Member Info for JD-Nau

They've got to win the vote first and that ain't a sure thing.

We find out tomorrow...

There are going to be no Colle Santo permits issued in the near future. They have not even submitted the Environmental report yet.

But Jack, the Colle Santo project is not a renewable project. It is a gas project and claimed to be transitional at best. It would not be entitled to any money to help the development of remnewables.

What institutions? Apart from Miton and Chelverton, there are not any institutions left in RBD are there? They all saw the writing on the wall and got out ages ago. unless you consider LNEnergy and Oza's nephews as institutional shareholders.

I can only hope that the requisition is a success otherwise I feel that I will never see any progress or share-price improvement with Reabold. As has been pointed out many times here, the track record of the existing directors is one of failure after failure and there is no reason to think that this will change if they live to fight another day.

To me the requisitioners make a compelling case for change. They have a clear plan of what they intended to do – cutting the losses on the non-core projects and actually raising the funding to drill West Newton and I believe that the company can still be a success if they are successful. However, without a change in management I believe that we will just keep on being lied to and strung along with false promises that will never be kept.

I sound like a broken record here, but how on earth is it possible for Reabold to claim in their 20th December RNS that the Environmental application for Colle Santo has been filed with the Italian authorities when it is still not showing as being filed nearly three weeks later: https://va.mite.gov.it/it-IT/Procedure/ViaElenco/3/2 Does anyone still believe that, as Stephen told us, that CS will be producing under the test permit in Q1 this year?

If all goes well tomorrow and the requisition is successful then there should be a much brighter future for Reabold from this point onwards. But the votes have all been cast now and we just have to wait to see.

The requisitioners promised to cut executive pay by 50% so that would be an immediate benefit to all shareholders if they win tomorrow.

I am voting to get rid of S&S because I am sick of this lies and the £14.3 million they have wasted on Danube and Daybreak which they now want us to forget about and describe as non-core projects.

I have not forgotten about them and I want them to be held responsible for their failings.

S&S have paid themselves £4 million over five years and this is an outrageous amount of money. You may not mind, but I do.

You may not mind that the company have wasted £14.3 million on failed projects, but I do.

You may not mind that they've lied about the Colle Santo 24 month production and that they have lied again about the submission of the environmental report., but I do.

You may not mind that they have spent £4.3 million that should have been funding West Newton on Colle Santo, but I do.

You may not care that they have given away over 10% of the company's equity, which is 10% of the shareholding in West Newton for a potentially worthless project in Italy in order to try and win the requisition, but I do.

That is why I am voting them out.

3 days until the 10am closing for voting on Monday 8th January

5 days until the vote is held and S&S finally get kicked off the gravy train

14 days since we were told that the Colle Santo Environmental Application had been filed, yet it still has not shown up on the Italian government website: https://va.mite.gov.it/it-IT/Procedure/ViaElenco/3/2

In short, as long as the shares that are bought back are not allowed to vote then everybody's voting power goes up in equal proportion.

I agree with the numbers not adding up Jack but I disagree with the rest of the statement.

Firstly, holding a second requisition a year on from the first, when the company have failed to carry out any of the promises that they made prior to the previous requisition is hardly vexatious. It is clear that Reabold were also advised that no court would agree that they had a case or they would have tried to take the legal route that you proposed.

Secondly, say a company has 100 shares and you have 10 and I have 10. They then buy back 10. Both your 10 share AND my 10 shares are worth 11.11% not just mine. Everybody's share holding goes up in equal proportions, so it would not affect the outcome of any vote, unless the company were allowed to use the shares that they bought to support themselves which I doubt would be allowed.

The only people who would have less of a vote would be those who sold shares to the company during the buyback, and if you sell some of your shares then you do so knowing that you have less of a vote.

I suspect that the increase in shares is down to one of two issues. Either the directors have found a way to issue some further shares to a party friendly to them without issuing an RNS or they have just made another of their many mistakes and added up the numbers wrongly. I strongly encourage you to email them and find out what they answer is, but I would not hold my breath for a reply.

The idea that the both sides are acting in concert to take Reabold private is utterly ludicrous. It is so completely beyond the scope of all realism that it barely merits an answer. I can only think that it is a deliberate attempt muddy the waters further and deliberately prevent people voting to change the board.

