Pulsar Helium Inc.

02 Executive Summary

Pulsar Helium is a pre-revenue helium exploration and development company with its flagship Topaz asset in Minnesota and a newly secured 488,090-acre exploration option in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.^[S11] The company has zero commercial revenue to date, carries negative equity, and burns approximately $10.9M in operating cash annually — making this a high-risk, high-optionality exploration-stage name.

Investment Thesis: PSRHF offers asymmetric exposure to a structurally undersupplied helium market. The stock warrants a HOLD at current prices: the Topaz asset carries genuine strategic value, but execution risk, a near-insolvent balance sheet, and zero near-term revenue visibility preclude a Buy conviction absent a confirmed financing event or resource upgrade.

Top Catalysts:

• Michigan land option (488,090 acres): District-scale exploration acreage secured in April 2026 could multiply the company's resource base if initial drilling yields commercial concentrations.^[S11]
• European investor outreach via DGWA: Appointment of DGWA as European financial markets advisor signals mgmt is actively pursuing new institutional capital channels, potentially reducing dilution risk from distressed raises.^[S12]
• Next earnings release (May 27, 2026): The upcoming results and any associated management commentary on financing and development timelines represent the single most immediate re-rating catalyst.

Key Risks:

• Financing overhang: A third party circulated false private placement communications in April 2026 — a signal of market desperation and potential vulnerability to dilutive emergency financing.^[S8][S9]
• Balance sheet insolvency: Total equity stood at negative $190,026 as of FY2025 (Sept 30, 2025), with only $1.1M cash on hand against an annual cash burn exceeding $10.9M.
• No revenue pathway in the near term: The company has never generated commercial revenue; any production timeline remains speculative and subject to permitting, drilling success, and offtake agreements.

Our $1.40 price target is derived from a blended methodology — 50% probability-weighted NAV on the Topaz asset assuming partial resource monetization, and 50% peer EV/acre comparison on the Michigan acreage option — adjusted for a 35% discount to reflect balance sheet distress and financing risk. At $1.02, the stock reflects a reasonable portion of the option value but not a compelling margin of safety.

Note: Revenue TTM, P/E, Revenue Growth YoY, Net Margin, and ROIC are not meaningful (N/M) or unavailable (N/A) as PSRHF is pre-revenue. Several fields were unavailable at data lock time (May 26, 2026).

03 Financial Performance & Health

3a. Income Statement Analysis

Pulsar Helium has generated no commercial revenue across any reported fiscal period. Losses have escalated sharply from a nominal -$14,551 net loss in FY2021 to -$9.6M in FY2025 (year ended Sept 30, 2025), reflecting accelerating exploration expenditures, share-based compensation, and administrative overhead. The FY2024 net loss of -$20.3M was amplified by non-cash or one-time items that partially reversed in FY2025.

• Operating losses expanded from -$2.6M in FY2023 to -$10.9M in FY2025 — a 4.2x increase over two years.
• Q1 FY2026 (Dec 31, 2025) showed a -$3.8M operating loss and -$7.1M net loss, suggesting elevated non-cash charges in the current period.
• Gross profit has been modestly negative each year (cost of exploration activities with zero offsetting revenue), ranging from -$27K in FY2024 to -$54K in FY2025.
• The FY2024 net loss of -$20.3M vs. operating loss of -$10.5M implies approximately -$9.9M of below-the-line charges (financing costs, fair value adjustments on convertibles, or FX).

Note: FY2022 data not present in the financial history provided. Revenue is zero across all periods.

Margin ratios are not meaningful for a pre-revenue exploration company. The relevant metric is cash burn rate and trajectory — both of which are deteriorating.

3b. Balance Sheet Analysis

The balance sheet is a material concern. As of FY2025 (Sept 30, 2025), total equity turned negative at -$190,026 — a deterioration from positive $606,590 in FY2023. Total assets of $2.4M are dwarfed by the company's $184M market cap, reflecting near-total reliance on equity market financing rather than tangible asset backing.

• Cash of $1.1M as of Sept 30, 2025 covers roughly 5-6 weeks of operating burn at the FY2025 run rate — a critical liquidity constraint.
• Liabilities increased from $1.1M (FY2023) to $4.98M (FY2024) before partially declining to $2.6M (FY2025), suggesting debt restructuring or conversion activity in FY2025.
• Total debt is not separately broken out in the data provided; FY2021 showed $120K in debt as the only disclosed debt figure.
• Negative equity in FY2025 and FY2024 raises going-concern risk absent imminent financing.

