Member Info for TrekMadone

Hi uNkwn,

The raise will accelerate growth significantly! Been a surprise for holders — but for new money what a prospect! I will be adding more soon.

Just look at the EV (Gemini used)

MDH EV

Assuming the £5 million fundraise is approved at the General Meeting (scheduled for 18 May 2026), Mendell Helium’s fully diluted Enterprise Value (EV) at 4p is approximately £6.17 million. [1]

This calculation incorporates the newly issued shares and the resulting cash injection. [2]

1. Enlarged Share Capital (Post-Raise)

The fundraising involves issuing 125 million new ordinary shares at 4p each. [3, 4]

* Current Shares in Issue: 153.45 million.

* New Shares from Raise: 125.00 million.

* Shares for M3 Acquisition: 57.61 million (expected to be issued upon completion).

* Total Post-Acquisition/Raise Share Count: ~336.06 million shares. [4, 5, 6, 7]

2. Fully Diluted Equity Value [2]

At a share price of 4p:

* Calculation: 336.06 million shares × £0.04.

* Equity Value: £13.44 million.

3. Adjusted Enterprise Value (EV)

The EV is calculated by subtracting the company’s net cash from the equity value.

* New Cash from Raise: £5.00 million.

* Existing Net Cash (Estimated): Prior to this raise, the company held approximately £2.27 million (combining recent cash reports and warrant exercise proceeds).

* Total Estimated Cash: £7.27 million.

* EV Calculation: £13.44m (Equity Value) – £7.27m (Total Cash) = £6.17 million. [3, 4]

Component…… Value

Share Price…… 4.00p

Enlarged Share Count…… 336.06M

Market Cap (Fully Diluted)…… £13.44M

Less: Post-Raise Net Cash (Est.)…… (£7.27M)

Enterprise Value (EV)…… £6.17M

Note: This EV represents the market's valuation of the underlying assets (including the newly acquired M3 Helium) after accounting for the significant cash buffer now available for the 2026 drilling programme. [3, 6, 8, 9]

[1] https://www.aquis.eu

[2] https://www.youtube.com

[3] https://www.share-talk.com

[4] https://www.branduk.net

[5] https://www.aquis.eu

[6] https://www.londonstockexchange.com

[7] https://www.aquis.eu

[8] https://www.aquis.eu

[9] https://www.share-talk.com

Trek

And then face billions in litigation claims! From Ai……

Unilateral cancellation of renewable energy contracts by a Reform UK government would trigger extensive litigation, primarily because Contracts for Difference (CfDs) are private law contracts rather than mere policy pledges. [1, 2]

## Potential for Litigation

Litigation is virtually certain due to the scale of investment at stake. Industry experts and legal analysts highlight several primary avenues for legal challenge: [2]

* Breach of Contract: Successful developers sign private law contracts with the government-owned [Low Carbon Contracts Company (LCCC)](https://www.lowcarboncontracts.uk/). These contracts typically include Qualifying Change in Law (QCiL) clauses that grant developers compensation if legislative changes negatively impact their projects.

* Judicial Review: Developers could challenge the "irrationality" of the decision in court, though this is harder to win if the change is enacted through primary legislation.

* Human Rights Claims: Under the Human Rights Act 1998, companies could argue that cancelling a concluded contract violates their right to the "peaceful enjoyment of possessions" (Article 1, Protocol 1). [1, 3, 4, 5]

## Chances of Success

While the legal principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty allows a government to pass laws that "strike down" existing rules, the practical success of such a move in court is highly debated.

* Primary Legislation vs. Contracts: If the Reform government passes a new Act of Parliament specifically to cancel these contracts, UK courts generally cannot overrule the Act itself. However, the courts would still have to interpret how that Act interacts with existing contractual rights and human rights.

* International Arbitration: Even if UK domestic courts were sidelined by new laws, many investors are protected by international treaties. Although the UK recently withdrew from the Energy Charter Treaty in early 2024 to avoid fossil fuel-related lawsuits, remaining bilateral investment treaties could still expose the government to claims in international tribunals.

* Sector Warnings: Energy leaders from firms like [Octopus Energy](https://octopus.energy/) and [ScottishPower](https://www.scottishpower.com/) have been warned by Tice that their investments are "commercially unsafe," but sector experts argue these threats are "legally questionable" and likely to be ignored by serious investors.

Trek

Don’t get the dip end of day — was over 100 for ages then went to 98.8….

I wish there wasn’t tax to pay on this one as it makes it so hard to trade nibbles!

Trek

Ignore reds today as mostly buys. My 5k buy at 42.325 shows as unknown and is below the printed sells either side of it.

Built my core position back up here now.

50% Nav discount and near as 15% yield covered by revenues.

So even if they sell the last at a 25% discount to nav buyers here should do ok and we get well paid to wait.

