AIM company misleads & scams investors

[Deleted User]

At least give us a heads up on the Company name

Lungboy

Sexyscorp66 wrote: »

Sorry but you're wrong in this one-this isn't some wildcat oil explorer stabbing in the dark Assurances were given-misleading statements that large quantities of oil were in these wells and it was just a matter of 'turning the tap's on' and that 'it flowed well'.
This is negligent misrepresentation of the facts,pure and simple.You are trying to explain away and justify fraud and robbery simoly because it is white collar crime perpetrated by men in expensive suits.
'Light touch' or in reality -zero regulstion-means there is no effective protection fir investors and is an open invitation for companies to trick and defraud investors.The idea that nomads the companies that pay their fees is LUDICROUS.There is a blatant conflict of interest here,a very clear case of moral hazard.
It's beyond belief that this confidence trick,this racket was allowed to continue AFTER the calamity of the credit crunch,where this zero regulation lead to the collapse of banks and ruin for many ordinary people.
I blame incompetent politicians like Brown,Darling and Vincent Cable..not to mention Osborne-who resisted EU regulations that would have strengthened regulations.
Sorry to see that so many of the replies here are obviously from directors of theservice dodgy companies,rather than individual investors.

Can you post some of the paperwork with these claims in, redacted if necessary?

[Deleted User]

Ok - it seems the OP is talking about this company
https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/market_reports/223031/craneware-falls-out-of-bed-after-a-profit-warning-223031.html
Angus Energy PLC (LON:ANGS) down 62% at 1.34p, was the biggest faller in London on Friday after a massively disappointing drilling result.


The company said further works on the BR-X4Z borehole have been completed and it is the view of the company that it is extremely unlikely that commercial hydrocarbon flow can be established from the Kimmeridge layer at Brockham, in the Weald Basin.

[Deleted User]

I have read the operations reports
24 June
The well flowed naturally to surface upon the removal of the completion and clean up fluids with flow rates rising steadily as the test continued. It has become apparent that a part of the perforated interval is producing water, which is inhibiting significant oil flow and therefore has not allowed for sustainable flow rates of oil to be reported at this time. Small quantities of oil of 40 plus API were returned to surface and sampled in the returns and has been confirmed through analysis as Kimmeridge oil.

Subsequently after the period end the Company announced a full timetable for further works at Brockham intended to isolate the high pressure water zone which had been identified in January. This, the Company now believes has been successfully completed. Further work, preparatory to a well test, is underway as we go to print.

Then
28 June Half Year Report
Further works on the BR-X4Z borehole have been completed and, following analysis of the results, it is the view of the Company that, on any conventional approach, it is extremely unlikely that commercial hydrocarbon flow can be established from the Kimmeridge layer at Brockham.

EDIT: wrong well details amended
I have been through most of the operations reports - and at no point do they mention turning the taps on or any insinuation.
And no I am not a service director, just a normal office bloke heading into retirement

eskbanker

Lungboy wrote: »

Sexyscorp66 wrote: »

Assurances were given-misleading statements that large quantities of oil were in these wells and it was just a matter of 'turning the tap's on' and that 'it flowed well'.
This is negligent misrepresentation of the facts,pure and simple.

Can you post some of the paperwork with these claims in, redacted if necessary?

I presume that OP is referring to http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/what-we-do/brockham-oil-field-faqs/:

2. Are you drilling at Brockham Oil Field?
No.

3. What exactly are you doing?
Angus Energy is turning on the existing well BR-X4Z.

4. What does that mean?
The Company is testing and analysing the Well’s ability to flow oil.

5. If you are not drilling, how will you conduct the test?
Simply put, the Well is drilled therefore all we have to do is ‘turn on the tap’. It is more complex of course, but in many ways, it is similar to turning on a kitchen tap.

Personally I think that the context is key here, i.e. they're clarifying that it's not a drilling programme, just testing flow from an existing well. It's clearly not an assurance that the well was considered commercially viable, that's what the test was for....

webjaved

fwor wrote: »

Were you advised on this investment? That's the critical question. If you were, there may be some chance of redress.

There is no point in complaining about politicians, nor about the rules behind AIM - because those rules were clear before you invested. Neither approach will get you any money back.

Just be aware that at this stage you are vulnerable to being told by legal "experts" that they ~may~ be able to get your money back - when in fact all they want to do is take some more money off you in fees without any chance of success.

Exactly this. The legal experts will be circling trying to drain more money out of you.

Lungboy

Uh yeah, that's not even close to saying that the well is going to produce oil, turning on the tap clearly refers to the testing of the well not production.

bowlhead99

Sexyscorp66 wrote: »

Sorry but you're wrong in this one-this isn't some wildcat oil explorer stabbing in the dark Assurances were given-misleading statements that large quantities of oil were in these wells and it was just a matter of 'turning the tap's on' and that 'it flowed well'.
This is negligent misrepresentation of the facts,pure and simple.

