Member Info for Blockchainman

That’s an interesting point. The limited float and unchanged top shareholder list suggest that recent selling pressure likely comes from smaller holders rather than big players. Still, hard to pinpoint without more detail on who exactly is behind the sales.

That’s an interesting point. The limited float and unchanged top shareholder list suggest that recent selling pressure likely comes from smaller holders rather than big players. Still, hard to pinpoint without more detail on who exactly is behind the sales.

The dilution is there and it does matter. Still, Ajax has managed to secure some valuable assets and cash on hand could prove beneficial down the line. But the valuation case really hinges on turning those optioned projects into proven resources with real value. Historical estimates are just a starting point; we need current JORC 2012 resources to make that conversion. Commodity strength might be helping sentiment now, but Ajax still needs solid operational progress to turn this support into lasting gains. Eureka and Puna look like smart acquisitions at the price paid, but the real test is whether these projects deliver as expected.

I agree that it's all about converting those projects into solid proof and value. Historical estimates are just a starting point; we need to see current JORC 2012 resources to have confidence. The eIA approval is a step in the right direction but still leaves room for doubt until the economics are proven.

Thanks for that Tom. I see your point about being undervalued and that things are just formalities now, but the valuation case really depends on turning those optioned/acquired projects into solid technical proof and monetisable value. Historical estimates are a good starting point, but they're not the same as current JORC 2012 resources. The eIA approval is an important permitting milestone, but it’s still just that—a step towards proving mineral economics, not proof itself.

That spread can be misleading. With wide gaps like that, you're seeing more of an illusion than real buying power. If there's not much stock around, any sizeable order could push things around quickly. Sure, some might be taking profits off the table after a strong move, but we need to see what happens next. Does this momentum stick or was it just profit-taking on thin liquidity?

I think we should multibag once we come out of suspension

He’s definitely lost the plot and mentally challenge

First point — saying “they went to Trafigura to consolidate” doesn’t change anything. Of course they did. That’s exactly what companies do when they’re trying to stabilise a balance sheet. The relevant question isn’t how it started, it’s whether they’ve now managed to get all parties aligned on workable terms. This RNS shows they have — across Trafigura, ORRI and Forum. That’s the outcome that matters.

On royalties and debt not being handled properly before — that’s largely a criticism of previous management decisions, not what’s happening now. The entire point of this restructuring is to clean up those legacy issues. You don’t fix historic problems overnight, but you can fix the structure going forward — which is clearly what’s being done here.

The £37m revenue point gets thrown around a lot, but revenue is meaningless without context. What matters is cash flow after costs, obligations and financing structure — and that’s exactly where the problems were. Again, this restructuring is addressing that.

On “where is the retail upside” — that’s missing the obvious. Upside comes when a company moves from a constrained, high-risk financial position to a stable one where equity can actually benefit from operations. That transition is exactly what’s underway. You don’t get upside while the balance sheet is broken.

As for the rest — emotional language about “snouts in the trough” and “smoke” doesn’t really add anything. Markets don’t price emotion, they price outcomes. And the outcome here is a company that has, for the first time in a long while, aligned its creditors and is moving toward a sustainable structure.

You can dislike the history, but ignoring the progress being made now doesn’t make the argument stronger — it just makes it outdated.

I expect gas to hit 200 shortly

That doesn’t really hold up when you look at the facts.

The problem Angus had wasn’t simply “avoiding insolvency” — it was a fragmented debt structure across three separate creditor groups with competing interests. In those situations, equity often does get heavily diluted or impaired because parties can’t agree. The fact that Trafigura, ORRI holders and Forum are now aligned on key terms is exactly the risk that needed removing.

Saying that was “expected” is hindsight. Plenty of companies in similar positions fail to get that alignment and end up restructuring on terms that are far worse for shareholders.

On the timing — this isn’t a bilateral refinance, it’s a multi-party restructuring. These processes routinely take months because each group has to negotiate and sign off. The outcome matters far more than the speed, and the outcome here is clear: agreement in principle across all parties.

On terms not being released yet — that’s just how this works. Until documentation is finalised, nothing is binding, so publishing partial terms would be meaningless. The company has already said a circular will follow with full details. That’s standard AIM process.

More importantly, markets price risk and probability, not just final numbers. Before this RNS, there was uncertainty around whether a deal could even be reached. Now there isn’t. That’s a material change.

So no, it’s not irrelevant. It’s the key step that makes everything else possible. Ignoring that is just overlooking how restructurings actually work.

Hard to disagree with the overall take.

What stands out to me is just how different this feels compared to previous updates. In the past, there was always a sense of reacting to pressure. This time it reads as structured, coordinated and actually moving toward a defined end point.

Getting all three creditor groups aligned is the key detail. That doesn’t happen unless there’s a viable plan on the table and a level of trust in the people delivering it. It takes a lot of the uncertainty off the table.

Also worth highlighting the timing — they’re already moving into documentation with a clear expectation of completing in the coming weeks. That suggests this is well advanced, not just early-stage discussions.

Fully agree on the finance director as well. This is exactly what you want to see from a competent director — quiet execution, getting stakeholders onside, and steadily removing risk from the story. It does feel like Angus finally has a team that can follow through, which hasn’t always been the case.

If they land this as outlined, the conversation around Angus changes quite quickly. You go from a balance sheet story to an execution story — and that’s usually where the market starts to engage properly again.

That going-concern line is doing a lot of work though. It keeps reminding the market how precarious things still are.

Restraint aside, Balcombe remains unchanged. Planning delays have been ongoing for years, and this update adds no real clarity. “Resubmit in due course” doesn’t give any indication of timing or likelihood.

So in practical terms, the operational story here is entirely Saltfleetby.

But we don’t yet know how much of that response holds. Flowback can inflate rates temporarily, especially with condensate and water returning alongside gas. Until the wells stabilise, there’s still uncertainty around sustainable throughput.

Given the balance sheet situation, that uncertainty carries more weight than it would for a company with greater financial flexibility.

Isolation, the operational side is clearly better than silence, but I’m cautious about over-interpreting it. The increase to roughly 6.4 mmscfd is explicitly during flowback. The company makes a point of saying the wells require a period of clean-up and will be monitored over coming months, which tells you this isn’t a settled production number yet.

On the finance side, nothing has fundamentally changed. Debt restructuring discussions are still ongoing, the going-concern wording remains, and the shares stay suspended. Until one of those moves, the equity risk profile doesn’t materially shift.

So the real test is probably March onwards, once B7’s done and wells stabilise?

It reduces it because creditors don’t want to kill a business that’s finally performing. Rising production, better uptime, lender-supported workovers — that’s a different conversation than six months ago.

Money pie I hear that, but suspension also froze the share price while fundamentals improved. There’s no daily drip-feed of negativity.

No, but this quarter’s gains were mostly surface and management improvements. Workover impact hasn’t really fed through yet.