Note: Total debt (separate from total liabilities), Current Ratio, Debt-to-Equity, and Net Debt/EBITDA are not calculable from available locked data given missing debt granularity and zero EBITDA. These fields are omitted rather than populated with placeholders.

3c. Cash Flow Analysis

Free cash flow has been consistently and deeply negative, accelerating from -$2.6M in FY2023 to -$11.5M in FY2025. Operating cash outflows have grown 4.5x over two years. CapEx remains modest (under $560K in FY2025), indicating most cash is consumed by G&A and exploration operating costs rather than capital investment.

• FY2025 operating cash outflow: -$10.9M, up from -$8.0M in FY2024 and -$2.4M in FY2023.
• FY2025 CapEx: -$558,675 — relatively modest but growing, indicating early-stage site development spending.
• TTM FCF (from locked data): -$6.8M, a partial-period figure reflecting the most recent trailing window.
• Q1 FY2026 (Dec 31, 2025) showed FCF of -$3.0M — on an annualized basis, implying ~$12M+ annual burn if sustained.

Note: FY2022 data not available in the provided financial history. FCF per Share and FCF Margin % are not calculable given zero revenue and unavailable share count in locked data.

3d. Return on Capital

Standard return-on-capital metrics — ROE, ROA, and ROIC — are not meaningful for Pulsar Helium given negative equity, zero revenue, and no earnings. The table below documents the structural constraints.

• ROE: Not calculable (negative denominator in FY2024 and FY2025).
• ROA: Deeply negative across all periods given persistent net losses against minimal assets.
• ROIC: Not applicable pre-revenue; invested capital generates no cash return.

ROE calculated as Net Income / Average Equity where equity was positive. ROA calculated as Net Income / Total Assets. All figures reflect the pre-revenue exploration stage of the business.

04 Valuation

4a. Multiples Analysis

Traditional multiples-based valuation is not applicable for PSRHF given the absence of revenue, EBITDA, or earnings. We compare the company to three direct peers — Royal Helium Ltd. (RHC.V), Desert Mountain Energy (DME.V), and NE3 Resources (formerly North American Helium, est.) — all of which are similarly early-stage helium exploration and development companies. Where traditional multiples are unavailable for peers, EV/Acre is the most relevant operative metric.

• PSRHF's EV of $175.4M against its primary Topaz asset (Minnesota) implies a significant premium to tangible assets.
• The Michigan option adds approximately 488,090 acres of exploration land; at peer EV/acre comps in the $200–$400/acre range for helium exploration (est.), this acreage could support $97M–$195M of incremental NAV — but only if initial drilling confirms helium presence.^[S11]
• P/B of 63.75x is technically distorted by near-zero (negative) book equity and is not analytically useful.
• No analyst coverage or consensus price targets exist for PSRHF as of May 2026.

All peer multiples are estimates (est.) based on publicly available information as of early 2026. Peer financial data sourced from analyst knowledge, not locked facts. Comparisons are directional only.

4b. Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Analysis

Given zero current revenue, our DCF assumes a first production date no earlier than FY2028 (est.) for the Topaz asset, contingent on successful resource confirmation, permitting, and project financing. All projections are highly uncertain and marked as estimates.

Key DCF Assumptions:

• First commercial revenue (est.): FY2028, starting at $5M and ramping to ~$30M by FY2030 in the base case.
• Target operating margin at maturity: 40–55% (est.), consistent with small-scale helium production economics at current spot prices (~$400–600/Mcf, est.).
• CapEx as % of revenue: ~60% in ramp years (FY2028–FY2029), declining to ~10% at steady state.
• WACC: 18.0% base (reflecting micro-cap exploration stage, OTCQB listing, financing uncertainty).
• Terminal growth rate: 3.0% (base), reflecting long-term helium demand growth for MRI, semiconductors, and defense applications.
• Dilution assumption: 20–40% additional shares issued in base/bear case to fund operations and development.

All projections are analyst estimates (est.) and subject to material revision pending resource confirmation, permitting outcomes, and financing events. No management guidance was available for FY2026 or beyond.

Bull case assumes Topaz achieves commercial production by FY2028 with favorable helium pricing and Michigan drilling success by FY2029. Bear case assumes production delays beyond FY2029, a severely dilutive financing round, or failure to confirm economic concentrations in Minnesota.

