2025 was a year where narrative began to separate from delivery across the AIM and Aquis energy space. In several cases, long-dated assets moved closer to sanction or first production, while others were forced through hard resets around funding, execution, or regulatory friction.
What linked all of these companies was not commodity price moves, but how quickly capital markets repriced probability, credibility, and timing. This article looks back at how ten UK-listed energy and helium names actually traded through those realities in 2025, and what that tells investors about where genuine momentum may, or may not, emerge in 2026.
Borders and Southern (AIM: BOR)
Borders and Southern Petroleum has had one of those quietly powerful AIM re-ratings that tends to happen when a long dated asset starts to look less theoretical and more financeable. The shares recently closed at around 9.55p, and the timing matters because sentiment around the Falklands basin has shifted from “interesting geology” to “projects can actually be sanctioned” following the Sea Lion milestone. Borders is still pre revenue, but the market is clearly pricing in a higher probability of a partner led path to appraisal, then development, rather than another cycle of waiting for “the right time”.
Borders’ value sits almost entirely in its ownership of the Darwin gas condensate discovery in the South Falkland Basin, where it holds 100% of three contiguous Production Licences covering close to 10,000 square kilometres around 150 kilometres south east of the Falkland Islands. Darwin was drilled in 2012, encountering a thick, high quality reservoir with gas condensate across multiple intervals, giving the project a defined geological foundation rather than an untested exploration concept. Subsequent technical work has delineated Darwin East and Darwin West, allowing for a phased appraisal and development pathway that relies on conventional deepwater offshore infrastructure rather than bespoke or high risk engineering solutions. Independent analysis referenced by the company points to up to 462 million barrels of recoverable liquids on an unrisked basis, a scale that places Darwin firmly within the range where commercial partnerships and project financing can be realistically pursued rather than merely anticipated.
What has changed in 2025 is not the geology, it is the corporate posture. In the six months to 30 June 2025, Borders reported an operating loss of $441,000 and a cash balance of $3.2 million, and it highlighted a successful £2.2 million raise to keep Darwin moving towards appraisal, while pushing the farm out process forward with Houlihan Lokey running it. The same interim statement highlights that the company has sufficient funds to cover expected overheads until the end of 2026, which is the important bit, because it reduces the pressure to do serial fundraises at weak moments. The trade-off is that cash runway buys time, not outcomes, and the real value inflection still sits with partner terms, appraisal design, and the market’s view on whether Darwin can move through a credible decision tree without shareholders being diluted into irrelevance.
Looking into 2026, the key external reference point remains the Sea Lion final investment decision, because it demonstrates that the Falklands basin can now support sanctioned offshore developments. Borders has been clear that this shift should refocus industry attention on the Darwin gas condensate discovery, moving it from a long-dated concept toward a partner-led appraisal pathway. The Falkland Islands government has also framed Sea Lion as part of a broader push to create a stable fiscal and regulatory environment, which matters when potential farm-in partners assess risk over multi-year timelines. For investors, the opportunity in 2026 lies in whether a credible farm-out structure can be secured on sensible terms, while the risk remains that funding mechanics, execution timing, and commodity prices continue to dominate sentiment before Darwin’s scale can be fully reflected in valuation.
Eco (Atlantic) Oil & Gas (AIM: ECO)
Eco (Atlantic) Oil & Gas spent much of the second half of the year under pressure, with the shares trading just below 10 pence in July before drifting to around 7.6 pence in early December. That trend reversed sharply after the company announced a strategic partnership with Navitas Petroleum on 17 December 2025. The share price spiked to 24.2 pence on the same day, reflecting market enthusiasm for the new arrangement. This context matters because it shows how quickly sentiment can shift in exploration-stage energy stocks when a perceived strategic inflection point is reached.
