Member Info for B2HS2L

Renegade:

The reason I started looking at the Articles of Association was to identify whether there was a date beyond which new share holders were not allowed to vote at the general meeting. I did not find this subject was discussed in the AoA.
Does that mean that large shareholders or corporations will be building a stake, because anyone can vote with the shares they bought the day before the meeting?
If so then we should expect some stake building.

I have the same reservations you guys have discussed.
I await the meeting announcement to see if there is any clarification, amendment to general meeting voting.

I note that the website seems a little out of date in certain respects.
One example is the fact that Rob Shepherd is still listed as a director.

There is no list of amendments and amendment dates to the Articles of Association, so perhaps amendments exist but have not been made publicly available.

gkb47:
My interpretation is that the default voting mechanism at a general meeting is a one man one vote show of hands.
A poll has to be 'demanded', and if adoted, allows shareholders 1 share 1 vote.

I don't know if this will be modified by any meeting announcement, but this is the way the Articles of Association presently stands, so I am preparing myself to attend and 'demand' a 'poll', as I believe this is the best way to keep JPT out.

Reposted from 10:30 am this morning:

Gents, lots of people talking about Vonk or JTP getting their vote.

Please be aware that voting at an AGM or at a general meeting is dealt with in Paragraph 15 - 18 in the Angus Energy Articles of Association (AoA).

http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Angus-Energy-plc-Articles-of-Association.pdf

Paragraph 15.2 deals with the circumstance that this (yet to be arranged) meeting is required.

The default situation is that a show of hands (para 17.7), one shareholder one vote is the default voting mechanism.
A poll can be demanded at the meeting.

Also para 18.1:
Subject to any special rights or restrictions as to voting attached to any share by
or in accordance with these Articles, every Member entitled to vote, whether
personally present at a meeting or represented by one or more duly appointed
proxies or one or more duly authorised corporate representatives, has one vote on
a show of hands and, on a poll, one vote for every share of which he is the Holder.

Like it or not, this is where we appear to be with general meeting voting arrangements.

Lochty,

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/303

I was using 5% limit from CA2006 section 303(2).
section 303(3) only states F2, visible at bottom of page which does not improve understanding, so went with 303(2) percentage requirement.

Articles of Association available by using the 'Investors' tab on company web site, then selecting 'company information'.

Very happy about the possibility of Brockham flowing, - also hopeful of clarification RNS tomorrow.

Not so happy that Tidswell is still the production manager.

We expect that the well:
a) flowing at all
b) flowing with decent flow rates

will reduce Tidswell's chances of convincing investors that his leadership would be better than Vonks'.

I can only hope that Chris Clay has instructions not to let Tidswell anywhere near the well, or that Tidswell is banned by the board from visiting site.

This would be wise in view of Tidswell's attempt to remove Vonk and insert his stooges onto the board with a mandatory general meeting.
Let the well flow rate do the talking, burying JTP's chances in thousands of barrels of Brockham oil.
I could see Vonk chuckling if this came to pass, but he needs to improve investor communications to stay in charge longer term.

Gents, lots of people talking about Vonk or JTP getting their vote.

Please be aware that voting at an AGM or at a general meeting is dealt with in Paragraph 15 - 18 in the Angus Energy Articles of Association (AoA).

http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Angus-Energy-plc-Articles-of-Association.pdf

Paragraph 15.2 deals with the circumstance that this (yet to be arranged) meeting is required.

The default situation is that a show of hands (para 17.7) at a meeting, one shareholder one vote is the default voting mechanism, unless a poll is demanded.

Also para 18.1:
Subject to any special rights or restrictions as to voting attached to any share by
or in accordance with these Articles, every Member entitled to vote, whether
personally present at a meeting or represented by one or more duly appointed
proxies or one or more duly authorised corporate representatives, has one vote on
a show of hands and, on a poll, one vote for every share of which he is the Holder.

Like it or not this is where we appear to be with general meeting voting arrangements.

