with recorded flows and measured gas compositions, which is precisely why they are being acquired as part of a broader portfolio strategy rather than drilled from scratch. UK SPVs showing minimal balance sheets at Companies House is standard practice for international funding structures and tells you nothing about the capital sitting behind them, which in this case has already been referenced in formal releases.

The cash figures being quoted ignore what the money was actually spent on and how early-stage gas projects work. Since listing, the company has funded CPRs, seismic reinterpretation, engineering studies, native title processes, environmental approvals, dual-basin permitting, site planning and corporate costs required to stay Main Market compliant – none of which are optional or free.

Investors can reasonably debate risk, timelines and communication style, but repeatedly asserting fraud, incompetence or “nothing happening” ignores the documented approvals, negotiations and asset base that now exists and replaces analysis with rhetoric.

The phrase “fully funded” that keeps being repeated related to a specific re-entry scope at Mt Winter at the time, not the Hussar deepening, which has always been described as requiring partner or offtake funding. Hussar only received final WA approval at the end of October, and since then the company has moved into logistics, airstrip and road planning while negotiating a wellhead-funded JOA. That is exactly how risk is meant to be shared on a high-pressure helium/hydrogen well.

Admin costs are disclosed, salaries are public, and the board owns a significant equity stake, so there is no incentive to “burn cash for lifestyle”. Investors can debate risk and timelines, but repeatedly calling standard sector spend and staged funding fraud does not align with the published RNS history or with how comparable projects are developed.

There isn’t any record of the company saying Hussar was fully funded, and the old comments people keep recycling were about the Mt Winter re-entry, not the Hussar drill. The Harlequin UK company showing as a £100 shell doesn’t mean there’s no backing behind it, because it’s just the SPV they use here; their own press release already explained the funding comes from a Colorado family office that has been working with them for years. The funding proposal for Hussar is still conditional, which is exactly why it’s described as an expression of interest pending a JOA and due diligence. So the idea that there is “no money at all” or that someone lied about funding just doesn’t match the RNSs or how these type of partnerships are set up.

The drilling timetable depends on finalising the Harlequin JOA, which is now at proposal stage after WA granted the Hussar permit and site preparation began (airstrip work, road access and pad planning). That’s the normal Australian sequence: permit approval → pad preparation → JOA execution → rig mobilisation. Based on those steps, my finger in air, suggestion for the earliest realistic start date for the drill turning is Q2 2026, because once the JOA is signed, mobilisation and final engineering typically require around 8–12 weeks. The spend to date is shown in the accounts and covers permits, CPR, seismic, engineering, native title and environmental work across two basins — the standard pre-drill costs for deep helium/hydrogen wells. It’s clearly a high-risk investment and no one pretends otherwise, but the company now has a permitted drill, an external funding proposal, and a portfolio expanded from two assets to five, including re-entry wells with historic proven flow at Mt Kitty. Whether people like the company or not, the pathway is the same: complete the JOA, then mobilise the rig, after which drilling is measured in months, not years.