We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
What do you do about your investment is entirely your own concern ...I wasnt advising you,I was expressing my view for the benefit of investors who arent aware of Angus' m.o.....
And you cant ignore a proven pattern in a company's actions or its results.Anyone who invested without being cognizant of this would be on the road to disaster.
This company is fundamentally the same and is still over promising and irresponsibly overvaluing assets of negligible value.
Balcombe cant be conventionally drilled,anymore than Brockham or Lidsey.The ceo of Cuadrilla made this clear.
Saltfeedby is a pig in a poke.The original owners would never have given it away for a pound...and actually paid Angus to take it..if it had any sustainable commercial productivity .The only businesses that ate sold for £1 are worthless,ailing or financially distressed ones...the ones that Phillip Greene or Mike Ashley buy or sell...think of BHS,Debenhams and House of Fraser..that's what Saltfeedby will be.
If it was a going concern,Angus would have had to pay a commercial price for it.
Well there are none so blind as those that wont see.
Alan is absolutely spot on...cash burn is a really serious and concerning issue,especially when a firm has NO producing assets.Its always jam tomorrow and a succession of failed promises.
And yes as shareholders we have a right to know why Vonk was paid £300k when he left.
cn100
Welcome to the Mickey mouse world of Angus energy...delays,inflated figures,exaggeration,failure after failure...we've all endured this farce ...LTHs like myself,Rx dav,Gkb,YL,Alan2017,Wolf et al.. have seen it all.
It wont get any better cn100,only worse.
Saltfeedby was given to Angus because it's a depleted asset with big contingent environmental liabilities.
Balcombe simply cant be drilled successfully using the conventional methods that Angus use.The chief exec of Cuadrilla stated in May 2014 that they couldn't extract material or commercial amounts of oil without fracking.
Point taken Croqman,but of the examples you gave..Barings was seriously distressed business (withNick Leeson effectively bankrupting it) and BHS of course is a tragic story...but again a distressed,loss making business.
I stand by my comments...Saltfeedby is being unconscionably over hyped like Lidsey and Brockham were.
Balcombe is also a dog...but Saltfeedby is a dog with different fleas lol....as someone once said.
Very apt comment Oktane!
There are at least a dozen LTHs and former LTHs trying to warn new investors here NOT to take the risk...you will lose EVERYTHING.
Angus always makes grandiose promises about "jam and cream scones tomorrow"....and it's not Vonk...Lucan too signed off on it and expressed his delight that "Balcombe is almost identical to Horse Hill in terms of maturity"...
The same with Saltfeedby...there is a reason it was sold to them for a pound.. nobody sells a valuable,productive asset for a pound.In fact,the former owner even paid Angus to take it off their hands!
In truth,the environmental liabilities at Saltfeedby will be massive,the gas is nearly depleted and it most certainly isnt worth 6 to 8p.People are being sold a deeply misleading prospectus,which seriously misstates the value of Saltfeedby.
Why else would they pay Angus to take it away?!
Sadly JA51,Wolf and Yorkshire Life are a absolutely correct.We're all very experienced in the way this company operates.
Ignore our advice at your peril Stocks Bro..
There are absolutely no free lunches!
Newbies should look at the other businesses that were sold for a pound...House of Fraser comes to mind...if you google them,you will invariably find that they are distressed businesses,near to bankruptcy,and loss making.I'm sure that's the case with Saltfeedby,and its gas reserves will turn out to be thoroughly depleted.
Thanks Ocelot..much appreciated,no problem
Oooh dear Lancashire lifer
You do sound really desperate.
1.We already have a solicitor and we arent "frantically trying to find a lawyer"
2.Third party funding will insure us,so if we lose we pay nothing;
3.We have expert opinion on our side.
Not true Ocelot!!
We'll have third party funders who indemnify/insure us so if we lose we dont PAY A PENNY! and we do have s solicitor working pro bono for us
Angus is cheap for a reason!..the city knows its weald assets are worthless,and they wouldnt have been able to buy Saltfeedby if it was viable and wasnt weighed down with clean up liabilities!
Absolutely Mirasol.
