Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Outback44, please post date and timestamp of any post I have made where I have stated that I would like ANGS to fail.

Separately, as ANGS has itself made perfectly clear, the loan and the hedge are entirely separate contractual arrangements that have been entered into. There is no question of "not needing the hedge" - the hedge has been committed to. The loan could be paid back early if ANGS has the cash, and early repayment would presumably save on interest cost. However, the hedge remains the hedge for 36 months from July 22.

But neither of these things will be an issue if ANGS gets enough gas out in time.

Sageman, and what's your view on those posting endless assurances that this is a guaranteed path to riches and literally just making stuff up? Would you say there are more or less of that type of post?

What remains interesting here is how furious certain posters get at seeing less than positive, fact-based opinions expressed. What are they so angry about? What scares them so much? Why is their only recourse to slate those who are more wary of ANGS with the usual green nimby nonsense? Why can't they come up with any reply that instead deals with any wariness raised?

I'm not looking to persuade anyone to lose money - I'm merely putting forward my view and the justifications for it. Anyone can do the same - after all, that's what any share discussion board is for. And anyone else can ascribe whatever worth they like to any opinion put forward.

I'm not maintaining that ANGS is inevitably doomed to failure - simply because it's not. It could still go either way. However, those posters trying incessantly to drown out more cautious views, trying to make out that this is a 100% cast-iron nailed on certainty and furiously making stuff up in attempts to discredit less gushing views? Well , I think it's obvious where the dishonesty lies.

That really does sum up your levels of maturity and intellect. Keep it up - you're making yourself look very special.

Again with the green myth. It's significant that you can't seem to deal with issues raised and instead have to make stuff up bout those whose opinions you don't like.

Caravanboy, that's a good and complicated question re valuation. The gasfield at Saltleetby is worth many times what it used to be, for obvious reasons - but the question is, for whom? If ANGS wasn't encumbered by that £12 million loan but far more importantly the time-critical hedge contracts entered into, I could easily see a valuation of 3 to 4p per share right now.

However what massively muddies the waters is that time-critical element, plus the fact that the field has been put up as surety against ANGS's committed to obligations, so the lenders have total sway over what happens with it.

As I've continually said, if ANGS meets those fixed timescales and their attendant make or break financial and production obligations, everything will be just peachy and existing holders will do extremely well. Which is why IMV it really is only about how much gas and by when.

Anyhow, we'll all know within 15 weeks either way.

I think you'll find I specifically mentioned "rampers", not genuine shareholders at all. Why are you literally incapable of sticking to the facts?

A few teeny pointers.

1. Why should I feel the to justify anything to you, McN? Last time I looked, you'd not been elected king of the world.

2. A discussion board is for people to post their opinions on. Since this isn't North Korea (nor you Kim Jong Un - see 1 above) opinions posted do not have to abide to one party line. In fact and as anyone rational would agree, it'd make this BB far more worthless if they did.

3. You may find you're less likely to get any engagement while you insist on descending into mind-numbingly trite playground insult. Your choice to remain as childish as you like, though.

I rest my case.

I will guarantee that if there weren't so many ridiculous ramptastic posts making entirely made-up claims or deliberately misrepresenting what ANGS has said in RNSes, there'd be far FAR fewer posts expressing counter-opinion and there might be a more orderly board.

What would also help would be forgetting these farcical allegations that anyone not spewing out the most fulsome of praise on George and ANGS must be either an evil institutional shorter, someone about to face an ANGS installation at the back of their garden or a swivel-eyed green activist funded by Putin.

Occam's razor surely applies - the simplest explanation is always the most likely. It is by far most probable that some genuinely hold a less than positive opinion on the company and its management. Let's face it, looking at the hard evidence, making a more negative case would be easy to justify.

This is not to say that a positive case cannot be justified. Good fortune (and Vlad the Impaler, who the rampers must secretly be thankful for) has made the gas in the ground worth several multiples of what it was when ANGS took the licence over. As has been endlessly commented, if ANGS can get enough gas out of the ground within the required timescale, everything will be just peachy. And if it can't it won't.