Saba and Jeffries are here for the numbers game and my average is lower than theirs!

I am surprised others don’t share those optics!

Usual caveats

Trek

Had 11p then non quotes on ii —- to buy

Auction already!

Trek

Got that license —- was never in doubt —- so why didn’t ya put in more than beer money Trek! Doh!

Trek

Sold these now took a big hit around 40%. Just see another cash call after this campaign and there is little liquidity. Spread not good and it’s too difficult to track on ASX - can’t even see daily trades on the official site!

Decided to exit and put it into one of my AIM players here.

Still think ARV will do well but it would need me buying more post any dilution to trade down — a prospect hat looks too difficult

GL

Trek

Oak Bloke in Hex

Too much to paste here….

https://theoakbloke.substack.com/

Trek

£1

This is a brilliant Vid about what we have done for Ukraine and we should be proud!!

https://youtu.be/SJo94XHYDp4?si=T15LwLta34-LbLb6

What I will say is sanctions mean sanctions ! Overlooked point!

Trek

Just to clarify ‘main market’ refers to AIM market. I only posted an extract of the convo.

Obviously anyone can nowadays do this sort of research using AI and the comparing that output to the baseline documentation.

It’s not being clever. It’s just using new readily available research tools.

Trek

Charlie boy….

“ Buyout Plays

Helix Exploration - saw an absolutely mission critical piece of news this month.

The US Air Force — through its philanthropic intermediary, the Chimaera Fund — selected Helix from nearly 30 competing organisations to help assess whether the company’s naturally occurring hydrogen could power nearby critical military bases.

Malmstrom Air Force Base, just 120 miles from Helix’s drilling site, controls a third of America’s nuclear missile force, making its energy supply a matter of national security.

If HEX’s geological hydrogen can be extracted economically at scale, it could deliver near-limitless clean energy with zero supply chain risk, at a fraction of the cost of any alternative — sitting underneath one of America's most strategically critical military installations.

If every single power source in America went dark, this one wouldn’t. If you remember Season 1 of The Walking Dead, you’ll know why this matters.

The relative silence is irrelevant. This will be bought out before the end of 2026.”

https://open.substack.com/pub/thatstocksguy/p/small-caps-may-review?r=4zgkh3&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

Trek

£1

Hi evi,

I’ll try again…

https://thatstocksguy.substack.com/p/small-caps-may-review?r=4zgkh3&triedRedirect=true

Trek

‘The four largest technology companies in the world — Amazon, Google, Meta and Microsoft — are collectively expected to spend $715 billion on capex in 2026.

That is nearly three times what they spent in 2024, and five times the 2023 figure.

Amazon alone is approaching $200 billion. Google and Microsoft are each guiding $190 billion. Meta has raised its own guidance by $10 billion to a range of $125–145 billion.

The rationale is AI infrastructure.

Data centres, chips, fibre and power. The build-out is real, and it is enormous, but cracks are appearing in the underlying business case.

OpenAI — the company that arguably started this arms race — is burning $9 billion in cash against $13 billion in revenue. Their own internal projections show $143 billion in cumulative losses before they reach profitability.

They have missed their own user growth targets.

They have missed their own revenue targets.

Their CFO has reportedly told colleagues she is worried the company cannot afford future computing contracts if revenue doesn’t grow fast enough.

This is like an AIM CEO admitting to a placing coming down the line. We all know how that ends.

Meanwhile, Oracle has committed to building roughly $348 billion in data centres and needs OpenAI to pay it $75 billion a year to cover costs. That is an interesting chain of dependency to have built on a company that is currently selling dollars for seventy cents.

Half of planned US data centre builds have now been delayed or cancelled.

Are we in a bubble?

Just think about this.

Claude has overtaken ChatGPT in usage share.

Nobody seems to have realised this yet, but this means these are commoditised products with no switching costs and no real moat. Users move freely between models based on which one happens to be best in a particular week.

If that’s true — and the data suggests it is — then none of the frontier labs will ever turn a profit at scale. The more users they acquire, the more they lose.

The cascade, if it comes, runs like this:

Frontier labs fail to reach profitability, so GPU cloud intermediaries, who borrowed billions at peak valuations, get crushed, so the hyperscalers cut capex, so Nvidia cycles down.

Remember the reverse flywheel from the BTC treasuries last year?

Yeah.“

More here from Charlie boy

https://open.substack.com/pub/thatstocksguy/p/small-caps-may-review?r=4zgkh3&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

Trek

Another key point in addition to what AI has lifted from the CPR is that post RTO we do not need a full admission document.

I have lifted these key points from and AI convo as I wanted to check — obviously for my own research.

“The "MTF Admission Prospectus" Label: While it is now legally called an "MTF Admission Prospectus," it is not the same as the "Full Prospectus" required for the Main Market.

