Angus Energy Share Discussion Threads

[wolfofthewoods] 28/3/2021 13:40

Dont they have over 25m write off now? I guess this would appeal to someone if buying that allows them to write off the losses (if it is indeed as simple as that). If you bought the company for 10m that would give you an extra 15m - but I have no idea if that is the case.

We do say incompetence but there are provable lies. If I was of the opinion this was fraud, which clearly I am not, then it would be interesting to see where all this money has gone exactly. I mean it isnt as if the people that have been testing and building have strong links to former directors or anything.

Did we find out how a cash strapped former director was able to pay back a £250,000 loan so easily?

Great to see the interim Lucan steering the ship to safe waters. A gas project that looked expensive missing 12m from costs, near zero production from a production company, pay increases for all. I would be quite embarrassed, but then I see the fashion range so...

[ja51oiler] 28/3/2021 13:13

JT.
As I pointed out FORUM ENERGY SERVICES LIMITED seem to have made it almost impossible to see if they have any business that is making a profit by delaying publishing their accounts by six months.

Saltfleetby Energy is showing as, all shares held by FORUM ENERGY SERVICES LIMITED at present. This and the stake in AAOG is all that I can find online. Mr Forrest appears to be the sole person in charge however, and I'll leave it up to you to look into that if you wish. It would seem that Forum also hold the licence area PL005 according to the OGA website so it's safe to assume they would be more than interested in AAOG's tax break should Saltfleetby ever actually produce any gas and associated proffit?

I attach links to companies and addresses and individuals. Those pesky coinkydinks just keep popping up again and again!!

The most interesting one for me is, 38 PRINCES HOUSE JERMYN STREET, LONDON. Have a look at the companies registered there a few years ago when the "Portly Australian 10 gallon hat wearer" was closely involved. I still have my suspicions he is lurking around in the background here?.... Interestingly there is a connection to AAOG here also through SOLO now Scirocco. I did mention a few weeks ago that they talk of acquisitions in an RNS. Sarah Cope from AAOG is on Helium one.s BOD and Scirocco have a stake in them. Then there is the connection of the directors to Prim through DOR and off course Rupert L.

I digress,..... I think you would agree that the Saltfleetby deal was in the pipeline long before us mere mortals were led to believe. The question for me is are they so spectacularly incompetent as to get the sums so wrong or is there something else going on here?

GL talked to Macly in April last year of Wingas employing Halliburton to Reconnect a supply @ "Rolls Royce" £15 Million costs!! This is bizarre because as we now know he had been talking to a bank about a £12million loan since march? Yet still was maintaining they could get it done for a mere £2.5 Million!

Given the number of porkies that have been told I would suggest the latter or a combination of the two.

Link to Malcy Interview.





THE ORWELL GROUP LTD


BROUWER PRETORIUS LIMITED


SALTFLEETBY ENERGY LIMITED


FORUM ENERGY SERVICES LIMITED


38 PRINCES HOUSE JERMYN STREET, LONDON

WESTPOINT 4 REDHEUGHS RIGG SOUTH GYLE, EDINBURGH

BUILDING 3 CHISWICK PARK 566 CHISWICK HIGH STREET, LONDON

[jtidsbadly] 28/3/2021 10:50

gkb47: e decem unum. For an example of the proper use of “decimate̶1;, The Earl of Clanwilliam decimated his digits. My final word on the topic, I hope. Dorothy.

[jtidsbadly] 27/3/2021 18:27

Gkb47: yes, but you can sense their reluctance, can’t you? The first definition is the preferred one, I think!

I’ll settle for @Dorothy, then..

Dorothy.

[jtidsbadly] 27/3/2021 15:15

Wolfofthewoods: I’m sure they could get Mr. Hollis to give it his imprimatur. If the water stops running, they can pump in some more. Excellent, what? Or, as the tubby Okker might put it “you wouldn't read about it”.

[wolfofthewoods] 27/3/2021 14:57

I think selling Brockham spring water should be the next thing for Angus to work on. It will also save on the £49 disposal costs, and as we know, no oil is ever produced so will be safe for human consumption.

We can even get the fat aussie to get on twitter about it.

