Member Info for WG818

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

Davey

“You’re right the status label is ‘suspended’ under Rule 40 — that’s just the website flag. But Rule 41 is the automatic legal consequence after six months if the NOMAD doesn’t confirm progress. Angus hit the six‑month mark, the company’s accounts carry material‑uncertainty wording and there’s no admission document or NOMAD restoration language. So the only thing left is the paperwork — the admin hasn’t updated the site yet, but the rulebook outcome is already clear.”

Again courtesy of AI.

Noel….. why would Traffi possibly want to do that though ? They would basically be reinstating 5 billion shares that are just a pain to deal with.

SUFC…..I was simply answering Highlanders question regarding why the suspension is continuing. You’re technically right that AIM hasn’t published the cancellation RNS yet — but that’s not the same as saying the listing is alive.

AIM only keeps a company listed past 6 months if the NOMAD confirms real progress toward restoration.

UKOG got that.

PPP got that.

Angus didn’t.

The 6‑month deadline passed in November.

There’s been:

no admission document

no restoration language

no solvency statement

no funding

no NOMAD confirmation

and the half‑year accounts already carried a material‑uncertainty going‑concern warning, which legally blocks unsuspension anyway.

So yes — the website still says “Suspended”, because AIM admin always lags.

But the rulebook is clear: no progress = automatic cancellation.

The only thing missing is the formal notice, not the outcome.

Again courtesy of AI, who I assume is a whole lot smarter than you! All you have is blind hope as a back up!

Quick Explanation: UKOG, PPP & Angus — and the AIM 6‑Month Rule

People keep lumping these companies together, but the situations are totally different once you understand AIM Rule 41.

AIM Rule 41 (the important bit):

If a company is suspended for 6 months, its AIM listing is automatically cancelled.

No vote. No appeal. No extensions.

The cancellation happens even if AIM hasn’t published the notice yet.

Now here’s why UKOG and PPP survived long suspensions — and why Angus didn’t.

🔵 UKOG — suspension allowed to continue

UKOG had:

a live, progressing transaction

a NOMAD who believed they were close to returning

solvency

funding discussions

an admission document being worked on

Because of that, the NOMAD kept telling AIM:

“Don’t cancel them — they’re nearly ready.”

So AIM allowed the suspension to run longer.

🟣 PPP — same story as UKOG

PPP also had:

a binding deal

active RTO progress

a NOMAD willing to support them

no solvency issues

a clear path back to trading

Their NOMAD kept confirming progress, so AIM didn’t enforce the 6‑month rule.

🔴 Angus — totally different situation

Angus had:

no binding RTO

no admission document

no funding package

£29m of overdue debt

material going‑concern uncertainty

creditor‑appointed directors

no solvency statement

no NOMAD sign‑off

no progress for 8 months

Because of that, the NOMAD couldn’t tell AIM they were close to returning.

So when the 6‑month deadline hit on 19 Nov 2025, AIM Rule 41 triggered automatically.

From that moment:

Angus was effectively de‑listed, even if the formal RNS hasn’t been published .

**Angus isn’t suspended anymore.

They’re effectively de‑listed.

The delisting already happened automatically.**

Here’s the easy‑to‑understand version.

🟦 1. AIM has a hard 6‑month rule — no exceptions

AIM Rule 41 says:

If a company is suspended for 6 months, its admission to AIM is automatically cancelled.

No vote.

No appeal.

No extension.

No “we’re nearly there.”

No “still talking to the NOMAD.”

It’s automatic.

🟦 2. Angus hit that 6‑month deadline on 19 November 2025

Suspension started: 19 May 2025

Six months later: 19 November 2025

On that date, their AIM admission automatically ended.

Whether AIM publishes the notice or not doesn’t matter — the rule triggers by itself.

🟦 3. AIM doesn’t have to announce the cancellation immediately

AIM is not the main market.

It doesn’t run a central order book.

It doesn’t have to publish the delisting notice the second it happens.

Sometimes the notice comes:

days later

weeks later

bundled with other admin

or after the company itself finally admits the game is up

But the cancellation itself already happened the moment the 6‑month clock expired.

🟦 4. Angus’s own RNSs prove they know they’re no longer an AIM company

After November, every RNS changed tone:

No mention of returning to AIM

No mention of NOMAD sign‑off

No mention of an admission document

No mention of the RTO

No mention of Rule 14

No mention of Rule 41

No mention of restoration timelines

Instead, every update is about:

production

hedging

workovers

“positive discussions with creditors”

“material uncertainty”

“shares expected to remain suspended”

That’s exactly how companies behave after they’ve already fallen off AIM.

If they were coming back, you’d see:

NOMAD statements

restoration language

solvency confirmations

RTO progress

admission document updates

You see none of that.

Because they’re not coming back.

🟦 5. The reason they can’t return is simple: they failed the AIM tests

To be restored, a company must:

be solvent

have no overdue debt

have no going‑concern warning

have a completed refinancing

have a NOMAD willing to sign off

have no incomplete RTO

have full regulatory compliance

Angus had:

£29m of overdue debt

three creditor groups in restructuring

repeated going‑concern warnings

no binding refinancing

no admission document

no NOMAD sign‑off

an abandoned RTO

creditor‑appointed directors

They failed every requirement.

