Member Info for Wmsjames

I always find it hard to put my thoughts into words, but here goes.

Whether the AVA6000 update comes at the end of May or at another event in June, the key point for me is that we are due to get a much fuller set of AVA6000 results. Some parts of that package we already have clues on from the various breadcrumbs, for example the cardiac safety angle, the dose path, and the company’s confidence in the salivary gland setting. Other parts, of course, we still do not know and will need the full data to judge properly.

I am sure the more technical posters can explain the science side better than I can, but wearing my corporate hat, I think the AVA6000 results are about far more than AVA6000 on its own.

For me, the AVA6000 data have a massive bearing on how the market, potential partners, and investors will think about AVA6103 as well.

Senior management have already indicated that AVA6103 started from a better place, with the benefit of the AVA6000 learnings and improved chemistry. So if the AVA6000 results come in strongly, that does not just increase the corporate value of AVA6000 itself. It also strengthens the read through to AVA6103, because it gives more weight to the idea that the platform is genuinely working in humans and that the second generation asset is launching from a more advanced and more informed starting point.

That is why I do not see the upcoming AVA6000 update as just a single asset data event, I see it as a platform validation event and if that view proves right, then the corporate implications could be much bigger than many currently assume.

I spent some time last night rewatching a number of the AVCT podcasts, interviews and past presentations, and what really stands out to me is that Christina and the wider team’s conviction has barely changed since mid last year.

In many ways it almost feels like they either saw the path ahead far earlier than most of the market, or simply had a very high level of confidence in the underlying science, the chemistry and the platform from the outset.

What strikes me most is the consistency. The same themes keep coming through:

• belief in the mechanism

• belief in the cardiac separation story

• belief in AVA6000 as real human validation

• and belief that AVA6103 could be the real company inflection point

That consistency gives me confidence. It does not guarantee outcomes, of course, but it does suggest this is not a team guessing as they go. They seem to have had a clear view of what they were building for quite some time.

For me, this really does feel like a milestone year for Avacta, and if the key data continue to land as hoped, then the sky may well be the limit.

Hats off to the team as well for the communications. They have done a very good job of keeping shareholders engaged and helping people understand the bigger picture.

Please keep it coming

My shortlist of the most important lines

If I had to boil the whole interview down to the biggest investment breadcrumbs, they would be these:

“We’ve now eliminated the lifetime maximum because guess how much cardiac toxicity we see? Zero. Nothing.”

“Stay tuned.” on Fast Track.

“We’ve been very upfront that we’re looking for a partner.”

“We think that the PFS… is pretty exciting.”

“This drug entering the clinic right now is really the inflection point for the company.” about 6103.

“We will know pretty soon about the toxicity for that one.”

Competetely agree with the timing of a deal - June will be deal month .

Fast track - A very interesting breadcrumb for me from the Christine video was the way she handled the Fast Track question.

This is not confirmation that Avacta has filed anything, and nobody should present it as fact. But I do think the response was revealing.

When asked about FDA Fast Track, Christine effectively said “stay tuned” and pointed people back to what Avacta had already put into the public domain around the cardiac discussion and the path forward to defining dose.

Fingers and toes crossed - timeline end of April / early May

A few thoughts on the Fast Track angle for AVA6000.

First, this is not confirmed. Avacta has not publicly said it has filed for Fast Track, so nobody should state that as fact. But I do think there is a fair chance an application has gone in .

Avacta has referred before to a fast track route to approval for AVA6000 in its October 2024 R and D Science Day material, so the concept has clearly been in management thinking for some time.

Why might the chances look better now?

Because the February 2026 AVA6000 update was not routine. Avacta said health authority interactions led to the lifting of the lifetime maximum dose due to favourable cardiac safety and agreement on dose selection for subsequent trials. That is a meaningful de risking step and goes to the heart of whether AVA6000 can deliver doxorubicin more safely while preserving activity.

The company has also pointed to human data suggesting AVA6000 is delivering high concentrations of released doxorubicin directly to tumours, with fewer toxicities than conventional doxorubicin and clinically meaningful antitumour activity. That is the kind of package that could help support expedited regulatory discussions.

FDA Fast Track can be requested once the IND is active, and the FDA says it will review the request within 60 days. So if Avacta chose to submit after the February update, it is not unreasonable for the market to wonder whether a response could come relatively soon after.

One final point is that these submissions are not automatically public the moment they go in. So there can easily be a period where investors are only inferring from company language and prior hints.

That is why I see Fast Track as possible and worth watching, but still not confirmed.

My own take on what the next leg of news flow could look like for AVCT.

Obviously this is just my interpretation of the public breadcrumbs, not certainty, but the sequence now looks quite interesting

We already had the Q1 update confirming first patient treated in AVA6103 on 31 March, three US centres open for enrolment, and importantly that the AVA6000 Phase 1a and 1b clinical update is still expected at a medical conference in H1 2026. To me that matters because if there had been a problem with 6000, this was the obvious place to soften expectations, and they did not.

