Member Info for Wmsjames

I’m a bit more cautious on the timing.

Yes, initial safety and tolerability signals are often seen early in Phase 1, sometimes within weeks of first dosing. But that doesn’t automatically translate into actionable data for partners. Early signals are noisy, patient numbers are tiny, and dose escalation means you are often below biologically meaningful exposure in the first cohorts.

On efficacy, even if there are early radiological hints, sponsors and pharma partners usually want:

• Multiple patients at or near the target dose

• Consistency across scans, not a single responder

• Confidence the signal isn’t dose or patient specific

That usually takes several months, not weeks.

As for deals, could confidential discussions happen in parallel? Absolutely. Pharma will already understand the mechanism and will be tracking progress closely. But signing a material deal purely off very early Phase 1 signals, before dose optimisation and without durability data, is still the exception rather than the rule.

So my view is:

• Early internal confidence may build well before June

• Market visible data likely takes longer

• Any deal would more likely be driven by confidence in the platform + AVA6000 validation, rather than a handful of first AVA6103 scans

I’m assuming the capex for the new wells are included in the $60m .

Should be an interesting couple of months for news flow

The confirmation that liftings and payments are running seamlessly is probably the most important foundation. Everything else builds on that. The timing on the consultant review finishing around the end of March also feels consistent with what IR have been signalling, and the idea that a return to international pricing would be backdated to last September is clearly meaningful, even if the mechanics take time to show through.

I’d still expect the market to digest the pricing step change gradually rather than all at once, but moving from $30 to something materially higher does look like a genuine inflection in cash generation, especially if there is further upside post review as suggested.

On production, it’s good to hear about the worked over wells coming back on stream and the ambition to restart the FDP. That said, I’m comfortable with management taking this in stages. Getting the export and payment framework fully normalised first feels like the right priority before pushing hard on growth.

Overall, this reinforces the sense that things are no longer stuck. There’s execution still to come, but the direction of travel looks increasingly clear

Yeh included in debtors will be November and December debtors at $30 and then from September to December accruing income .. which should be around $17m

You’re right that the H2 accrual payment only becomes meaningful if costs-in-arrears are included in what gets rebilled as “full entitlement”. If the reconciliation is limited to the provisional vs final netback on current production only, then the top-up is relatively small and not especially exciting in isolation, as your Q1 example illustrates.

Where it becomes material is precisely as you say: if the costs sitting in arrears are recovered through the entitlement rebilling mechanism rather than being parked under a separate, slower process. In that case, the accrual top-up stops being noise and effectively becomes arrears recovery, just delivered mechanically rather than labelled as such.

That’s why, for me, the consultant review outcome and the scope of what is included in “full entitlement” matters more than the headline timing of H2 payments. The market reaction will hinge less on whether a top-up happens, and more on what is actually being reconciled and rebilled.

As you say, we only get this once, so the structure of that first reconciliation really matters.. I do concur with your $17 figure

Can we meet in the middle and say $65 for oil .

I agree the discount compression is probably the most important moving part at the moment and far more impactful than the Oslo listing itself. Having spoken with IR, they seem quietly confident the number is around $20, subject to the consultant review, which aligns with the direction you’re outlining rather than changing the story.

I also agree there’s no reason to expect much from the Oslo retail element on its own. For me it’s more about positioning ahead of further clarity, rather than something that drives valuation in isolation.

On dividends, I’m very much with you. A $25m payment in March looks likely, with another at H1 if payments continue, and any additional distributions would naturally be linked to arrears recovery rather than operating cash flow. IR have also confirmed that the accrued element under interim pricing is expected to be paid in H2, which fits the timeline you’re suggesting.

April to June still feels like the natural window for the consultant review, and arrears remain the least visible piece. Like you, I see steady progress rather than a single big moment, which probably explains why we’re where we are rather than materially lower. Thank you for your posts PUTUP , you are more disciplined with your numbers than me but we tend to agree on all material factors . Let’s hope oil prices creep up and stay above $70

This is my understanding - In short, it’s not that pre|CISION behaves differently. The targeting and cleavage mechanism is the same for AVA6000 and AVA6103.

The difference is the payload.

AVA6103’s exatecan is designed to be retained in the tumour for longer and released in a slower, sustained way, so once it localises and is cleaved in the tumour microenvironment, the active drug stays there for days.

