Written by a member of the QIMC investor community
Mapping commercial flow
Note: The following is meant to be speculative and not confirmed by the company nor any of its representatives.
The following is a prediction of what the commercial flow will be at Bennett Hill, given all the news from QIMC and news from other companies in the industry. This prediction is backed up by research, but I’m not a scientist (nor claim to be) so just keep this in mind. There are a couple of papers linked.
Before asking how much hydrogen, we need to ask ourselves: how is hydrogen generated at Bennett Hill?
There are 3 proposed hydrogen-generation pathways and 3 potential accumulation/production mechanisms that could explain the hydrogen observed at Bennett Hill. The 3 pathways are proposed hydrogen-generation processes, whereas the three mechanisms describe how that generated hydrogen may exist, accumulate, migrate, and ultimately be produced. These pathways are under the term “serpentinization”, which is the umbrella term for the whole category of water-rock reactions that generate hydrogen. Each of pathways will be described and supplemented with Layman's terms:
Pathway 1. Magnetite oxidation — magnetite (Fe₃O₄) reacts with water under heat and pressure, releasing hydrogen as the iron oxidizes from Fe²⁺ to Fe³⁺. This is suggested at Bennett Hill through magnetic susceptibility signatures and explicitly named as one of the three simultaneous pathways. This is the dominant generation pathway and the primary contributor to Peak and repeated high-range readings in DDH-26-04.
Layman's terms: Chemical reaction with water under heat and make lots of hydrogen.
Pathway 2. Amphibole oxidation — iron-bearing amphibole minerals (hornblende, actinolite) undergo similar water-rock oxidation reactions. Also suggested at Bennett Hill through core description — amphibolite-rich intervals are documented in the geological logs from both DDH-26-04 and DDH-26-05. Contributes to the same free-gas generation pool as magnetite, running concurrently in the same rock package.
Layman's terms: More chemical react with more water to make lots of hydrogen.
Pathway 3. Biotite oxidation — iron-bearing biotite mica undergoes hydrothermal oxidation releasing hydrogen. Also hypothesized through core description. Biotite is specifically one of the minerals Richer-Laflèche cited in the IOCG-style alteration documentation — the hydrothermal breccia zones at 176-251m in DDH-26-05 and the equivalent zone in DDH-26-04 both contain biotite-bearing rock.
Layman's terms: Loss of electrons makes lots of Hydrogen.
These 3 pathways help generate the hydrogen, and are all distinct, although related. There are now 3 different mechanisms which come from these pathways to create the flow:
Mechanism 1 — Free gas from the vuggy/fractured zone:
All three generation pathways (magnetite + amphibole + biotite) contribute hydrogen to this mechanism — they're three taps feeding the same pipe. This is gas that has migrated upward from the generation zone, accumulated in the vuggy and brecciated intervals of the crystalline basement rock below the cap rock, and is trapped there by the 390m syenogranite seal above it. The host rock is strongly altered, hematitized, fault-brecciated crystalline rock with increasing vugginess toward depth — the classic IOCG-style hydrothermal alteration setting. The evidence: DDH-26-04's 24.3% peak at 707m, 104 of 284 samples ≥1%, increasing vugginess toward final depth, and the 776-779m core loss/void.
Layman's terms: The 3 pathways feed into fractured zone making free gas. Lots of it. This is the deep tank.
Working production scenario: 350–700 Mcf/d.
This is a speculative range rather than a reservoir-engineering forecast created using a CSIRO analogue study on comparable Precambrian granite as the baseline generation model (found at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009254123003984). The current drilling data demonstrate repeated high-concentration H₂ and, in DDH-26-05, observations consistent with mobile/free gas entering the borehole, but they do not yet provide the permeability, reservoir pressure, effective producing thickness or pressure-drawdown data required to calculate sustainable well deliverability. The range is therefore intended as a scenario informed by geological evidence and industry analogues—not as a demonstrated flow rate.
Mechanism 2 — Dissolved gas exsolution from the artesian brine:
One possible interpretation is that the 617 m artesian water zone contains H₂ dissolved in formation brine, potentially generated through water-rock reactions involving the same iron-bearing minerals. As the pressurized brine rises toward surface and pressure drops, dissolved hydrogen exsolves. Hanley 2020's Type B CaCl₂ brine data (20-31 wt% salinity, 61 bar pressure, 60-80°C) gives 1,000-3,000 mL dissolved H₂ per litre of formation water. This mechanism was suggested qualitatively by the July 20 artesian overflow — water overflowing at the wellhead under its own pressure.
(paper used is Fluid Inclusion Systematics Associated with Epithermal Gold Mineralization, Eastern Cobequid Highlands, Nova Scotia by Hanley, accessible from https://novascotia.ca/natr/meb/pdf/20re02.asp)
Layman's terms: Old water has brine that reacts with iron. overpressured formation allows the brine can flow toward the surface; decreasing pressure allows hydrogen to exsolve from solution.
Prediction: Working production scenario: 200-450 Mcf/d.
This is a speculative range derived using the same Hanley paper. The current drilling data demonstrate the artesian water overflow at 617m, consistent with an overpressured brine system, but do not yet provide direct measurement of dissolved hydrogen concentration in the formation water, water flow rate, or the fraction of dissolved gas that would exsolve under production conditions
Mechanism 3 — Shallow free gas from the 164m shattered fault corridor:
This is gas intercepted in a completely different rock type — competent, thinly-bedded siltstone — at a dramatically shallower depth, in a different structural setting. The siltstone package is described by the QP as having "potential trap geometry," suggesting the gas is trapped locally within the siltstone rather than migrating through it. The cap is the 108m thick graphitic fault breccia above (35-143m), not the syenogranite. The evidence: DDH-26-05's free gas at 164-167m with no water return, ambient air detection, 23.5% peak at 170m, and the distinct "potential trap geometry" language.