Eco’s portfolio includes acreage in Guyana, Namibia, and South Africa, focused on basins with proven hydrocarbon systems. In Guyana, the company holds 100 percent of the Orinduik Block, adjacent to ExxonMobil’s Stabroek Basin, where drilling at Jethro-1 and Joe-1 confirmed active hydrocarbons. In South Africa, Eco retains interests in Block 3B/4B and operatorship of Block 1 CBK in the Orange Basin, alongside discoveries by major operators. In Namibia, it has significant positions in the Walvis Basin licences, a region that has attracted growing industry attention.
The Navitas partnership was the clear catalyst for the abrupt repricing in December because it linked Eco directly to the Falklands development cycle through Navitas’ leadership on the Sea Lion project. The announcement implied potential commercial optionality that the market had struggled to value previously, giving investors a narrative beyond standalone exploration. Eco’s September 2025 interim results showed that cash balances remained modest at $2.06 million at period end, and the company continued to report operating losses typical of an exploration company. That report also highlighted expected milestone payments of up to $11.5 million from joint venture partners in South Africa, which eased near-term dilution pressures. The firm also completed the farm-out of its entire working interest in the Sharon licence in Namibia, retaining contingent upside while reducing capital commitments.
Looking forward to 2026, the strategic partnership with Navitas Petroleum becomes the central reference point for how Eco’s portfolio is likely to be viewed by the market. The link to the Sea Lion development reframes Eco’s exposure from long-dated exploration optionality toward alignment with a sanctioned offshore project, even if Eco itself remains pre-revenue. For retail investors, progress in 2026 is likely to be judged less on exploration headlines and more on whether the partnership translates into tangible commercial pathways or portfolio-level transactions. The opportunity lies in Eco leveraging its Atlantic Margin positioning into partner-driven momentum, while the risk remains that timelines extend and sentiment once again turns before value crystallisation is visible.
Helium One Global (AIM: HE1)
The second half of 2025 was a difficult period for Helium One Global, marked by a sharp reset in investor confidence rather than any collapse in the underlying helium thesis. After trading between 0.9 pence and 1.0 pence through the first half, the shares slipped from around 1.02 pence in mid-July to below 0.3 pence by mid-September, before stabilising near 0.44 pence at the time of writing. That decline reflected a market increasingly focused on execution risk, funding mechanics, and delivery timelines rather than long-term helium scarcity. In a cautious AIM environment, early-stage energy stocks without near-term production were repriced aggressively.
Operationally, the company spent much of the period advancing its flagship Southern Rukwa project in Tanzania from discovery toward appraisal. Extended testing at the Itumbula West 1 well had previously demonstrated sustained helium concentrations averaging 5.5 percent with peaks of 7.6 percent, results that remained central to the investment case throughout the year. A key regulatory milestone came with the award of a 480 square kilometre Mining Licence in July 2025, materially strengthening the pathway toward development. Despite this progress, the market remained cautious, weighing technical advances against ongoing capital requirements.
Alongside Tanzania, Helium One also progressed its US exposure through a 50 percent working interest in the Galactica Pegasus project in Colorado. Updates during the second half of the year confirmed continued development work, culminating in a late-2025 announcement that the production facility had reached substantial completion. This project has increasingly been viewed as a nearer-dated validation point due to its regulatory setting and shorter path to first gas. Even so, the share price response suggested investors were waiting for delivery rather than guidance.
Looking ahead into 2026, the focus for retail investors is likely to narrow around execution rather than exploration potential. In Tanzania, further flow testing and development clarity at Southern Rukwa will matter more than additional discovery headlines, particularly if results support repeatable production metrics. In the US, the transition from construction to first gas at Galactica Pegasus represents a tangible catalyst that could begin to change how the company is valued if timelines are met. The opportunity lies in Helium One converting technical success into operational momentum, while the risk remains that delays or funding pressure continue to weigh on sentiment despite the strategic importance of helium in global supply chains.
