Member Info for JD-Nau

WG, thanks for the response, but that is not how I read it. BP's theory is backed from experience of working in the oil and gas industry on the very kind of projects that Angus are working on now.

The points that you have repeated in your last statement have all been more than adequately addressed in BP's responses to you this morning. There is no point in me repeating the responses here you can just read the thread.

Also, please could you answer my previous question about what your oil and gas industry experience is. Obviously, it is fine if you have none, as everyone is entitled to their opinion on these boards; but if you don't have any industry experience in this sector it does somewhat weaken your arguments when you come to discuss what is and is not possible to maintain pressure at Saltfleetby.

You are very vocal in your negative view on this forum and it would be helpful to me, and no doubt many others, to know if you are an industry professional. or merely a well researched investor.

Staypositive, you make a fair point for keeping the incumbents. I guess a big difference between BLOE and RBD, where I am also invested, is that BLOE are an operating company and RBD are just an investment company.

As you correctly point out, Block have been operating in Georgia for a number of years now and over this time they will have built up good working relationships with all of the necessary authorities in the country. These organisations are never big fans of change and you are right that a change in BoD will likely have a negative affect on our relationships there with all the knock on consequences that this would entail.

Block still need to sort out their shareholder comms – though I have been saying this for so long, I don’t feel that they are ever going to improve.

Heid, I look forward to being able to establish who is telling the truth, one way or the other.

I have to say Bubblepoint, your theories make more sense than those of WG's. As you point out reservoir control is one of the key factors of oil and gas production and since the issues being discussed are well known on this forum they are also well known to Angus and the onsite operating team. This is not the first reservoir in the world that needs to be careful managed in order to maximise production and nor is it the most complicated.

WG, you constantly act like your posts are revealing truths that have been hidden from the rest of us, including the Angus management team and the reservoir operating team, yet you seem to start with a fact and then work backwards from there to get to a narrative that fits you ongoing theory. I think Bubblepoint has discredited a lot of your points this morning and he clearly has the oil and gas knowledge to back up his arguments. Can I respectfully ask what your history in the oil and gas world is that should give greater credence to your arguments than to Bubblepoints?

Thanks for the Heid. What you have reposted does tally with my memory then. At the moment it is just claim and counter claim though. Since you seem to be in regular contact with Kamran, can I suggest that you get him to ask Strand Hanson to provide him with the minutes of the call and publish that on the recquisition website.

It seems to me as if it will be pretty easy to get to the truth on this element. Either there are minutes and Kamran is telling the truth or there are no minutes and S&S are telling the truth.

Who is telling the truth is obviously a big question, for me at least, when it comes to voting who we want to be running the company in the future.

Heid, I think that the allegation that you have made that the board were aware of interest in Daybreak but denied that they had been aware of this is potentially very damaging for them. At the moment it would be a bit “he said, she said”, but I recall that you have suggested that Kamran asked for this call to be minuted by an advisor so it should be fairly simple to prove one way or the other.

Can you remind me of the allegations again as I could not find them in your post history?

We have a company here who have £10 million coming in from Shell, a valuable share of West Newton if the drill is a success and a very valuable Italian asset that should be delivering a cash income of £13 million a year in cash as of Q2 next year. It matters a lot who is in charge of the company and if they are being honest with shareholders.

Of course it was damaging to the share price. He sold into any significant news as the price went up and stopped any forward momentum with it. His sales are a contributing factor to why the share price is where it is nowadays. All I am saying is that it should not surprise anyone that he did this. Paul Forest was always going to act in the best interest of Paul Forest and however confident he was in the projects, and we will never know how confident he actually was, he was always going to see a chunk of the stake early to protect him against things going wrong with the share price later. It's simple hedging, not in the best interests of the wider shareholding community, but definitely in the best interest of PF himself. As you accurately say, events proved his decision correct.

Any one have any idea on when we are going to get updated on the lithium processing testing in the US?

I have always been under the impression that LN Energy own Colle Santo, presumably through a subsidiary. Is this not the case?

Block have never been very good at PR. The only time sharheolders get any significant communication from the board is when they want to raise money or want to win a vote.

Nobody assured anyone that PF was a safe pair of hands. He was they guy who owned Saltfleetby and then he sold it. I am sure if he could have got 100% cash for it then he would have been delighted. However, Angus could not pay cash to he had to take shares.

