Member Info for JD-Nau

It’s very noticeable that the board defenders on here, have a notable tendency to revert to abuse when they are challenged - aside from JackDiamonds who has always handled himself with dignity, even if I do not agree with him very often. In my experience those who resort to abuse instead of discussion, usually do not have much to say in the defence of their point. It certainly seems that way here.

The requisition has raised a number of questions over the last few months that have never been satisfactorily answered by the board of directors, who seem to prefer in interviews to make attacked on the requisitioners themselves rather than actually address any of the criticism that they have made.

It has been the same on this forum. I have asked time and again if anybody could give meany positive reasons to vote for the incumbent directors in this EGM and nobody has been able to give me a single reason to – other than the statement that the new directors “could be worse” and that hey do no like Heid.

On the other hand there are many many reasons to vote S&S out.

The fact that they have wasted £14.3 million on assets that they previously told us were great but they now want us to forget about and describe as “non-core”.

The fact that they promised that they would deliver the 24 production license for Colle Santo in 2023 when they should have known that there was no chance of this happening.

The fact that they have taken out more than £4 million in remuneration between them between 2017 and 2022 when the company only generated a revenue of £4.4 million over that same time period. They requisitioners have promised to reduce these expenses. The incumbents have made no such commitments.

The fact that they said in an RNS that LNEnergy had filed the Environmental Report on December 22nd but it still has not turned up on the Italian government website.

The fact that the Reabold California accounts were apparently destroyed but shareholders were never informed of this issue and we had to find out about it from the CEO of Daybreak after they acquired it.

The fact that the majority of the Shell money has now been received but there has been no mention of the promised £4 million to be returned to shareholders.

Why did they not drill West Newton in 2023 like they promised they would? Why did thewasted £4.3 million on Colle Santo instead of putting this money to use in West Newton? Was Colle Santo only acquired to help them win the requisition? The list goes on.

This is a real opportunity for us as shareholders to change the direction of the company. Even if you are sitting on the fence, could the new lot really be any worse than the existing directors whose track record is one of consistent failure and losing tens of millions of shareholders funds?

Re the £20 million. I have no idea how moniman gets to £20 million spent on non-core assets, but by Reabold’s own annual reports it is definitely £14.3 million. Anybody can check this.

If you look at Reabold’s RNS from 14th June 2018 then you can see that they acquired Daybreak for a cost of £3,045,000. polaris.brighterir.com/public/reabold_resources/news/rns/story/xlp4pjr

If you then look at page 69 of the Reabold 2020 annual report Reabold-Resources-2020-Annual-Report.pdf (wp-reabold-2023.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com) you can see that they made loan to Reabold California of £6,292,000, total £9.3 million.

According to page 63 of the same accounts Reabold say that As at 31 December 2021, Reabold had invested a total of £5,020,000 (2020: £5,020,000) for a 50.8% (2020: 50.8%)interest in Danube.

So there you go from Reabold’s own accounts they have wasted £14.3 million on assets that they now call non core.

If you add in the £4.3 million spent on Colle Santo then you get to £18.6 million. Perhaps that is what moniman is referring to, you would have to ask him. But the £14.3 million is directly from the Reabold 2021 annual accounts.

Fair enough Jack, that seems to make it clear that they have not been taking any additional payments from Danube or Rathlin, or these would have legally had to be reported.

It still does not clear up the issue with Reabold California though as if those accounts were only filed by Daybreak on their completion on July 11th 2023 then how could have they been reviewed by Reabold's auditors?

When you read Heid's post which contains the extract from the email by the CEO of Daybreak who says that the accounts were destroyed it is a pretty serious allegation. Obviously, if it is untrue all Reabold have to do is release an RNS saying that it is untrue. However, they have not done this.

If it was untrue then this email would be a pretty serious breach of things by Daybreak from an SEC perspective and would get them into a lot of trouble. From that perspective I am inclined to believe that this is the truth unless it is formally corrected by Reabold, which has not been done.

But Jack, according to the information from Daybreak, this was not done when it was meant to be and they had to recreate the entire 2020 financial accounts from scratch. The information can be seen here. https://twitter.com/Heid_oil/status/1737910217189318887/photo/1

Since the records for2020, according to your own post were not filed until July 11th 2023, and were recreated from scratch by Daybreak, then how could Reabold's auditors have audited them?

I would be delighted if all hade been done properly, but the timelines simply do not add up and somebody is not telling the truth, either you or Daybreak.

Persimmon - does that mean that the auditors did not audit any of Gaelic resources or Reabold California?

Also, both S&S have been directors of Danube petroleum over the last few years. According to the accounts Danube is not considered a subsidiary by Reabold. Have either of them been paid for this role? I have no idea, because Danube is a private company that does not have the same obligations to disclose as a public company.

The same issue is raised with Rathlin. Maybe they have been paid, maybe they haven't but as usual with RBD there is no clarity. Hence the reference to questions being raised.

JackofDiamonds - how could the the auditors audit the accounts for Reabold California when, according to the CEO of Daybreak, the company who acquired them these accounts were destroyed?

Looking at the results of the poll I don't think that S&S are going to survive this requisition at all and why should they? Nobody on here has ever come close to defending their actions over the last few years. Even those who are, for whatever reason, very firmly in the pro-board camp cannot defend their record but can only parrot the allegations made by S&S in their interviews that a new board could be worse and they would be too focused on Daybreak.

