Member Info for deltavegatheta

Buying stock is something Tom Evans at Pennpetro never did. I wonder why?

Horse Hill currently has no planning permission. If Surrey County Council doesn't restore the planning permission then Energy B has just flushed £1m down the toilet. The only certainty is the future liability for restoring the site which will cost about another £1m.

UKOG got a good deal.

If you want to work out the potential dilution then, assuming the post-RTO company needs to worth £30m ,the maths is:

dulution = 1 - (pre-RTO value)/£30m

The valuation report required for the replacement shares will probably used for the pre-RTO value.

£0.5m, the value of other Main market shells, would imply 98% dilution, but you use your own valuation if you disagree with that.

(and don't shoot the messenger, it's just the way RTOs work)

Here's what I posted at 29 Mar 2026 11:13:

"Getting the Texas well back online will require substantial effort given the complete mess Noble Petroleum's affairs are currently in and the payoff is modest, 20-30 bopd.

Does anyone really believe RMD want the only PPP operational employee focused on Texas instead of Ukraine or Alberta?

As soon the votes are out of the way a reason will emerge why the legacy PPP Texas assets are no longer being pursued."

Dsaf: Why are you highly motivated to find evidence of wrong doing against all the directors of PPP, past and present, except Tom Evans? Is there a conflict of interest you are not declaring?

From the PPP RNS:

"The Board has been made aware of a filing at Companies House on 7 January 2025 of a Progress Report by liquidators to Resources Bonds 11 Limited , a bond issued by the Company in 2016 which went into liquidation in January 2023. Inter-alia, this Report makes direct references to 'breaches by the directors of their statutory and fiduciary duties, leading to various claims against the directors. Solicitors have been instructed and initial letters before action have been issued". Whilst the Board is obviously unable to make any comment on the accuracy or background to these statements, the directors referred herein are both past and present Directors of the Company."

The only people who have been directors of both PPP and RB11 are Tom and Olof.

Https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10328847/filing-history

Read the Investigations section of the progress reports dated 21 Jan 2026 and 07 Jan 2025.

It has also been mentioned in PPP RNSs, Tom wasn't named directly but the only two directors they could have been referring to are Evans and Olof.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/PPP/placing-and-corporate-update-gej4eqeh1rewd2f.html

Djm1: "Delta, different company"

Resource Bonds 11 Ltd sole purpose was to raise money for PPP, it's previous name was "PENNPETRO BONDS II LIMITED"

Djm1: "no one's moved against TE"

The Insolvency Service are currently investigation Tom Evans regarding Resource Bonds 11 Ltd and the missing £2m. That could result in him being disqualified as a director. Tom has not responded to the liquidator's questions.

In March 2025 following appeared on the Gloablvision website and is still there:

"Globalvision can announce that it has entered into an interim caretaker role with the Nobel Group of companies and the stand-by rigs will be utilised at some future date and will also be able to work on other projects."

https://globalvision.pt/2025/03/26/workover-rig-on-stand-by/

I suspect the case is to do with that arrangement, not the JV as originally envisaged by Tom. The arrangement was never announced or explained by PPP.

From the last shareholder call, it sounded like the whole FCA discussion is basically about whether PPP should retain it's listing or not. Other than trying to resolving that issue, I can’t see RMD throwing any more time or money at it. A delisted PPP is worthless to them, so why would they bother until the FCA gives a clear answer?

“Accordingly, the Board is now reviewing the possibility of acquiring or farming in to a minority stake. Given the scale of Pennpetro, this would almost certainly still be an RTO and be subject to publication of a prospectus and shareholder approval.”

Plan B is still an RTO.

WS, I suspect some of what you are searching for is coverred in the Disclaimer of Opinion included in the 2023/24 accounts (and repeated in the 2024/25 accounts):

"We have been unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence over the following balances and transactions:

- A share lending transaction involving some previous directors. The value of this transaction was $425,617.

- The other gains/losses of $423,563 and legal expenditure of $299,436 included in the financial statements. These amounts represent expenditure for which there is no supporting information.

- Receipt of part of the proceeds, £180,000, from the issue of 5.8 million shares in the Group.

- Certain decommissioning liabilities, currently included in the financial statements at $50,000."

Of course Evans was in charge of PPP for the entire period of the 2023/24 accounts.

Why does dilution happen in RTO (reverse takeover) situations?

Because the valuation in an RTO is driven almost entirely by the value of the private company being acquired — and that value is usually far higher than the value of the listed shell.

When the private company is worth many times more than the shell, the only way to reflect that difference is by issuing a large number of new shares to the private company’s owners. Those new shares represent their economic stake in the enlarged group.

For existing shareholders of the shell, this means:

- their percentage ownership falls

- their voting power reduces

- their share of future value is smaller

This isn’t a sign of anything “wrong”, it’s simply the mathematical consequence of combining a small, low‑value shell with a much larger, higher‑value private business.

In short:

The private company’s higher valuation drives the large issuance of new shares, and that’s what causes the dilution for existing shareholders.

The overriding reason why PPP is still suspended is that it is currently engaged in an RTO:

- PPP has named the assets the RTO intends to acquire

- RMD has appointed PPP’s Executive Chairman

- RMD has lent PPP £800k

- RMD has a charge against all of PPP’s assets

- A prospectus is being prepared

Companies engaged in an RTO are suspended by the FCA, PPP is no different.

From the AGM calling notice:

"Only those members registered on the Company’s register of members at 6.30 p.m. on 1 May 2026 (or, in the event of any adjournment, close of business on the date which is 48 hours (excluding non-working days) before the time of the adjourned meeting) shall be entitled to vote at the AGM."

Note Company’s register not Crest.

March 18th RNS:

Richard Spinks, Executive Chairman of Pennpetro Energy, said: "We have listened to shareholders and decided to reschedule tomorrow's call in order to allow sufficient time to digest the audited 2024/25 full year accounts, which are expected to be published later this week. I will be joined by Mavriky Kalugin, CEO of Pennpetro, on next week's call. We look forward to speaking with shareholders in due course."

But when the call happened no Spinks and no questions on the account were allowed.

Hepran: “everything he has said to date has failed.”

So who’s trying to troll whom?

The PPP's cut from the GV/PPP JV was going to be 10% to 12.5% of gross revenue while PPP's cut from the PQ/PPP JV is 51% of net profit.

So comparing 51% to 10%/12.5% isn't an accurate comparison. PPP's cut is likely to be more like 20% to 30%.

Here's the split of the new PQ/PPP JV:

Petroquest has:

- No cash at risk

- No debt obligation

- No operational responsibility

- 49% of profits, but only after RMD loan is paid off

PPP Plc has:

- Real new borrowings from RMD

- Full liability to RMD regardless of JV performance

- Operational responsibility

- 51% of profits, but only after RMD loan is paid off