Helix Exploration (AIM: HEX)
Helix’s 2025 share price action has been defined by momentum, then consolidation, rather than a smooth trend. The shares moved from around 12 pence in mid-April to 28 pence in early July, then spent the rest of the period fluctuating as the market re-priced execution risk against progress updates. More recently, the stock has been trading near 28.72 pence, suggesting investors still see a credible path to production, but want continued delivery. In practical terms, the second half of 2025 became a test of whether operational milestones could keep pace with expectations embedded in the valuation.
Operationally, Helix has centred its story on Montana, with the flagship Rudyard project moving through a drill, test, and build sequence that retail investors could follow in real time. The company’s programme progressed from the commencement of civils at Linda-1 into the commencement of drilling at Linda-1, then the completion of drilling at Linda-1. The attention point for the market was how that drilling translated into flow data, first via the flow testing update for Linda-1 and Weil-1, then the flow test results at Linda-1. Along the way, Helix also broadened its market access through admission to trading on the OTCQB market, which helped reinforce the “US helium production” framing.
The second half also featured a parallel track of work aimed at expanding the production base beyond a single well outcome. Helix moved the rig into the next phase with the mobilisation of the drilling rig to Inez-1, followed by the commencement of drilling at Inez-1 and the completion of drilling at Inez-1. The build-out side of the story advanced through the commencement of plant construction, and investor focus then shifted to whether testing confirmed the next layer of commercial potential via the successful Inez-1 flow test and gas results. In the background, the company continued to reference upside outside Rudyard through projects like Ingomar, which sits more in the option value category until it becomes a near-term work programme.
Looking into 2026, the retail investor focus is likely to be less about broad helium narratives and more about whether Helix can turn its Montana assets into repeatable production and cash flow, well by well. The company has continued to publish operational cadence updates at Rudyard, including the project update at the flagship Rudyard project and the subsequent Rudyard project updates, which will be the kind of disclosures the market uses to judge delivery. The opportunity in 2026 is that successful tie-ins, production performance, and scaling could begin to shift the valuation from “promise” to “cash-generating model”, especially if additional wells come online broadly in line with the company’s stated growth ambitions in its April 2025 presentation. The risk remains that timelines slip, production ramps underwhelm, or further funding becomes necessary, any of which can quickly compress multiples in this part of the AIM market.
Pulsar Helium (AIM: PLSR)
Pulsar spent much of 2025 rangebound, then delivered one of the more dramatic helium re-ratings of the autumn. The shares traded between 22 pence and 29 pence for most of the year, then jumped from 23.5 pence on 30th September to 56 pence by 15th October, before retracing to 45 pence at the time of writing. The move coincided with a burst of Topaz news flow that pulled the company out of the “early-stage optionality” bucket and into a more specific appraisal narrative. In practice, the market treated October as a moment where the upside case became easier to visualise, even if the company is still pre revenue.
The centre of gravity is the Topaz project in Minnesota, where Pulsar has been building an appraisal dataset around the Jetstream wells. The company has reported sustained helium concentrations of 7.8% and separately flagged a helium-3 angle at Jetstream-1. Operational momentum continued through the appraisal sequence, including the statement that Jetstream-3 encountered gas near 1,000 psi and subsequent updates around Jetstream-4 and the start of Jetstream-5 drilling. Away from Minnesota, the company also holds the Tunu project in Greenland, with a technical and commercial pathway framed around helium and geothermal potential in its MD&A dated 29 August 2025.
Funding and execution risk remained part of the second half story, even as the October catalyst improved sentiment. Pulsar moved to preserve financing flexibility through the filing of a preliminary short-form base shelf, a step that signalled optionality rather than a fully funded development path. The company has also continued to manage its capital structure through measures such as security-based compensation awards, reinforcing that funding discipline remains an active consideration. For retail investors, this keeps attention firmly on whether operational progress can outpace capital requirements as appraisal work continues.
