Member Info for JD-Nau

Yesterday you posted that: " if ANGS goes for sidetrack drilling up front (as I ever more strongly suspect it knows it simply has to), add another 16 weeks to the timing of first gas."

Where do you get the figure of 16 weeks from? Is there any documented links on this of is it just another thing that you have madeup/"been told by a bloke on twitter"

I am also still waiting on an answer to my question of the link to the documentation showing that the Angus hedge is about a minimum volume of gas (10mmscfs I believe that you said) rather than a percentage of production. Poor WG818 seems to be absolutely incompetent when it comes to this or indeed any other any research so maybe you can do a little better?

"I’m afraid you will have to put a little effort in to get to the figures.
They have been put up on Twitter if you can be bothered to look #ANGS"

Ha ha ha ha - so in short you cannot provide a link to the OGA figures and are relying on "what some bloke said on twitter".

Stunningly incompetent, and yet you expect us to believe that you know what you are talking about. Every time you post you simply show up your lack of knowledge further and further. What makes me laugh even more is that DoneK has found the accurate information from the Angus Q&A site apparently effortlessly and also proving that your allegations about the future Saltfleetby production were either deliberately lying or merely incompetent. I won't rub it in, but you know that I don't think that you were deliberately lying.

I am still waiting on the link to the documentation showing that the Angus hedge is about a minimum volume of gas rather than a percentage of production. Or are you trusting "a bloke off twitter on that too"?

As for your question, think a little harder about it and see if you can work out why you have got everything wrong. Because you have.

Again.

Wealdpwr,

Of course I know that Aleph believe that they will recover their money otherwise they would not have invested it. This is not a guess, it is simply a fact. Nobody invests £12 million as debt without doing the due diligence to realise that the asset the £12 million is secured against is worth many multiples of that. Otherwise the loan does not happen.

And of course, since Aleph valued Saltfleetby at several multiples of £12 million when they made the loan ordinary shareholders will also benefit - the much more so since gas prices are now at almost 5 times the level they were when the loan was made. Saltfleetby was already worth many multiples of £12 million and with the new gas prices looking like they are here to stay it is now worth many multiples more than it was then.

By the way, Wealdpwr is a wonderfully appropriate name for someone who writes a post that is lacking in research and intellectual rigour. Your post contributes to this forum what the output of the entire weald does to the UK’s energy needs – absolutely nothing!

Alas WG818 my wait still continues, as the link that you sent just takes me to a generic page which does not show the production from Saltfleetby at all. Please try again with the full link this time - if it exists.

I am also waiting for the documentation showing that the Angus hedge is about a minimum volume of gas rather than a percentage of production? You appear to have failed to provide that as well.

0 for 2 so far and another example of an Incompetent Person Reporting again I am afraid...

Ah, WG818 I am not sure that your post is so much irrelevant as simply foolish and incompetent.

Why aren't the industry experts piling in?

You mean like Aleph who put in £12 million of their own money as a loan secured against the site? They believe in Saltfleetby, they believed that it is worth massively more than £12 million even before the recent 5 bagging of the gas price. They have also put their money where their mouth is based on Angus' figure and their own due diligence.

However, you want us to ignore them and their £12 million just as you want us to ignore Angus' regulator approved CPR and instead listen to you and your penniless deramping. You have no credibility I'm afraid and I would far rather follow the competent people who have been consistently right and actually have £12 million to invest than you and your penniless cohorts who have been consistently wrong.

What is the link to the OGA production data that you refer to and where is the documentation showing that the Angus hedge is about a minimum volume of gas rather than a percentage of production? Are you just making them up?

I’m waiting…

The thing here is that on the one hand we have Angus' "Competent Persons Report" which has been prepared by experts and has to fulfil regulatory requirements which says that we will be producing 5mmscf per day without the sidetrack. This will allow us to generate somewhere between £10-15 million in revenues depending on whose calculations we listen to before the hedge kicks in in July.

However, we are being to ignore this and instead listen to the opinions of the boards "Incompetent Persons" instead who promise that it will all be a disaster. They are the same people that nicknamed Saltfleetby Poundland and said that Angus would never even get any funding for it as it was worthless.

However, it turns out that the real experts believed in Saltfleetby and handed over £12 million to get it going and now with gas prices as they are the site is going to make a fortune. Surprise surprise the industry experts with £12 million to lend were right and the Incompetent Persons on this board were wrong.

Angus Energy's current market cap is £8 million but the company is going to bank at least this amount of money in cash by June next year and keep on doing so for many years to come. This share price is only going one way regardless of what the Incompetent Persons say.

