REMINDER: Our user survey closes on Friday, please submit your responses here.
I felt the following response was a slight giveaway (perhaps unintended) that there must at least be the potential for major roadblocks in the responders mind: "Finally there have not yet been any mjaor roadblock"
I also didn't like the fact that the last shareholder update was much more Geothermal focussed with SFB funding being a secondary element. Suggested to me perhaps a subtle start of changing the narrative.
Anyhow, we shall see in due course.
*note conditions
That point didn't wash with me, nor the trust deed being over a 100 pages long - they always are - you have the trust instrument itself, an annexed sets of not conditions and then various schedules... In fact I'd expect it to be 100 plus pages unless you are doing something very simple... I also felt trying to do as much legal work as possible themselves is a false economy if it is delaying the financing. There are so many ways this could be addressed i.e. hire a paralegal for a few months to do a lot of the leg work etc. or even spend an extra £100/200k on legal fees.
I think GL is a decent guy who is trying hard to make SFB a success, but he said from the outset that this is all about being seen to execute and sadly this hasn't happened. The risk reward here as also become increasingly skewed. The mean value of the reserves is £25m, whereas Angus' current market cap is now £8m. So if SFB were turned on tomorrow arguably the shares could go up in value three-fold, although there are so many uncertainties to get to this point - will the financing close, what impact will the final financing terms have on this valuation, will Angus face further technical/operational issues in turning SFB back on, is that valuation contingent on drilling the side track etc. As such in this commodity environment I think there are better risk/reward outcomes elsewhere. Arguably I could have reached that conclusion earlier, but I felt GL was pushing to get SFB done and he seemed very confident on securing the financing. I gave him the benefit of the doubt on that, probably for too long.
Agreed Crocqman. I have emailed GL several times asking him to provide an update to shareholders via RNS, no response. I am thinking of throwing in the towel, lost all trust in the board I'm afraid.
Looks like the cost for the first Eden drill is £17m with some grants
"For the first well, EGL secured £17m funding from a combination of European regional development fund, Cornwall council and commercial funding."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/19/eden-project-begins-drilling-hot-rocks-provide-geothermal-energy
I agree - he's getting quite a grilling on AE.
If that's the case then the simple solution would be to reduce the debt funding to a more palatable size, covering the near term requirements and then fund any future needs by way of placings, on the basis ANGS' market cap would be higher if they finally got the bl..dy thing producing. But therein lies the issue I believe, as Saltfleetby Energy won't have access to the equity markets to fund their share of future cash requirements, and so they are heavily dependent on this loan (even more so than Angus).
Gkb's cynicism appears to be catching.
George is going to add entry to the GEAA as a new project.
We'll have an interview with Malcy announcing our intention to join, followed by regular updates as to how negotiations are progressing. Half way through the negotiations we will decide we want to change the terms on which we are joining, taking a long pause whilst we consult with Aleph on how best to take our membership forward. In the meantime Angus will fail to notice that in 2025 GEAA was disbanded, after which there will be a long period of silence whilst Angus looks for a new project.
I agree Crocqman. GL must know he's under a lot of pressure, and so I suspect there will be a big push to try and finalise this week. That said, wouldn't be surprised if timing slips again and we receive a holding RNS that things are nearly complete etc. Problem is no-one believes those anymore.
Anyone else aware they have their own website:
http://saltfleetbyenergy.com/
Nothing new on it though.
I've just added a couple more Q&A:
The 30 November RNS stated that Aleph's reasonable financial due diligence investigation costs would be met by Angus. Asides from being concerned about the amount of time it is taking to conclude the financing, I am also becoming concerned about the costs incurred, both Angus' and Aleph's, which are ultimately being picked up by the shareholders. Please can you confirm what these are broadly to date and whether Angus are paying any other party's costs in relation to the financing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To provide some comfort as to progress being made, please can Angus broadly summarise progress made on the refinancing since the 29 March RNS.
There's no point dwelling on it...
I suspect negotiations are going on, but they are pretty complicated given parties involved and what Angus are trying to do. In short George has over complicated the financing and is struggling to close something which I'm guessing is way more complicated than is required for a Day 1 Saltfleetby restart. The whole point of doing a large financing (according to George) was to reduce funding strain on shareholders further down the path. With hindsight the funding was a very bad idea as it's instead increased strain on shareholders by significantly delaying a future path to revenue and lead to further dilution of each shareholders position before SFB is back up and running.
Preliminary answer suggests to me that perhaps they are unaware of this entity, or are having to clarify with Aleph somehow? Otherwise they should have been able to answer in full.
Thanks ocelot, interesting they chose not to publish the Q&A set out below.
To be honest I expect a dismissive reply, this is a binary play on funding now. I'm only raising questions to keep the pressure on the Board and to let them know they are accountable to S/H and to try and avoid cherry picking Q&A questions.
Please can you explain the significance of Aleph Saltfleetby Ltd.
Does the incorporation of this company imply a change to the RNS'd financing terms.
Does incorporation of this company mean that Aleph will take an ownership stake in Saltfleetby?
Tigers can come in all shapes and sizes:
https://www.hamleys.in/furreal-walkalots-big-wags-animatronic-plush-tiger-toy-491668410.html
Thanks Yanis. I've emailed GL quite a lot lately and so I think he's well aware of my views. I didn't get the sense he was overly concerned though.
I still haven't completely given up hope on the funding coming through, George seems very confident on it. That said, George has been very confident on quite a few things now that have failed to happen. And that's the problem - even if the funding does come through, trust has been lost under the new management regime and I will take anything they have to say in the future on SFB or future projects with a very large pinch of salt.
I still remember that BS about Angus starting to pay dividends from SFB and Balcombe as from last year...
I'd love to have a conversation with Fraser Lang on why he's chosen to invest so much into Angus.
No real surprise either...
George seems to think it's perfectly acceptable to put timing 'on pause' for a project that is a year overdue.
George's whole premise was to turn around Angus on improving comms and executing on projects.
He initially made some good inroads on the first point, although more recently comms are failing due to ongoing funding uncertainty.
The latter... sadly execution is becoming just as bad as under the old regime.
I wanted to give George the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to show he could turn Angus around. He's failed on the above points, plus the SP performance has been much worse than under Vonk.
The other point that is sometimes missed is that George has not brought a new project to the table since he joined. SFB was already on the table back then and otherwise he's just rehashed Brockham and Lidsey to date and got nowhere on Balcombe. Ok, he's talking about a lot of ESG projects, but that's all pie in the sky at the moment. That's not to say I would support a new project, but nonetheless business development has not been an area of redemption for George either.
George has also failed on the financing front to date, supposedly his area of expertise.
So, all in all, in my opinion not good at all.
Alan is a bully. He comes on this board periodically, presumably when he wants to inflate his ego, throws out various comments (usually by reference to events that happened years ago) and as soon as anyone disagrees with him, even to a minor extent, he will berate them until either they backtrack or filter him.
All will then go quiet for a period of months. The cycle then repeats.
Some of the stuff Alan has said is totally on point and in some instances very good advice. Although equally he often gets things very wrong. For instance he was one of the main cheerleaders of Brockham and then went onto cheerlead Red Emperor.
That said, I don't really care much about Alan. What I do care about though is this financing. I have emailed GL, he used to engage with shareholders but he doesn't seem to do so anymore which is concerning. The Q&A also see more selective nowadays. Anyone else found the same?