Member Info for Ja51

itsallaboutme Having read your comments properly! I suggest you read the RNS and its terms again. New investors will definitely not be buying in lower rate as you state. The Convertible Security will be convertible at the Investor’s election at: 90% of the average of five daily volume- weighted average prices of the Ordinary Shares on AIM during a specified period preceding the relevant conversion, or 140% of the average of the daily VWAPs for the 20 trading days immediately prior to the execution date of the Agreement(such conversion price being £0.10per Share). For the first twelve months the Company will have the right to repurchase 100% of the amount of the Convertible Security outstanding at face value (subject to the right of the Investor to retain 30% of the Convertible Security from such repurchase for conversion. If for simplicity as you say the shares where to be issued as you say its also approximately 20% of the market cap at today's price! You also state Brockham production will enable re-purchase. Angus has applied for an Exploratory and Appraisal phase permission to SCC NOT production. I believe they do have OGA permission for production, however. Balcolme is also at 18 months to two years of production if and when it's perforated and is commercial. Links for your info https://planning.surreycc.gov.uk/planappdisp.aspx?AppNo=SCC%20Ref%202017/0215 http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/RNS-23.04.18-Angus-Energy-Completes-Financing-For-Balcombe-Acquisition-.pdf

Jonpiz The annual report was issued in March! The financing raised was in April via the convertible security is far harsher than the 8% or 8.5% that the bond was offering. The bond you refer to was never drawn upon as it could not be serviced as you mention. Sorry itslaaaboutme how is it not dept? Did or did hey not Borrow it? Does it or does it not need to be repaid?

Nianjabi AT LAST!! You have got something right!! I really do need some spelling lessons........Sorry.

I have given you the facts as usual!.........................Sigh as Alan would say. Please read the links I have provided Angus has borrowed £ 3.3900 Million. This money needs to be paid back! Now in most peoples worlds that is a debt. This could be done via paying back in cash or converting the debt into shares as with UKOG. As they don't and won't have that sort of money available the £3.4 MILLION will most likely be paid by the issuing of new shares. The shares will be issued and the share price will find a level accordingly. One of these days you may actually get something correct!

Sorry fat fingers that should be £ 3.3900 Million depts. http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/RNS-25.04.18-Issue-of-Convertible-Security.pdf

Nianjabi What are you talking about when you say there is no dept? There is a £3.95 million Dept. http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/RNS-23.04.18-Angus-Energy-Completes-Financing-For-Balcombe-Acquisition-.pdf The same type of loan you criticize UKOG for taking earlier in your comment. Very misleading to any new investors here or was that the point.

2 (a)-(c) (i) – (viii) regarding location of development The Secretary of State notes that the well site is situated in a rural setting, with agricultural land to the north, south, east and west, and is accessed from the east, via a track that links to Old School Lane. A green waste composting operation is situated immediately to the north of the access track at its junction with Old School Lane, and a complex of agricultural, equestrian and residential buildings and land uses are situated to the south of the access track. The site is not subject to any national, or higher level designations in respect of landscape, nature conservation and biodiversity or the historic environment. It is reported that the site is not subject to significant risk of flooding from fluvial or other sources, and is not underlain by any major groundwater bodies. The Secretary of State has taken into consideration the third party requesters comments regarding flooding he notes the reports that the majority of the site is classed as being subject to very low risk of surface water flooding, with a smaller proportion of the site being low (0.1% to 1 % annual event probability) to high (greater than 3.3%). However from the information submitted he is satisfied that overall there is no evidence to suggest that the addition of a side track well is likely to have significant effect to justify an Environmental Statement. 3(a) –(e)regarding characteristics of potential impact On the basis of the information provided, the Secretary of State considers that the extent of any impact would be contained mainly in the immediate area. He is not persuaded that this is a development of the magnitude and complexity of impact, in terms of areas and populations affected, to suggest that a significant environmental affect is likely. The Secretary of State notes that the development as a whole would be in place for a maximum period of three years. The Secretary of State considers that the method of extraction would be dealt with under normal planning practices as part of the planning application process with the Environment Agency being consulted and notes that there is currently a review being undertaken regarding the environmental permit for the site. The Secretary of State does not consider that an Environmental Statement is required for this development. Is an Environmental Statement required? No Name Karen Rose Date 06/06/2018