GLALTH
Now the Incompetent Persons want us to believe that Angus cannot make any money from the current gas prices as they are committed to drill the sidetrack whether they want to or not. Once again they are wrong. You'd figure that they would get bored of making themselves look stupid on a daily basis but it would appear that they never tire of it.

So, the silly Scotsmen are abstaining from their own motion, that is how pathetic they now are. They are so afraid of getting their dirty little takeover proposals smashed into the middle of next week again that even they are not voting for their own proposal. YOU COLDN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP!!!

Oilinit - you appear to now be the representative for Gneiss Energy and the rest of the concerned shareholders group on this forum now so please could you answer the question that your colleagues have previously avoided.

"Have the concerned shareholders group ever threatened legal action against or sent a legal letter to the LSE chat forum? "

Oilinit - since you seem to have replaced

Are the BLOESupportGroup/PHFSP coming back here to continue engaging with shareholders? I am still very keen to get an answer to my question of "Have the concerned shareholders group ever threatened legal action against or sent a legal letter to the LSE chat forum? "

BLOESupportGroup /PHSFP (or whatever you are calling yourself just now). It is very good that you have answered my first two questions confirming that:

1) The concerned shareholders group DID attempt to have Alistair Freguson appointed as a Non-Executive Director of Block Energy.

2) The Peter Young who is involved in the concerned shareholders group IS the person accused of Insider Dealing in Rockrose.

I know it is after the 9-5 hours of paid PR companies but when you get back to work tomorrow please could you answer the third question. It is easy and a yes/no answer:

"Have the concerned shareholders group ever threatened legal action against or sent a legal letter to the LSE chat forum? "

BLOESupportGroup - thank you for the answers to the first two questions, the transparency with them is much appreciated.

However, you have not answered my third question at all. I asked: Have the concerned shareholders group ever threatened legal action against or sent a legal letter to the LSE chat forum?

It is a simple yes/no question. However, you answered that "We have been in dialogue with LSE to ensure that their own use guidelines are met by all users" which is not what I sked so I ask again:

"Have the concerned shareholders group ever threatened legal action against or sent a legal letter to the LSE chat forum? "

BLOESupportGroup - thank you for the clarification.

1) So for clarity – Alistair Ferguson was proposed as a Non-Exec director of Block by the concerned shareholder group back in 2019 but was rejected by the company. The RNS saying that “ that none of its Directors are looking to join the Board of Block Energy and any speculation to the contrary on the forums is also completely erroneous.” Actually had the tense wrong and would more accurately have said that they are NO LONGER looking to join the board of Block. Thanks you very much for clearing that up.

2) To cut a long story short – the Peter Young who is part is the shareholder group is the Peter Young that was accused of insider trading at RockRose – but he denies the allegations. Again, thank you very much for clearing that up.

3) This just leaves the last of my questions which is: Have the concerned shareholders group ever threatened legal action against or sent a legal letter to the LSE chat forum? This is an easy one as it is a simple yes/no question.

BLOESupportGroup

Sorry I realise that question 1 below may be misinterpreted as implying that Peter Young was accused of insider trading in Bloomberg shares when in actual fact Bloomberg reported that he was accused of insider trading in RockRose shares. For clarity I will rephrase it below:

1) Is the Peter Young who was reported as being accused alongside his wife of insider trading in RockRose shares in the following Bloomberg article in the following article https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/billionaire-s-firm-turns-prosecutor-in-insider-trading-fight the same Peter Young who is part of the shareholder support group?

2) Have the concerned shareholders group ever threatened legal action against or sent a legal letter to the LSE chat forum? This is an easy one as it is a simple yes/no question.

BLOESupportGroup

You have also not answered the other two questions that I asked:

1) Is the Peter Young who was reported as being accused of insider trading in Bloomberg the same Peter Young who is part of the shareholder support group?

2) Have the concerned shareholders group ever threatened legal action against or sent a legal letter to the LSE chat forum? This is an easy one as it is a simple yes/no question.

BLOESupportGroup

So the answer to the first question in short is that yes the shareholder group did put Alistair Ferguson forward as a Non-Executive Director. This raises the follow-up question: "Why did they say in the 5th July RNS that: " that none of its Directors are looking to join the Board of Block Energy and any speculation to the contrary on the forums is also completely erroneous."?

They clearly were looking to join the board of Block Energy as, by your own admittance, Alistair Ferguson had already tried to join the board. Unless I am misunderstanding what you posted - in which case please clarify.

BLOESupportGroup I am glad you have decided to engage with shareholders but I do not think that it should be behind closed doors via email. You should do it here and in public.

If you are serious about engagement then you will be able to answer the following questions which are key to helping us identify your legitmacy.