AVA6000’s doxorubicin is smaller and more water soluble, so once cleaved it diffuses more quickly, giving a shorter tumour residence time.

So AVA6103 isn’t failing to cleave. It’s doing exactly what it was designed to do: same targeting, different release and retention profile, which actually proves the platform works across payloads.

Apologises - good spot . Wasn’t trying to overstate You’re right: pre|CISION has not yet delivered exatecan in humans. That proof point still lies ahead with AVA6103..

Where I’d slightly differ is this:

What has been demonstrated in humans is that the pre|CISION delivery mechanism itself works safely and predictably. The same enzymatic cleavage, same linker logic, same tumour microenvironment targeting has now been shown with AVA6000, to the point that regulators have allowed cumulative exposure beyond a 40-year doxorubicin safety limit. That materially de-risks the vehicle, even if the payload is different.

So AVA6103 still carries payload-specific risk. Exatecan is potent and historically toxic, and human data will matter. But it is no longer a “blank sheet” Phase 1 risk. The key unknown now is how exatecan behaves when delivered by a mechanism already validated in humans, not whether the mechanism itself functions.

In other words, the risk has shifted. It hasn’t disappeared, but it has narrowed.

That’s why AVA6103 entering clinic is so important. It’s the moment where payload risk gets tested on a delivery system that already has human regulatory endorsement

For me, everything now hinges on the next bit of news. We are down to flow testing the equipment.

Once helium is flowing, the biggest risk is gone. After that, an offtake agreement should follow fairly quickly, even if it’s initially unnamed.

Then you have a strong run of potential newsflow:

• Confirmation of stable operations

• Inez No.1 helium test results

• Possible early hydrogen indications

• Offtake details

• Field development update

• Cash flow funding further wells

At that point, the story shifts from “will it work?” to “how big can this get?”

We’re in a great place here. The final kit is on site, commissioning is close, and multiple catalysts are lined up. Each of these potential updates could be transformative for shareholders.

For me, March and April look like they could be pivotal months in terms of news flow and market perception.

We have a number of strands converging at the same time. The Oslo listing goes live and starts to show whether volumes build as expected. The annual results and dividend decision should give clearer visibility on cash generation under the export framework. At the same time, oil prices have firmed again, which quietly improves the backdrop without anyone needing to change guidance.

What I like most is that none of this relies on aggressive assumptions. Production guidance remains conservative, pricing is still described as interim, and costs are tightly controlled. Yet even within that cautious framing, cash flow and dividends look increasingly tangible rather than theoretical.

Add to that the independent consultant review progressing, the federal budget cycle approaching, and continued evidence that exports and payments are becoming routine, and it does start to feel like a lot of the long-standing uncertainties are lining up in the right order.

Nothing is ever guaranteed, but it finally feels less like waiting for a single big event and more like a sequence of smaller confirmations. If that continues through March and April, I think the market narrative could shift meaningfully

We are now two to three months away from a genuine inflection point, not in share price noise but in substance.

The biggest risk for Avacta was never whether doxorubicin or exatecan work. These drugs have decades of data behind them. The real risk was whether pre|CISION could safely and reliably deliver them where they matter. That question has now been answered in humans.

Phase 1 data has shown:

• Tumour shrinkage in hard to treat cancers

• Sustained dosing well beyond historic limits

• No severe cardiac toxicity despite cumulative exposure

• Regulators actively relaxing a 40 plus year safety rule

That is not normal Phase 1 behaviour. That is platform validation.

What happens next is not speculative science. It is execution:

• Phase 1b expansion with optimal dosing

• Broader patient recruitment

• Cleaner efficacy signals

• A second asset, AVA6103, entering clinic using the same validated release mechanism

This is where value is created. Not on promises, but on repeatability.

If Phase 1b confirms what Phase 1 has already shown, AVCT stops being a single drug story and becomes a delivery platform company. That is the transformation point.

I am not interested in short term trading or noise on a highly traded and often manipulated AIM share. My plan is simple:

• Hold what I have

• Add when volatility creates opportunity

• Focus on the facts, not the trolls

The next few months are about proving consistency, not discovering whether it works. In my view, the risk reward at this level is heavily skewed to the upside

I largely agree with your reasoning. This is not a new mechanism where efficacy is unknown. Dox does what dox does when it reaches the tumour, and the same applies to exatecan. The historic problem has always been toxicity limiting how much drug you can safely deliver, not whether the drug works.

