Member Info for Ja51

He will be hard pushed get there after turning the pumps on at Lidsey at 7.30am...........Should be ok to get back to switch them off at six though....LOL

If Angus had been granted operatorship of the Balcolme license surely they would legally have to issue an RNS? Surely the earlier RNS is at the best misleading and worst worthy of reporting to the FSA?

Another snippet from The �3m placing. Better but I would argue we are in a financial hole and we would be lucky with the 25%. I can see Quadrilla taking some very cheap shares in Angus if they cant get funding elsewhere. The Placing raised gross proceeds of �3,000,000 at a price of 13p per Placing Share (the "Placing Price"), conditional only on Admission. The Placing Price represents a discount of 14.8% to the closing mid-market price on 22 November 2017. The Placing raised gross proceeds of �3,000,000 at a price of 13p per Placing Share (the "Placing Price"), conditional only on Admission. The Placing Price represents a discount of 14.8% to the closing mid-market price on 22 November 2017. Highlights: � The Placing raised gross proceeds of �3,000,000 at a price of 13p per Placing Share (the "Placing Price"), conditional only on Admission. The Placing Price represents a discount of 14.8% to the closing mid-market price on 22 November 2017. � Additionally, the Company is issuing 769,231 new ordinary shares of �0.002 each in its share capital at the Placing Price to satisfy certain contractors' fees ("Fee Shares"). � The Placing Shares and the Fee Shares have been allotted and an application for their admission to trading on AIM ("Admission") has been made with Admission expected to take place on or around 30 November 2017. The Placing Shares and the Fee Shares will rank pari passu with the Company's existing ordinary shares in issue � The number of ordinary shares in issue immediately after Admission will be 264,304,652 giving the Company a market capitalisation of �34.4 million at the Placing Price Use of proceeds The principle purpose of this offering is to increase capitalization and financial flexibility. Net proceeds from this Placing will: � pay operational and associated costs related to the delay of the drilling of Holmwood-1 exploration well; � fund capital expenditures for the distribution of excess power generated on-site at Brockham with the installation of a connection to the National Grid, as outlined in the Company RNS of 22 September 2017; � assist with funding business development and potential acquisition activities; and � provide further working capital for the Group.

snippet from the last placing! The Placing Price represents a discount of 27% to the closing mid-market price on 8 February 2018. Don't think it's going to be 6.5p somehow!!

Renegade, it seems an apt time to reply again to your question. I have been called every name under the sun on this board for pointing out the facts. it seems that all my so-called trolling is actually correct! Please find my original response to you. As you have pointed out the RNS states The three wells in continuous production have an aggregate flow rate of 212bopd. A natural decline in the production rates is expected over time. Flow rates from the Lidsey Oil field are currently 191bopd, a three-fold increase over its initial flow rates as reported in the Company�s RNS, 17 November 2017 for both Lidsey wells. continuous production have an aggregate flow rate of 212bopd. Last time I checked there were 24hrs in a day! As you point out The RNS says continuous the maximum from the Barrels of oil PER DAY cant exceed this number. So no their isn't another way of looking at it! You can keep trying to deny the facts but even if the company were to go back to the council to re-apply how much in lost production would this costs with costs at circa �5000 per day? I cant speak for isdeer but im very unhappy LTH who thaught the Balcome deal was a step too far. The placings decimated the share price and in my opinion were not in the share holders best interests. The BOD still get �10.000 each wages plus their benefits and couldn't lose spending my hard earned money. I did not have an issue with the first Lidsey results., this is AIM and high stakes. I do have an issue with Balcolme and it taking the share price down to just over 5p!! Anyone who thinks OGA permission is a foregone conclusion should take a look at the company's finances. We are not self-supporting and losing money every day. I dont think we will have enough cash reserves to pay the �2m Balance and have enough to satesfy the OGA that the company is viable enough to take this on without a cash injection from somewhere. Don't forget the OGA will require the company to have enough reserves to restore the three sites that they would be in charge of to be put back to nature1 Have you seen the amount of concrete at Lydsey? Not a Troll .Swampy, de-ramper tree huger just a ****ed off investor!!

ok good to know. Just trying to get my head around the continuous bit. Surely they must have tested continually at some point to put this in the RNS?