Sounds to me like it's still all and only about... how much gas and by when? Gee, whoda thunk that?

Nova, that's very standard language.

All it means is that, if approved, ANGS is allowed to privately place any shares which it has the authority to issue. If this clause was not approved, any placing of newly issued shares would have to be offered to the entire existing shareholder base at the same time as well.

Neither. It's something you'll never be capable of, Gideons... a statement of fact.

It is in fact more likely that I'd buy 560m shares than ever give the likes of Gideons the time of day.

It is however even more likely that I could beat Usain Bolt over 100 metres while blindfold and with both feet cemented into buckets of concrete,

BV I do stand by that statement - or I wouldn't have stated it.

I may turn out to be right or wrong... but from the way I read the evidence, that's my genuine belief.

You'd at least presumably agree that the SOU element is apparently completely ridiculous. SOU has no cash, large existing borrowings and a market cap of just £22 million... how is it possibly going to come up with any offer - eirth in cash or in confetti or mixed - worth considering for the c. 1.3 billion ANGS shares currently in issue?

Gideons, I am stating facts. You know, those things utterly unlike your recent repeated assurances earlier this month that the company had assured it would reach first gas by the end of March (it didn't assure this at all - you were lying, as the company itself has now made clear).

I would not expect issues with either HSE or NG sign-offs, provided that ANGS has stuck to pre-approved commissioning plans. However, the fact remains that these are both required.

EA approval? Slightly less sure, but one would hope that there are no delays or hiccups with this either.

To me this remains mostly about getting all the equipment onsite and the entire site including pipework fully commissioned in time to get to first gas by end May (NB end May, Gideons, not end March) and then to get to a sufficient amount of full production by July 1st.

As Yanis has quite correctly pointed out (because he also deals in facts, not your made-up rubbish), this is still do-able, but there is now no leeway left for any further slippages.

Howey, thanks - but you're aware of my position. No bluffs here.

I'm one for facts. ANGS got its revised planning approved yesterday. That is a fact - and I felt a useful one to inform people of here.

As I've said, it was one in a number of hurdles that absolutely must be overcome. This one was duly overcome, which came as no surprise, but still, necessary and thus positive.

Now ANGS better get busy with the rest of those supply, commissioning and approval/sign-off hurdles. As ever, how much gas and by when?

It happened on the 16th of March and was discussed at length yesterday, prior to ANGS getting round to RNSing the info.

Sure, it's an essential hurdle overcome (and not overcoming it would have been company-ending IMV). There's plenty more that needs doing (including other permissions and sign-offs being obtained) all within the next 15 weeks.

"All permissions in place"? Hardly.

That's known as "a deliberate lie". How about EA? H&S sign-off? NG sign-off?

This is just ANGS catching up on announcing what we all knew yesterday.

The only worthwhile point to note here - as per the very first post in this thread and as its title states is that the hurdle of revised planning has as expected now been passed without issue.

Now ANGS needs to get on full steam ahead with everything else it needs to achieve, including all equipment delivery to site, full commissioning of site including all pipework, gaining remaining required sign-offs (EA, H&S NG) and getting to sufficient full production by July 1st.

That is all.

Gideons has already publicly revealed his own name (and address for that matter), but isn't aware that he has done so.

Mind you - as per his frankly embarrassing belief that someone would bother physically counting up the number of posts he's made on ANGS in the last 30 days (btw it's now up to 735 posts out of the 1,578 posts he's made on LSE in the last month - or well over 50 a day, every day... I guess a Mickey Mouse swing trader's work is never done, eh?) - Gideons/Adrian is hardly the sharpest tool in the box.

Adrian I know you a) compulsive,y make things up and b) don't bother ever doing any research... but seriously? You HONESTLY thought someone bothered counting all your posts on ANGS over the last 30 days??? How deranged and/or ignorant can you be?

Here's a clue. Just click on your (or anyone else's) name on any of the LSE bulletin boards...