Member Info for HeadInTheSand

It's up to you guys of course, but it remains surprising that I point out a flat contradiction between two very recent assurances made by the ANGS CEO, the two of which cannot possibly both be true... and I'm the bad guy?

1.5 million monthly therms does not fulfil the hedged volumes from October this year, therefore a successful sidetrack will be required.

The fact remains (according to George himself at least) that a successful sidetrack will be needed to meet the hedge from October onwards because 1.5 million monthly therms are at that point not enough.

This flatly contradicts George's earlier very recent statement that any and all sidetrack production would be unhedged...

It doesn't entirely stack up, does it? And NB I am solely going on George's own words here...

Leaving aside the tired cheap shots BV... you didn't find any of the three things I mentioned at all odd?

Okay, each to their own. - but I'd have thought that this effective confirmation that a successful sidetrack is indeed needed to meet the hedge volumes from October onwards was definitely noteworthy.

There are three things in that interview that caught my attention.

"1.5 million therms from May"... an odd and seemingly highly ambitious turn of phrase, given that the company's latest estimate for first gas (and not ful, production) is end May.

"Shareholders can expect 3 million therms per month once the sidetrack is drilled in August"... again odd to give such an assured production forecast re what a sidetrack will deliver five moths before one's even been attempted? But it is now apparently clear that one is needed to meet the increased hedge volumes from October (because from then, 1.5 million monthly therms are not enough).

"We will drive the hardest bargain"... "will". Seems like George may be dead set on selling up, after all, even at this supposedly transformational point?

As I said, all a bit odd. And there's no way he'd have ibeen able to ssue any of those claims in an RNS. Let's see...

New faces on here... the majority are all you, Gideons/Sparrowhawk1 as you've amusingly conclusively proved today.

So we now have conclusive proof that Gideons is using multiple IDs. Hardly a surprise but still, comical.

That's the problem for liars... they'll always end up shooting themselves in the foot. Especially ones as dim as Gideons/Sparrowhawk1.

We'll now see a flurry of fake dialogue between the two as Gideons/Sparrowhawk1 desperately tries to cover up the resounding clanger he's dropped. Should be amusing.

And let's not forget "First gas by the end of March guaranteed!"

I must say, now that things are finally starting to look more positive for ANGS, why is it that deliberately deceptive posters like Gideons feel the need to blatantly make additional and quite obviously ludicrous stuff up?

Baits as I have already acknowledged, not having to pay for water disposal is indeed commercially beneficial to ANGS. Of course I agree with that, because (utterly unlike Gideons' made-up nonsense) it's a fact.

Gideons, your hastily copy n pasted reply doesn't address the issue at all. Take more volume out of a system that you put in and you inevitably reduce the pressure within that system. Which amusingly is actually exactly what your copy n pasted article states.

Nonsense. How can one "overpressurise" Brockham by inevitably putting back in less volume of fluid than one has taken out?

Say you extract 100 barrels of fluid. Say that's 70 barrels of oil and 30 of water. You then re-inject the 30 barrels of water. Result? The reservoir is down by 70 barrels of fluid.

At least try to make your fairy stories remotely plausible, Gideons...

Ress, it's painfully clear that you don't get it. That's stating the obvious.

I was thinking of adding "LMAO", or "PMSL", but fortunately I then remembered that I'm not 12 years old.

Have a nice weekend now.

Ress, sorry to break a couple of truths to you, but...

I have never been against fossil fuels. That's just the myth spun by those seeking to discredit the more wary. In fact, as a previous investor in ANGS, by far my biggest gripe is that the company didn't get Saltfleetby producing many months ago.

Secondly, although it has been a good week for ANGS, the rational here will of course acknowledge that ANGS still has crucial deadlines that it cannot afford to miss.

Both the above statements are purely factual, so therefore will no doubt cause you to have another hissyfit.

Gideons, I acknowledge your inalienable right to persist in being utterly ridiculous. It's just a shame you feel the need to exercise it permanently.

I have just the one ID, RT003 (as the less unbalanced will be aware of) and I try to deal in facts.

Factually, this has been a good week for ANGS. I am therefore genuinely pleased for genuine (and well- mannered) holders.

(No Gideons, of course they're not flowing gas yet. Don't be utterly ridiculous).

Leaving aside the deranged, that's a much more positive finish to the week and for genuine holders, I hope the trajectory is sustained.

I'm also in agreement (with BV I think?) that, if what we're now being told about Saltfleetby is accurate (for once and at last!), ANGS would seem far better off to go it alone. Which goes back to my earlier point that it would seem to be a good idea for George to proactively terminate the FSP.

I mused a day or so ago that if ANGS proactively called an end to the FSP, this would probably be seen as a sign of confidence by the market.

It's always been a tad difficult for people to understand why ANGS would entertain a bid - and especially one as derisory as the last SOU all confetti offer that was not rejected - when on the other hand the company's assuring that it's on the cusp of transformation, courtesy of Saltfleetby.

Getting to first gas will help and particularly if achieved by end May as per the latest revised estimate.

However, I think a far more meaningful milestone will be knowing how much gas full production delivers per month. It needs to be a minimum of 1.75 million monthly therms from Oct 22 onwards.

Hold on... I thought I was meant to be Mirasol or something?

Although this may sound a tad counter-intuitive, I think that if George proactively announced the ending of the FSP without a buyer, it would actually promote confidence in the company.