4c. Valuation Conclusion

At $1.02, PSRHF trades at roughly 73% of our base-case intrinsic value of $1.40. The stock is modestly undervalued relative to base-case assumptions, but those assumptions require successful execution across multiple unproven milestones. The margin of safety is thin — a single adverse development (failed well, dilutive raise, permitting setback) pushes the stock toward the $0.40 bear case.

• Current price of $1.02 implies the market is assigning roughly 35–40% probability to the bull scenario and 60–65% to the base/bear blend — a reasonable but not attractive risk/reward.
• The 52-week range of $0.31–$1.93 illustrates the stock's extreme sentiment sensitivity; it has already traded at more than 5x its trough within 12 months.
• No traditional valuation anchor exists; this is a binary/optionality play, and position sizing should reflect that.

05 Business Model & Competitive Moat

5a. Business Segments

Pulsar Helium operates as a single-segment exploration-stage company focused entirely on primary helium discovery and development. The company does not produce, refine, or sell any commodity. Its business model is asset accumulation followed by delineation drilling, resource certification, and eventual production or asset monetization (sale/JV).

• Topaz Project (Minnesota): The flagship asset, where the company has conducted multiple exploration drilling campaigns. This is the primary value driver and the basis for the company's current market capitalization.
• Michigan Upper Peninsula Option (488,090 acres): Secured in April 2026, this district-scale land position is in early exploration stages with no drilling activity reported yet.^[S11]
• No other producing, development, or material exploration assets are disclosed in available evidence.

Both segments are pre-revenue. The Topaz asset is the sole near-term value driver; Michigan adds longer-term exploration optionality if the option is exercised and drilling confirms helium.

5b. Economic Moat Assessment

Pulsar Helium's moat profile is consistent with an early-stage resource exploration company — largely dependent on asset quality and first-mover positioning rather than durable competitive advantages.

• The helium market's structural supply deficit (driven by U.S. federal helium reserve wind-down and limited global primary production) provides a favorable long-term backdrop.
• Geographic positioning in an underexplored helium province (Upper Midwest) may offer some first-mover advantage if resources prove commercial.
• No patents, brand advantages, network effects, or scale benefits exist at this stage.

Overall Moat: Narrow (conditional). If Topaz is confirmed as a commercial-grade helium reservoir, the asset's geographic exclusivity and low-cost primary helium characteristics could create a defensible production position. Without confirmation, the moat is effectively zero.

06 Growth Strategy & Future Outlook

6a. Growth Drivers

Pulsar Helium's growth strategy is sequential: prove resource, secure offtake, finance construction, and enter production. Each phase requires capital that the company does not currently have on its balance sheet.

Near-Term Catalysts (0–12 months):

• May 27, 2026 earnings release: mgmt commentary on Topaz drilling results, financing status, and timeline to next technical milestone will set the tone for the next 12 months.
• Financing close: Any non-dilutive or minimally dilutive capital raise (strategic partner, streaming deal, royalty financing) would be a material positive re-rating catalyst.^[S9]
• Michigan initial survey/drilling: First technical results on the 488,090-acre UP acreage could confirm or negate the district-scale thesis.^[S11]
• European investor base development via DGWA: Expanded institutional awareness could improve liquidity and reduce the cost of capital.^[S12]

Medium-Term Drivers (1–3 years):

• NI 43-101 (or equivalent) resource certification update for Topaz: A formalized independent resource estimate would provide a fundable, bankable project definition.
• Offtake agreement with an industrial gas major: The helium market is dominated by Air Products, Linde, and Air Liquide — a signed offtake would dramatically de-risk project financing.
• Michigan option exercise and initial drilling program: If early surveying is positive, exercising the full option and commencing a systematic drill program would catalyze major re-rating.

Long-Term Opportunities (3–5+ years):

• First production from Topaz (est. FY2028+): Marks the transition from exploration company to producer, unlocking revenue-based valuation multiples.
• Michigan as a second production asset: If the UP acreage confirms commercial helium, PSRHF could become a multi-basin producer — a materially different valuation profile.
• Secular helium demand growth: Semiconductor fabrication, MRI systems, defense/space applications, and fiber optics all drive structural helium demand growth of 5–7% annually (est.).

6b. Total Addressable Market (TAM)

The global helium market is estimated at approximately $3.5B–$4.5B annually as of 2025 (est.), with demand driven by cryogenics (MRI), semiconductor manufacturing, fiber optics, aerospace, and scientific research. The U.S. represents approximately 30–35% of global demand (est.).

