Member Info for PuzzledPete

Pull what off ? Mast has no money; no relevant experience; no reputation; no contracts; no competent management. There are many more companies much better equipped to supply this demand. But they aren't desperate like Mr Krugel to rescue his own investment in his failed company by drawing in the inexperienced with spurious and impossible promises. Why not find out who they are ? Hint. Look at the energy investment trusts for example. They have managers who wouldn't give Krugel a biscuit - let alone the time of day.

Amusing, and example of stupidity shooting itself in the foot, if PK' attempt to align Quantum Data's image to the real quantum data market backfires when the real data market does.

Savs. Maidit is like the bloke in the cardboard box whose eye you are well advised to avoid catching as you pass by on the other side. He will repeat and repeat (and shout) the same mantra no matter what. Its a symptom of something rather sad. No treatment for it. I see he doesn't even understand what dilution is. So no point giving him any figures or facts. Trader wotsisname is worse of course.

'Builds' isn't correct. Hasn't built any battery storage sites. Battery storage industry is a mess. Has no experience in Green Gas. Only site it has 'built' has taken 3-4 years. Only other site held has taken 6 years and still not built. Please do some research before making misleading posts on here.

Acc to RNS, only 7.75 m of the cash warrants have been issued so far. Generating £310,000 for Mast

It has already received the £5 million from the pre-paids (but only £2.4 million after fees) with 83.1 million still left.

As shown yesterday, it needs many more of the cash warrants to be taken up before even escaping from its present insolvency, let alone have cash over to pay for new plants.

With no funding mentioned for the new site, you'd have thought Powertree would have stepped up. (Riverfort has lost too much from its involvement with Mast to want to take any more risk). But we've had not a peep about Powertree since early this year re Hindlip. Funny that !

I see Mr JamesTrader is back. Distorting the picture as usual. I thought he'd gone.

I can't see anything in the new flexgewn site announcement about linkage to AI data centres. He doesn't know the difference of course.

I see he is now joining the fast growing band spotting Mast for the scandal it is. He has a wider audience than these boards. So watch for the smell of more burnt fingers. Only naive investors so far. Hopefully the perpetrator will soon been hauled before the beaks. and be burnt more than to toast but to cinders.

So there you have it. 83 million shares - 6.4 times those in issue before the warrants wheeze. Shareholders now worth only 15% what they were before. Well on the way to being only 3%..

And we have a new site ? - But no money to develop it Hindlip on track. But will only earn just enough to cover repayiing Powertree's loan.. Maybe a few pence over for Mast a year after it starts up.

Brilliant business strategy gets even more brilliant.

Can't wait for the next flash of even more brilliance.

Beware the 'positive'. They are the ones who can't understand the 'negative'. Or want you to buy so they can sell higher.

4)

4) Conclusion

Mast is effectively bust. It can only be rescued by a take-over at a distress price, when shareholders will be wiped out, or by another even more massive share wangle like the warrants – when shareholders won’t just be toast - they’ll be a curled up little pile of crisp carbon. But why anyone would want to take it over is a mystery in itself.

3)

So it desperately needs the cash from all the 250 million cash warrants @4p still outstanding. If half are cashed before January when they expire, Mast will get £5 million, leaving it with perhaps £3 milion available towards Bordersely – and nothing else (against the £15 million Krugel falsely claimed Mast would have)

By then issued shares even if all the pre-paids haven’t been admitted will be nearly 160 million (5 times more than now) and net assets per share only 3.6p.

With no income from the SPV’s and ongoing overheads, and to finish Bordersley Mast desperately needs the other £5 million from the remaining 125million cash warrants, by when total shares in issue will be at least 285 million (net assets per share 3.5p). And if all the prepaids have been admitted (their cash already received) total shares will be at least 388 million and assets per share 2.5p.

Mast can’t escape these numbers and its fate. They are baked in to its structure and that of the SPV’s.

If it wants more income after 2028 its going to have to find or borrow the capital cost of new plants – at nearly £1 million per MW. It has no hope of getting, and in any case loan repayments will swallow up most of their profit. By then Mast’s earnings per share will be miniscule for years ahead. even if it doesn’t go bust (as others have in the same market)

Krugel knows that, which is why the desperate chops and changes in ‘strategy’ and, suddenly, a straw to grasp at in AI. Power for AI might be more profitable and dependable than the peaking market. But Carbon Zero Markets, while being a specialist in selling power as has been doing for Mast for years, has no record building plants, not much money of its own, and only two plants running which it bought from others.

