Angus Energy Share Discussion Threads

[jtidsbadly] 02/4/2021 17:27

HITS: have a look at my replies to gkb47 re salaries. I think it’s a semantics issue. From the date that these Directors were appointed as Directors, they probably haven't had a salary rise. The interim MD was appointed in Jan/Feb 2019, a third of the way through the financial year. Carlos and Hollis were promoted to Director half way through the financial year. So the latter two got £60,000 as Directors that year, and had their full salary of £120,000 in the 2019/2020 financial year. I think that’s what’s happened but the curt reply to the question makes you wonder, and wonder whether they’re not getting a tad fed up with answering questions.

I agree, as you know, with your point that Lidsey and Brockham have been dragged back into the picture, kicking and screaming, merely so that their respective abandonment provisions, or a large part of them, can be written back in the accounts.

Re the Company’s going concern status, it was this that caught my eye:

“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.”

Raise additional funding to realise its assets and extinguish its liabilities. Does this mean what I think it does? And they need more money imminently in any case by my calculation.

[johncasey] 02/4/2021 17:21

block energy the one to be in tuesday morning...boom time

[headinthesand] 02/4/2021 16:24

Oh and the sudden attempted magical resurrection of Brockham and Lidsey had two simple, obvious and related purposes, namely:-

1. A desperate attempt to persuade investors that there's more to ANGS's "asset" base than just Poundland, given that the purchase of the latter is looking more and more like the worst deal ever,

and

2. An equally desperate attempt to maintain the pretence in the face of bodies such as the OGA that there's still some form of life in both sites (there isn't) so that ANGS doesn't have to face two immediate and of course utterly unaffordable bills for the abandonment of both.

[ja51oiler] 02/4/2021 15:50

JT. We both have that suspicion, but its worth pointing out for any newbies and of course our newly renamed In-sincero1!
It also re-enforces what the Auditors say in Section 3.3 of the annual accounts. No PP at Brockham, Lidsey water disposal @ £49 a barrel is nu-commercial without drilling an injector well there, & the dead as a duck Balcombe it's then Saltfleetby or bust literally if that loan doesn't materialize in the next few weeks.

It also makes those Inter Alia (amongst other things)offerings they talked of in the financing RNS seem a lot less tempting. Just 2 more De-Commissioning payments to make if Saltfleetby doesn't produce as hoped for.

-------------------------------------------

I was interested to read the full version of the annual accounts and this from the Auditors. Page 37, So even the auditors are expecting them to try and raise more money, even without taking the £12million loan into account, or am I reading it wrong?

"Material uncertainty related to going concernOn forming our opinion on the financial statements, which is not modified, we have considered the adequacy of the disclosure made in note 3.3 to the financial statements concerning the group and company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements have been prepared on the going concern basis, which depends on the group and company’s ability to raise further financing to cover its ongoing working capital requirements. These conditions, along with other matters explained in note 3.3 to the financial statements, indicate the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast a significant doubt about the group and company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include adjustments that would result if the group and company were unable to continue as a going concern."

And this on Page 23 caught my eye.

"The AIM Rules compliance committee met three times during the period under review to discuss Jonathan Tidswell-Pretorius and general compliance issues."

Interesting what??

hxxps://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Annual-Report-and-Accounts-and-Notice-of-Annual-General-Meeting.pdf

[headinthesand] 02/4/2021 15:36

I'd like to understand any possible justification for the apparently blatant and barefaced lie told by ANGS in response to a very recent investor question, to wit:-

Investor Question: "Have there been any rises in the executive Board pay in the last two years?" (asked on March 15th 2021)

Angus Answer: "No"

Huh??? How can that answer possibly be made to stack up with the figures as issued in the FY 2020 Annual Report which clearly showed all remaining board directors having awarded themselves an average 52%+ payrise?

Surely George can't be being deliberately disingenuous enough to count Vonk's one-off £300k severance payment in 2019 into his figures, can he?

[jtidsbadly] 02/4/2021 13:51

Alan2017: the Freddie Holt thing was on Twitter early last month, I think.

JA51: the recent revival of Brockham and Lidsey was a smokescreen in any case. They haven’t got money to do anything at either place.

[ja51oiler] 02/4/2021 13:34

JT>
Not just this year I suspect. It's game over for Brockham and Lidsey if SCC turns down any PP they submitted. I would suggest this would be highly likely given the history with Angus.

Brockham is a played-out site, and the water injector is just a story to get shot of the water from Lindsey and SCC will know it. Hardly likely they will approve what they will see as dumping of waste from elsewhere to help out a company who has caused them so much trouble. and to confirm see below,

" Chairman, Tim Hall, tells the committee:

“I do say to Angus, in the nicest possible way, you have been the least reliable hydrocarbon applicant we have dealt with. The fracas over this application at the start and the less than clear and open position you took with us does not fill myself or the Vice Chairman with great cheer.

“Since then however you have appointed sensible professional advisers, one of whom is in the room, and you have done all the things we would expect from any applicant. But, we do feel more than a little bit annoyed as an authority, a little bit irritated, and I would say to you – having sat and watched an awful lot of Mr Vonk’s YouTube video coverage, sent to me by a series of objectors, – consistency of approach and validity and evidence will be expected at every stage and, if it is not consistent, the nice people from the Environment section, who are sitting at the back of the room, will be round to talk to you, with our very professional legal department following them.

