Member Info for OofyProsser

Ocelot’: “ all we know is what they are seeking to do.”. You missed out a phrase: all we know is what THEY CLAIM they are seeking to do. .

Ripley94: you can at least console yourself that you have avoided the temptation to top up/average down.

Ocelot: so this can be suspended for another three months and no one but insiders any the wiser. What is the point of Angus’s requesting a suspension? Whom does it benefit? I’ve said this before, but the only people who may benefit are those who have borrowed against the value of their shares. That’s not individual shareholders, is it?

Mirasol: a shareholder, yes, but not necessarily in Angus. As to Ocelot’s opinion that people have not sold because they think the share represents good value, people haven’t sold because the shares have been suspended for more than three months.

And as to Mullins, he is a self-confessed exemplar of the dimmest mug punter. Close your ears to the analysis provided by people who clearly know what they’re talking about - filter them - and stick with a share whose price is collapsing and whose prospects are virtually nil. Some weird form of “loyalty”suppose. But Angus isn’t your wife, it’s a dodgy AIM resource stock. I can’t fathom this kind of thinking. And of course many of the nay-sayers don’t hold Angus shares! And they’ve been quite right.

HITS: yes, they’ve never seemed to be in control. have they? But at least the Earl of Lucan entertained us all with his monthly Q&A’s and his wolfish leer at the gorgeous, pouring Katie. And there was the incident of the punch-up by the silvery Tay - involving the current COO (non-Board) - that amused the bb for months. The current bunch of shrinking violets are dull, grey and uncommunicative.

Well, Ocelot, that’s the nicest piece of helpful advice I’ve read in a long time.

Mind you, anyone who ever had confidence in the management here needs to look at premium bonds.

From the 19 May RNS [just a reminder]:

“At this stage, the Potential Transaction is non-binding and subject to completing due diligence, funding and other material considerations and there is no certainty that it will be completed, and the timing thereof cannot be determined.”

“Shareholders should be aware that there is a risk that admission of the Company's securities could be cancelled if they have been suspended from trading for six months.”

Well, Crocqman and Ocelot, it’s undeniable that the reputable characters you list have been grossly over-optimistic and casual with the actualité in the past.

The term ”credulous”springs to mind.

Crocqman: don’t tell me you believe it too?!

Does anyone really believe that Angus has a US partner willing to share profitable Gulf of Mexico assets with them? It’s this kind of thing that keeps sensible observers posting here. There are so many poor dumb punters who buy these speculative shares and watch as the price goes down and down (deeper and down), like rabbits in headlights. Someone has told them they haven’t got a loss until they sell and impressed on them the benefits of “averaging down”. Whereas successful professionals run their profits and cut their losses. And all they can do is insult the posters who have consistently pointed out the flaws in the investment case. And they buy more on the basis that it would be rude not to!!

One can’t prevent stupidity losing people money. One can hope to inform the inexperienced so that they are not persuaded to join in these scams.

Crocqman; or possibly people outraged by the absence of any form of regulation in a stock exchange many of whose component companies’ Directors fill their boots at the expense of their shareholders and lie their heads off with impunity. As for why small oil and gas companies? Well, the answer is on the share prices. There’s a number of egregious examples in this sector. Whatever these people’s motives, they’ve generally been right. They seem to me generally to know more about the business and the financial status of the companies on which they post than do their critics.

Ocelot: you’ve lost the argument when all you can come up with is “are you a shareholder…”. It’s irrelevant - mere nosey-parkerism.

I agree with you, Mirasol, about Ocelot. Though I’m not sure that we would learn much if she were to disclose her investing history.

Re Kemexon and Aleph, unless they have a very strong (and correct!) view on the money to be made from Saltfleetby!s storage potential, it’s hard to see how they will avoid quite a large loss from their investment here. The only people who have made a packet are Mercuria and Forum. I’d like to see the report and recommendation of the Finance Director before Angus bought Forum’s 49%. I expressed my surprise at the consideration at the time. Mr. Forrest has done very well out of Saltfleethy already. As for Knowe, there appears to have been some connection with Captain America but who knows? Whatever, I can’t see individual shareholders being left with anything. Angus is already half way through the suspension limit of 6 months.

Dear oh dear. Ocelot can’t help herself.

Angus is in default. Only Trafigura can make a motion, or declaration, of default and they haven’t done so, as discussed earlier. Whether or not Trafigura makes such a declaration, Angus is by definition in default. Persisting in saying this is not the case does not make it so.

It’s simple for you to check this, Ocelot. Consult a dictionary.

Ocelot: a default is a default. You default if you miss an agreed payment of capital and/or interest on an agreed date. Angus is in default.

A “declared default” is a technical legal term whereby a creditor files a motion for default. It’s clear that Trafigura has not done this and that it has good reasons for not doing so. Those reasons most likely pivot on whether Trafigura would benefit more financially from doing so or from allowing Angus to carry on trading for now. An RTO is extremely implausible and in its absence there’s unlikely to be anything left in this for ordinary shareholders.

Kindly desist from your attempts at misleading/obfuscating readers of this bb.

It might also be rewarding to look at the Accounts of Aleph International Holdings. Virtually all of their assets appear to be the sums owed to them by Aleph Commodities. It does have investments as well, but if the assets of these two companies represent principally their holdings in Angus, it’s not surprising the shares of Angus are suspended, what?

Ocelot: I suggest you take a squint at the accounts of Aleph Commodities, it’s tiny and has net liabilities of nearly £2mm. Furthermore, the Companies House list of Directors says he resigned in 2023. There’s no record of him there as a non-executive director.

Re the other chap, any friend of Forum will be a friend of Angus, I’m sure.

What this company needs is a couple of Earls on the Board.

I doubt that Lady of AIM was the source. She was the immediate conduit. The leak came from either the Company or an insider.

You have to ask yourself who benefits from the suspension. I can only think of three entities, all of them substantial shareholders.

I’d be surprised if the post-annual maintenance shutdown improvement lasts more than another week or two. It didn’t last year and by October the gas flow was plumbing new depths.

Yes, Ocelot, Angus requested the suspension after identifying a leak of a proposed RTO. It’s a bit late to request a suspension AFTER a leak. It should have been requested when they entered negotiations. If any. RTOs are mainly to do with cash shells. Are Angus suggesting that they are now a cash shell?

I maintain that the suspension has not benefited individual shareholders, who might prefer to be able to buy more or to sell. The company’s request for a suspension seems to be to have disadvantaged small shareholders. One might speculate on its effect on any of the three large shareholders. The effect of a suspension is to freeze the share price. If any or the large shareholders have pledged Angus shares or otherwise used them as proof of wealth, a suspension might be of advantage to them.