Member Info for ocelot

"nice to know whose side you're on Ocelot"

Thank you, Mirasol. You are right, I am on the side of shareholders.

Ownership of Angus currently splits between significant shareholders: 48.66% and others, most of whom are presumed to be PIs: 51.34%

The Board is there to work in the best interests of all shareholders.

Of the 5 members of the board, 3 have been appointed to ensure the interests of significant shareholders are represented on it: Kemexon, Forum and Aleph.

Mirasol,

In your post of yesterday, 16/08, at 17:57, you said:

"And ANGS do not have that time. New ANGS might - but that won't be of any concern to anyone currently invested".

In your post of this morning, at 08:39, you said:

"... you agree then that the PI's aren't represented and only the interests of Kemexon, Forum , Knowe, Aleph & Djumaliev count?"

That is, you are no longer saying the same thing: from speaking of "anyone currently invested", you are now speaking only of PIs.

This is the point I was making, that Angus is very far from being a PI stock, nearly half of its issued share capital (48.66%) being held by significant shareholders.

"And ANGS do not have that time. New ANGS might - but that won't be of any concern to anyone currently invested".

"Anyone currently invested" includes: Kemexon Ltd: 19.67%; Forum Energy Services Limited: 16.21%; Knowe Properties: 4.85%; Aleph Commodities Ltd: 4.25%; Atanas Djumaliev: 3.68%.

Forum and Aleph have very recently joined Kemexon on the board of directors via the appointment of NEDs (non-executive directors).

I don't think there can be any doubt that these NEDs are better-placed than Mirasol to express the viewpoint of those "currently invested" they represent.

Aren't we all buyers of energy, Mirasol?

"He (Pete Miller, co-founder of Octopus Energy) said: 'Once wind farm developers realised they could exploit a system that paid them even when there's inadequate grid to carry the power, they built all the wind farms where they got the cheapest leases - which for various reasons happened to be in the most remote areas of Scotland - regardless of all the expense this would inflict on bill payers for curtailment and new grid".

1/ "... which IS in the eyes of the financial rules a DEFAULT on payment".

As I have explained very many times, only the lender, one of the 2 contracting parties, can declare a default and Trafigura have chosen not to do so but, instead, to seek an agreed solution with Angus.

I accept that you are very attached to the word "default", so will not make this point to you again.

2/ "I see NO ONE could put all the numbers up from the last 2 + years of production & any additional wonga (excess to debt etc) this lot has had through their hands, ..."

Don't understand, these figures are available in the published cash flow statements.

Mullins58,

I appreciate Bubblepoint's industry knowledge, I find him less convincing on the financial side of things.

1/ "Ermmm of course, breaches of conditions along with failure to pay on specified dates is a default, it does not matter how you dress it...."

It's not that there are breaches of conditions "along with" failure to pay on specified dates, it's that the failure to pay on specified dates ARE the breaches of conditions;

2/ re "credit score": we are NOT talking about a personal loan, we are talking about corporate finance;

3/ the debt facility involves just the 2 contracting parties, Angus and Trafigura. Nobody else is a party to the contract, nobody else can determine that Angus is in "default".

GF dealt with the "lifestyle company" accusation in the Q&A of the most recent video presentation, but the last time I looked the Q&A had not been added to their site.

Article on page 20 of The Times of this morning.

Highlights the problem of the UK's "creaky" grid, with renewable energy being generated where it is not required (eg Scotland) and lacking where it is required (eg the South).

The result is a layering of curtailment costs, to switch off wind farms in remote areas and switch on gas plants elsewhere.

Neso (the National Energy Systems Operator) predicts these costs could balloon to c£8bn by 2030.

Article argues for building lots of batteries and for zonal pricing of electricity.

"Ermmm of course, breaches of conditions along with failure to pay on specified dates is a default, it does not matter how you dress it...."

No default because only the lender can declare a default, not a bulletin board poster.

"Tell you what, try doing the same with your mortgage and provider lol.... see how THEY dress it !!"

What will happen if a bulletin board poster declares somebody else's mortgage to be in default to their lender?

"SOOOOOOOO the elephant in the slby room being the defaulted debt burden to Trafigura is not something to talk about lol.... really !!!"

Of course we, investors and posters, can talk about Trafigura, I never suggested otherwise.

There is no "defaulted" debt burden, because only the lender can declare a default, not a bulletin board poster: there have been breaches of conditions, yes.

Nobody is in a position to speak for Trafigura except Trafigura (and they are saying nothing).

Yes, they will want to recover their funds.

"Completion of this transformational transaction (the RTO) would represent a major strategic development for Angus Energy, with a significant increase in reserves, production and positive cash flow" (RNS of 19/05)

If, therefore, the RTO can be completed, then Angus should present a much more attractive profile to a lender, no longer depending upon, essentially, one source of revenue.

Hopefully, Angus's profile has already improved since 30/06 and the expiry of the low, historic hedges.

"Add to that, the reality of this bullshine RTO whilst in default really says it all, because that due diligence process will destroy the credit score rating before it has even started !!"

No default because only the lender, Trafigura, can declare a default: there has been a breach of conditions, yes.

Haven't understood the logic of the last part of your sentence: why will the due diligence process destroy the credit score rating (of Angus, presumably) before it (the due diligence process?) has even started?

Bubblepoint,

Don't believe the proposed RTO is a "bullshine story". Indeed, the fact that it is a "story" which has been with us for very nearly 3 months suggests it is more than bullshine.

"Had they done SLBY the right way from the start, including early financing ...".

Remind you that GL had clearly been counting on an international bank which pulled out and obliged him to seek other solutions.

"Yes, I can see WHY they want to run away from this UK story, as it is them themselves that are beyond challenging, not the industry as a whole".

With all due respect, Bubblepoint, the context of "this UK story" isn't just a matter of "the industry as a whole", it is also a matter of the UK government.

Just look at the level of taxation being imposed upon the oil and gas industry in the UK!

Zak Mir is a chartist, not a fortune teller.

In his bulletin board heroes of yesterday, 14/08, Zak Mir speaks of the NSTA's decision re EPP's MESH project of being possibly "the rug pull of the year".

Correction: (the RTO and suspension RNS of 19/05) NOT 19/06 - fat finger syndrome!

"The transaction diversifies Angus away from the challenging UK energy sector ..." (the RTO and suspension RNS of 19/06).

Good decision!