[jtidsbadly] 27/3/2021 14:02

gkb47: I looked it up in one of my old English prizes, the concise version of the Oxford dictionary. Reduce in number by one in ten. Cambridge has always been the place for science - and bibles. Wiktionary(!) says the word’s use to mean “reduce to a tenth” is “proscribed221;. You know what that means (unless millennials have dreamt up a new meaning for that as well). Reduce to a tenth would be redigere decimum - I had to look that up. On the web though, so don’t rely on it. I got rid of my Lewis and Short years ago.

I am not pedantic.

@Dorothy?

[jtidsbadly] 27/3/2021 12:47

Gkb47: would you point out to balancedviewer that decimate means to reduce by a tenth, not reduce to a tenth, please?

[jtidsbadly] 27/3/2021 10:17

JA51: do you know if it has happened before, that one of these small onshore oil explorers with ongoing abandonment/restoration liabilities has gone bust/been dissolved? If so, who paid to restore their drilling sites?

[jtidsbadly] 27/3/2021 10:05

Alan2017: it’s not Shakespeare either.

[jtidsbadly] 27/3/2021 09:20

JA51: thanks for this. Does Forum have profits enough to be able to use big tax losses? As I understand it, losses like those sustained by Angus can only be used to offset against oil and gas profits.

Is it likely that Gazprom will have left anything for Forum? I’d imagined that they did a very advantageous deal with an entrepreneur who went on to lay off all the risk with an inexperienced and gullible investor and left himself with a free carried interest. In the event that Poundland made lots of money, he could pay his share of the (pipeline) abandonment costs. If Poundland fails, he walks away. No one in charge of a dissolved company seems to get pursued for such costs. They’ll end up with the taxpayer. I take your point about the delay in the SE accounts, though!

Four days to get a loan and Anguish must already be running on fumes again. The new boys should get their expenses invoice in smartly. In the absence of a loan and in view of their going concern status, would you take part in a placing? I wouldn’t. Though the recent support at 0.8p may suggest they’re discussing one. Next week is going to be quite important.

[jtidsbadly] 26/3/2021 14:42

gkb47: I’ve stirred a controversy, I see. Anguish is like Jack and the Beanstalk, isn’t it? The old cow stops giving milk, so George takes her to market to sell but no one wants a cow that doesn’t give milk. So on the way home he meets a dodgy character with some magic beans and swaps the cow for them. Does any of this sound familiar? He plants the beans and the outcome of that could hardly be called positive either, could it?

The cheerleaders over there are bovine, too.

[jtidsbadly] 26/3/2021 13:08

gkb47: they’ll need to rename it Highland Energy. Those appear to be highlands cattle, not Angus.

[jtidsbadly] 26/3/2021 10:35

The stale bulls and sock puppets are feeling justified
Just four more days for Aleph, or Anguish may be fried.
And now it’s not just them - the new boys on the block -
Chickndinner too is noticing the ticking of the clock!

A 6-month office lease is proving quite sufficient
For people who in raising loans don’t seem to be proficient.
Have they had their money yet - their “reasonable expenses”?
If it’s still in “short-term creditors” they may soon come to their senses.

[jtidsbadly] 26/3/2021 08:46

JA51: I had a look again last evening at HSBC’s holding history here. They seem to have backed the Earl of Lucan in January 2019, when he replaced Paul Vonk. So it’s hard to interpret this recent sale as a vote of confidence, isn’t it?

Re the application, Anguish don’t seem to have filled in the sections detailing their expertise in operating such a site or dealing with waste products. I can think of one or two reasons why they would have felt it preferable not to fill in the financial section.

What’s the connection you’re drawing between Anguish and AAOG as far as Forum is concerned?

[ja51oiler] 26/3/2021 08:22

Gibbon....Know one believes you.

Any thoughts about why GL failed to fill in the Financial and ability/qualifications section on the forms?...or why they have ticked the raw sewerage box?.....Looks like they don't need a flare now either???

[ja51oiler] 26/3/2021 07:32

Morning all, Been busy for a few days so haven't posted.

So it could well be the same HSBC holders that sold out that JTW used oust Vonk, looking at the Q&A page? That's not a vote of confidence in the loan negotiations if that's the case.