It follows LSE rules rather than the stricter FCA vetting process, which significantly reduces time and legal costs.

Liability Protections:

For the first time, these admission documents allow for Protected Forward-Looking Statements (PFLS), giving MDH more freedom to provide future projections (like helium production targets) with a higher threshold for liability than before.”

The admission document will still have the breakdown of the company share structure, warrants, options, major holders etc that one would find in a full prospectus.

That with the CPR should draw attention to the NPV (appoint I made on an earlier post) and how that compares on a peer basis especially given by then we should have two major helium producing wells!

Usual caveats

Trek

Hi Blue,

I just asked AI (Gemini and ChatGPT) for the NPV numbers of the other UK listed helium companies. After I posted the table I thought HEX (I hold) looked rather low.

But I wouldn’t worry. The objective was to illustrate that the fully diluted mcap was still out of sync with peers post the £5m raise.

I used a fully diluted share count in my earlier estimations based on 4p so it’s the most pessimistic (bar a disaster!) view. Remember, many of the warrants are at a higher SP!

I have read the CPR a couple of times and it supports my view on the operational prospects which are the same at 4.5p as they were at 7p. But we now have the execution cash!

However, the CPR does not show the capitalisation nuances which are also key for one’s hard earned!

I intend to build on my position here as Mr market is still asleep to the upside!

This (as RKB has illustrated) is potentially a strategic resource in the US and MDH has first mover advantage over many listed companies. That is also under appreciated!

Usual caveats

Trek

Good work Terry!

Trek

Hi KAF444,

I think it’s a long long time before they wind up. But essentially sales should be return to shareholders and the dividends reduced on a prorata basis.

Remember, Jeffries and Saba have the same class of equip as you and I. Buying now is below their averages. So PI’s can ride their coat tails!

Usual caveats

Trek

Ps good work Top FCA

My tick working on ipad]

Trek

Tro,

I have posted on MDH looking at NPV comparisons and FD share count.

Trek

Now I know what it means to be ‘incandescent’ but I have calmed down… a bit!

We have had a full reset of the capitalisation. Fundraise, RTO and working capital all in one hit!

Management have chosen certainty over price. My views are known but it’s where we are!

Now we have no dependency on warrants and no dependency on revenue or debt to fund expansion. The price for the £5m was paid for by equity holders including the BoD which has significantly derisked the capitalisation of MDH = survival over fairness!

Now what we need is for ROST2 to come in. RTO completion (EGM) and the AIM listing (a big one now Nick for liquidity and the IG holders!)

Those three are our immediate potential rerate triggers!

From a TA perspective what we now have is:

- A 4p accumulation/support zone (placing and warrants).

- A 5-6p churn and resistance zone.

- If volume dries up at 4p = overhang is clearing = bull signal!

- If not = recycling going on so an accumulation/average down zone but for all patience is required!

- For new money 4-6p zone imo is an absolute steel post dilution!

Holders are not in a terrible place even those in the red atm:

- If the Morrow sands show 5% helium that’s GLOBALLY v strong!

- If we get good commerciality from 2 wells that’s very interesting.

- IF we get commerciality from 4/4 wells that is significant rerate territory! We become a strategic resource in USA!

So laser focus is needed!

The investment case many made at 7p is still intact and financially stronger at 4.5p!

Looking at sharecount

153m shares (post recent warrants) + 125m placing shares + 57m RTO + 1.5m fee shares + 70m legacy warrant shares (approx as can’t quantify how many will cancel or convert) = 408m rounded up!

That isn’t a lot of shares for a microcap e.g. QHE 50bn!

408m shares at 4p floor = £16.3m mcap

The mcap is still proportionately low compared to the assets based on a peer NPV basis and that’s at 4p, not allowing for any upside catalyst. This is the fully diluted ‘incandescent’ number!

EV at 4p = 16.3m - 5m (cash) = £11.3m!

That’s essentially £11.3m for helium assets with production a funded multi well program, several risk sharing collaboration agreements + two tube trailers + own PSA plant + PSA sharing agreement, Jayhawk, etc etc see RNS & CPR.

But how does that compare? (Used AI for this)

For EV calcs 350m shares are used (not full warrants) so not the ‘incandescent FD number!’

EV = 14m-5m = £9m!

Company…EV (£m)……Stage………….Relative to MDH

HE1……….60–80……. Appraisal……...~7–8x higher

PLSR………35–50…….Advanced expo..~4–5x higher

GEX……….15–25……. Exploration……~2x higher

HEX……….10–20……. Early…………..~1–2x higher

RIFT……… 8–15………Early……………≈ similar

MDH……….~9………Early production + development

Astonishingly we compare to RIFT! Look at the operational and financial difference!

Feeling much better now!

Usual caveats

Trek