Member Info for OofyProsser

Wakeyinvestor: I don’t think anyone blames Mr. Prelea for losing the historic parcel. What people blame him for is his quite unjustified, sustained statements of confidence in its return to Vast. And his belief that Vast as presently constituted has a NAV OF $200mm! Of course, with no recourse other than the sale of the diamonds to meet Vast’s pressing debts, it’s understandable that he persists in misleading the owners of the Company he manages in this way and in the medium term the only people who are losing from this are new investors lured in by the ignorant nonsense being peddled on these chat boards about NAV, the availability of the diamonds and profitability.

Ocelot: thanks for the correction re quarterly payment of the royalty from end-March 2024. Apologies to chickster and to you for my mistake in this. So there will be a cash outflow, or shares in lieu equivalent, of c. £300,000 at the end of June in respect of the royalty

HITS: I believe the offtake agreement and the hedges are separate, aren’t they? The difference between the hedge agreements, to the extent that we know anything, is that, in contrast to the Mercuria hedges, which were in place for a limited time, the new ones are permanent, as I understand it. I wonder if there was any price to pay to end the agreement with Shell. And yes, the terms neither of the offtake agreement nor the hedges have been divulged. It was - and continues to be - a wonderful deal that Mercuria negotiated. Angus has been a source of riches for Mr. Forrest and for the commodity traders while the poor shareholders have stumped up at every turn and been rewarded with a share price that keeps plumbing new depths.

Chickster: I believe HITS is correct and that this is a monthly payment. If Angus continue to pay it in shares, and assuming similar volumes and price of gas, you can therefore assume that there will be a daily excess supply of shares from this source at the rate of about 1.25mm. shares per day, which is quite a lot for a weak market to absorb, innit? I can’t imagine Mercuria wanting to hang onto Angus shares for long. If the financial position here continues to deteriorate, the share price is likely to fall further, which will result 8n an even greater supply of shares from the royalty. A few of us have been warning about this for quite a long time.

Reminder: from the auditor’s report in the recent Report and Accounts:

“Costs such as exploration licences, leasehold land and property acquisition costs and costs directly associated with exploration activities are capitalised as exploration and evaluation intangible assets. There is a risk that the exploration and evaluation assets are incorrectly valued or need to be impaired”

The auditor considers this a Key Audit Matter. Virtually all UKOG’s assets come under the definition of “exploration and evaluation assets”.

Ocelot: I’d say it’s time the management here apprised the business’s owners of the terms of the new offtake agreement and of the new hedges with Trafigura. There has been no recent comment on the gas flow from the already heavily depleted Saltfleetby field either. The company’s survival rests on this, not on the Weald “assets”.

This share is a coyote, not a double bagger.

Ocelot: why do you presume that Angus’s change of broker was was at Angus’s instigation?

RT003: very amusing.

Patrick7: nope. Saltfleetby Energy, Mr. Forrest’s vehicle, initially owned 100% and subsequently sold 51% to Angus. The terms of the sale to Angus of his remaining investment of 49% appeared to some of us to be generous at the time. You can draw your own conclusions as to how they appear now.

Ocelot: he did own 100%, but sold 51% to Angus, whose offices were just across the landing. He later did a phenomenal deal with the noble Lord Lucan, Angus’s Pen Holder at the time, whereby he offloaded the rest for tons of cash and shares. He’s been busy offloading the shares ever since. A nice little earner all round, really.

Ocelot: would Mr. Sanderson’s resignation represent a positive surprise?

Zwartkops: why would Mr. Prelea be “in a sleazy South African bar”, when the Victoria Falls Hotel has reportedly been his preferred lodging while in Southern Africa? And I dare say he’ll prefer the more delicate flavour and tenderness of Thomson’s gazelle.

“Paul Forrest's resignation from the board does mark the attainment of a milestone in Angus's development.”

Does anyone else sense a double entendre in this statement? Is Mr. Forrest imitating the action of the rat vis-à-vis the sinking ship? The game’s afoot.

WG818: well, The Archers was never as good after his namesake Tom Forrest handed.in his portfolio so it seems unlikely the early rise in the share price will see any follow-through. Will he still be considered an insider? Presumably he will now enjoy freedom to sell his remaining shareholding as and when he likes, without reference to company announcements?

Article 190 of the 8 March 2024 Articles of Association seems to indemnify the Directors against any loss they may suffer for whatever reason in carrying out their duties as Directors, so I dare say their rather blasé attitude towards timely observance of the terms of the Companies Act re AGM’s may reflect this. Shareholders would have to cover the cost of any legal case, I should imagine.

WG818: that’s an interesting comparison. I remember the collapse of Enron. A CNN report commented later that:

“An independent review published in 2002 detailed how executives pocketed millions of dollars from complex, off-the-books partnerships while reporting inflated profits to shareholders”.

They did this partly though very dodgy hedge contracts and other deals, which allowed them to inflate their profits for a number of years, until it all became unsupportable. Fortunately, it really would be fanciful to suggest that there are any parallels with Angus. For one thing, the financial advice enabling something like this to develop would not be available to Angus. They’d have to have insiders who really understood corporate finance and accounting. In any case, that was the US. They do things differently there.

Octane: debt of £20mm., a depleted asset which gets more depleted every month without millions more invested in it, royalties, hedge contracts and offtake agreements the terms of which have not been revealed, apparent concert parties with 42% of the equity. Zero chance of a dividend. Further share issues to come just to keep existing assets going. Auditors’ reservations over going concern status. Massive share and warrant overhangs at above current prices. Have I missed anything? Are we comparing like with like? Which US companies is Mr. Zielicki comparing Angus with?

That’s all right then, Ocelot, if Krzys Zielicki said so. I’d prefer to listen to Lord Lucan. Which is saying something.

Cynderlad: I don’t want to read this kind of abuse on here. Filtered.