Member Info for WG818

K3vmc — here you go. The £32m figure from the interims only covers the current liabilities — the short‑term obligations.

If you look further down, the interims also list non‑current liabilities, which include:

Borrowings (non‑current)

Lease liabilities (non‑current)

Provisions — including the full de‑commissioning provision

These total roughly £7.7m.

When you combine both sections — which is how lenders, auditors and restructuring advisers assess the balance sheet — you get:

£32m current

+ £7.7m non‑current (incl. de‑comm)

= £39.8m total liabilities

That’s the actual obligation stack the company must deal with. Hope this clears this up for you.

What’s very odd NeoGeo is how your posts range from very well thought out and at first read plausible, to almost understandable tosh with Zero grammar!

Yes like yourself I have used AI, only I know a considerable more about this company than you appear to and ask it the relevant questions to it.

My own replies are far from that of HIT’s but I do at least know to put a full stop at the end of a sentence.

Are you a single poster or do you guys share a keyboard?

People keep throwing around fantasy valuations, so here’s the fair‑value model in plain English — the way creditors will look at it, not rampers.

1️⃣ Start with the real balance sheet

Not production. Not hope. Not “Q2 looks good”.

The actual numbers:

£39.8m liabilities

£18.863m loan unpaid

8% ORRI still skimming revenue

ORRI arrears unpaid

Forum unpaid

£12m+ trade payables

£682k cash

Restructuring incomplete

Suspension ongoing

This is the starting point for any lender.

2️⃣ Value the asset properly

Saltfleetby is a short‑life, steep‑decline gas field with:

high decline curve

high capex requirement (two new wells)

ORRI skim

hedge constraints

gas‑price downside (peace in either conflict or US LNG expansion pushes NBP back to historical norms)

When you model it realistically, you get:

➡️ Economic equity ≈ £5m

(before dilution, before new money, before hedge reset)

3️⃣ Divide by the shares in issue

Just under 5 billion shares.

£

5

𝑚

/

5

𝑏

𝑛

=

0.1

𝑝

But that’s before:

Forrest’s conversion

Trafigura conversion

ORRI arrears conversion

New‑money placing

Hedge renegotiation

Funding for two new wells

Dilution to keep Forrest under 30% (unless a whitewash is used)

Once you factor those in:

➡️ Fair value ≈ 0.05p per share

4️⃣ This is exactly how creditors will see it

Creditors don’t care about bulletin‑board optimism.

They care about:

recoverability

security

cashflow

hedge control

repayment risk

dilution required

their own equity position

They will price the refinancing at a level that:

protects their downside

gives them equity at a deep discount

resets the hedge book to suit them

ensures Forrest stays under 30% unless a whitewash is approved

leaves existing holders heavily diluted

5️⃣ This is why the relist price cannot be higher

The placing price becomes the relist price.

Not the suspension price.

Not the “Q2 production” fantasy.

A company with £39.8m of liabilities and no cash does not relist higher.

Ever.

6️⃣ Fair‑value conclusion

Based on:

real liabilities

real decline curve

real capex needs

real dilution

real hedge reset

real creditor conversions

➡️ Fair value ≈ 0.05p

➡️ Not 0.5p, not 1p, not 2p

That’s the valuation.

That’s how creditors will see it.

And that’s why the re‑rating fantasy collapses the moment you run the numbers.

Neo….Reply:

You’re still looking at production and ignoring the capital structure — which is what decides whether this survives.

The 31 March numbers are unaudited, yes, but they’re still the only official financials we have. Everything after that is guesswork until it’s in an RNS.

And those numbers show:

£39.8m liabilities

£18.863m loan unpaid

8% ORRI still skimming revenue

ORRI arrears unpaid

Forum unpaid

£12m+ trade payables

£682k cash

Restructuring incomplete

Suspension ongoing

Not a single creditor has been paid back.

Not one pound.

ORRI impact (full‑year)

At current revenue (~£69k/day), the 8% ORRI takes:

£5.5k/day

£165k/month

~£2m/year

Before Angus sees anything.

