Member Info for mimbrit

…only a £1.8m error.

Does history relate why the new auditors quit?

All the RNS said was

“In the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position "Net Assets" was changed to "Net (liabilities)/ assets" and the number "898" was changed to (898). In the "Total Shareholders' Equity" line the number "898" was changed to (898).”

i.e. the company acknowledges that the positive asset/equity figures in the interims were, in fact, negatives.

The presentation says UKEn has a storage site in East Yorkshire.

Would they like to share with their shareholders what exactly they have bought, for how much, and its postcode or what three words?

I'm sure some would like to visit and verify how productive the cabbage patch is...

See vid here http://bit.ly/475Ycgv

They are not going to want to have those tanks empty when they come to commissioning, are they?

Anyone spotted that the bottom line is actually a negative £898k and not a positive value?

What’s a £1.8m discrepancy between friends?

Why would Sanderson break the habit of a lifetime by engaging with shareholders?

Give Sanderson credit where it’s due…

…for a year from December 2022, Sanderson invested £1000 per month in the company’s shares, a total of just 4% of his super ludicrous remuneration, at an average of around 0.1p/share.

According to LSE, he had 12,457,310 shares but I assume these would have been consolidated 1:10 and become 1,245,731 shares with a value going into suspension of about £128, up to £600 in the ridiculous froth surrounding the MOU (not a JV, TH2) and now back to about £300.

If there is some substance to the recent hype, then well and good but the lack of evidence is worrying.

There were 18,249,134,666 shares in issue, after Sanderson re-used the ploy of adding 10% to the EBT in order to vote through a doubling of this figure.

Only 3.18bn votes were cast at the meeting, or 17% of total. Assuming the 1.85bn EBT votes were cast in favour, only 7% of ‘real’ shareholders voted, with 24% of them against resolution 1 and 28% against resolution 2.

15bn of the expanded shares have been announced, leaving 3.25bn still to go.

Did anyone actually attend the virtual meeting and were questions asked/answered?

He does still have authority to issue a further 3.25bn shares…

…and there is no government money being thrown in UKOG’s direction.

…where UKOG’s East Yorkshire cabbage patch is?

They’ve raised enough money for truckloads of seed but whether Sanderson will have left any in the kitty for pickers at harvest time, who knows?

Minor point, but shouldn’t the net assets/shareholders’ equity be a negative £898k?

TH - I’d quite like a reminder of what Starmer said (especially if he mentioned UKOG). Could you reference Hansard please?

Thanks.

Miliband is in enough trouble without getting within a country mile of this fantasy.

GD1962 - I suspect that’s where this is headed; doesn’t sound as though the sale of UKOG(GB) is completed and I doubt the authority to issue more shares adds sufficient comfort for the auditors. Sanderson goes even further under the radar and chomps through the proceeds if they come…

There must be huge costs for P&A that look like defaulting.

Sad example of the AIM casino.

Good news. We would be even more grateful to our neighbours if they coughed up the balance of monies owing…

Early September, they said…

Ibug - the sale took place in July i.e. afer the March interims period, but I think you are right that they needed these post period events to achieve a statement of going concern from the auditors.

The company had revenue of just £1.5m in 2003 and a wage bill of £1.8m (£115k average per head after an eye-watering £338k for Sanderson). I imagine they are running on fumes now and with little prospect of future revenue or outside investment.

I bug - is all the delay because the auditors need sight of the £400k and the authority to issue more confetti in order to sign off as a going concern?

Have I got this right?

Only 3.18bn votes were cast at the meeting, or 17% of total. Assuming the 1.85bn EBT votes were cast at in favour, only 7% of remaining shareholders voted, with 24% of them against resolution 1 and 28% against resolution 2.

Looks like remarkable disinterest/apathy probably because shareholders understand what’s coming next…

Did anyone actually attend the virtual meeting and were questions asked/answered?