If preCISION allows much higher and longer tumour exposure while reducing off target effects, then safety and efficacy become closely linked. In that context, improved safety naturally enables improved efficacy, which is very different from a typical Phase 1 situation.

That said, I am cautious about using the word guaranteed. Biology can still surprise, particularly around durability and patient heterogeneity. But directionally I agree. This feels further along the de risking curve than most appreciate, and the regulator’s actions strongly support that view.

So I share your confidence in the logic, while still wanting the data to speak before getting carried away ( which I am trying not to , but often failing )

I broadly agree with this, but I think it slightly understates how much has already changed and what will realistically trigger interest.

Clinical milestones are clearly key, but it is worth separating Phase 2 efficacy from what is already unusual here. Regulators relaxing a 40 year cumulative dosing rule at the Phase 1 stage is not normal. That is not efficacy proof, but it is a very strong safety and delivery endorsement, and that matters a lot to pharma when they assess platform risk. Many deals fail because delivery or tolerability breaks later. That risk has already been meaningfully reduced.

On platform potential, this is where the real leverage sits. The value is not AVA6000 in isolation, it is proving that the same vehicle can be reused with different payloads. AVA6103 is therefore not just another asset, it is the experiment that answers whether this scales. If that works, the conversation moves very quickly from single drug partnering to platform level discussions.

On listing or US presence, increased visibility helps, but good data trumps structure every time. Pharma will engage quietly long before a NASDAQ listing if the science and human data justify it. A listing may improve valuation later, but it is not a prerequisite for interest.

For me, the real deal driver is simple. Consistent Phase 1b and early Phase 2 signals that show this is a safer and more reliable way to deliver potent drugs in humans. If that happens, deals become a choice, not a necessity

There has been a lot thrown at the directors recently, especially the familiar line of “why is there no deal yet.” I understand the frustration, but I think that criticism misses where we actually are in the journey.

After a small Phase 1 group, we saw genuinely positive results. Tumour shrinkage in a cancer that does not respond to chemo, strong safety, and now yesterday’s update which, frankly, still feels extraordinary. A 40 year dosing rule does not get relaxed unless the regulators have real confidence in what they are seeing in humans. I am still struggling to process just how significant that is.

Now ask yourself this. If Phase 1b comes back and shows that this approach is not just working, but is more reliable, safer, and more effective than existing options, what does that do to valuation? The multiple on that is not incremental. It is transformational.

That is why my view may differ from some. I do not want a deal before those results. Not a rushed one, not a cheap one, not one done to satisfy impatience. The leverage sits with the data. Let Phase 1b speak first.

Yes, Phase 1 numbers are small. But small numbers cut both ways, and what we have seen so far has been consistently positive, not random noise. Add in the regulatory confidence we are now seeing, and the risk profile looks very different to what critics suggest.

I may be in the minority on this now, but I am comfortable with it. If the next set of results confirms what we are starting to see, the value created will dwarf any early deal done out of fear or frustration. Sometimes patience is not passive, it is the strategy

What stands out to me here is the timing rather than the mechanics of the listing itself.

The Company is choosing to push ahead with an Oslo listing right on the eve of the federal budget process and the completion of the independent consultant review. To me, that suggests a reasonable degree of confidence in the direction of travel. If there were material concerns about continuity, payment mechanics, or the outcome of the review, this would be an odd moment to broaden the investor base and invite greater scrutiny.

The size of the retail offer is immaterial, so this is clearly not about funding. It feels much more like a signal that the Company believes the framework is bedding in, exports are becoming normalised, and the remaining uncertainties are increasingly about timing rather than direction.

I also think it’s notable that major shareholders are supporting the move and are prepared to transfer meaningful holdings to Oslo over time. That alignment wouldn’t make much sense if confidence in the medium-term outlook were low

My stance on this is very clear.

This is a highly traded and often manipulated share, and the noise level is extreme. My investment plan is therefore very simple. I hold the shares I have, I add when I can, and I remind myself of the basic facts. I do not let trolls or short term traders overcomplicate what is now a much clearer story.