So a question. If the loan was to happen, (It is however looking more and more likely there is no actual money forthcoming) why wouldn't Forum Energy Services (Angus's Ultimate 49% partner in Saltfeetby} want to delay it until the 5th of May. That's, when they can take full control over AAOG and shaft the shareholders as the company, will have to leave aim for good, They could then take advantage of the Tax-loss there.
This would also explain the Forum And Salfleetby Energy accounts being delayed?

Had a look at the Brockham EA paperwork as well. How GL can Justify paying himself £120k when filling in basic forms seems too much for him, is a mystery!! Can't see them getting the EA to budge on removing it if they take the paperwork submitted as a mark of competency.

[jtidsbadly] 25/3/2021 12:11

gkb47: no, it wouldn’t!

I wonder if “expenditure to date” - which must mean short term creditors - includes justifiable expenses owed to the new boys on the block at Scout Lane. A question might be raised on the Q&A asking how much they’ve spent/owe in the search for a loan. Not that it matters, one wonders if the existing questions will be answered.

[jtidsbadly] 25/3/2021 11:44

gkb47: I think the fact that the interim MD said a while ago that he regularly updated Knowe, Rupert, the Australian shareholder etc. on developments at Anguish and that they were all supportive of the company, it would probably be safe to describe all the large shareholders as falling within the LSE description of an insider. Or it would be unsafe for them to assume they aren’t.

[jtidsbadly] 25/3/2021 11:24

hits: yes, precisely. Poundland’s negative value should probably reflect the potential cost of abandonment as well. I can’t see any value in the Weald assets either. That Lidsey/Brockham presentation was, in my view, a transparent justification for a reversal of the abandonment provision made in October 2019 - no more, no less. Window dressing.

It’s just possible that Shell might look at Poundland for its potential use as a storage facility and for the tax losses. If they bought it for that purpose, they wouldn’t have to worry about abandonment costs for many years. But they might prefer to bid for AEWB3 from the administrator, if it comes to that.

It’s the inclusion of “expenditure to date” that makes this look like an immediate risk to the investor, for me. I think, as I’ve said before, that if I were the NomAd, I’d want a formal conversation with the management, with their bank statements, next week, if there’s no loan forthcoming by then. On current evidence (including the above extracts from note 3:3 to the recent accounts) if I were them I wouldn’t want to be involved with trying to arrange further finance for this from next week.

[headinthesand] 25/3/2021 11:08

JTids, if it does come to that, I'd like to know what's the actual realisable value of any assets that ANGS owns?

What price would you put on Poundland? Minus £2.5 million would seem the best case commonsensical projection currently...

And on Balcombe? Just looking at planning refusal alone (and entirely forgetting about whether it's even viably monetisable)... what revenue potential would any buyer ascribe to that to offset its abandonment costs?

Same question for Lidsey... and Brockham?

What has this company actually got that's in any way reasonably viewable as worth anything at all? Apart from negative worth, that is?

[jtidsbadly] 25/3/2021 09:55

Stale bulls have no desire to see the price lower, so it seems to me they’re holding off and seeing how far this little ramp will go. Short term price movements based on low volumes are not reliable. People need to keep this, below, in mind (from the Report and Accounts):

“... Although there will remain material uncertainty until the funds have been drawn down, the Directors are confident in closing the facility imminently. Based on the current management’s plan, management considered that the working capital from the expected revenue generation and the Saltfleetby Debt Financing Facility are sufficient for the expenditure to date as well as the planned forecast expenditure for the forthcoming twelve months from the date of the approval of this financial statement. As a result of that review the Directors consider that it is appropriate to adopt the going concern basis of preparation.
As noted above, in the event that the Group is not successful in concluding the debt financing arrangements, there would exist a material uncertainty that may cast doubt regarding the Group’s ability to continue as a going concern and therefore, it might be required to raise additional funding to realise its assets and extinguish its liabilities in the normal course of business and at the amounts stated in the report.”

The wording is confusing but its import is clear. If they don’t get a loan, they’ll need to raise more money in order to sell their existing assets and pay back their creditors.. at the amounts stated in the report!! What “revenue generation” are they referring to? There won’t be any from the Weald this year, even if they can raise the money needed to get to whatever oil may be present. Saltfleetby appears to be another year away. They seem to be saying they need not just the £12mm. loan but the Management’s forecast revenues to pay off expenditure TO DATE and for the next 12 months. How is this a bankable proposition?