REMINDER: Our user survey closes on Friday, please submit your responses here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
VHB, I'm unsurprised that your response to a factual post is based on cheap insult, but still.
I've no idea why ANGS might want to raise more cash, though the "anticipated" cost-over-run on contingency the company mentioned in this year's Jan 6th RNS may provide one answer.
I'm merely pointing out the cast-iron factual oddity of the company deciding it immediately needed the authority to issue such a large quantity of new shares just ten weeks before the AGM falls due. Why go to the bother and expense of calling a single agenda item GM, when it could have waited just ten weeks and then table the exact same resolution, unless the need was urgent?
But hey, feel free to avoid the question and respond with more trite insult.... it is after all an allegedly free world and I do acknowledge that facts can be irritating things.
"Don't see them pausing development in those circumstances either - the closer Angus arrives to first gas, the stronger its bargaining position"
Agree with you Ocelot - the closer they are to being able to deliver on time and on budget the less risk for a buyer and therefore a higher price
Adrain -
Firstly they think they need more cash - otherwise why rush the GM when they could have waited for the AGM in April?
They said "This will give the Directors flexibility to issue and allot further Ordinary Shares in the future (whether to maintain debt covenants and meet all obligations under the Saltfleetby Development Loan Facility or more generally) "
On Contingency they said "Progress continues apace at Saltfleetby and whilst some suppliers have advised of delays of the order of a few weeks and the Board anticipates a further increase in the contingency for the project (up to 10% of budget)
Don't see them pausing development in those circumstances either - the closer Angus arrives to first gas, the stronger its bargaining position.
Anyone who signs the CA or NDA will get a look at the books on the Company and/or SFB so there is no point in holding off if a raise is needed.
Remember any buyer isn't worried about the ANGS share price - the only risk is that there's a leak but as everyone knows they're going to have to raise some more cash anyway (otherwise why the sudden need for the authority to issue more shares?) it's not a major factor.
I suspect that a possible takeover, a raise AND SFB construction all at the same time is straining the team to the absolute limit tho'.
Completely agreed, nhawan. So, if ANGS knows that more funds are needed (again) to get SFBY over the line, for instance to cover off the anticipated contingency shortfall mentioned in this year's Jan 6th RNS, in my book, however infuriating that might be, it needs to get busy and fast addressing said shortfall.
As you say, waiting around in hope is not an option.
The company will have to continue SFB development while they wait for any offers. The only reason they would pause development is if a serious offer was in the pipeline.
PS of course if ANGS is now deadset on selling either Saltfleetby or the company, then yes, it presumably won't need to place.
But first that doesn't mesh well with all the revenue/profit projections that the company has continually issued, while equally continually assuring investors that these are just around the corner. And with those two separate and ever-approaching obligations (debt repayment and hedge fulfilment), it'd be a daring CEO who wound back efforts to get to first gas and instead bet all the company chips on an acceptably sized offer going through in the required narrowing timescale.
As has been much commented, the most obvious indication that a placing may well be required soon was ANGS's decision to suddenly call a rushed single issue GM taking place two weeks back. The sole purpose of that GM was to gain the authority to issue a much larger number of new shares (874 million) and such authority was approved.
None of which would be that unusual (save possibly the number of new shares now permitted)... but this GM was called just ten weeks before the AGM to take place at the end of March, where such a resolution could easily and more normally have been included.
That strongly suggests that ANGS is looking to issue more shares (for whatever reason) before March 31st.
I put up the post to see what others think about it. I am not selling just looking for more info.
Yanis and Taverham (both in my view genuine posters) seem adamant that a 'few weeks' is not possible (although I guess the definition of a few weeks is open to interpretation!).
We need an Ops Update to settle some nerves and show us exactly where we are, ignoring the sale process entirely.
GLA.
(few weeks and the Board anticipates a further increase in the contingency for the project (up to 10% of
budget) I wonder when that will arrive, got to be a placing before the end of Feb.
I would actually be concerned if ANGS doesn't take whatever steps may be necessary to cover the recently mentioned Saltfleetby budget/contingency shortfall (as per Jan 6th RNS).
Sure, it would be infuriating to have it confirmed that they've got their sums wrong yet again at this allegedly very advanced stage... but art of the practical here - what's the alternative, given those two separate alarm clocks of debt repayment and hedge fulfilment set to go off in just over 5 months' time? Flogging the asset or the company off for a load of confetti would hardly seem in keeping with the potential of Saltfleetby that they've kept assuring everyone of.
Yet another lol moment!! “Upset how quickly this is progressing “ well I would be upset if I had told everyone first gas was in three weeks time!
Have you seen how much pipeline they need to install!! I thought it was around 3km….looks like I should have doubled that at least!!
Let’s face it they are going to be many months fitting that puzzle together before they can even start training the staff to operate it. They haven’t even got the civils in place yet have they?
@General_Rastus
"The likes of Mirasol, Head in the Sand, WG818 on the #ANGS LSE board will be most upset how quickly this is progressing"