Member Info for HeadInTheSand

(And of course "SteakBake" very obviously cannot provide any answer...)

I'm genuinely interested in your answer to the reasonable question I posed, SteakBake?

Or of course, if you'd rather, you can avoid it and just resort to the "green activist" myth, while bemoaning the fact that certain opinions are not censored here...

SteakBake, George has very recently publicly stated more than once that the loan would be paid back by the end of the year, leaving the company debt free (his assurances, not mine).

So if he's been telling the truth, but needs £6 million to develop Brockham and Lidsey (which is quite possible), why not let the loan run for a few months longer and use some of the promised field- generated revenues as funding for B & L, instead of completing the loan payback? Surely that'd be more reasonable than an unnecessary (going by George's statements anyway) and significant dilution?

I mean, if paying off c. £14 million in the next 7 months was ever realistically true, why not let the loan run on for another say six months and use the £6 million saved for whatever purpose, rather than dilute existing holders by such a large amount?

@SteakBake I have no idea - perhaps asking an IQ of the company would be a good idea?

I'm just very surprised at the apparent need for £6 million of cash right now, given that the CEO only 11 weeks ago was talking continuously about £7.2 million of revenue in June and even more recently than that about paying off the entire c. £14 million's worth of loan out of proceeds from the gas field by the end of this year.

For "incessant deramping", read "asking difficult fact-based questions and mentioning inconvenient truths."

I note with zero surprise that there's no criticism levelled at those many who trumpeted "First gas by end March! Guaranteed!" or kept repeating "£7.2 million revenue in June! George said so!"

Sadly it seems that for whatever reason, some people can only tolerate opinions if those mesh entirely with their own confirmation bias, even if said opinions clearly have no relationship whatsoever with the actual reality of things...

Again, why does George need an extra £6 million of cash right now? He's been banging on and on about repaying the loan this year out of Saltfleetby revenues - so why all of a sudden does the company seem so desperately short of a very large amount of cash?

And on top of that, why does he specifically mention "...to maintain covenants of the Saltfleetby Debt Facility or in the context of the prospective Saltfleetby Equipment Procurement" as a core part of his justification for seeking approval to issue up to yet another 682 million shares?

Where's all the expected and promised revenue from the gas field going, then? Or is George now thinking it may well be less than he's been hoping for and assuring of? Or has the company realised it cannot attempt the sidetrack without suspending production and so now needs the funds to make good on the hedges while production is paused?

Something seems even less right than usual here. Answers from the company are obligatory.

One very simple question:-

If Saltfleetby is on the very brink of producing literally transformative revenues (remember George's £7.2 million in June, anyone?)...

...how come ANGS needs to raise £6 million of funding right now from Aleph? (After all, we've been told it is categorically not to pay the £6.25 million deferred cash element of the SEL acquisition, which George has assured everyone will be paid from field revenues)?

..and how come George is looking for an extra authority to issue a further 682 million new shares for the following purposes:-

"This will give the Directors flexibility to allot further Ordinary Shares in the future (whether to maintain covenants of the Saltfleetby Debt Facility or in the context of the prospective Saltfleetby Equipment Procurement or more generally) should they consider it to be in the best interests of the Company to do so."

It would seem that George doesn't have a huge amount of faith in his own revenue projections from Saltfleetby. Why do they need all this extra cash at this point?

Re tax, this tweet (from WealdOilers of all people) is relevant... and especially the 4th listed point:-

https://twitter.com/WealdOilers/status/1529808057324150784

"To appropriately tax the extraordinary profits, companies will not be able to offset previous losses or decommissioning expenditure against profits subject to the levy."

Sorry... that should read Forum with its 28% of shares in issue at the time of this GM, plus Aleph with their 12% of shares in issue at that point. There's 40% in favour for starters...

Yes, George is certainly seeking a much larger authority than merely covering off the second swathe of shares and warrants to raise that extra £3 million from Aleph, isn't he?

So, 446 million new shares to cover the above (including the warrants attached to both Aleph swathes) plus a further authority to issue up to another 682.5 million shares.

It's going to get passed for sure. By the time of the GM, you'll have Forum with 25% of the shares in issue at that point, plus Aleph with their c. 10% of shares in issue at that point.

Well, Forum's and the first swathe of Aleph's shares for sure.

Tygra, that scenario is within the bounds of possibility of course - but it's worth bearing in mind that an asset or indeed total company sale would absolutely need the prior approval of the lenders... who include Mercuria... who's also sitting looking at a guaranteed £66+ million gain on its three year hedge at current gas pricing.

Tygra, as you clearly understand and as as some have been saying for months and months, it remains solely about "how much gas and by when?"

BV so what you're saying is that you're okay with facts... but not if they're posted by certain people?

A fact is a fact is a fact, regardless of who posts it - it does not matter who posts it (or why they do, for that matter). A fact does not and cannot have an agenda (though it's more than clear that certain facts do not fit with your agenda, which no doubt explains the trite cheap shots).

I think you'll find your point of view is at best logically indefensible and at worst totally ludicrous. Good luck to you.

BV, that's both ironic and amusing .

Playing the man, not the ball is of course the only recourse for those with no valid argument. And how beautifully you demonstrate just that - thank you for making my point so perfectly for me.
.

@Oktane, thanks for your kind words, but you give me too much credit.

If you can run a P&L (or even read and understand one) and if you can knock up a painfully simple spreadsheet, it's all very obvious.

The "play the ball, not the man" fury from the cheerleading squad when inconvenient truths are pointed out is a total irrelevance (and mildly amusing), plus if that's their only recourse when presented with facts, then that speaks volumes in and of itself.

At the end of the day, a P&L's a P&L, basic maths is basic maths and facts are facts, regardless of how much agenda-pumping others may seethe and rage.

www. jackanory.com would seem to cover it.

Yanis, in my very firm opinion, you are/were one of the relatively few genuine people posting here (and God but this BB could do with more of those), so it's sad to see you go - but I get it.

All the very best to you and yours in the future.

Just pointing out facts BV, no matter how inconvenient people may find them.