Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
gkb47 - There is no requirement that someone should be a holder but in the interest of transparency non-holders should be honest about their non-holding position and even more so about their membership of action groups that are organised outwith this board and dedicated to a group action to try to deramp this share on this board.
Why are you hiding the fact that you are a member of AAAG! and that you don't hold any shares. These are not bad things in themselves, but they are bad when you hide them and pretend to other investors that you do not have an ulterior motive.
If you would admit you were a member of AAAG! then it would explain to honest investors why you spend so much time on this board deramping a stock that you no longer hold. More importantly, it would mean you were being honest with fellow investors as opposed to extremely underhand.
Why would an action group that was committed to transparency from the company be so deliberately opaque about its own membership?
It's really very concerning and slightly sinister if the members are busy deramping Angus while pretending to be impartial to ordinary investors, especially since the AAAG is organised outwith this board in order to try and manipulate opinion on it.
Well I was only a day out in my weekend prediction then!
Sorry - my post below was directed to dreamachine.
This is nonsense. Of course you trade shares. People were saying don't trade it all week during the recent crash and those who held lost significant money while those who traded made money.
This share will definitely recover and the share price will definitely go up long term but I do not see why you wouldn't want to make money while it is stuck in it's current trading range. I have not made massive trades on this but I sold out my holding when the Times article came out and I have substantially increased by overall holding by buying and selling since.
The aim of the game is to make money not to fall in love (or indeed hate) with a share.
or Natwest as I suppose I should now call them.
Well, on the plus side it is not RBS!
You may have hoped that it did not sound evasive but it was not only very evasive, it also meant that the only possible answer was yes, you are part of the Anti-Angus Action Group.
However, the big question really is why would you not admit to being part of the AAOG? I mean presumably you are proud to be part of this fine upstanding collection of individuals fighting the good fight and therefore you should be proud of your membership of said organisation...
On the other hand, it would make things slightly awkward for you to have to admit that you are not truly impartial and were actually part of the hidden agenda of a secretive action group.
Eek, I can see your problem. You don’t want to lie, as you do not see yourself as a liar but you don’t want to tell the truth either as it would mean that the impartial on this board viewed you in a totally different light.
I am not trying to have a go at you here. I simply believe in transparency on these boards and I think that the existence of a shadowy off-board group who have an agenda to deramp Angus and do not admit to their membership of said group is simply not an honest way to go about things and decent people would not act in such a cloak and dagger way. Why do you not all simply come out of the cover of darkness and admit who you are and what you are doing? That would be the decent thing to do.
If you would like to simply state that you are not a member at then I will of course take your word for it and withdraw all accusations while making profuse apologies for my mistake.
The thing is though, I’m not wrong am I?
Thanks you for your evasive reply gkb47.
It would have been so easy for you just to say no you were not part of the anti-angus action group if this was the case, but the kind of answer you gave is one from a person who does not ant to say yes but cannot bring themselves to lie either.
So that is one AAAG member confirmed. I wonder when Alan will reply.
Thanks for that Ocelot but I would very much prefer to have it in his own words so there can be no misunderstanding. i have asked Alan the question several times and received no answer which I think speaks volumes. If either of them tell me that they are not then I will absolutely take their word for it, but if they are then why will they not be up front about it?
Jut to reiterate: "gkb47 are you part of the anti-angus action group?"
This looks like it has established a new trading range of between 210-280. I don't think that it will move out of this without news.
I reckon that the weekend is when we will see some online booking start.
Is there an SS worship club? I wonder how many members it has? Himself and his mother maybe, but I can't think that it will stretch much further than that will it?
gkb47, you may not be a lawyer but are you part of the anti-angus action group?
I am having something of a disagreement with Alan2017. He claimed in his post on the 20th June that Geoge Lucan was wrong when he said that “one of the decisions I took was to diversify slightly away from exploration and into production “.
I have pointed out that the big part of Angus was always exploration aside from very small-scale production. I have even ringed the sections on page 5 of the IPO INVESTOR PRESENTATION NOVEMBER 2016 document where it says in big letters “EXPLORATION” and the than Angus will “Exploare Kimmeridge Limestones at Brockham”.
Sadly however, Alan does not seem to be able to see the words “EXPLORATION” and “EXPLORE” on this page. So just to check I am not going mad would you mind letting me know if you can see them on the following link: https://ibb.co/HqhtLX1
Am I blind and making up that Angus were originally heavily involved in exploration of the Kimmeridge or is Alan blind and making up that they were not…
Two options for you to vote on:
1) Yes, page 5 of the IPO document says that Angus intend to explore the Kimmeridge at Brockham
2) No, page 5 of the IPO document does not say that Angus intend to explore the Kimmeridge at Brockham
For those who want to check on the official document itself, it can be seen at this link in page 5: http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Angus-Energy-IPO-Investor-Presentation.pdf
Alan, you're having a mare here son.
On page 5 of the IPO document it says that Angus intend to EXPLORE the Kimmeridge Limestone at Brockham. It is in a section entitled "EXPLORATION". Exploration was always a huge part of the Angus story. The advantage that they had was the production license was already in palce (again as it said on page 5)
I have even ringed the bit that shows you Angus we exploring for you here: https://ibb.co/HqhtLX1
Alan, Paul Vonk was the man who (in an interview) made the statement about Brockham Production of "We just need to turn the taps on". You know, the statement that so misled investors back in the day.
You appear to be claiming that because you say there was no exploration involved that there was no exploration involved. However, the IPO presentation says very different: https://ibb.co/HqhtLX1
By the way, you never answered the question:
ARE YOU PART OF THE ORGAINSED ANTI_ANGUS ACTION GROUP?
A simple yes no answer will do...
Sorry Alan, you are wrong (AGAIN) as you often are.
If you go to slide 5 in the presentation you will see that it clearly says Exploration and it then redfers to "Explore Kimmeridge Limestones at Brockham"
If you would like to see the page the link is here: https://ibb.co/HqhtLX1
Or for the whole document see here: http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Angus-Energy-IPO-Investor-Presentation.pdf
Just because you say that black is white Alan it does not make it so. It seems like you have an ulterior motive to make the company look as bad as possible...
You are very fond of asking questions Alan so let's see you answer this one:
ARE YOU PART OF THE ORGAINSED ANTI_ANGUS ACTION GROUP?
A simple yes no answer will do...
Hi Alan,
I was just looking through the analysis of George Lucan's interview that you did the other day. On a superficial glance it seemed to be a reasonable bit of work but as I actually watched the video and followed your links I saw that there were a number of errors in it where you had left out key factors that meant that your conclusions were flat out wrong.
The first of theses was the first point:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
@1min 11secs - GL: “one of the decisions I took was to diversify slightly away from exploration and into production and last year we acquired a formerly producing gas asset, which was once the largest onshore UK gas field and that had been stranded.” Once again Lucan is WRONG, as Angus have been promoted from Day 1 as not being an Exploration company, but a Producer / Development Company, hence the title of the above presentation
“Proven UK Operator, Producer and Developer
IPO INVESTOR PRESENTATION NOVEMBER 2016”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
However if, instead of just looking at the title of the presentation you actually bothered to read it you would see that on page 5 there is a big section entitled “Exploration” where it says explicitly that the company’s intention is to “EXPOLORE Kimmeridge Limestones at Brockham”.
Would you like to comment on the fact that it is not George Lucan who was wrong but rather yourself. The Developer in the title clearly refers to the exploration that they refer to on page 5.
Shoddy analysis Alan. Do you have much prior experience in the O&G industry?
Pippa-Peaches does seem to be a rather bizarre character.
Too good to be true some might say...