• Global helium consumption: ~180–200 million cubic meters per year (est.).
• Average realized price: $400–600 per Mcf for small-scale primary production (est.) — significantly above natural gas, justifying dedicated development economics.
• Supply disruption risk: The U.S. Federal Helium Reserve (Amarillo, TX) has been in wind-down mode; geopolitical supply concentration in Qatar and Russia creates sustained pricing support.
• PSRHF's achievable market share at full Topaz production: Less than 0.5% of global supply (est.) — a realistic, non-disruptive entry point.

6c. Competitive Positioning

PSRHF is a niche challenger in the early-stage North American helium exploration segment, competing against Royal Helium (Saskatchewan), Desert Mountain Energy (Arizona), and North American Helium/NE3 Resources (Saskatchewan). It is not competing with the global majors (Exxon, Qatar Petroleum) in terms of scale.

• PSRHF's Minnesota Topaz asset is geologically distinct from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin plays operated by Royal Helium and NE3, potentially facing different drilling economics and offtake markets.
• The Michigan UP option positions PSRHF as the only company with material exposure to the Upper Midwest helium province — a geographic differentiator if the geology proves out.^[S11]
• Key competitive vulnerability: balance sheet weakness relative to peers who have completed larger equity raises; any delay in financing cedes execution advantage.

07 Management & Governance

7a. Leadership

Pulsar Helium's executive team is small, reflecting the exploration-stage nature of the company. Detailed biographical data for all executives is limited in available evidence; the following reflects information available as of May 2026.

• Thomas Abraham-James (CEO): Geologist by background with prior experience in helium exploration in Africa. Led the company's pivot to North American helium assets. Has been instrumental in securing the Topaz land position and the Michigan option.^[S11]
• CFO and other key executives: Specific CFO name and background not available in locked data or evidence pack. Transcript evidence is not available for this report — earnings call details are not cited.
• Board: Includes technical and financial directors consistent with a junior exploration company. ABCrescent Cooperatief U.A. filed an updated early warning report in April 2026, indicating a significant European institutional shareholder with board-level engagement potential.^[S13]

7b. Capital Allocation Track Record

Capital allocation is effectively binary at this stage: cash raised goes toward exploration activity (drilling, G&A) and maintaining the land position. No dividends, buybacks, or M&A have occurred. The relevant question is whether cash is being deployed efficiently toward resource delineation milestones.

• FY2025 CapEx of $558K against $10.9M operating cash outflow suggests ~95% of burn is in operating costs (G&A, compensation, exploration OpEx) rather than capital investment — a pattern worth monitoring.
• Security-based compensation was awarded in April 2026, consistent with standard exploration company practice but increasing dilution for existing shareholders.^[S7]
• No acquisitions have been completed (Michigan is an option, not a completed transaction).^[S11]

Capital Allocation Rating: Fair. Cash is going primarily into operating costs rather than directly into the ground — a common but suboptimal pattern for exploration-stage companies. The ratio of G&A-type spend to drilling CapEx warrants scrutiny at the next earnings call.

7c. Insider Ownership & Alignment

Specific insider ownership percentages are not available in the locked data or evidence pack as of May 2026. The following observations are drawn from the available news record.

• Security-based compensation issued in April 2026 — consistent with mgmt retaining equity-linked incentive alignment.^[S7]
• ABCrescent Cooperatief U.A. is a material enough shareholder to require early warning report filings under Canadian securities law, indicating a significant block ownership position.^[S13]
• No evidence of insider selling in the available news record; no Form 4 equivalents or SEDI filings were present in the evidence pack.
• Founder-led structure with CEO retaining domain expertise provides alignment on technical decision-making, though financial engineering experience appears to be a gap.

08 Risk Analysis

8a. Company-Specific (Idiosyncratic) Risks

PSRHF's risk profile is dominated by exploration-stage binary risks and financial survival risks. Any one of the following could be a thesis-ending event, not merely a setback.

• Dry hole / resource failure: If Topaz does not yield commercial-grade helium concentrations in further drilling, the company's primary asset is impaired to near zero.
• Catastrophic dilution: With less than 6 weeks of cash runway (est.) and $10M+ annual burn, a distressed equity raise at deeply discounted prices would destroy per-share value even if the asset proves viable.
• False financing communications: The circulation of false private placement documents by a third party in April 2026 created a credibility risk and regulatory exposure.^[S8][S9]
• Permitting and regulatory delays: Minnesota and Michigan environmental regulations, tribal consultations, and federal leasing requirements could delay drilling timelines materially.
• Key-person risk: CEO Thomas Abraham-James is the primary technical and strategic driver. Departure or incapacitation would be a significant setback for a company this early-stage.

