Member Info for wealdpwr

Charlie , mate

I haven't asked you anything. Essentially you have my point for me. I'm not here to argue style, as I've told you before, that's personal choice...

Vonk gives BOPD +Market Cap...IF OIL IS PRODUCED. So what? Obviously If there is no oil , it will be reflected in the market price. I'll apologize if you can prove he said these were likely outcomes or made any overt promises. Further the Weald was always a gamble. Seems to me, if you recall, there was enough evidence it was worth a shot. Why would you ever be pessimistic about an investment decision? You certainly are not when it comes to ANGS. Unfortunately Lucan doesn't inspire confidence in many people, not all.

You do not have the painful facts, let alone facts, certainly when you are wrong about an investment it is painful. Just like today for the Lucanistas....

LOL, YL

C London

Firstly I am referring to the company RNS(s) in April of this year..As well as the tweets by JTP. http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Brockham-BRX4Z-Well-test-update.pdf

Secondly , you say " it is merely setting out the decommissioning costs across all assets." "Merely" is a euphemism if you look at their burn , cash on hand, resources in general. It is a liability and I doubt it was part of the Lucanista calling card, "We are really worth 4p." And the fund raise as you are probably aware is fungible and goes to things like current op expenses, so not clear why you continue to unquestionably defend , but you are consistent ! I can appreciate that but to say it is for one thing and not the other is simply not true, IMO.

A favourite refrain by the Lucanistas is that he is cleaning upon the mess left behind. Yet that mess is a direct result of the man who brought him here whom Lucan full throated endorses, JTP. And the same team from geology to finance is still at ANGS. How are they any different? The only thing that has changed is Vonk. As you know, I disagree with you assessment. All I hear are cries of " Star Wars!" in reference to Brockham . As I have also stated prior it is conveniently taken out of context to support said refrain. The fact we are even still talking about Vonk when he has nothing to with today's dismal events, I find strange but unfortunately predictable. We are talking about Lucan projects, statements and decisions that is whom we are invested in. Are we only talking about Vonk because you are trying to defend JTP documented poor record? Everything I wrote about is the present.

And if you want talk about as you say the "real reason" for the CLN? Their share price would be decimated if they did an equity raise, it is that simple. Finance is not a strategy it merely funds your decisions at the lowest cost possible.

GLA

Bad day for the Lucanistas and their pom-poms. Being this is AIM , I anticipate a small uptick but not a full recovery anytime soon from this RNS.

Once again, we see inept management from this team, one week they are preaching to shareholders about the virtue of Satfleetby and a valuation of questionable veracity, next a very long RNS to essentially say we did not do or bake in enough due diligence.

Many people on this board have articulated this Poundland adventure was nothing more to keep the lights on - and that's exactly what this next fund raise will do. Nothing more.

What I think is outrageous are the promises about Brockham , the tweeting of oil , knowing full well they had a duster. Rinse and repeat with Saltfleetby. Are they managing ANGS or this BB? Because this BB will fill their pockets faster than any business plan.

This is also why the integrity of a Chairman or an investor with requisition shenanigans matters.

Is that pre or post your "NPV" valuation?

YL

LOL , of course they will deny the quotes because you are being negative! I look forward to more.

No. Again, you draw inferences I just don't see. For what reason, I do not know. Your unquesitoning and voluminous postings are indeed curious....

GLA

Alan2017, agreed...and don't forget this NOMAD was previously fired, and apparently according to LUCAN, plotting w JTP to retake the company. Lucan was on the requisition.

How can we trust the ANGS NOMAD?

No. Clearly the company needed the fundraise, given after he left, the company raised money to pay JTP et al. I don't see your inference anywhere in my statement.

YL

Maybe Lord Lucan fails on Corporate Governance and won't sack JTP because he doesn't want to end up like the last BOD? Unclear from his interview, why he even wants this job......

And who has a reasoned argument?

To my point about facts, the requisition had nothing to do with the financing deal as Lord Lucan pointed out. Lord Lucan said Vonk ended up in a disagreement with shareholders towards end of 2018 and wasn’t able to come to market with a regular fundraise and so raised unsatisfactory convertible loan note. Lord Lucan failed to mention that it was one shareholder and that was JTP.