I would be willing to bet that you haven't read all the RNS statements, annual reports and press releases issued by the company, and if you have, you haven't understood them. And even reading all the reports produced by the company itself and its advisors, without having a detailed understanding of the oil and gas industry or financial markets, is inadequate due diligence for putting your life savings into something.

In the few minutes before writing my posts 3&4, I did a cursory review of some of the RNS announcements over recent months and last year to see what was going on (https://investegate.co.uk/CompData.aspx?code=ANGS&tab=announcements). From those, you should not have had the expectation that the results of the work programme could only go one way, to riches.

Finding oil or taking over a previously shuttered site is not the same as extracting it efficiently enough to be commercial, and extracting it at commercial flow rates for a period can still hit snags and require a plan B to be implemented to continue, which may not be possible given the selling price of oil from time to time.

The idea that nomads the companies that pay their fees is LUDICROUS.There is a blatant conflict of interest here,a very clear case of moral hazard.

You seem to have missed a word or few, as the first sentence doesn't make sense.

If you are trying to say that a Nominated Advisor (nomad) to the company should not work for the company that pays to be advised/ sponsored by it, and should instead work independently for you the punter, it's you who are being ludicrous. Get your own adviser if you need advice on investment decisions.

It's beyond belief that this confidence trick,this racket was allowed to continue AFTER the calamity of the credit crunch,where this zero regulation lead to the collapse of banks and ruin for many ordinary people.
I blame incompetent politicians like Brown,Darling and Vincent Cable..not to mention Osborne-who resisted EU regulations that would have strengthened regulations.

I expect you misunderstand (among other things) the cause of the credit crunch and what measures have been put in place to mitigate a repeat.

Being optimistic when fundraising as an oil exploration company hoping to be a small producer, is not something that was identified as a major cause of the global financial crisis. People who don't understand risk and finance often lump unrelated events together as being the fault of politicians, regulators, corporations generally, anyone who has something to do with some element of the financial world.

Sorry to see that so many of the replies here are obviously from directors of theservice dodgy companies,rather than individual investors.

Your post elicited a small number of replies, largely from posters who have been on this board writing about all things financial for much longer than you. It's unlikely that we are plants or stooges sent here by the dodgy companies.

I work in the financial services industry, but (hard to believe I'm sure) am non-dodgy.

Deleted_User wrote: »

Ok - it seems the OP is talking about this company
https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/market_reports/223031/craneware-falls-out-of-bed-after-a-profit-warning-223031.html
Angus Energy PLC (LON:ANGS) down 62% at 1.34p, was the biggest faller in London on Friday after a massively disappointing drilling result.

Yes that's the one I assumed in my first post #3, the only oiler to fall 60% on Friday.

seacaitch

Deleted_User wrote: »

After reading the OPs previous posts, please tell me you haven't invested the £100k from the estate of your parents in this one venture.

Yes, I was wondering that.

When people who are unaccustomed to managing money suddenly come into a load of it they are at great risk of making big, expensive mistakes. "Windfall" money is commonly treated differently by people to earned money, lulling them into treating it as "house money" and entertaining reckless actions they wouldn't consider if they'd personally grafted for it for years on end. They act in haste, without adequate knowledge to understand the implications of their actions, and usually repent at leisure later. Happens all the time.

The OP wrote:

Sexyscorp66 wrote: »

I have £100k from the sale of my parents home.I have no income,as I'm too unwell to work and have too much capital to be eligible for any benefits.
How do I provide an income that I can actually live on?-would £100k In a pension pot give me a good income now? -or would I need to look at an 8ncestment trust?-I don't want to risk losing it-but at the same time I need it to generate me an income to live on.
Any suggestions?

&

Sexyscorp66 wrote: »

Yes the reason I haven't gone down the IFA route is that a)finding the right one will be like looking for a needle in a haystack; and b)my friends have been pretty useless in nit knowing any to recommend.
Couldn't I just invest a lump soon in a pension and get the annuity?-since I don't really have a regular income.

So, didn't want to risk the capital; evident lack of investment knowledge from their other posts; but no significant effort to obtain regulated advice that could help them.

If they have lost a material sum of the inherited money then that's really very sad, but also it is ultimately all their own responsibility.


Those with reasonable investing experience know that small- and micro-cap extractive industries are the domain of insiders and sophisticated investors who understand what they're doing and the risks involved; anyone else playing there is gambling, and likely to be suckered, not least by themselves.

Aretnap

It's fairly obvious that the OP has got out of his depth investing in microcap companies in industries that he doesn't understand (didn't want to pay an adviser, so got free advice from pumpanddump.com, or similar) and has lost a large chunk of his investment - I only hope that his investment wasn't his whole inheritance.

It's even more obvious from his replies on this thread that he is only interested in hearing what he wants to hear... which means he will be easy prey for the sharks who will be circling and promising that of course they can get his money back, for the right fee. So he stands a good chance of losing the rest of his money to the sharks, and there's probably little we can do about it. Oh well, easy come easy go I suppose.