Highlander….Angus isn’t “still suspended.”

They’re already de‑listed.

AIM Rule 41 automatically cancels a company after 6 months of suspension — no announcement required.

Angus hit that deadline on 19 Nov 2025.

Everything since then has been operational noise from a company that’s now off‑market and under creditor control.

The quick explanation courtesy of AI……and before anyone challenges it I suggest you feed all the RNS,s into your AI of choice and ask if Angus will ever return to AIM!

Drinky

Just to clear a few things up because some of the replies are mixing valid points with assumptions that don’t match what’s actually happening at Angus right now.

1. Nobody claimed Trafigura “doesn’t care about shareholders” as some revelation.

The point is simply that their incentives are now completely misaligned with equity. When a secured lender is owed more than the equity is worth, the lender’s recovery becomes the only thing that matters. That’s the situation here.

2. Enforcement doesn’t mean Trafigura walks off with the field overnight.

Everyone knows licence transfers need regulatory approval.

Enforcement just means Trafigura takes control of the asset first, then runs the regulatory process from a position of ownership. That’s exactly how secured enforcement works in UK O&G.

3. Aleph Saltfleetby isn’t a random shell.

It already exists in the financing structure, which makes it a ready-made landing zone if the asset is moved. It doesn’t prove anything on its own, but it absolutely makes the scenario viable.

4. De‑comm liabilities don’t automatically follow the asset.

They stay with the licence holder unless the regulator forces a transfer. In distressed carve‑outs, liabilities often stay with the old entity. That’s why these structures exist.

5. The leadership situation is a major red flag.

Both the CEO and the interim CEO have resigned.

There is no leadership at all.

That is not normal restructuring churn. Companies don’t lose two CEOs in a row during a refinancing unless something serious is happening behind the scenes.

6. Yes, the asset is producing — but that doesn’t stop enforcement.

A producing asset is more attractive to a secured creditor, not less. If the lender believes they recover more value by taking control rather than restructuring, they will enforce. That’s how secured lending works.

7. Restructuring is possible — but it requires leadership and lender cooperation.

Right now Angus has:

no CEO

no interim CEO

no refinancing agreed

no cash runway

a secured lender in full control

an existing Aleph vehicle already in place

Given that combination, a creditor‑driven outcome is absolutely realistic.

Mirasol asked a couple of weeks back what date people thought they would re-list. I didn’t give an answer at the time but I’ll give you my forecast as to what is going to happen within the next few months.

My thoughts, but written by AI to be clear. Traffi doesn’t give a flying F about us lot and are in it to make the best of a bad situation. Recent events (gas prices and volume uplift) make the following all the more relevant.

If Trafigura enforces the security they already hold over Saltfleetby, they can lift the field straight out of Angus without going into admin. That puts Trafigura in a far stronger position — they get the producing asset, the cashflow, and full control, while avoiding all the liabilities tied to Angus. Angus is left with the de‑comm costs, overheads, unsecured creditors, and the £2m owed to Forum, which becomes worthless because it isn’t secured against the asset.

The important bit is that Aleph Saltfleetby already exists, so Trafigura can simply drop the field straight into that vehicle. Aleph gets a clean producing asset with no baggage, no de‑comm, no Forum claim, and no shareholder issues.

And now both the CEO and the temporary CEO have resigned, leaving Angus with no leadership at all. That’s exactly what you see when a creditor‑driven outcome is close and the board knows they won’t be in control much longer.

In this scenario, Trafigura and Aleph come out in strong positions, and Angus technically continues but is effectively finished.

All in my own opinion of course.

Drinky…..here you go, this is the figures from 1st Feb, courtesy of chat GPT in therms also….ask your version if I “exaggerated” anything…..🤓

Gas Day mscm Therms/day

01/02 0.0993 35,748

02/02 0.0981 35,316

03/02 0.0998 35,928

04/02 0.0989 35,604

05/02 0.0972 34,992

06/02 0.0916 32,976

07/02 0.1010 36,360

08/02 0.1009 36,324

09/02 0.1008 36,288

10/02 0.1529 55,044

11/02 0.1698 61,128

12/02 0.1785 64,260

13/02 0.1775 63,900

14/02 0.1788 64,368

15/02 0.1800 64,800

16/02 0.1791 64,476

17/02 0.1789 64,404

18/02 0.1792 64,512

19/02 0.1751 63,036

20/02 0.1770 63,720

21/02 0.1764 63,504

22/02 0.1743 62,748

23/02 0.1642 59,112

24/02 0.1771 63,756

25/02 0.1767 63,612

26/02 0.1708 61,488

27/02 0.1763 63,468

28/02 0.1731 62,316

01/03 0.1764 63,504

02/03 0.1271 45,756

03/03 0.1807 65,052

04/03 0.1801 64,836