Neither the board nor the board's defenders have even attempted to address the issue of the £15 million that has been invested in two assets that are now deemed non-core and have essentially been written off. Nor have they addressed the fact that they have wildly overpaid for an option in the Colle Santo project where no progress appears to have been made. In fact the entire reason for the Colle Santo investment seems increasingly that it was designed solely to win the requisition. The Environmental report that we were told was filed on December 22nd is still not showing up on the Italian government website so has there actually been any progress made.? https://va.mite.gov.it/it-IT/Procedure/ViaElenco/3/2

There are also huge questions that have been raised on here about what remuneration S&S have taken from the various private subsidiaries that RBD has been set up over the course of the last few years. The company accounts are clear as mud and the destruction of the Reabold California accounts that was described by the CEO of Daybreak is a huge red flag.

S&S have not addressed any of these concerns from shareholders even in the middle of the requisition process and if they won't do it now then there is no way that they ever will.

I can see no reason to vote for S&S and I am confident that this requisition will be a success, that they will be removed and we will finally find out what has actually been going on here for the last few years.

We have asked time and again for information about these non-core projects and why they are now described as such after tens of millions of pounds worth of shareholders funds have been spent on them, but we have never had any answer. Even in the latest round of interviews that the CEOs have carried out they have just completely ignored these questions and focused instead on attacking the requisitioners.

The only way that there will be any form of real investigation into what has gone on at Reabold over these last few years, and the only way we will ever know what has really happened to all of the £20 million that has been spent on Danube, Daybreak, the Isle of Man and god knows where else is to vote S&S out. There are also big questions about the due diligence that has or has not been carried out on Colle Santo.

Kamran has promised to carry out this investigation and also to raise the money to drill West Newton . That is good enough for me. The only way we will ever get any answers is if we vote them out and we only have a matter of days to do this.

If you have not voted yet, please check with your broker when your votes need to be cast by and get them in. Vote them out and we may finally get to the truth as to what has happened here - directors fees and all.

They seem to assume that they can just do whatever they want and waste as much money as they want because their investors are so stupid they will just forget about the past and believe what ever promise they make about the future.

But we haven't forgotten and they are getting voted out this time. Look at Kyle's poll, the vast majority of investors have not forgotten about their lies and are going to get rid of them. About time too.

Moniman, it would also be interesting to know how a company can just let then entire year of accounts for Rebold California be "destroyed" without keeping any copies. But that seems to be yet another strange business practice that is unique to RBD's bookkeeping.

Simon64, you're back. Maybe you'll answer the questions I have for you this time though I doubt it. Just like your heroes S&S you seem to completely ignore questions you do not have an answer to. Here they are again though:

Why did you lie about Kamran and Daybreak Simon?

Why did you lie about Kamran and the Reabold California accounts Simon?

Why will you not reply to any of the questions about Daybreak and Danube Simon?

Why will you not comment on any of the figures that have come from the Reabold annual accounts Simon?

Why will you not answer if you think that Colle Santo is a good investment Simon?

Why do you keep avoiding the questions and defending S&S Simon?

The £4 million payout will never happen. It is just somethign that they say to try and win the requisition otherwise it would have happened already. Surely nobody believes that they will ever share any money with shareholders, they want all that cash for themselves.

I have checked again this morning and the EIS has still not shown up on the Italian website. I assume that the RBD excuse will just be that "this is what LNE told us", but once again it show a remarkable lack of due diligence on their latest big investment.

If they cannot even tell the truth about the filing of an environmental report then what hope do we have that they will be truthful with anything else?

It's also just more spam on the board to try and deflect away from the questions he won't answer persiimmon.

1. Why is the Environmental report not shown as having been filed with the Italian government, even though we were told that this happened on December 22nd?

2. Why were the Reabold California accounts destroyed?

3. Why do the directors just want us to forget about Danube and Daybreak, even though they have wasted £15 million on them? Is £15 million not important to them?

4. How can they justify taking £4 million in wages since they took over when Reabold's revenue over the same time period was only £4.4 million.

5. Why did they spend £4 million on acquiring Colle Santo - an asset that will likely never produce, instead of spending this money on drilling West Newton?

Or do you trust the people that have already lost £20 million or the people you worry might try to get some of that money back?

I find it fascinating that none of the pro-board posters on here are willing to address any of the many criticisms raised at S&S. There is no attempt to justify the £15 million losses on Daybreak and no attempt to even hide the lies told about Daybreak - we are just told to forget about them as "non-core assets".

But what really fascinates me is why none of them want to discuss the latest lie we have been told about Colle Santo. The board claimed that the Environmental report was filed on December 22nd, but the Italian public website shows that it was not, even though it has other filings right up until December 29th: https://va.mite.gov.it/it-IT/Procedure/ViaElenco/3/2

Does nobody care that we are being lied to again?

Hi Simon, care to comment on the fact that S&S do not appear to have submitted the Colle Santo EIS even though they said that they did in an RNS? If You avoid the question again, maybe Watts can respond instead?

Given the amount of lies we have been told in the past, I thought it wise to go to the Italian Ministry of Energy website and check up on the application of the Environmental Impact study that Reabold announced had been filed on the 20th December.

https://va.mite.gov.it/it-IT/Procedure/ViaElenco/3/2

Unfortunately, it is not there. Is there a legitimate reason for this? or does this mean that the filing of was just another lie told to us all before the requisition in order to make us believe that Colle Santo was actually progressing quicker than it really is?

We need answers…

Lack of due diligence seems to be a repeating pattern with S&S. It has happened again with Colle Santo and it looks like this will cost shareholders another £4 million +