It stands to reason, if JTP wasn't trying to avoid being sacked for all the violations pointed out by Alan 2017, ALL shareholders would have benefited from better financing..which was clearly necessary.

And what about that pay off to David Leningas, JTP's departed mentor?

YL

I don't think you have a 'negative' agenda at all. Unfortunately that 'some' are rampers (who chose to ignore the facts and select what I would refer to as euphemistically fuzzy math and speculation) .

Play on Sir!

Ocelot, to quote Winnifrith, yes the one and only Winnifrith, “what are you smoking?” LaBrum is a former Deutshe Bank trader. No matter what , like an apex predator, he will view the entire life of his investment as a trade. Without blinking he will size up every retail investor as a kill.

GLA

Ocelot

To be clear I never suggested a multiple is used to determine an NPV. Secondly, my broader point is you cannot use a hypothetical nor a real NPV to determine a share price. And this case , it is strongly hypothetical!

GLA

Ocelot

Your NPV is at best fuzzy math...There is a real difference between NPV and where the market values a company.

Secondly, the only way you can come up with the 4p figure is to perform an NPV ( which can be manipulated by the chosen time horizon), decide on a multiple and then divide by the share outstanding. Curious how it conveniently, translates to 4p ( if that is in fact, Lord Lucan's maths), seems like it was backed in.

Lucan continues to dissemble when it comes to JTP and clearly vouches for him.

Does anyone recall JTP resigning? He never did. JTP had to leave the board - he did not choose to resign and continued to supervise Brockham operations and of course was paid.

He also says he left Vonk as sole exec member of board, calling it 'extraordinary' . Yet our governance expert Lord Lucan fails to mention oil experts Chris Gooey and Rob Shepherd who were INDEPENDENT board members that remained. That left a 4 man board for a company with how many employees? Less than 10? What is wrong with that? They resigned due to JTP's requisition shenanigans.

Now the Board is all insiders with a NOMAD that was fired.

Lord Lucan calls it a shareholder requisition once again, why doesn't he say what it was, JTP 's requisition? Why does he continue to gloss facts for JTP?

Lord Lucan a governance expert? He thinks JTP minor fault was the he was poor at paperwork - and that's still ok for a Chairman? Does he not realize the paperwork was filed in a foreign country because a loan could not be obtained in the UK because it was illegal/against rules? Not a very governance minded excuse let alone professional. Imagine, " Sorry we blew the rig up but the guy wasn't very good at paperwork..."

What else will he gloss over? Sigh.

Respectfully Ocelot, you are ignoring the white elephant in the room. Of course JTP was unhappy where things were going:

- he was removed from the board
- he was under investigation
- clearly he thought Brockham would be a hit - or at least that what he wanted to tell the mkt ( tweeting oil) which makes him more dosh....

Now he has Lord Lackey , he is restored with salary, expenses and loan.

JTP 1 Shareholders 0

Well in this case , BD means Business Destruction. What strength do you gain from being in field operations? Wasn’t that JTP ‘s last story, he is an operations man ? I’m afraid Lord Lucan is dissembling.

Yanis

Respectfully, "naively or not transferred his shares" is pardon the expression, naive. Chairman JTP did this during a quiet period and it was reported that he signed the loan documents...at that point it doesn't matter what 2030 did or did not do. And he apparently lied to the board given the RNS they had to issue when the TR1 was received. The entire Board resigned over his requisition, 8-12 months later. One has to consider why would JTP cause such a drastic action? IMO, it is obvious. Secondly, no one on this board can justify any of his actions, his value to the company or why he should stay - not even yourself. He has destroyed shareholder value all to his own benefit. Let's not forget how he handled Brockham every step of the way - including tweeting oil. The only person who has vouched for him is Lord Lucan who curiously was on the requisition.

Shareholders need to know if JTP is a shadow director or if Lord Lucan has full control of the company. So far, the former appears to be true . Why are we loaning him money and paying him a salary, if he is an employee?

It doesn't matter what you, myself or YL says here, what matters are the facts. The 'negative' comments do not wish ill will to anyone, nor should anyone try to gloss over the facts to potential investors.

The only person who can solve this is Lord Lucan. It is that simple. YL is correct, his presence is not only a distraction but bad business.