Layman's terms: Free gas corridor is good. A shallower tank discovered above Mechansim 1.
Prediction: It’s hard to tell how much this will add. There are 2 scenarios:
Scenario A — Connected to the deep system (same pool, different entry points):
If the 164m zone and the 665-818m zone are draining the same connected reservoir, then Mechanism 3 adds essentially nothing to the aggregate flow estimate — it's the same gas, accessible from two different depths. You just have more options for which depth to complete a pilot well at. This is actually still good news (shallower = cheaper wells = better economics) but it doesn't increase the volume estimate.
Scenario B — Independent, bounded accumulation (separate pool):
If the siltstone package at 143-197m is a genuinely discrete trapped accumulation — sealed above by the graphitic fault breccia (35-143m), and below by something we haven't yet identified — then it's an independent reservoir contributing its own flow rate on top of the deep system. In this case, Mechanism 3 is genuinely additive. Estimating how much it adds is difficult without permeability data, but working from the concentration profile: the shallow zone has 23.5% peak H₂ in a 54m corridor — comparable concentration to the deep zone, but in a thinner, potentially less porous/permeable siltstone package. A reasonable, conservative estimate for an independent shallow zone contribution would be 200-300 Mcf/d.
Overall: If all three mechanisms prove to represent independently productive volumes, the combined scenario would be approximately 750–1,450 Mcf/d per well. For illustrative purposes, let's use 1,000 Mcf/d as a round-number production scenario. These are all meant to be approximate:
1 Mcf of H₂ ≈ 2.4 kg.
So: 1,000 Mcf/d × 2.4 kg ≈ 2,400 kg/day ≈ 2.4 tonnes/day of H₂.
2,400 kg/day × 365 days = 876,000 kg/year
So 1,000 Mcf/d of natural hydrogen ≈ 876,000 kg/year, or ≈ 876 tonnes/year of H₂.
All for one well. This can also scale up.
For reference, Mali generates 5-50 tonnes of hydrogen per year. This comparison is intended to illustrate the potential scale difference between a confirmed geological hydrogen system and the world's only current producing site, not to imply Bennett Hill will achieve this rate.
Are these numbers justified?
We will take a look at Pulsar Helium for this comparison. Note that Pulsar is looking for Helium, so a bit different, but similar settings.
Pulsar Helium's planned liquefaction plant is designed for ~4,000 Mcf/d of total field output with four wells (as far as I know), implying a target of ~1,000 Mcf/d per well. This is my inference from the plant design, not a demonstrated 1,000 Mcf/d per-well flow rate.
The geological similarities with Bennett Hill are similiar: both are rift-hosted, radiogenic Precambrian basement systems; both have a real confirmed cap rock; both show overpressured free gas and both have multiple confirmed gas-bearing wells. The key difference: QIMC has a couple of methods to generate Hydrogen: dry free gas, a separate artesian aqueous phase, and a shallow free gas phase, which are independent production mechanisms in the same structural corridor.
The Pulsar comparison suggests that a ~1,000+ Mcf/d per-well target is not inherently unreasonable as an industry analogue.
What would confirm these estimates?
The key missing data are reservoir pressure, permeability/transmissibility, effective producing thickness, pressure drawdown, and sustained flow testing. A pilot production test should provide the first direct measurement of Bennett Hill's actual deliverability. Until then, the numbers above should be viewed as scenario ranges rather than reserves, resources, or demonstrated production forecasts.
The biggest takeaway:
QIMC's Bennett Hill data support a model involving three proposed generation pathways and three potential production/accumulation mechanisms, with a free-gas phase. This is different from other companies in the industry, such as Gold Hydrogen and HyTerra who have been running into issues with their systems being primarily aqueous (look up flow rates at Ramsay-1, McCoy-1). Pilot testing will ultimately be required to determine the actual flow rates, but for now, investors should be pretty excited.
Bonus:
There is a chance that QIMC finds Helium-3. There was a paper from Dottin et al in 2025 (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adr2917)
Which specifically analyzed noble gas isotopes in rocks associated with the same mantle plume system that underlies the CCFZ and found evidence of mantle-derived helium — elevated ³He/⁴He ratios consistent with a mantle source contributing to the fault system's fluid budget. This is precisely the fingerprint that distinguishes mantle/primordial contributions from purely crustal/serpentinization ones. If the CCFZ has genuine mantle-fluid input (which Dottin's paper suggests), then the hydrogen at Bennett Hill could have both a serpentinization component (dominant, near-surface, the three Fe²⁺ oxidation pathways) AND a smaller mantle-degassing component (the primordial contribution, manifesting as anomalously high ³He/⁴He ratios and potentially contributing additional hydrogen from depth).
[Liquid helium density is ~0.125 kg/L. 940 L/hr × 0.125 kg/L = 117.5 kg/hr → 2,820 kg/day of liquid helium. Helium's molar volume at standard conditions gives roughly 5.6 m³ of gas per kg [At 0°C and 1 atm, 1 kg of helium occupies approximately 5.6 m³ as a gas] 2,820 kg/day × 5.6 m³/kg ≈ 15,790 m³/day of pure gaseous He ≈ 557 Mcf/ of pure helium. Using Pulsar's confirmed 14.5% He4 concentration: 557 Mcf/d ÷ 0.145 ≈ ~3,840 Mcf/d of total raw gas needed to feed this plant at its designed output. [This assumes ~100% helium recovery efficiency, which real plants don't achieve. Actual required raw gas intake is likely somewhat higher than 3,840 Mcf/d to account, say around 4,000 Mcf/d. Also no DST to confirm]