Thanks for laying out the order of events gkb47, its much easier to review now.

One further item, the 04.07.2018 08:05 RNS states:

The Company sets out the following update to the TR-1 announcements of 29 June and 3 July 2018.

The Company's Chairman, Jonathan Tidswell-Pretorius, in contemplation of a possible equity linked loan against his shareholding, transferred 39,000,000 Ordinary Shares by execution of a Stock Transfer Form to America 2030 Capital Limited (Kemp House, 160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK) on 7 June 2018 for nil consideration.

So JTP received nothing for transferring his shares, presumably because the transfer was part of a yet to be agreed loan.
Except America 2030 starts selling, - and does not stop selling throughout until shares transferred back to JTP.
Who has the funds generated - JTP or America 2030? America 2030 are entitled to sell if they owned the shares.

Does Companies House state an official has resigned if he was forced to leave the job? - I don't know the answer to that.

We had a much longer than expected time between leaving Balcombe and starting Brockham.
Consequently we had a later than expected start at Brockham and incurred the avoidable cost of hiring equipment over the Christmas / New Year holiday, (how much Alan might this conservatively be please)?

Were they because of a truculent person responsible for Production - Tidswell?

Any idea when Chris Clay started please Alan?

Tidswell should be gone by now, and the fact he has not strikes me as odd.
Tidswell has something on ANGS, - sack me and I will spill the beans.
Angus may also have something not in the public domain on Tidswell.

Obviously this is conjecture, but why is this bad smell not history?

The RNS stating Tidswell stepping down from MD role does not say he resigned, nor that he was caused to leave by the board.

excerpt follows from 06.07.2018 RNS

http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=ANGS&ArticleCode=82zzvg5q&ArticleHeadline=Board_Changes

Per the Company RNS of 3 July 18, the Board will continue its investigation into the potential violation of any relevant regulations in addition to the Company's Share Dealing Code which was not complied with in this case. Pending the results of this investigation, if completely exonerated, Angus Energy will consider re-appointing Mr. Tidswell-Pretorius to the Board as an Executive Director. The Company will update the market in due course.

Note the company confirms non-compliance with the Company's Share Dealing Code, (not on website).
What are the consequences of non-compliance?
I have not been able to locate a copy of this document.
Please feel free to write to Vonk and request a copy (I shall be doing so Sunday).

may have something to do with the following taken from the investors / corporate governance part of the Angus website:

The AIM Rules compliance committee will, on Admission, comprise Rob Shepherd, Cameron Buchanan and Paul Vonk with Rob Shepherd as chairman. (Unsure if Rob was still in charge when he resigned).

The AIM Rules compliance committee will ensure that procedures, resources and controls are in place to ensure that AIM Rules compliance by the Company is operating effectively at all times and that the executive directors are communicating effectively with the Company’s nominated adviser regarding the Company’s ongoing compliance with the AIM Rules and in relation to all announcements and notifications and potential transactions.
(This statement was clearly made before admission to AIM).

Tidswell sold 10.8 M shares. He did not sell anything like enough shares in June / July, and neither have ANGS shares been diluted enough since, as in both cases he would not now have the 5% necessary to trigger the request for a meeting to propose various changes to the Board. - Lucky man, and he's pushing his luck still further.
ref http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/AN_1530867416874813800/angus-energy-chairman-leaves-board-amid-share-sale-uncertainty-(alliss).aspx

RNS dated 03.09.2018:
Angus Energy plc (LSE:ANGS), a conventional oil and gas production and development company, is pleased to announce the appointment of Stockdale Securities Limited as its Nominated Adviser and Broker with immediate effect. ENDS

Previous Nominated Advisor getting concerned about proceedings at ANGS? - It would indeed be nice to know the reason for the change.

Companies House has no record of Adam Salim HABIB being an officer of ICBC Standard Bank PLC, either past or present.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/sbiIiyyNMa6pRWqPVpxoqjmfDbA/appointments

2 million share sell Wednesday - My take is it was a colleague or acquaintance of Rob Shepherd - the director who quit.