The thought that Mast and CZ can be a ‘first mover’ into providing power for very large AI companies – when there are 650 other peaking plants owned by much bigger private groups (of whom Powertree is only a small one) is total fantasy – just like all the wheezes Krugel’s boss at Kibo came up with and none of which went anywhere while losing shareholders over £100 million.

The main thing keeping the shares artificially high must be US/Canada buying (hence Bank of New York holdings only since October – all on behalf of small investors) by the naive, knowing nothing about the low profitability UK market or Krugel’s dire track record, believing the false press puffs and the fraudulent , illiterate, ACF research – all paid for by Krugel and still appearing on this site immediately after the name change despite having been ‘disowned’ by Mast (has ha – who on earth else would have paid for them. And where has the £2million Krugel has admitted paying to the unknown Canadian Fairfax Partners Inc gone ?).

2) So Hindlip revenue will be about £2.65m pa (but Pyebridge has not achieved anything like that rate so far) and profit before tax maybe £1 million.

Out of that will have to come repayments for the £4.5m loan, which at 10% pa over the usual 8 years will cost around £820,000 pa. The SPV can’t pay out more than is left, so Mast will get 25% of what is left – ie £45,000. Not exactly the sky high profit the rampers dream about and Krugel pretends.

And that will be all Mast can expect from all subsequent plants, although still having to spend around £100,00 per megawatt to ‘buy’ even 25% of their eventual profits if and when.

Its why as the chartered accountant Oak Bloke says, and anyone else who knows the subject, the rate of return on investment in these peaking plants of around 15% (as Mast itself and its consultant has reported) is just not enough when 10% has to be paid on any loan used to invest in them. Its why Mast ‘s business model is unviable, and why any business or financial expert would say Mast itself is uninvestable, and will eventually go bust.

That’s not to say the SPV’s will go bust. If they’ve been properly financed and not too dependent on borrowing which they are at the moment, they might survive. But Mast shareholders are invested in Mast and only partly and indirectly in the SPV’s which the figures show won’t be enough to pay its own debts.

For Pyebridge, the only fully owned plant but an SPV and still owing £1.9 million to Riverfort, latest results 2025 1st half with two generators working, showed £746,000 revenue (not profit)

At a 30% profit margin (70% of revenue is cost of gas) that is a £225,000 profit. Assuming the second half is the same., annual profit before tax will be £450,000. So how is Pyebridge going to repay Riverfort £1.9 million within the next year as it is obliged to?

The others, Bordersley will only add 4.5 MW and Stather Road only 2.5MW not before 2027 (no funding yet). Neither is any funding in sight for the five unbuilt and unconnected Kent sites bought recently.

If Bordersley can be completed with the £6 million shown below as the most cash Mast can be left with if all the warrants are taken up, its £600-700,000 net cash profit would be available for Mast, but not before 2027.

Conclusion. Mast will get practically nothing from its generators for 2026 and only enough if lucky to cover its overheads in 2027 provided Bordersley comes on stream. So before 2028 it will still make heavy losses, to add to to its current debts where even after the mere £2.6m raised from the pre-paid warrants, it is still insolvent.

At end June it had only £239,198 ready money against £2.9m of short term debts. Since then it has used £0.9m of the £2.6m to repay one of those debts (the rest went towards Bordersley and other losses to end year) leaving it still owing at least £1.8 million in the short term (plus the £1.9mmillion still owed by Pyebridge). And it continues

1) Why MAST’s shares will crash. Inapropriate and absurd new name makes no difference. Designed to draw in those who don’t realise it’s still Kruger lurking underneath

And why Mast is insolvent unless all cash warrants are taken up (so total shares will be twelve times those now and only worth 2.5p) – which will only postpone a crash.

Because MAST doesn’t own the generators or their income. And it has has nothing else but debts.

Krugel has never been open that the plants are inside Special Purpose Vehicles and that Mast has no direct access to their income and only a small share of their assets. He has allowed the inexperienced to think their income will be Mast’s when it won’t, and all his presentations have trumpeted their revenues when it is only their much smaller profit that will be available, to Mast if at all.