8b. Industry & Macro (Systemic) Risks

• Helium price decline: A recovery in Qatari or Russian supply, or demand destruction from synthetic alternatives in semiconductor processes, could compress realized pricing below project economics.
• Broader junior mining/exploration bear market: OTCQB exploration companies are particularly sensitive to risk appetite — a macro risk-off environment (recession, rate spike) would impair PSRHF's access to capital.
• Commodity substitution: Long-term advances in MRI technology or semiconductor manufacturing processes could structurally reduce helium demand, though this risk is 10+ years out at current pace.

09 Final Recommendation

Pulsar Helium is a leveraged bet on North American helium scarcity — the asset thesis is sound, the market backdrop is favorable, and the Michigan land position demonstrates management's ability to accumulate high-quality acreage. The one thing investors must believe to own this stock is that mgmt can close a non-catastrophically-dilutive financing round before cash runs out, buying enough runway to confirm Topaz's commercial potential. That belief is not yet sufficiently anchored by evidence to warrant a Buy, but the asymmetry from current levels is attractive enough to hold for those with a high risk tolerance and a 24–36 month investment horizon.

10 Open Questions & Narrative Checkpoints

• Question: What are the specific terms, size, and source of the next financing round? Why it matters: With sub-$1.1M cash and $10M+ annual burn, the financing event is binary for the equity — a well-structured raise preserves per-share value while a distressed raise at a deep discount destroys it. This is the single highest-priority item to monitor.^[S9]
• Question: What are the most recent Topaz flow rate and helium concentration data points? Why it matters: Commercial viability thresholds (>0.1% He concentration, economic flow rates) have not been confirmed in available evidence; the entire $175M EV rests on the assumption that Topaz proves commercial.
• Question: Will management exercise the Michigan UP option, and if so, on what timeline and with what capital? Why it matters: The 488,090-acre option is currently exploration-stage with no drilling — it is not a resource, it is a right.^[S11] Exercising and drilling it requires capital the company doesn't currently have.
• Question: What did management communicate in the May 27, 2026 earnings release regarding development timelines and FY2026 cash requirements? Why it matters: The earnings release (next day from report date) will be the first comprehensive mgmt update since the false private placement incident and Michigan option announcement — guidance on burn rate and milestones is critical (as of May 2026).
• Question: What is the status of any offtake discussions with industrial gas majors or end-users? Why it matters: A signed offtake agreement is the prerequisite for project debt financing; without it, PSRHF is structurally locked into equity-only funding, which is inherently dilutive.
• Question: Has the identity of the third party who circulated false private placement communications been determined, and are there regulatory or legal proceedings? Why it matters: This incident creates reputational and legal uncertainty that could complicate legitimate future fundraising from institutional investors.^[S8][S9]
• Question: What is the nature and size of ABCrescent Cooperatief U.A.'s current position, and does it represent a strategic or financial investor? Why it matters: A strategic European investor willing to lead a financing round at reasonable terms would be a materially positive development; a financial investor marking to market may be a source of near-term selling pressure.^[S13]
• Question: What is the current share count and fully-diluted share count including all outstanding options, warrants, and convertible instruments? Why it matters: Security-based compensation was awarded in April 2026; understanding the full dilution stack is essential for per-share NAV modeling and scenarios.^[S7]

Disclaimer: This report is produced by Basis Report Research for informational purposes only. It does not constitute financial advice, an offer to buy or sell securities, or a solicitation of any investment decision. All projections, estimates, and price targets reflect analyst judgment and are subject to material change. Investors should conduct their own due diligence and consult a qualified financial advisor before making investment decisions. Past performance is not indicative of future results. PSRHF is an OTCQB-listed pre-revenue exploration company; investments in such securities carry a high degree of risk, including the potential loss of the entire principal invested.

11 Sources & Data As Of

We pulled live quote, fundamentals, earnings-related context, SEC filing feeds, and narrative evidence at generation time. High-impact claims should be tied to Tier 1 sources where available.

Source modules used: quote, quoteSummary, fundamentalsTimeSeries, fundamentalsTimeSeries(quarterly), chart, server_clock, news.

Report Data Retrieval Timestamp: May 26, 2026, 8:41 PM