And the arrears still haven’t been touched.

This alone kills the “cash builds quickly” argument.

Hedges WILL be renegotiated

Any refinancing will almost certainly change the hedge profile.

Lenders always reset hedges because hedges = cashflow control.

Your “44% hedged at 100p” argument assumes the hedge book survives untouched.

It won’t.

New lenders = new hedge terms = new cashflow profile.

You can’t price the equity on hedges that may not exist after the deal.

Mr Forrest’s payout

Let’s be realistic:

He’s not getting cash — the company doesn’t have any.

He’ll get shares, which means:

more dilution

more pressure on the placing price

more downward force on the relist valuation

Another reason the equity cannot come back higher.

On decline curve and new wells

Saltfleetby is a steep‑decline field.

The uplift is temporary.

New wells are needed just to hold production.

But two new wells cost £8m–£12m, and the company has £682k.

You can’t argue “they must drill” and “they can afford to drill” in the same breath.

On relisting

A refinancing does not mean a higher share price.

It means:

new money at a discount

creditors converting at a low price

Forrest getting shares

hedge book reset

massive dilution

placing price = relist price

A distressed company with £39.8m of liabilities does not relist higher than suspension.

Ever.

Bottom line

Production is better — good.

But the debt, the ORRI drain, the arrears, the liabilities, the decline curve, the hedge reset, the Forrest share payout, the funding gap for new wells and the suspension haven’t changed.

Until the restructuring is actually done and the debt materially reduced, the “re‑rating case” is just hope dressed up as analysis.

Reply:

Stopping the clock at 31 March doesn’t “miss the point” — it’s the only audited, verified financial position we have. And that position is clear:

£39.8m total liabilities

£33.1m even excluding de‑comm

£18.863m loan still unpaid

8% ORRI still skimming revenue daily

ORRI arrears still unpaid

Forum still unpaid

Trade payables £12m+

Cash £682k

Restructuring still incomplete

Suspension still in place

Going‑concern warning unchanged

Not a single creditor has been paid back.

Not one pound.

The ORRI still takes 8% of gross revenue before Angus sees anything — around £5.5k/day at current prices — and the arrears haven’t been touched.

Yes, Q2 production is stronger. Nobody disputes that. But production doesn’t erase debt, it doesn’t settle arrears, and it doesn’t magically fund two new wells.

And your “the game has changed” argument ignores three immovable realities:

1️⃣ Gas prices today are not guaranteed tomorrow

If either of the two major world conflicts de‑escalate, European gas prices fall sharply.

Even without that, the US is bringing huge new LNG capacity online, which analysts already expect to push UK NBP back toward historical norms or lower.

Saltfleetby’s economics look very different at 60–70p/therm.

2️⃣ Saltfleetby still has a steep decline curve

The post‑workover uplift is real, but temporary.

This field has always been a fast‑decline asset — without new wells, production will fall again.

So the current revenue spike is not a stable long‑term base for refinancing.

3️⃣ Two new wells cost £8m–£12m combined

Cash is £682k.

Liabilities are £39.8m.

Every creditor is still unpaid.

The ORRI still takes 8%.

Brockham is only breaking even once opex/capex is included.

So the idea that they can suddenly fund two new Saltfleetby wells “from revenue” is fantasy.

No lender funds new wells until the balance sheet is actually fixed — and it isn’t.

On the refinancing argument

You say: “If it completes, the equity is worth something. If it doesn’t, it’s worthless.”

That part is correct.

But the leap to “it will relist higher” is where the logic collapses.

A refinancing does not mean a higher share price.

It means:

new money comes in at a discount,

creditors convert at a low price,

the share count explodes,

and the placing price becomes the relist price.

That’s how every AIM restructuring works.

The equity that comes back is not the same equity that went in.

It will be a heavily diluted, recapitalised version priced to suit new investors and creditors, not existing holders.

There is no realistic scenario where the relist price is higher than the suspension price.

The placing sets the price — not production, not sentiment, not hope.