So my working timeline is roughly this:

21 April

AACR presentations for AVA6103 and AVA6207. I do not see this as the main AVA6000 event, but it keeps attention on the science and on the wider platform story.

By end of April

I still think there is a possibility of Fast Track related news on AVA6000. That is not confirmed and should be treated as a possibility rather than an expectation, but after the February AVA6000 update on cardiac safety and dose progression, it is clearly something worth watching for. FDA says Fast Track requests can be made after the IND is active and are generally reviewed within 60 days, but Avacta has not publicly said it has filed such a request.

6 May

Science Day. I see this as a key narrative event. Not necessarily the formal AVA6000 conference dataset itself, but potentially a very useful staging point where management can sharpen the story and build the wider investment case ahead of the more important human data update.

End of May into early June

This is still, in my view, the most likely window for the AVA6000 medical conference update, and my assumption remains that the conference is ASCO, which runs from 29 May to 2 June 2026. That fits Avacta’s H1 guidance very neatly, although the company has not publicly confirmed ASCO as the venue.

If that assumption is right, then late May into early June becomes the real value inflection window.

After the conference

If the AVA6000 package is strong, then I think this is where the story can move up another gear. The company has already said there is substantial interest from multiple parties for potential partnering, and it has also stressed that the recent raise lets it retain 100% ownership of the pipeline and funds it into early Q1 2027. To me that suggests management is trying to negotiate from strength, not rush into a weak deal.

Week 1

Production starts.

This is the move from explorer to producer.

A real operational shift and the moment the story changes.

Week 2 or Week 3

Offtake agreement.

This turns production into a commercial business.

Revenue visibility and validation of the model.

Week 1 to Week 4

Hydrogen results.

Already referenced on the record.

This opens the door to a possible dual business with long term upside.

Production.

Commercialisation.

Optional upside.

If this sequence plays out, it is not one piece of news. It’s milestone sfter milestone , I am very confident the first two news milestones will happen very quickly , just being patient on the latter which could still drop any day .

US market shut tomorrow , so good opportunity for UK investors to get in first

I do not think cash is a problem, although I cannot say that with complete certainty. From what I understand, Bo is very shrewd with money management.

Given the current news flow, I doubt that raising cash, either at the share price or at a premium, would be particularly difficult if it became necessary. I also suspect that any offtake agreement for helium would materially help cash flow

I’m not concerned about our cash position .

Timeline of events

In the week of 17 November 2025, the company brought in a drilling rig and went back into the Inez 1 well. The goal was to remove old tubing and take fresh core samples from 30 to 40 feet of ultramafic rock. This type of rock is widely associated with natural hydrogen generation.

By around 19 January 2026, the re entry and coring work was expected to be finished. Those rock cores were then planned to be sent off to specialist laboratories for analysis.

Alongside this, basic formation testing was planned. This is where pressure is measured, or fluids are injected, to understand how easily gas could move through the rock. In simple terms, it helps show whether hydrogen, if present, could actually flow and be produced rather than just existing in theory.

Based on standard industry timelines, initial lab results from the core mineral analysis and gas signatures are typically expected in late February to March 2026.

My opinion, based purely on this timeline and not speculation, is that any first meaningful hydrogen related update could arrive at any point in the next few weeks as lab work is completed and interpreted. It could arrive this week and with words like tremendous, I’m not selling until we get this news , happy to wait until mid March if needed

If 30p is broken and held it brings new buyers in very quickly. With testing nearly complete, commissioning underway and a production update guided, a move into the mid 30s ahead of the RNS would not be unusual.

Moving from explorer to producer is when valuations change, especially in a tight helium market with very few listed names. A production update with offtakes can drive a big re rating on its own.

Hydrogen then sits there as upside, not needed for the story but adding extra potential. Now imagine the share price in 12 months time , more land , more wells etc

Tremendous opportunity.

This week could be transformational for Helix Exploration Plc (HEX) not just because of near term production news but because the stock remains vastly out of step with its helium peers.

Let’s stick to facts:

Helium One Global (HE1H) and PLSR (Pulse Seismic) two names often referenced in the helium space are trading at many multiples of Helix’s share price and valuation despite Helix having one of the most advanced development pipelines and a clear path to first production.

Helix has progressed multiple wells at Rudyard delivered processing plant equipment and is now in final testing publicly acknowledged by the company.

Neither Helium One nor PLSR have confirmed commercial production at this stage.

In short market pricing does not yet reflect Helix’s operational reality at least not what is unfolding right now at Rudyard.

You will not find many AIM RNSs using a word like “tremendous” to describe a field or geological prospect but that is exactly the kind of language independent technical reviews have used when referring to the helium and hydrogen prospectivity at Rudyard.

So here is the point:

Helix is closer to production than most peers

Helix’s field metrics and results stand up against peers

The stock trades at a sizeable discount to comparable explorer

A confirmed production update next week could change how the market values this company

This is not BS. It is a classic value gap that exists when a story is catching up with where the company actually is on the ground

This coming week could be one of the most important weeks yet for Helix Exploration Plc (HEX).