1 (a) – (f) regarding characteristics of development The Secretary of State notes that a retrospective planning application has been made to Surrey County Council for a temporary period of up to three years. The proposal is for (1) Retention of the BRX-4 wellhead for a period of up to three years (2) Drilling of a side track well (BRX-4Z) from an existing wellhead (BRX-4) and (3) Production evaluation of the side track well (BRX-4Z). It is noted that a permitted well-site has been present on the site since the late 1980’s (permission granted in 1987), and has been used for the commercial production of oil and that the current installation, with reference to the production of oil from the Brockham 1 (BRX-1) well, has temporary planning permission (MO06/1294) for a period of 30 years, which ends in 2036. On the basis of the information, while the Secretary of State accepts that the proposed development would use natural resources, including energy and water, on the basis of the information he does not consider that it would impact on resources which are non-renewable or in short supply, to the extent necessary to suggest that a significant environmental effect is likely. The Secretary of State recognises that the risk of accidents cannot be ruled out, having regard to the substances and technologies used, he does not consider that the magnitude of risk is such that a significant environmental effect is likely. He has taken into account local concerns on the potential flooding effect, but he considers that this can be considered as part of normal planning practice without subjecting the proposal to full environmental impact assessment for this reason. Overall, while waste materials would be produced, the Secretary of State does not consider that there would be a risk to sensitive receptors from waste material of the magnitude and complexity necessary to suggest that a significant environmental effect is likely. In terms of pollution, while the Secretary of State considers that there is likely to be some impact on air quality, this is likely to be localised and temporary and the site is not in an air quality management area. The Secretary of State has had regards to local concerns on the potential for the release of gas containing harmful material, however he notes that this is a existing well site and accepts that existing systems would be used to use or burn off gas that is found. He does not consider that there is information to suggest that there are any areas on or around the location which are already subject to pollution or environmental damage which could be affected by the project. Overall, the Secretary of State is satisfied that materials used could be managed in accordance with normal operating procedures and that any release of hazardous, toxic or noxious substances would not be of the magnitude necessary to suggest that a significant environmental effect is likely. Overall, the Secretary of State does not consider that a si

Finally some good news for you neon https://planning.surreycc.gov.uk/planappdisp.aspx?AppNo=SCC%20Ref%202017/0215 Added 6-6-18 Planning Practice Guidance also states that individual applications for the exploratory phase should be considered on their own merits. They should not take account of hypothetical future activities for which consent has not yet been sought, since the further appraisal and production phases will be the subject of separate planning applications and assessments (Paragraph: 120 Reference ID: 27-120-20140306). However, in the opinion of the Secretary of State and having taken into account the selection criteria in Schedule 3 to the 2017 Regulations, the proposal is not likely to have significant effects on the environment, see the attached written statement which gives the reasons for direction as required by 5(5) of the EIA Regulations.

https://planning.surreycc.gov.uk/planappdisp.aspx?AppNo=SCC%20Ref%202017/0215 Estimated date to committee 11-7 2018

No Niamjabi just waiting for the inevitable drop. Tail between my legs?? The only one who gets his facts wrong constantly is you! End of conversation from me!

Probably the first Million of the 9 Million free Bergen Global Opportunity Fund shares they received for the financing.

Still here!!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a0Hx8qmrfnA&feature=youtu.be

7 mins 4 seconds...................10 BOPD even i think he must have that wrong! Could be worse we could have Union Jack bloke in charge.

Renegade How about we call it a vonknight then??

Too much mercury Mr. Hatter? I have answered Renegade several times on this. Please see my history if you're interested. I post relevant links ask relevant questions, answer rediculous ones honestly and Prove other posters comments incorrect and misleading. If you cant handle cold hard facts WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE? Prosecuted are you for real??

https://drillordrop.com/2018/05/08/angus-energy-complaint-against-bbc-over-disputed-oil-well-dismissed-by-watchdog/

Moskvic2 I apologize if you are offended. It was in no way meant to be interpreted like that.

You called me a liar Three times now TOTALLY UNTRUE! As you are not going to retract your statement I will now happily report you. Admin, please look at Neons recent posts calling me a liar. I think this breaks your membership rules. His Statements are quite obviously false.