Once he had handed over control of Saltfleetby to Angus he was always going to sell out of his position at the best prices that he could get. Anybody who thought that he would just sit and hold the money is incredibly naive. He is only on the board because he is a large shareholder. Once he ceases to be this he will cease to be on the board. I am quite impressed that Forum still hold as many as they do now to be honest.

That does not look good. With the board changes here I wonder what is going on behind the scenes.

Lockedin, I agree that West Newton is important but I think that you are also missing the point that Italy could be just as important to the company. If we get the production approval this year then with the wells already in place and all of the maintenance work carried out then we could be producing in Q1 2024 and receiving £1million a month in cash for the next twenty years, assuming the production license is extended, whish it will be. This significantly reduces any downside risk from the drilling at West Newton. The difference between the two is that one is a calculated risk and the other is almost a guarantee.

Heid, I'm not disagreeing with you. The new directors would get my vote currently too as S & S have a track record of failure that goes back years. As far as I am concerned, they have been nothing but a total liability to the company and a complete burden on shareholders and company resources.

All I am saying is that I am not fixed in my opinion. If S&S do deliver the special dividend to shareholders from the Shell money AND they deliver the 24 month production license for Italy before the end of the year then that would change my mind. £13 million a year coming in from Italy is a lot of money and it will start next year. That will send the share-price flying and if they do that then they will be delivering for shareholders , will have some credit in the bank and will deserve to stay in position.

If the circumstance change, then so does my opinion.

Moniman - its supposed to be £4.5 million less the £750k shares buyback, but yes, that does leave a £750k discrepancy still.

Heid, I get your concerns, but you have to agree that the Colle Santo assets is provably huge as per the CPR and will be hugely lucrative for RBD as soon as the production permit comes in. I understand that you have done a lot of research on it, but the company has been unequivocal in their RNS releases. They have talked to all the relevant Italian authorities and have been told that the 24 month production permit will be granted by decree by the end of the year.

I appreciate the work you have put in, but however much you have researched, you cannot possibly know the discussions that have been had between RBD/LNE and the Italian authorities.

I'm with you. The last time that a requisition was held on the BoD here I was anti the changes as I felt that the people coming in were extremely dodgy. However, in the two years since Haywood won the last vote there has been no significant progress forwards. How much longer do we give him to actually deliver?

I am also a shareholder in Reabold Resources and I am in the same dilemma there. I am currently minded to vote to get rid of the RBD directors as the company does have some potentially good projects. If they can't deliver the goods and the money before the requisition is held then I will be voting them out too. Sometimes change is necessary to deliver results.

There is definitely some interesting activity going on behind the scenes here. I agree with those who are suggesting that this is the influence of RH gradually coming to the fore. After all he has some pretty serious financial and O&G connections in place from his previous roles at BP etc and he must have had some plans on how to exploit them when he first came to Angus.

Also, we can't forget the fact that when Herbert arrived at Angus Energy alongside the investment cash it was effectively a takeover of the company from the previous board. It has all been done in a very friendly way but it is also totally ruthless. He must have done this for a reason and have plans in place for what he was going to do next.

In my opinion, the arrival of this new shareholders is just a prelude to a completely new change to Angus. Whether this will be for better or worse for us shareholders remains to be seen, but these players would not be putting this level of money in if they did not expect the share price to go up from here so overall it has got to be a good thing.

Heid, the most important deal that RBD have on the table at the moment is the Italian one. The CPR that was released here: https://wp-reabold-2023.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/media/2023/09/4.1.-Colle-Santo-RPS-CPR-October-2022.pdf shows that the asset is huge and that it could generate over €1 billion in revenue over a 20 year production period. Assuming that RBD take up their final option and end up holding 26% of the company then, as they mentioned in the RNS this has the ability to generate an estimated €11-12m of gross post-tax free cash flow per annum. It’s huge and assuming they get the permits for the 24 month production test by the end of this year, as they said that they were confident of doing in the September RNS then production will start delivering this revenue in 2024.

This is a tremendous asset and you seem to have some concerns about the licenses for production in Italy and I appreciate that it would be a problem if RBD didn’t get them, but they have been pretty clear in the RNS releases that this is not a problem. As Lockedin pointed out last week the company have had meetings with the heads of environment, energy and mining in the Abruzzo region and have been assured that they will get the 24 month production test permit by the end of this year. It’s all in the September 5th RNS.

And when I say getting the Shell deal over the line either, it also means following through on the £4 million cash to shareholders as soon as it arrives and not just pocketing the cash for company expenses.