SPV’s are separate legal entities, with assets and liabilities distinct from those of the parent company and investors who set them up. Any profits they make can only flow to their owners by way of dividends after tax, in proportion to their equity ownership, and only if the SPV itself has enough cash to pay them, and will be only after their year end.

They might be shown as part of Mast in its ‘consolidated’ accounts. But that obscures the fact it doesn’t have control over most of them. The next accounts in April will be the first to reveal that.

Pyebridge is the only SPV 100% owned by Mast, but still owes £1.9million to Riverfort which will have to be repaid before Mast gets any cash. Bordersley we don’t know because still needs heavy spending to get built but might be with the only cash Mast might have,.

But Hindlip will be the template to finance and operate all succeeding projects, because Mast will have no cash to contribute to their equity other than perhaps a 25% share and probably not even that. So the flow of cash to Mast will look like the following – ie minsicule if at all ,for at least their first 8 years operation.

Hindlip’s equity is owned 75% by Powertree and only 25% by Mast (in return for the approx £180,000 it has spent so far in buying it). The remaining build cost of c £5million is being met by Powertree paying £0.5m for a 75% equity share, and providing £4.5m loan carrying 10% interest. ie total cost around £5.2million for a 7.5MW plant. That is cheap because Krugel has previously said new plant costs are escalating and today approaching £1million per Megawatt.

All evidence so far and Pyebridge’s experience (latest is under £25,000/MW/month) has shown likely annual revenues are less than £300,000 per MW, with a 30% operating profit margin. Capacity payments (only for those awarded them) vary sharply but have been averaging £50,000/£60,000 per MW pa. Being cash they are 100% profit. But with more and more entrants into the capacity market payments have been falling.

So expected annual revenue per MW looks like around £350.000, and n

Slow Learner. I'll be posting soon with detail why without all the cash warrants being taken up (producing 12 times as many in issue as now) Mast will continue to be bust (aka insolvent) even when current four gens are operating. Meanwhile work out why anyone or a company needs to change its name ? When it's reputation that counts in the financial and business world. And when Krugel's latest rapid change in strategy comes after a string of others at Mast while he's been CEO and before that at Kibo (now deceased and not missed) for the six years he was CFO there - and none of which happened.

With situations like this you need careful research and an ability to read between the lines. None of which qualities Mr Maidit or his chums possess.

Krugel hasn't got the money. the credentials, the track record, the contracts with solid suppliers or financiers, to call itself anything to do with AI technology or anything other than bog-standard, limited life, common-as-garden, generating plants where he took four years to get just one 2/3rds operating, and drove Mast into insolvency in the process and its shareholders to lose over 95% of their investment (but who, like bugs bunny running in thin air over the edge of the cliff, haven't tumbled to it yet.)

All those who have followed Krugel since he participated in running Kibo into the ground from nearly 10 years ago and then Mast, recognise all his smoke and mirrors.

Invester What an absurd little chap you are. I've been investing for more than forty years, and have researched closely and written about, for brokers, banks, and institutional investors, nearly 1000 companies in that time including a large part of the energy sector. Mast has interested me from its origins in Kibo, for the misleading information it has been putting out, to cover the poor outlook for its business. The UK small Power generation industry has very low profitabilty and is competitive and erratic, which is why some large groups have experienced big losses and some have left the market, and why borrowing to build generators is risky, and why Mast is the only 'listed' company, because it had to resort to inexperienced private investors to give it money when no reputable UK financial institution would. Why don't you think sometimes. Why did it have to resort to the dodgy warrant scam run by an unknown USA/Canada pair to bail it out of the insolvency it had been in for three years, and unless all the cash warrants are taken up, will still be insolvent. I suggest you and others here should read the notes in Mast's Reports and Accounts for last three years, and look up 'insolvency', 'bankruptcy', 'difference between reported profits and actual cash generated', and why SPV's are dangerous. You may be riding a bandwagon currently driven by buying by the gullible (seemingly in the America's whose investors know nothing about the UK energy market and Mast's insignificance in it) but it will stop - very suddenly when the next or following results show Mast is still insolvent and is getting very little income itself from the SPV's (look up SPV) . Then the story will implode. and you with it.