Balcombe will be just another massive disappointment like Brockham.Cuadrilla actually stated that it was impossible for them to extract oil commercially at Balcombe without fracking.
These companies have hoodwinked many of us with their reckless claims that oil can be extracted by conventional means.
The only way any investor can recover their 90%+ losses is by joining our investor action group,which already has expert witnesses and a top lawyer.
Email keither one nine seven at gmail dot com
There most certainly is a strong case for investor compensation,what's happened is blatant and the case extremely strong.
There most certainly is a strong case for investor compensation,what's happened is blatant and the case extremely strong.
YL that's exactly right..Brockham was supposedly deeper and more rich in oil than either HH or Balcombe..I can remember a certain exec said "Balcombe wont be star wars,Brockham will be!"
Laugh out very,very loud...let's not have any more fake news ...or e pect too much from Balcombe
Be down again tomorrow dont worry.....no doubt there will be a placing soon to cover for the contingent liability of the £400,000 that Balcombe residents want set aside
YL
Like you in really wanted them to succeed and believed the claims about Brockham,Lidsey and Balcombe.
Now it seems Lucans strategy is to deliberately run the share price into the ground ,and wind the company up.
They are doing this with deliberate recklessness.
For example a total failure of due diligence and fiduciary duties in not even notifying the market about the Balcombe claim with an rns.
I think they're planning to wind this up,having screwed us over royally and leave the country .
Yes of course I know about the water perforation...
Nevertheless,the main body of the February rns is egregiously misleading (where by recklessness or deceit)....it makes claims that the oil was mature,that it could produce commercially viable levels,and signed off at the end how pleased he was that it flowed.And Ocelot-you omitted to mention the subsequent rns in which they claimed to have resolved the water issue.
It seems obvious that thru knew back in December or January that it didnt flow.As our oil industry professional,Alan,commented on June 28th...it would have been very clear from core logging results at this time whether or not it flowed.
Also,we have other fragments of evidence that support the view that they had NO intention of flowing it.There is the letter of March 29th from the BOD stating there would be no flow testing,and the evidence we now have that the site managers contract ran out in March!-his contract would have extended to May/June if they really intended to flow test.
It's not the job of private investors to run a sustainable and profitable oil company...they are supposedly the experienced and qualified ones..laugh out very loud.
For a start,GL shouldn't have issued the blatantly misleading (untruthful ) rns on February 3rd stating that Brockham oil flowed,was mature etc etc and GL signing off how pleased he was.... when they already knew from the core logging of December and January that it didnt flow.
They should have come clean instead of misrepresenting the facts.Yes it would have impacted the share price,though it would probably have fallen to 5 or 6p not barely a penny!!!
And secondly the strategy should have been to immediately apply for the relevant permits for Balcombe if it really is so lucrative...and to fast track it...
None of this was done.
Vonk was not a loose cannon-he is sadly typical of AIM CEOs who grossly inflate and deceive investors -pump the share price up on grandiose lies,and then effectively embezzle salaries on the basis of blatant misstating of the facts.This is a systematic AIM scam-Vonk wasnt an aberration,but the most blatant example of an AIM ceo.This is why most AIM companies are hyped to astronomic prices and then collapse by 90%...this is not normal market behaviour-and is rare on the main market.
I cant believe some people here are trying to whitewash or exonerate Lucan of any responsibility !
Not only did he blatantly mislead us about Angus being adequately funded for the remainder of the year,but he wrote the infamously dishonest rns stating that geo chemical analysis demonstrated that Brockham had the same maturity and oil quantities as at Horse Hill..then on June 28th they issued an rns contradicting the February rns word for word!....having failed to flow test-as promised;
Having failed to consult partners-as promised.
As Alan has previously suggested,the BOD would have KNOWN from core tests back in December/January ,whether or not Brockham failed.
In other words,they deliberately mislead us.They even told the OGA on March 29th that there would be no flow testing(we have the letter), and the Brockham site managers contract extended only to March..both indicating they knew Brockham was a dud back then ,and egregiously lied to investors in subsequent RNS..about Brockham prospects.
GL presided over the annihilation of the share price from 12p to less than 1p..
Please dont whitewash him...He destroyed shareholder value more successfully than Vonk ever did!