Looking into 2026, the retail investor case is likely to hinge on whether Topaz continues to convert “pressure and gas shows” into repeatable, scalable well performance across the Jetstream programme, rather than relying on one standout headline. The company’s ability to maintain appraisal momentum, while keeping financing controlled, will matter as much as any single RNS, especially after the market has already paid up for the October rerate. There is also a secondary narrative in how management balances focus, with Topaz as the core value driver and Greenland’s Tunu as longer-dated option value that needs clear milestones to stay relevant. The opportunity is that sustained operational delivery could support a firmer valuation floor than 2025’s trading range implied, while the risk is that timelines, funding requirements, or well-to-well variability pull the shares back into a high volatility loop.
Union Jack Oil (AIM: UJO)
Union Jack’s 2025 share price was a steady grind lower, from 12.5p in early March to about 2.20p at the time of writing. The move has looked less like a judgement on whether the company has assets, and more like a judgement on timelines and UK sector sentiment. In its half-year report, the company still presented itself as debt free with cash and producing interests on both sides of the Atlantic. The problem for retail investors in 2025 was that “steady operations” did not translate into a higher rating while the broader AIM tape stayed risk-off.
In the UK, the cash engine remains the Wressle oilfield, which the company, at half year, said had generated over US$23 million net to Union Jack before taxes and produced over 735,000 barrels to date. Operationally, the year also brought a clear positive at Keddington, with the resumption of production following site upgrades. West Newton remains the longer-dated swing factor, and the company continues to frame PEDL183 as a project that could surprise if regulatory and development choices align. The key point is that these UK assets are tangible, but they are still constrained by planning and approvals, which is exactly what has weighed on sentiment.
The second half of 2025 also leaned into the US diversification story, with Union Jack backing a drilling programme in Oklahoma through Reach and related partners. The company raised £2 million to fund growth, then progressed the Sark well via the spud announcement and subsequent Sark updates. The US angle matters because it is where management is trying to build a repeatable drill and monetise model that is less exposed to UK planning delays. Even so, the market has treated this as “prove it, then re-rate”, which helps explain why announcements alone did not halt the share price slide.
Looking into 2026, the retail investor case is likely to hinge on whether Union Jack can show visible progress on two fronts, sustaining UK cash generation while demonstrating that the US programme can deliver repeatable, financeable outcomes. In the UK, the next signals will be how quickly Wressle’s development pathway clears approvals, and whether planning resolution at assets like Biscathorpe moves forward after the latest planning update. In the US, the focus will stay on drilling and testing outcomes, plus whether capital is deployed efficiently without the market fearing constant fundraising. The opportunity is that a clearer 2026 delivery track can rebuild confidence in the cash flow story, while the risk remains that UK regulatory drag and uneven US results keep the shares trapped in a low-multiple valuation despite operational work continuing.
Rockhopper Exploration (AIM: RKH)
By the second half of 2025, the Falklands investment case shifted from abstract probability to delivery-led valuation, with Sea Lion moving firmly into focus. Against that backdrop, Rockhopper’s shares rose steadily from 22 pence at the start of the year to 71.40 pence at the time of writing. The re-rating reflected a tightening sequence of de-risking milestones rather than any new exploration success. Investors increasingly treated Rockhopper as a development-stage company with a clear gating event, rather than a long-dated AIM optionality trade.
The core of that shift was progress at the Sea Lion field, where Navitas Petroleum acts as operator with a 65 percent interest and Rockhopper retains 35 percent. An independent resource evaluation published earlier in the year set out a development-pending resource of 255 million barrels net to Rockhopper and framed the project within a commercial valuation context. As confidence grew around timing and structure, the market began pricing Sea Lion as a project moving toward sanction rather than a perpetual future option. That distinction underpinned much of the steady upward movement in the shares through 2025.
Away from Sea Lion, balance sheet risk was materially reduced through progress on Italy. Rockhopper confirmed the failure of the arbitration annulment attempt and subsequently secured insurance proceeds of €31 million, providing meaningful liquidity and closing off a long-running overhang. The company also agreed the disposal of its Italian assets, significantly reducing future abandonment liabilities. Together, those steps helped shift investor focus back to Falklands execution rather than legal uncertainty.