The simple facts are these:

• We now have human data showing the preCISION vehicle works

• AVA6000 stays masked in the bloodstream and is released in the tumour

• Historic toxicity limits have been relaxed by regulators based on real patient data

• Patients can stay on treatment longer when it is working

• We have confirmed tumour shrinkage across Phase 1A

• The platform risk has been materially reduced

• The remaining question is how strong and durable the drug effect is as trials scale

That is it. Nothing more complicated than that.

Phase 1b is not just a box ticking exercise. It is where value starts to be created, because it moves the discussion from theory to outcomes. With the delivery risk largely behind us, the risk reward profile here is now very different to what it was a couple of years ago.

Of course this is biotech and nothing is guaranteed, but this is no longer a binary science gamble. The foundations are in place. The next phase has the potential to create significant value for all of us, from a position that now carries much lower risk than many care to admit.

I am staying put

This Oslo listing is a low risk, shareholder backed, non dilutive step designed to improve liquidity, broaden the investor base, and position the Company for a re rating as cash flows and dividends normalise .

What often gets overlooked in all of this is that preCISION is not a single drug story. It is a delivery vehicle, and that opens up a much bigger opportunity.

Once you accept that the vehicle works in humans, which AVA6000 has now shown, the question becomes how many drugs can realistically be used with it. The answer is potentially a very large number. There are decades of highly effective cancer drugs that have been limited, shelved, or abandoned purely because of toxicity, not because they did not work. preCISION offers a way to revisit those drugs and unlock their efficacy by delivering them where they are needed and limiting exposure elsewhere.

This is why the second trial is so important. AVA6103 is not just another asset, it is the first real test of whether the platform scales beyond doxorubicin to a much more potent payload. If that works, it significantly expands the addressable market and the strategic value of the platform. It moves preCISION from a one drug solution into a repeatable engine for drug development.

In market terms, this is not about competing for a single indication. It is about accessing a large proportion of solid tumours and potentially multiple lines of therapy. Even a small share of that market would be meaningful.

Potentially safer treatment, higher doses, quicker results. If preCISION delivers on that promise across multiple drugs, the market opportunity could be huge!

One thing is now clear. The preCISION vehicle works.

We have human data showing that AVA6000 stays masked in the bloodstream, is released in the tumour, and avoids the historic toxicities that have limited doxorubicin for decades. Regulators do not remove a 40 plus year lifetime dosing rule unless the safety and delivery data in patients is convincing.

We also have confirmed tumour shrinkage across Phase 1a and 1b in a cancer that does not respond to chemotherapy. That is real human evidence that the delivery mechanism is doing what it was designed to do.

The risk has now shifted. It is no longer about whether the vehicle works. It is about how individual drugs perform once delivered, and how durable those responses are as trials scale.

This matters because there are many powerful cancer drugs sitting on shelves purely due to toxicity. preCISION offers a way to unlock that value. AVA6000 is the proof. AVA6103 is the next test.

Nothing in oncology is guaranteed, but the nature of the risk here has changed. The platform risk is largely gone. What remains is execution and upside

We are no longer guessing whether the preCISION vehicle works. We know it does.

AVA6000 has shown in real patients that the drug stays masked in the bloodstream, is released in the tumour, and dramatically reduces the historic toxicities that have limited doxorubicin for decades. Regulators do not remove a 40 plus year lifetime dosing rule unless the human data is compelling. That decision alone tells you the delivery mechanism is doing exactly what it was designed to do.

We also have confirmed tumour shrinkage in a cancer that does not respond to chemotherapy, seen across Phase 1a and 1b. That is not theory, not modelling, and not preclinical. That is human evidence.

So where is the risk now?

It is no longer about the vehicle. That risk has been largely removed.

The remaining question is about the drug and the disease. Will the effect be strong enough, durable enough, and consistent enough as patient numbers grow? On that front, the data so far is limited, but it is undeniably positive. Tumour shrinkage, high disease control, patients staying on treatment longer, and safety holding up at higher cumulative doses.

That is exactly what you want to see at this stage.

Could later trials still disappoint? Of course, this is oncology. But the type of failure we are talking about now is very different. It is not “does this work at all?” It is “how good is it, and in which patients?”

That is a much lower risk problem to be solving.

With AVA6103 about to enter the clinic, built on the same proven delivery system but with a far more potent payload, the story has shifted. The platform risk has been taken off the table. The science is now being tested at the sharp end.

For me, the probability of outright failure has fallen dramatically. What remains is upside, scale, and execution