MoneyrRaiser…..another Lady of AIM fan!!

A simple question to you all. Are you all in the Telegram ramp Squad, or just a single poster with multiple accounts??…..It’s quite odd that it all went quite when I mentioned corpus resources the other day and the fact that most of the Angus board and Former dross had moved over there…..Hmmm…yet money raiser looking at its history commented on a link on said company with the heading “Lady of AIM tweet”

Only wasn’t it the Lady of AIM Tweet that got Angus suspended over a year ago?…..probably just one of those coinkydinks that so many posters that mention's her are ultra bullish on Angus?!?!?

Neo….in response to your earlier AI generated post. Here’s mine.

The operational uplift is fine, but the financial reality hasn’t improved — it’s actually worse than what the November RNS implied. That update said £29m was being restructured. The new accounts show the opposite:

Total liabilities now £39.8m (up from £29m)

Even excluding de‑comm they still owe £33.1m

Loan payable still £18.863m — none of it paid down

Derivative liability £2.037m — still underwater

Trade payables up to £12.093m — a huge increase

Cash down to £682k

Interest costs £1.34m for the half year

Net cash down £434k despite higher production

Suspension still in place

Restructuring still not completed

Same going‑concern warning as before

So yes, production is better — but the balance sheet is materially worse, and the company hasn’t reduced a single pound of the overdue Trafigura/ORRI/Forum debt.

On Brockham: the RNS shows £444k of crude oil sales, and Brockham is the only oil producer. That’s roughly 7,400 barrels over six months — about 40 bopd. Once you factor in opex and the capex needed to keep BRX4z running, Brockham is only breaking even at best, and nowhere near generating meaningful cash for the group.

And the big question nobody in the ramp posts wants to address:

How exactly are they supposed to pay for two new Saltfleetby wells later this year?

Cash is under £700k, liabilities are rising, and the restructuring isn’t even agreed yet. Drilling two new wells is a major capital commitment, and right now the company can’t even reduce its existing debt pile.

Operational improvements don’t override the fact the financial position has deteriorated since November.

Neo….whilst I can somewhat agree with your recommendation to Bubbles (posting as you do bubbles does seem a little unhinged) I would suggest that you seek the guidance of an accountant if you think that that was a good result!!!!

Multi millions will be required extract the remaining gas going forward, and on those numbers it would be placing after placing to pay for it.

I do agree with your final comment about when they relist, I think the finance deal and the likelihood of massive dilution will definitely price that in… probably not the way you seem to be suggesting however.

Hit a nerve Neo?

I hardly post on here anymore due to the suspension and the fact that it’s been over a year……and the absolute mind numbing childish tit for tat dross.

Any thoughts on Why the Majority of Angus past and present Directors have moved to Corpas resources? Including Mr Forrest and Johnathan Tidswell Pretotious, the former disgraced founder and CEO and recently resigned after being appointed interim boss, before resignation after an incredibly short tenure…….odd thing to do if the Company is turning in record profits…..according to the clocks right twice a day “Lady of AIM”

And there you go another ultra positive poster mentions “Lady of AIM” is that number 6 or seven now? caution advised should this actually be bought back from suspension.

It’s going to be interesting to see if they publish the half yearly before this guess by a pundit whe gets it wrong 90% of the time comes true? Not sure those “record Profits” are going to be shown!

£29 million was owing all with an interest rate of between 16 and 20%…..and mr Forrest still owed his £1.88 million plus 20% interest for over a year that will possibly be settled in shares, plus the 16.21% he owns that he will want to get shot of so he can concentrate on Corpus resources with the other directors and former Angus dross! Dittos the 8% gross ORRI still owed on everything the produce from Saltfleetby.

I smell an early “just in case” Pump and Dump!!

Oh……and one more thing. If the Storage option is a matter of national importance as some on here are pushing, why the hell would they trust it to this shower of shix!! They don’t even have anyone in charge for over half a year now!

SUFC

Unfortunately far from laughable.