Funding structure was the final pillar supporting the re-rating. Rockhopper put in place a conditional US$140 million placing, with funds held in escrow pending project milestones, removing immediate dilution risk while maintaining flexibility. Following the final investment decision on Sea Lion and subsequent financial close, attention now turns to execution through 2026. For retail investors, the opportunity lies in a rare AIM situation where a sanctioned offshore project anchors valuation, while the risk remains that timelines, cost control, or external politics reassert pressure before first oil becomes visible.
Petro Matad (AIM: MATD)
Mongolia is a practical oil province, where production uptime, trucking, processing access, and payment mechanics often matter as much as subsurface interpretation. That made 2025 a volatile year for Petro Matad, with the shares moving from 1.47p to 2.32p by late May, falling to 0.72p by late July, then recovering to 1.05p more recently. The year became a tug of war between capital structure headlines and operational delivery. By the second half, the market was watching less for exploration excitement and more for evidence of repeatable, paid-for production.
The mid-year sell-off closely tracked financing and the way dilution resets sentiment on AIM before the benefits of new capital become visible. Petro Matad set out a proposed capital raising and then confirmed the placing and subscription outcome, alongside the retail offer and the result of the retail offer. That sequence provided runway, but also brought the cost of staying funded into the open. The more constructive part of the year followed once the company returned focus to field operations and export rhythm.
Operationally, 2025 was about proving Block XX could move beyond single-well dependence and operate as a small production and export system. The company’s year-end report set out steady production at Heron 1 and the development and tie-in work that supported second-well progress at Gazelle 1. The report goes on and describes first oil on 31st October 2025, plus early production behaviour as clean-up and water handling were worked through. It also outlines the export route via Block XIX facilities into China, and a revenue expectation for 2025 net oil sales of more than $2.5 million. The practical takeaway from the second half is that the company began shifting the narrative from “plan” to “operating steps”, even if volumes remained modest.
Looking into 2026, the valuation debate is likely to be driven by whether Petro Matad can turn a working export loop into a predictable operating rhythm, and whether it can do so without another confidence-sapping financing round. The company’s stated programme includes further work on Heron 2, continued optimisation at Gazelle 1, and a deferred test at Gobi Bear 1 once near-term priorities are cleared. It also references longer-dated options such as 3D seismic and partner discussions that could fund upside without overstretching the balance sheet. For retail investors, the opportunity is that a steadier production and cash collection profile can rebuild credibility, while the risk remains that logistics, counterparties, and capital needs reintroduce volatility just as the market expects smoother quarters.
Mendell Helium (AQSE: MDH)
The second half of 2025 was a reminder that micro-cap helium shares can trade on narrative momentum first, and operational proof second, particularly when crypto themes get blended into the story. Mendell’s share price spiked from 2.25p to 5.5p in July, then fell back below 2p through the summer before recovering above 3p in late September and reaching 3p at the time of writing. That pattern broadly matched investor attention swinging between “optional upside” and “what is actually producing today”. The market context is that helium has industrial value, but small-cap valuations still hinge on demonstrable flow rates and credible plans to fund the next steps.
The July excitement was closely tied to the company’s move into a combined “helium and bitcoin” narrative, with announcements around preparation for bitcoin mining and a follow-on bitcoin mining update linked to the Fort Dodge strategy. That is also reflected in the company’s stated bitcoin treasury approach, which gave the stock a second audience beyond conventional energy investors. The risk with that positioning is obvious, it can amplify volatility because the share price ends up reflecting both helium execution risk and bitcoin sentiment swings. The benefit is that it can attract capital and attention at moments when pure helium stories struggle to be noticed on a small exchange.
As the year progressed, the price recovery into late September was supported more by operational milestones in Nebraska than by crypto narrative alone. The company provided a sequence of updates on the Rost work programme, including de-watering at Rost, a Nebraska production update, and the statement that helium production commenced at Rost. Late in the year, the company also published an updated flow rate on the Rost 1-26 well, which is the kind of datapoint retail investors can anchor to when trying to judge whether the story is maturing. In parallel, the company continued to manage timelines around Fort Dodge through an option extension update, keeping that asset as longer-dated optionality rather than an immediate driver.