Bargee - pretty obvious I would have thought - because the 2022 opinion is the only professional one still in place. But being shown to be too optimistic so far by the actual experience I've included. All germane to predicting Mast's profitability (or lack of)

In fact I've now done some more work on next few years, showing Mast won't be getting enough cash from any of the four currently funded for at least the next four years to remain solvent, while any further plants won't earn enough over and above repaying the loans they'll need to be built, to generate any more of the cash Mast itself desperately needs.

Of course, a major misunderstanding Mast has fostered is that all the plants' revenues will come to mast when they are mostly owned by outsiders putting up their build cost. The same scam that led to the major Enron bankruptcy scandal where much of its business was via outside owned SPV's like Mast's. That ownership structure means very little cash comes to the already insolvent Mast even though it might state a share of their profit. Its why the oak Bloke, a chartered accountant, and others than me, think Mast's 'business model' is unviable and that therefore it is uninvestable. And we wonder who tipped off eg Hargreaves Lansdown to not let clients buy the shares. It couldn't, by any chance, be the fca ?.

The shares meanwhile are being artificially boosted by the fraudulent advertising and bogus reasech being peddled in the US and Canada, and which presumably the fca has no control over. Those on here boasting of their trading activities are taking advantage of the gullible still buying, so are beneath contempt.

For those who can read and understand that 2+2 = 4

https://theoakbloke.substack.com/p/1h25-mast-results

Conclusion: (as at Aug 28 '2025 ) How is it that people are spending money buying shares for a company valued at £20m for a business where the creditors effectively owns all the assets, and where the actual performance of its only 100%-owned site is well below my estimate of its profitability.

Where my best estimate of its profitability put this on a future Price Earnings P/E of 548X!

A business where, if you are lucky, then the warrant holders will dilute you so that the creditors don’t own all the assets and instead you lucky shareholder will instead own 4.6p of assets for a share you are paying 160p to buy. So you are paying a 3,378% premium to NAV if warrant holders dilute you fully.

That is truly masterful, but not for the buyer. I repeat my view: SELL.

Regards

The Oak Bloke

Projected profits. Full ercalcs will be set out later this week. Meanwhile evidence anyone could have bothered to find.

1) from Masts's reports 2022 "Based on independent financial modelling, prepared by MED's reputable and appropriately accredited consulting firm, EnAppSys the projected valuation metrics for the Projects are summarised as follows:"

· Projected average annual revenue of c. £2.7 million for Hindlip and c. £928k for Stather; equates to £370,000 per MW pa

- operating profit margin 30% - equates to £111,000 per MW pa profit

2) Latest Pyebridge results 2025 H1. £746,000 gross revenue per 2 gensets: equates to £300,000 per MW per annum.

Net operating profit margin 30%. equates to annual profit per MW of £90,000 per MW per annum

3) Pyebridge 'record results' 14 Oct "approx £276,000 per MW per annum" (ie steadily below advisers projections)

4 ) Avg capacity market payments so far £56,000 pa per MW (Not expected for all generators)

Based on all these, don't expect more than £100,000 pa net profit per MW.

This is profit per SPV (ie the separate generator companies, of which only Pyebridge (and maybe Bordersley) will be fully owned by Mast, the rest might be owned 25% if lucky, before repaying the bank loans needed to part pay for the plant)

WORK IT OUT ie the profit actually attributed to MAST. - which is more than the cash it will receive which will be after tax and depends whether the owner pays it all out as a dividend, which it won't if, like Hindlip, if it has to any bank loan used to pay for the plant.

So even if (not before 2027) all four existing plants are fully operating (22MW) , expect no more than approx £2.2m net profit from all four, of which half be only 25% owned by MAST, while all four will owe at least £5m in loan repayments. Meanwhile MAST overheads are running at £750,000 pa. So its reported profit will be well under £1 million - ie 0.25p per 400m shares.

Even that is over-optimistic because MAST won't be receiving it in the cash it desperately needs.

WORK IT OUT. -or ask a business accountant - or ask your mummys or daddys.

Its not just me has been saying MAST is bust and hardly worth £10m even in two years time. Chartered accountant The Oak Bloke on here and the other place back in August said it is "uninvestable". Its why AI says the same.

So little Can'd do and little Maid it, and all those 'recommending' their ignorant, ramping, posts - Please GO AWAY (and don't come back)

·

Already explained but will post proof later.