“We have had to take legal advice from a QC, we have had to do a number of things that we would not normally want to do, because you have not historically been consistent and taken the right professional advice and done the right professional things.

“We will expect the maximum standards of professionalism from you and your advisors throughout the next 3 years (if you get the permission in the next five minutes) and we will expect the maximum transparency from you as well.”

hxxps://drillordrop.com/2018/08/08/live-updates-decision-meeting-on-brockham-oil-well-drilled-against-council-advice/


P.S. They could well be in for a fine as they have previously injected water from Lidsey without it would appear PP in position.

[jtidsbadly] 01/4/2021 21:07

JA51: not this year, then..

[ja51oiler] 01/4/2021 20:37

The incompetance continues!!

‘No planning consent for importing waste water to Angus Energy’s Brockham oil site’, council confirms

hxxps://drillordrop.com/2021/04/01/no-planning-consent-for-importing-waste-water-to-angus-energys-brockham-oil-site-council-confirms/

[jtidsbadly] 01/4/2021 15:55

I had to look up ballgag. Wikipedia has a picture of one apparently worn by a horse.

[jtidsbadly] 01/4/2021 15:39

I think she wants to be friends..

[wolfofthewoods] 01/4/2021 15:18

Seems school holidays have started if The Gimp is now off.

[sincero1] 01/4/2021 15:16

ladies, i'm off now for a well earned long weekend. you girls talk amongst yourselves , apologies again , what am i saying , that's what you do anyway . i will catch up on the board on tuesday no doubt trawl though hundreds of posts you lasses have left ... why not take a few days off? oops, there i go again, apologies, like you would do that ?

final thought ...sheepofthewoods seems to know all the terminology ..gimp, ballgag - whatever that is the mind boggles...

happy easter to you all..

[jtidsbadly] 01/4/2021 14:59

The “Mandate”; exclusivity period ends next Monday. The market is closed from tomorrow until Tuesday. Presumably another RNS will be required then?

[sincero1] 01/4/2021 14:47

sheepofthewoods - 2nd time you have mentioned gimp, would suggest an obsession ? just an observation....

[jtidsbadly] 01/4/2021 14:39

Write.

Gkb47: it’s certainly not clear, is it? Possibly misleading, shareholders shouldn’t need to puzzle it out.

Poor Clanwilliam took a bit of a cut, didn’t he? Perhaps they pay his club fees.

[sincero1] 01/4/2021 14:32

HITS i thought we were now getting along and you go and spoil it . no intellectual superiority card needed here believe you me .

i actually need to apologise , my last post read " i was working and you should try it " my mistake of course all you old ladies are retired .

PERHAPS I SHOULD RIGHT IN CAPITAL LETTERS SO YOU CAN SEE IT MORE CLEARLY ?

yes , yes it is cold today, yes yes youth of today don't know a thing .... yes , yes dear have another cup of tea ....

[wolfofthewoods] 01/4/2021 14:12

I think best to ignore The Gimp. She is only going to mumble with the ballgag.

[wolfofthewoods] 01/4/2021 14:09

It was a couple of years ago. But one does wonder if they buy and sell each others stock via proxy. Nice little earner.

[jtidsbadly] 01/4/2021 14:01

gkb47/HITS: Carlos and Hollis were appointed Directors in March 2019. They’ll have been paid their previous salaries doubtless for that month. So for the balance of FY2019, their salary payments will have been £60,000 each. Yes, they got an increase but the increase coincided with their appointments as Directors. The interim MD was appointed in January or February. So technically, the “no” answer to the Q&A salary question is probably correct, though Carlos and Hollis each got a 100% increase. There’s a difference between what’s generally understood by “salary” and “salary payments”. There’s also a difference between manager and director. They’d have saved themselves some criticism if they’d spelled all this out in the report and accounts but probably thought they'd get away with it - no one reads the report and accounts, do they?

[chickndinner] 01/4/2021 13:59

But sincero you are allowed to type Postalot 🤭

[headinthesand] 01/4/2021 13:56

Sincero, if you're going to insist upon determinedly playing the "intellectual superiority" card, again I will charitably point out that it'd be best to realise that the phrase "a lot" is two words, not one. Much in the same way that - as I caringly had to point out to you recently - the phrase "any more" is also two words, not one.

[sincero1] 01/4/2021 13:49

chicken, sorry was working, you should try it .

read todays rns .. i assume you can read a little ?

just a thought - SF is in the north so are you "people" are you miffed because the pipeline might run through your back garden? The garden you proudly tend in your slippers whilst checking this board every 3 minutes ?
It would explain alot....

[jtidsbadly] 01/4/2021 13:00

Wolf: assuming your info is correct, this latest UKOG pre-placing ramp, which briefly added 50% to the share price, could have been a nice little earner. What’s the quid pro quo?

[jtidsbadly] 01/4/2021 12:41

gkb47: I see now what they’ve done with the salary data. Hollis and Carlos were appointed directors after Vonk left, so four or five months of their earnings in 2018/2019 were as managers, not directors. The interim MD was only appointed in late January, wasn’t he? So his salary hasn’t changed and the other two directors were paid £120,000 p.a.from the date of their appointment as Directors. They must have been on their way out of the door to justify these promotions and the huge salary increases.

The question was a PR plant.