1) In the RNS released by Scirocco on behalf of Jon Fitzpatrick and Alistair Ferguson Scirocco stated that they Fitzpatrick and Ferguson did not want to join the board of Block. However in their release Block Energy said that the shareholder group had already proposed Alistair Ferguson as a Non Executive Director of Block. Somebody is not telling the truth, so my first question is: Have the shareholder group ever proposed Alistair Ferguson as a Non Executive Director of Block?

2) There have been a number of (subsequently deleted posts on this board detailing a Bloomberg link that reported on Peter Young being accused of insider trading in RockRose Petroleum https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/billionaire-s-firm-turns-prosecutor-in-insider-trading-fight. My second question is: is the Peter Young who was accused of insider trading the same Peter Young who is part of the shareholder support group?

3) It has been stated by a number of posters on this board that they have been suspended from posting due to threats of legal action against the LSE messageboard by an unnamed outside party. My third question is: have the shareholders group ever threatened legal action against or sent a legal letter to the LSE chat forum?

Please can we answer these questions on this site and in public. I appreciate your desire to have a conversation with shareholders but it is suspicious that you want to have all these conversations behind closed doors. Please can you reply here if you are genuinely interested in an honest and open discussion?

Nothing was ever going to happen with Block today. The whole country has a football hangover.

Hilarious RNS release.

Of course, what is most interesting is what it does not say. It flat out refutes any idea that Scirocco are taking over Block - which only an idiot would have thought as Scirocco are flat out broke and even with death spiral financing cannot afford to fund their own Ruvuma project let alone take over Block.

What is also interesting is how they deny that Fitzpatrick and Ferguson are trying to get themselves on the Block board, but do not say anything about not being involved in the attempt to get rid of Philip Dimmock and to appoint their puppet Charles Valeschini as Block chairman. It would be easy enough for them to have done that but they can't because that would be lying in an RNS. ..

bigboffer –you are encouraging everybody on here to email complaining about the board but when I asked what you would have new people do differently all you could come up with is “make the share price go up”. We all want the share price to go up but nobody can deny that they company is in a much better position now than it was when it was being ramped at 17p. And to be fair if oneandoly1 is right and you were here ramping the company at that stage of itss development then you should hang your head in shame for blatantly misleading fellow investors.

Back then we only had only about 100km2 of licenses with all of Norio, Satskhenisi and West Rustavi put together. Now since we have acquired the Schlumberger assets we have got more than 700km2 of licenses and production is 900bopde. Of course it is disappointing that the market has not cottoned on to Block’s new potential just yet but unless you are one of the roulette players I was talking about earlier that just demand the instant doubling of your money within minutes then it does not matter. As the development continues, cash comes in, production increases and the exploration upside is revealed the market will definitely catch up. It will be then that those who are buying in at these prices will really reap the rewards.

We all want the share price to be higher than it is today but is there anything operationally that the company is actually doing wrong at the moment that would improve this or that a new CEO would dramatically improve? I can’t think of anything personally. In fact, to me they are getting all the big decisions right. The pipeline is in place, the new assets have been acquired and the exploration upside is getting ready to be realised. The one thing that I do agree is that company comms could be significantly improved and we should demand an operational update of a minimum of once a month. Personally I would like to see the company publishing production numbers each month but have suggested this by email to many small-cap oil companies in the past and none of them have ever done it.

So bigboffer, I ask again – aside from better news updates which we all agree are a requirement, what would you like a new CEO to be doing that PH is not doing? How would you want things to be changed?

Personally I am very happy with how things are going. All of the expected progress has been made and we are cash generative an have an income stream from selling oil. Huge amounts of infrastructure work have been done to make this possible and we are going to start on a drilling campaign next quarter that should deliver even more production potential.

On this, as on all LSE boards, there are those who think that nothing is ever being done quick enough and they should have multiple returns on their investment or they are "going to scweam and scweam and scweam until they are sick". As far as I am concerned, they are better off just going to the casino and betting on roulette - then they can double their money in seconds on a single spin of the wheel .

I am in the other camp. I invest for the long term and I like to see companies do things properly and build up their portfolio and infrastructure in a sensible way. This is exactly what Block have been doing. They have expanded their production acreage 6 times with the Schlumbgerger purchase and they are now producing over 900bopde. Lest we forget this massively exceeds what we were all speculation would be good prior to the announcement. With the drilling campaign coming up there is much more good news to come too.

I appreciate that there may be some on here that are bitter at having been caught in on the previous highs, but this is definitely going in the right direction and is one to buy at the moment rather than sell. A big question for those who think that the board are doing a bad job - what would you like to see happening differently?

Sorry, 350bopd would be $17,150 bopd. 300 would be $14,700.