Would the answer possibly be that they based the RNS on the new pump working 24 hrs while the workover rig was on site? We know it only arrived shortly before the AGM and I would imagine they would test the pump properly while the equipment was there. This would explain the continuous comment. Have they now simply returned to the agreed working hours 10.5.... 6 days a week?

Nianjabi I don't say anything! Thease are from the musings of your mate........... IBUG...........who i think you will agree knows considerably more than most on this board. Take that as a compliment if you like....LOL

Alan2017 You better get your report button out for your informative poster Ibug. See his thaughts on Lidsey production from Feb 27th "Hence the definitions of bopd and bpd are probably not being used correctly imo. It exp;lains to me why they quote Lidsey flowing at 24 bop;d and yet when you check the OGA website it shows as 12. I have never seen a document with those restrictions on hours previously and always assumed Lidsey was operational 365/24/7,. Every day is a learning day,. Only an idiot would run pumps unattended,. The fines for oil spills and clean up are not worth thinking about,". The devil is in the detail. PV is fastly becoming Vonk the Plonk imo. I really should read these applications in the correct order rather than going for the more interesting documents first. From the planning application. On site beam pumps for extraction of oil from wells L1 and LX2 electrically driven. Only operated during the approved hours as shown above. M-F 0730-1800 Sat 0730-1800 Sun No working 63 hours a week pumping = 38%. ANGS share will be (and I'm being generous here) 20%. Mr Vonk no doubt will say we are self funding. IMO my arse tells me we won't on those figures unless LX2 comes on line with 1500 bopd. Is Every day a learning day? and only an idiot would forget what they posted.........lol Get reporting.

Baits From the RNS The three wells in continuous production have an aggregate flow rate of 212bopd. Continous and barrels of oil per DAY being the operative words. You will note it doesn't say ARE in continuous production. Not sure where Nianjabi is hoping to get the extra barels from but good luck if he can. The three wells in continuous production have an aggregate flow rate of 212bopd. A natural decline of the production rates is expected over time. Flow rates from the Lidsey Oil field are currently 191bopd, a three-fold increase over its initial flow rates as reported in the Company's RNS, 17 November 2017 for both Lidsey wells. Brockham Oil Field has resumed production at 21 bopd. The Company expects this flow rate to increase to roughly 35 bopd within approximately 7 days, once initial water slugging has stopped. The Company will also resume routine exportation of all production this quarter.

WOTW Sorry you havent enjoyed my rants as much as i have enjoyed your posts. Allan 2017 posted Also if you were a stake holder you would be aware of the tax losses Angus inherited when they acquired the Fields.... "The Group has incurred indefinitely available tax losses of �10,413,000 (2016: �8,899,000) to carry forward against future taxable income of the subsidiaries in which the losses arose" Agreed if Angus actually get to the point of making any money great! What i was pointing out" Angus inherited when they acquired the Fields".............How much did the previous operator lose if this is just the Tax loss? The same fields that are producing 191 BOPD if they run 24/7 which they aren't permitted to do at Lidsey

Alan 20017 I can count losses three times in your comment below. How is that twisting it? I didn't put the figure in for fear of offending you deliberately. The fact that the previous operator made a loss doesn't appear to trouble you that's fine. Admin must love you!! "Its Alan17 Here Again. Someone has dared to have a different opinion to me BAN THEM INSTANTLY" That's two of us that your formidable power over Admin has failed to get banned. How many more are just trembling in the corner at your power over admin............. afraid of your wrath! Funny how you cant see your comment to myself is missleading people for which you report Others. Yet when you do it its perfectly acceptable to you. Admin!! We live in Britain and free speech is still legal here! is last name Putin by any chance? Also if you were a stake holder you would be aware of the tax losses Angus inherited when they acquired the Fields.... "The Group has incurred indefinitely available tax losses of �10,413,000 (2016: �8,899,000) to carry forward against future taxable income of the subsidiaries in which the losses arose

Alan2017 So you post a factually incorrect post, I call you out on it ! you can’t respond as your wrong. Yet you have the nerve to report me!! Should be the other way around I think!