Angus are in case you have missed it under several fanatical strain and hold the licence for the whole block, not just Saltfleetby. The other operators in the same block are in much the same boat as Angus.

So non of them would seem to full fill the financial requirements required by the NSTA.

You also have Mr Milliband in charge!!

Don’t think for one moment that those owed that £29 million haven’t considered this in their calculations!

Sage.

The other part of your post is also puzzling!

They paid around half of what they owe to Mr Forrest when things looked a whole lot rosier than they do now. They also only hold the licence to extract petrochemicals until April next year At Saltfleetby and have no guarantee of that being extended. In fact given that they hold the licence for the block and the perilous state of all the production companies in said block it’s far from certain that the licence will be renewed.

When it comes to the storage, no application has been submitted to the regulator applying for any form of storage, Gas, Hydrogen or C02 as far as I can see!

The other assets are just de-comm liabilities in reality, and they have conveniently forgotten to include the costs for de-commissioning the 8 Km pipeline in the accounts. That was £12m odd when they took the license over from Wingas!

Absolutely things have changed with the price of gas and the increase after the workover, but even now it’s is way below the CPR figures and will continue to decline rapidly in the coming months as the CPR demonstrates if you care to take a look.

As I said, the price of gas is a lifeline for them, but it doesn’t change the reality that all the fields excluding Balcombe were end of life when Angus took them on. Balcombe in reality is a long shot money pit, chasing the de-bunked Kimmeridge dream!

Erm……. The accounts were upto September. Yet we have an RNS in November confirming they owe at least £29 million…..where is this £7 million come from Sage?

Lol…I wonder why they say they are doing that Ocelot! ……possibly because at a 23% decline rate from historic modelling , it makes the company pretty much worthless. Can’t see the re-financing being done until that’s complete.

The silence is deafening on here this morning. Any idea where onetomanys cash pile went?

Hits. It’s a fabulous tool to have. Good to have your input……bottom line is it doesn’t really matter if Traffi decides they don’t want retail and the 5 billion headaches that come with it!

Hits… I have had to go into “Think deeper mode after that chalenge!

Short summary

No — a NOMAD does not have to make a public statement for AIM to allow a suspension beyond six months. However, AIM will only permit a continuation if the NOMAD has privately confirmed to AIM Regulation that material progress is being made and AIM has accepted that confirmation. The market can only verify that extension if the company publishes a dated RNS quoting the NOMAD and the date of the NOMAD→AIM confirmation.

Why this matters

Mechanism not magic. AIM doesn’t independently investigate progress; it relies on the NOMAD’s private assurance to justify any extension.

Confidentiality rule. Communications between AIM and a NOMAD are confidential, so AIM won’t publish a notice of those talks.

Transparency gap. Because AIM and the NOMAD keep those discussions private, the only public evidence the market can rely on is a company RNS that names the NOMAD, gives the date of the NOMAD→AIM confirmation, and states AIM accepted it.

Timing is everything. If that RNS isn’t dated on or before the six‑month Rule 41 deadline, the public record doesn’t show a lawful extension.

What Angus should have published (concise, legally meaningful wording)

“SP Angel Corporate Finance LLP, the Company’s nominated adviser, confirmed to AIM Regulation on [dd Month 2025] that material progress has been made towards completing the Company’s financial restructuring and that an admission document is being finalised. AIM Regulation has accepted the NOMAD’s confirmation and agreed to extend the suspension beyond six months to allow completion of the restructuring and the admission process.”

Publishing that wording with the exact date would give the market verifiable evidence of an extension.

Why they used “expected to remain suspended”

Negotiations were live and conditional, so the board could not promise an outcome.

AIM’s decision is external and discretionary, so the company can only report its expectation, not AIM’s decision.

Confidentiality and legal caution make the company prefer cautious language rather than a definitive public claim.

That phrasing signals intent and uncertainty — useful for managing expectations, but not a substitute for a dated NOMAD→AIM confirmation

Hits….it’s not actually me you are disagreeing with its AI! As I said I still have some reservations that it’s correct. But it does make a compelling case. This is how it answers your reply to myself.