The problem as I see it is that JTP thinks he has enough support from large share holders to achieve his aim, unless he admits to himself he is winging it.
If good flows are announced, it will be easier for investors to make a 'stay with the status quo' (Vonk) decision. Tidswell may not want to challenge for leadership 'after the fact' - better to challenge before any well performance RNS.
However, - if the news is good, JTP is toast.

Woolf: "I wish I didnt have to read about business incompetence from each rns"

First priority for any funding should be to converting the other two Brockham wells to production.

Alan has previously stated:
"BRX3Z and BRX2X would take approximately 14-21 days each to drill and complete. Angus only pay 65% of the well costs. So it wont be a costly outlay." - 02.01.19.

So the path to greater income would appear to be a short one for ANGS after BRX4Z flows.
However Caudrilla have another agenda, and so we are raising money to proceed with Balcombe, (unless something ugly has occured at Brockham, and there is no information to support that).

ANGS needs two more Brockham wells before looking to develop Balcombe,- this is presumably Cuadrilla's agenda because of apparent trouble with fracking up North.

Incidentaly, if there are any problems with BRX4Z, as aluded to by previous posters today, it is Chris Clay that has responsibility to problem solve.
From an Alan2017 post last week:
The person you should be focussed on is not Vonks or Tidswell but a guy called Chris Clay who is the Well Testing Consultant employed by Angus. This is the person who actually has the experience (on paper) and will be running the show. I feel much better knowing this guy will be making the decisions rather than Vonk, Tidswell or somebody who has a title of Asset Manager , but is just a qualified wellsite Geologist.

Definitely mixing up carts and horses here.

IMO it is the amount of oil that is likely to flow that has prompted the BoD dustup.
Not expecting the RNS until next week, but I am sure it will contain attractive flow rates.

..and who knew what and when.
JPT looks to be the bad guy, but others might be culpable to a greater or lesser extent.

Brine subsequently identified not water during testing at Balcombe.
Does anyone know if that means that the test results, - 853 and 1,587 bopd, could have been better still?
It certainly didn't help did it.

"I will ignore this noise and wait for the RNS regarding how many bpd will flow. That is the important bit".

...Spot onK3VMC, - the insiders now know what the BOPD potential is, see the excerpt from todays RNS:

The Board of Directors regrets that this action has been taken at a time when the Company has reached an inflection point and considers the Requisition to be unwelcome and unnecessary.

That's what is at the bottom of this requisition.

Post-test analysis of the recovered water demonstrated levels of salinity significantly higher than any regional trend, indicating a strong probability that injected brine rather than formation water was being produced from the site's Micrite Layers. Given the mandated length of the short testing sequence, the Company was not able to remove what it now believes is a limited amount of unrecovered brine from previous activities at the site.

On 2 October 2018 the Company announced the results of the completed horizontal well test of the Balcombe-2Z's Kimmeridge Layer as having naturally flowed at 853 bopd equivalent, not including 22.5% water. A second flow period was undertaken with the well flowing naturally at 1,587 bopd equivalent, not including 6.6% water.

Water now identified as Brine. Question - does the presence of Brine have a detrimental effect on the 853 and 1,587 bopd test results?
ie would Balcombe have flowed much more without the presence of Brine?

++++++++++
If you follow the hose from the well head it goes to the truck and you can also see a hose connected to the truck going to the Brine tanks. Was it pumping kill fluid or is it being set up to pump Acid wash.
++++++++++

Why would it be the case that brine had already been pumped Pboo?
Isn't the most obvious observation likely to be that if Brine tanks are connected, it will be because the Brine could be available ASAP for emergencies only?

Is there a possibility that ANGS wants to perform pressure build up checks (or something else that talkes a long time) in the stop work period please Alan?
We did not move from Balcombe to Brockham as quickly as expected by some, and it appears to me that ANGS might have targeted a period with the well in 'lockdown', and decided that the Christmas period would suit.