Alan17 When People attack you when you point out the Bleedin obvious you tend to fight back. Please see yours from Sunday below. You failed to reply after YOU insinuated a false claim. I politely asked you to correct me if I was wrong which you failed to do. Gone are the days of hero worship for you on this board for your valuable knowledge which you yearn for. Times have changed and I suggest you move with them. I'm quite happy for people to have a look at my history apart from the spelling.... lol it has been consistent throuought......Unlike scallywag3 who by his own admission should add himself to his list!! Have a look! Another one who feeds you info depending on their position. Ironically it was him who pointed out that funds would be needed for making good the sites afterwards. Finally, if you want people to have faith in the company it's probably not a good idea pointing out the Tax loss. Don't think you are one of the manipulators but its just to hard to tell on here. Your accusation JA51 - please don�t twist the operating hours for vehicle traffic ....the production wells are for 24hrs. One just has to look at your posting history to appreciate your lack of love for Angus due to being a shorter or a swampy...who can say. My reply which you failed to answer. Alan 2017 I think it is you who is twisting the facts. I left this more than two weeks to await a reply to renegades request to clarify this point of working hours/Pump production from the company with no response. On Friday Arun District council response was posted on the Lidsey planning application confirming my position. They are the ones who are asking for the times NOT ME! They are the ones who quite clearly say" On-site pumps for the extraction of oil from wells L1 and LX2 electrically driven only operated during the approved hours as shown above." NOT ME! I attach the link again so you can Look what ANGUS have applied for. NOT ME! http://buildings.westsussex.gov.uk/ePlanningOPS/loadFullDetails.do?aplId=2200 Planning Application Document Section 9. Hours of operation Monday to Friday... 07.30 -18.00 Saturday...................07.30- 18.00 Sunday and Bank holidays ...........No working On-site pumps for the extraction of oil from wells L1 and LX2 electrically driven only operated during the approved hours as shown above. As this is the latest paperwork relating to Lidsey I'm going with the company's OWN request. Are you suggesting that after consultation with the council Angus would apply for permission with the working and pump hours stated on there own submitted the document and then run 24 hrs a day? If you can point me in the direction of any proof that they will run the pumps 24 hours a day I will whole heartedly apologize. otherwise, i will rely on the facts as stated in black and white by the company itself. I took my rose coloured spectacles of after the two placings.

Nianjabi Totally agree with you about the Kimmeridge and that's why i have been invested here. The problem is affording to get there. We have at present no planning permission in place at Lidsey as this has run you will be aware. I assume we are producing assuming that retrospective planning will suffice. Who knows. The good way to upset another council if you ask me. That leaves just one well in place with planning permission actually in place. We disagree on the oil being produced as we have covered to death. My reason for not getting back in is nothing we have been told has ever happened on time. Anyone who thinks We will produce from the Kimmeridge before August at the least needs to look at the record to date. I cant see how the company have the funds at present to get to that stage anyway. As it stands we possibly have a couple of months kitty if the �2 mill is paid for Balcolme. As I said earlier don't expect OGA approval for this if we are not properly financed That leaves the question of funding to me and I've been caught twice by that thanks. Hopefully, the accumulator bet you are placing will pay off for you but ill hold on for the main race if we get there.

I sold most of mine Nianjabi. The choice is yours of course. You must remember your first foray into AIM i assume? Well for all those that look in an alternative view is sorely needed. This board is brimming with rose-tinted wearing spectacle wearers. out and out rampers and self-serving worms who change their opinion to suit the position they take. I don't actually think you fall into any of those categories but for anyone new reading this just check the nice reliable post history of some on here. I feel like that guy off Panorama dealing with FIFA with some insects/bugs whatever you want to call them who post on here.