What it has delivered is that the Nomad cannot sign off to it being reinstated while the account s show the 12 month material going concern caveat in them. This alone answers Highlanders original question.

It’s entirely possible that the Nomad has been talking to AIM ….and it’s also entirely possible that Angus simply hasn’t told us as they quite obviously should have!…not like they haven’t got a history for posting incorrect RNS,s is it!

You’re right that Rule 41 uses the word “MAY”, but you’re missing the mechanism behind that discretion.

AIM doesn’t just wake up and decide to extend a suspension because a company says it’s “progressing” or “expects” something.

AIM only exercises that discretion when the NOMAD formally confirms material progress to AIM Regulation.

And here’s the key point you’re overlooking:

#1 and #2 cannot apply unless the NOMAD verifies them.

AIM does not independently assess whether a transaction is progressing or whether financing is realistic.

AIM relies entirely on the NOMAD’s assurance.

So your list actually collapses into one requirement:

The NOMAD must tell AIM that material progress has been made.

Without that, AIM has no basis to extend a suspension — discretionary or not.

And in this case:

There is no RNS dated on or before 19 Nov 2025 stating SP Angel confirmed progress to AIM.

The 20 Nov RNS is one day late and contains no NOMAD→AIM confirmation.

Saying the shares are “expected to remain suspended” is not a regulatory extension.

AIM cannot extend on the basis of company optimism or ongoing talks — only on the NOMAD’s formal confirmation.

So yes, Rule 41 is discretionary —

but the discretion only exists if the NOMAD triggers it.

No NOMAD confirmation = no extension mechanism = Rule 41 stands.

If you believe AIM extended the suspension, then the challenge is simple:

Show the RNS or AIM notice dated on or before 19 Nov 2025 where SP Angel confirmed material progress to AIM and AIM agreed to extend.

Until that appears, the argument that “AIM must have allowed it because the suspension continues” doesn’t hold

Simple imo, who owns this company?

The shareholders or it's lenders?

The shareholders own the “ Company” ……but the lenders hold debentures over all the assets and are able to cherry pick the profitable bits out of said company if they wish to.

Gmed….absolutely agree with what you say. I am using this as something of a training lesson. Below are the RNS issued relating to the suspension that the information is gathered. I have challenged it at every opportunity as it doesn’t sound 100% to me either but it’s clear that with the evidence showing this is the outcome. The only way to be certain however it tells me is to contact SP Angel or AIM and confirm that the Nomad and aim have had a conversation and agreed an extension! If this is indeed the case then the company should have made all shareholders aware of it…….But this is Angus after all!

RNSs reviewed (date — title) — required NOMAD→AIM wording not present:

19 May 2025 — Potential Acquisition by Reverse Takeover and Suspension of Trading on AIM

27 May 2025 — Finance Update

6 June 2025 — Finance Update

30 June 2025 — Interim Results for the six months ended 31 March 2025

11 July 2025 — Forum Energy Deferred Consideration and Changes to the Board

21 July 2025 — Second Quarter 2025 Production, Operations and Finance Update

8 August 2025 — Non‑Executive Director Appointments

13 October 2025 — Finance, Potential Acquisition by Reverse Takeover Update

3 November 2025 — Third Quarter 2025 Production, Operations, Corporate and Finance Update

20 November 2025 — Update on Potential Acquisition, Financial Restructuring and Suspension of Trading on AIM (dated after the six‑month trigger)

22 January 2026 — Fourth Quarter 2025 Production, Operations, Corporate and Finance Update (dated after the six‑month trigger)

Exact wording that would have needed to appear in an RNS dated on or before 19 Nov 2025 (single block):

“SP Angel Corporate Finance LLP, the Company’s nominated adviser, has confirmed to AIM Regulation that material progress has been made towards completing the Company’s financial restructuring and that an admission document is being finalised. AIM Regulation has accepted the NOMAD’s confirmation and agreed to extend the suspension beyond six months to allow completion of the restructuring and the admission process.”

Courtesy of AI