The facts first. In yesterday’s operational update, the company stated that testing at Rudyard is nearly complete and that a further update is expected next week. That places Helix right at the point where commissioning ends and production related news can finally be released. This alone matters. Moving from explorer to producer is the biggest step change any resource company makes.

Helium remains the core story and it is already compelling. Global supply is tight, demand is structural and there are very few listed ways to gain exposure. Confirmation of production would fundamentally change how Helix is viewed by the market.

But there is something else here that could change the scale of the opportunity.

There is a real possibility that hydrogen is mentioned again in the next operational update. The company has already publicly referenced geological indicators and studies pointing to natural hydrogen potential at Rudyard. That is not speculation. That is on the record.

If hydrogen is referenced alongside helium progress, even cautiously, it reframes the entire investment case.

Helium delivers near term production and revenue.

Hydrogen introduces a second energy vector with potentially transformational upside.

That combination is rare. Helium alone justifies attention. Hydrogen turns the story into something much bigger.

This is why next week matters. The update does not need to be promotional. It just needs to confirm progress and acknowledge what the geology is already suggesting

⸻

Looking through the full year results, the headline numbers are clearly distorted by one off and transitional costs rather than a deterioration in the underlying business.

The demerger introduced immediate separation expenses, transitional service agreement charges and new standalone interest costs, all of which hit reported profit and cash flow at once. These are timing issues, not indicators of weaker demand or loss of control over costs.

When these items are stripped out, the fundamentals look solid. Costs appear well managed, productivity savings are progressing, and operating margins are temporarily suppressed rather than structurally impaired. Organic growth is encouraging, with positive volumes and pricing holding across regions.

In that context, the 14 percent share price drop looks more like a knee jerk reaction to headline figures than a measured assessment of underlying earnings power. The profit is there once transitional noise is removed.

This reads as a transition year following separation, not a business in decline

Great buy in price

The full year results include significant one off and transitional costs linked to the demerger from Unilever, which only completed on 8 December 2025. These costs hit immediately, while the operational benefits of independence will take time to flow through.

Key pressure points such as separation expenses, transitional service agreement costs, new financing charges and FX headwinds have weighed on reported profit and free cash flow. None of these reflect a deterioration in demand or brand strength.

Stripping out these temporary items, the core business delivered solid organic sales growth, positive volumes, market share gains across regions and clear guidance for continued growth.

This was always going to be a transition year. Judging the business on near term reported numbers rather than normalised earnings risks missing the bigger picture.

As one off costs unwind and the standalone structure matures, the focus should shift back to cash generation, margin recovery and brand led growth rather than short term noise

I like your model and pleased our figures agree .. hopefully oil prices will remain at current levels for the whole of February .

Putup, I think we’re broadly on the same page, but I’m coming at the accrual from a slightly different angle.

My methodology is to look at the PSC entitlement reconciliation, rather than the near-term cash delta after current-period recoverable costs. I take gross production, apply the 35.8% entitlement, assume interim cash at $30/bbl, and then accrue the difference to the PSC netback (Brent less the assumed ~$21 discount). On that basis, January at ~40.6kbopd and a ~$42 netback gives an accrual of roughly $5.4m, which is the figure I’m carrying.

Your ~$1m number makes sense if the reconciliation is limited to a narrow pricing tidy-up on current production only, after deducting recoverable costs. Where I think it potentially understates the accrual is if “full entitlement” genuinely means a return to PSC economics rather than just a post-cost cash adjustment.

I also think this approach marries better with the year-end accounts. On my numbers, I’d expect trade debtors of roughly $28m relating to the $30 interim pricing, plus around $15.5m of accrued income, giving a total receivable position of about $43.5m at year end. That feels consistent with both the payment timing and the accrual mechanics being described.

That said, I agree with you on the bigger picture. The real swing factor isn’t January itself, but whether unrecovered costs sitting in arrears are allowed to flow through the entitlement mechanics. If they are, the accrual becomes much more meaningful; if not, it’s largely a pricing clean-up. Either way, it’s been a very strong operational month, and the March accounts should help clarify which interpretation applies in practice.. what a great month

I’d push back slightly on calling ’26 a dud. Yes, production is flat by design, but even on conservative assumptions the company is still generating ~$200m of sales if oil prices don’t move materially.

More importantly, 2026 is about normalising payments and pricing, not growing bopd. The transition from interim pricing back towards international pricing, settlement of accrued amounts, and a high probability of an agreed mechanism for historic arrears all sit firmly in the 2026 window.

So while volume growth is clearly more of a 2027 story, 2026 still matters a lot for cash flow, dividends, and balance sheet clarity. That feels more like a transition year with tangible value creation than a write-off year.. Plus increased exposure from Oslo listing ..

I have one on my phone which I always use , but couldn’t remember the password to log onto my computer today so set up a different one . Was going to use my compiter one to track shsre prices .. good spot . Will only use phone from now on to avoid confusion