You can repeat it all you like. Even if I'm mistaken which im not! Angus only has 60% of that! So not self-funding or able to access the bond even that best case scenario!

Renegade As you have pointed out the RNS states The three wells in continuous production have an aggregate flow rate of 212bopd. A natural decline of the production rates is expected over time. Flow rates from the Lidsey Oil field are currently 191bopd, a three-fold increase over its initial flow rates as reported in the Company�s RNS, 17 November 2017 for both Lidsey wells. continuous production have an aggregate flow rate of 212bopd. Last time I checked there were 24hrs in a day! As you point out The RNS says continuous the maximum from the Barrels of oil PER DAY cant exceed this number. So no their isn't another way of looking at it! You can keep trying to deny the facts but even if the company were to go back to the council to re-apply how much in lost production would this costs with costs at circa �5000 per day? I cant speak for isdeer but im very unhappy LTH who thaught the Balcome deal was a step too far. The placings decimated the share price and in my opinion were not in the share holders best interests. The BOD still get �10.000 each wages plus their benefits and couldn't lose spending my hard earned money. I did not have an issue with the first Lidsey results., this is AIM and high stakes. I do have an issue with Balcolme and it taking the share price down to just over 5p!! Anyone who thinks OGA permission is a foregone conclusion should take a look at the company's finances. We are not self-supporting and losing money every day. I dont think we will have enough cash reserves to pay the �2m Balance and have enough to satesfy the OGA that the company is viable enough to take this on without a cash injection from somewhere. Don't forget the OGA will require the company to have enough reserves to restore the three sites that they would be in charge of to be put back to nature1 Have you seen the amount of concrete at Lydsey? Not a Troll .Swampy, de-ramper tree huger just a ****ed off investor!!

Nianjabi Keep going on? So you admit that they are producing from the pumps for 10.5 six days a week? This is the permission they were issued to produce oil for these hours ONLY last time planning permission was granted in 2006. In the current planning application, they have applied for permission to produce for the same hours and production for working and On-site "pumps for the extraction of oil from wells L1 and LX2 electrically driven only operated during the approved hours as shown above.10.5 hrs Six days a week." why would they possibly go back at a later date and apply for a change of extraction operating hours? Its quite clear the hours of production were a condition of the original planning permission and after consultation with council officials, they have applied for the same. Thus 191 bopd ......becomes 84 bopd approx 60% of 84 bopd Angus's share.................becomes 50bopd approx Take away Sundays and bank holidays and the yearly total......... 9300 bopd approx Hardly self funding and therefore the most important information relevant to the company...........Probably worth going on about with the uber rampers on the site recently.

Distraction ibug These are your words from the 27th Feb "Hence the definitions of bopd and bpd are probably not being used correctly imo. It exp;lains to me why they quote Lidsey flowing at 24 bop;d and yet when you check the OGA website it shows as 12. I have never seen a document with those restrictions on hours previously and always assumed Lidsey was operational 365/24/7,. Every day is a learning day,. Only an idiot would run pumps unattended,. The fines for oil spills and clean up are not worth thinking about,". From you this Morning at 8.02 PS It is common sense that the retrieval of oil is a 24 hour operation and normal working hours are not. I can think of many businesses that run 24/7 but have normal working hours as well. BN 31 05 planning documents are quite clear on the subject. Well if that's ditracting they better change the definition in the dictionary to U-TURN My next attack? Pointing out the bleeding obvious is not attacking. If my posts have upset anyone I have politely asked them to point out why I am incorrect. I bided my time waiting for a response from the Company that prides itself on communications apparently... lol. Non came and i raised the question again. Again no posters replied with a definitive answer. I waited for your inevitable rude response and posted YOUR thoughts at a time when it suited you. I'm sure your esteemed opinion holds far more weight than mine so tonight seemed a good time to re-incarnate your highly embarrassing posts. PS........... Thier are worse in your history than that.......LOL PPS.......... I live in Berkshire and im not called James! Now push that vein back into your forehead and go to bed.