Looking into 2026, the retail investor expectation should be that Mendell is judged primarily on operational stability and clarity of corporate structure, not on one-off headlines. The company’s half-year report confirms the option timeline around its proposed acquisition structure has been extended to 28 February 2026, which makes the next few months important for removing uncertainty about the end-state of the group. The upside case is that sustained production performance at Rost, plus a cleaner roadmap on Fort Dodge, can turn the company into a more conventional cash-flowing helium story with a speculative bitcoin overlay. The risk is that if production rates disappoint, or the corporate timetable drifts again, the shares revert to trading mainly on sentiment and liquidity rather than fundamentals.
Quantum Helium (AIM: QHE)
Small cap helium names had another speculative year on AIM, with price action often driven more by third party resource headlines than by near term cash flow delivery. Quantum Helium’s shares spiked from 0.0265p in mid-March to 0.0625p in early May, then slid back toward 0.02p by late July as momentum faded. Into December, the stock was still near 0.0245p on 8 December, before recovering to 0.036p at the time of writing as attention returned to its US helium narrative. That late move was widely reported in retail circles and, effectively, put the QHE story back on the radar.
Operationally, the second half of 2025 was about positioning its US portfolio around third party technical work, permitting steps, and capital raises, rather than rushing into expensive drilling promises. The company leaned heavily on the credibility boost of a Sproule-related Coyote Wash prospective resource release, and earlier updates that framed Sagebrush and Coyote Wash as priority assets within its US operations. A practical milestone investors often look for, because it suggests the work is moving from slides to field execution, was the start of 3D seismic acquisition at Sagebrush. The company also went through a formal identity change during the year, renaming from Mosman Oil and Gas to Quantum Helium.
Funding was the other defining thread, because helium exploration timelines rarely line up neatly with AIM investors’ patience. The company raised cash via a £1.67 million placing and supported it with a retail offer, which helped keep the programme moving while the market waited for the next data point. Investors also got periodic clarity on the asset mix and priorities through the company’s stated milestones and broader footprint that includes Australia, although the valuation debate remained anchored in the US helium opportunity. This is where sentiment can flip quickly, because resource headlines can move the price first, and the financing terms that follow can shape the medium term outcome.
Looking into 2026, the retail investor question is simple, can the company turn technical narrative into something that looks commercially actionable without constant dilution. If the post seismic interpretation and next round of field activity can translate into clearer development decisions, then the market has a reason to treat the Sproule work as a foundation rather than a one off catalyst. If progress slips or funding becomes more expensive, the shares can just as easily drift back toward the lower end of the year’s range, because helium stories tend to punish delays. The sensible stance is balanced, there is upside if execution and capital discipline land well, but the risk profile stays high until results and economics start doing more of the work than headlines.
Final thoughts
Across all ten companies, 2025 reinforced a simple lesson for retail investors: valuation moves fastest when uncertainty collapses, not when potential expands. Sea Lion’s progression reshaped perceptions across the Falklands names, while helium equities showed how quickly sentiment can oscillate between technical promise and execution scepticism. Going into 2026, the market is likely to be less forgiving of vague timelines and more responsive to repeatable delivery, stable funding structures, and tangible progress toward cash flow. The opportunity remains real in several of these stories, but the balance of power has shifted firmly toward companies that can demonstrate control, discipline, and momentum rather than ambition alone.
A prosperous New Year to one and all, and good luck for 2026!
Disclaimer: The information presented in this article represents the opinions and research of the author and is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be, nor should it be interpreted as, financial, investment, or legal advice. Investors are encouraged to perform their own due diligence and consult with qualified financial advisors before making any investment decisions. Investing in small-cap stocks involves significant risks, and past performance is not indicative of future results. The author and publisher are not liable for any financial losses or actions taken based on the content of this article.