First off, the two sides are firmly opposed to each other, as can be seen from the previous requisition. Secondly, the share buyback program has once again been so pathetic that it has only spent about £118k and purchased a mere 1% of the company stock. Not enough to make any material difference to the voting even if S&S find some way to make this stock vote in their favour which I hope that they would not be permitted to do. Thirdly, the completely barmy idea that the shares being taken out of circulation would only increase the percentage of the requisitioners share – it clearly has the same affect on all shares.

The company could potentially go into administration if the current directors carry on investing money in their usual spendthrift way. However, there is an easy way to stop this happening in future. Support the requisition and kick them out.

It's not the proposed directors that have released an RNS that appears to contain false information though is it.

Why did they say that the Colle Santo Environmental Approval permit had been filed on December 20th when it quite evidently had not been.

That is an important question to answer. IF they announced this knowing it was untrue then they have deliberately lied to shareholders. If they announced it thinking it was true then it raises more questions about both theirs and the nomad's due diligence.

After all, Stephen himself said: “it is quite difficult for us to be misleading and sense that every communication we make generally via RNS has to be signed off by our Nomad so we have to provide proof of the validity of everything we're saying before it gets approved.”

What proof was provided that the application had been filed?

I wonder if Reabold and Strand Hanson will respond to the latest statement from the requisitioners website? There are definitely some serious questions to answer here about the veracity of the information in that last Colle Santo RNS.

I loved the comment from Stephen WIlliams about how everything they say is the truth simply because they say it. It pretty much sums them up.

Heid, has Kamran sent a copy to Reabold?

Watts, and here was me thinking that it was just because you had no answer to any of my questions. It seems like you all you are capable of is abuse. What a shame.

What I find fascinating on this board is how nobody actually wants to engage in any discussion about the company itself. Simon called nonsense on the figures that were being talked about spent on Danube and Daybreak and when I showed him that the £14.3 million came from Reabold's own annual reports and RNS releases he no longer wished to discuss the matter.

Simon's response to any questions about financials is to post links to terrible music and Watts simply resorts to abuse. I have asked the question repeatedly, can anybody give me one positive reason to support S&S in the upcoming requisition based on their track record of management at RBD and not one person has managed to provide one. Not a single reason.

Why is that?

Simon, the market defines the value of the company and at the moment it is valued at £11 million.

That is despite the company having raised £46 million in cash from investors and despite the fact that they have received around £10 million from the sale of Victory.

The current valuation reflects the fact that £14.3 million has been spent on the disastrous US and Romanian projects and the fact that they have invested £4.3 million in an Italian project that has been going nowhere for over a decade.

Think about that, £46 million raised and a current valuation of £11 million. By any standards, that is a disaster. And the responsibility for this disaster lays firmly at the door of the joint CEOs. That is why I want them gone.

Slalom1, if that comment was directed at me, I am intrigued. What defamatory content do you believe I have posted? I am happy to discuss it with you but I would like to know what, specifically, I ma being accused of first.

Firstly Watts, Kyle is not a member of "my team" as you put it. I represent myself . It is not my fault that you and your board-hugging buddies do not like it if anyone has an opposing view to yourself. I am voting to get rid of S&S because I am sick of this lies and the £14.3 million they have wasted on Danube and Daybreak which they now want us to forget about and describe as non-core projects.

I have not forgotten about them and I want them to be held responsible for their failings.

S&S have paid themselves £4 million over five years and this is an outrageous amount of money. You may not mind, but I do.

You may not mind that the company have wasted £14.3 million on failed projects, but I do.

You may not mind that they've lied about the Colle Santo 24 month production and that they have lied again about the submission of the environmental report., but I do.

You may not mind that they have spent £4.3 million that should have been funding West Newton on Colle Santo, but I do.

You may not care that they have given away over 10% of the company's equity, which is 10% of the shareholding in West Newton for a potentially worthless project in Italy in order to try and win the requisition, but I do.

That is why I am voting them out.

In arguing that a 95% drop is bad but a 94.29% drop is acceptable and stating that you don't care if the company lies to shareholders about the progress of Colle Santo, it seems to me that you are the one who is making a fool of himself Watts.

As you well know Watts, the important point about the EIA is not that it has not been filed. The important point is that S&S issued an RNS saying that it had been filed and commenting that this showed how the investment was great as it demonstrated that "LNEnergy continues to progress the approval process for both the long-term test programme and full field development."

Except it turns out that it hasn't been filed and no progress has been made. Another lie. Surely even you must be getting sick of the lies now?