Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Whatever you say Adrian. How's earning that Mayfair mansion or Park Lane penthouse coming along for you?

Just loving the way Gideons had to repost the link I originally gave. He and his ilk would not have a single clue where to look.

And as for "Mr. Watkins"? Nuh uh. Really not. That's a byrning attempted piece of misdirection.

Thought you - and other genuine holders that actually bother with facts and research - would be pleased to know, Yanis.

Yes, one down. EA, then HSE and NG to go when it comes to matters of approvals/permissions/sign-off being required.

Just announced. That's good. Unsurprising, but good that it wasn't held up by any more bureaucracy.

https://lincolnshire.planning-register.co.uk/Planning/Display?applicationNumber=PL%2F0176%2F21

BV, glad to see that not everyone here is off with the fairies.

Being able to re-inject produced water from Brockham does without doubt deliver two benefits.

1. It saves the cost of disposal of that water.
2. It reduces the level of pressure fall-away from the reservoir (because some of what you've taken out, you're putting back).

Both of those are good things, but neither are substantial or exactly game-changing, primarily because even at current pressure, Brockham can hardly be called a very productive well.

However, you're also correct to state that every little does indeed help.

By the way, I can't help but notice Gideons' latest utterly lunatic claim that "the EA restricted ANGS to only re-injecting Brockham-produced water at Brockham for fear of overpressuring the reservoir" for fear of causing an explosive gusher (according to the equally lunatic Youtube video he posted). That is an utterly farcical claim.

Honest question: do any genuine shareholders here think that the dribbling ramptastic idiocy incessantly posted by Gideons and his ilk is in any way helpful? I can't help thinking it has the entire opposite effect...

Yanis, has ANGS actually applied to be allowed to re-inject water produced from other sites into Brockham? If so, I wasn't aware of that - but you're a good person to ask, because what you say can be trusted.

I'm aware that the very recent permission announced only and specifically allowed water produced from the Brockham site itself to be re-injected there.

BV though I a) have precisely no obligation to answer your question and b) have in fact answered it several times before, I am happy to do so again.

I have no desire to see ANGS fail, pretty much only because there are those genuine long-term holders here who have entrusted the company with significant chunks of their hard-earned and who deserve far FAR better than they've had so far.

That may not sound like a glowing endorsement, I'll admit - but you'll presumably also admit that to date, the company's performance against self-set expectations has hardly been stellar and that inevitably informs my view.

What I am absolutely bang on 100% in favour of is as much gas as possible being produced as rapidly as possible out of Saltfleetby, regardless of who happens to own the licence at the time.

The only good thing to come out of the current Ukrainian horrors (and it's almost wrong to draw attention to any good thing coming out of Putin's abhorrences) is that it - hopefully - has made the virtue-signalling morons running all Western European governments realise that pandering to the idealist woke vote and charging blindly hell for leather for net zero is utterly unrealistic. Hence why the EU continues to spend 1 billion Euros per day... yes, per day... on Russian gas coming down Nordstream 1. By paying too much attention to the clueless Gretas of this world, those elected to run Western European nations have painted themselves entirely into an utterly dependent corner. Which is pathetic. And (as can be seen) dangerous too.

BV running his Spanish Inquisition routine again... nobody expected that.

A_D for months and months, given the hedge commitment and the repayments on the "12% + SONIA" £12 million loan, this has always been about a) whether ANGS can start producing gas in time and b) whether any produced quantities will be sufficient to meet the above two mentioned obligations.

The above is the only thing that matters. Anything else is pretty much just white noise.

Gideons categorically stated that first gas would be by end March, because - according to him - the company had equally categorically stated that. The company hadn't done anything of the sort - it merely stated that it was "aiming for" first gas by that date. And then mentioned that it was "presently anticipating" delays beyond that point... so it never stated "first gas by end March" at all. Period.

All moot now, but worth noting Gideons' typical attempt to mislead re this... now utterly debunked by the company itself.

I answered your question, because I object to blatant falsehoods being spread, as per the entirely factual and easily auditable answer I gave you. Gideons lied - as did you, by claiming he didn't.

Because - as was a) pointed out and b) blindingly clear - the previous Jan 27th RNS NEVER ONCE said that first gas would be achieved by end March. Gideons just kept misprepresenting over and over and over again that this is what it said.

Yes, Yanis, as I've said, it is still do-able, provided there are literally no more hiccups or delays in equipment arrivals, commissioning, infrastructure provisioning, the granting of revised planning approval (this one should be no issue) and EA, HSE and NG sign-offs granting.

As you'll already freely acknowledge, though first gas is an essential milestone, it's all about sufficient full production by July 1st. And yes, that is still do-able.

Taverham "They know they will not be producing gas during May imv and most likely the next update will 'target' before the end of June - we shall see. My view remains , if all goes well they could be producing in July."

I entirely agree - with the exception that all simply ***has*** to go well to allow full production - and of a sufficient amount - in July. If ANGS doesn't start fully producing sufficiently in what is now just c. 15 or so weeks' time, it will be up the proverbial, big style.

...and the offshore boiler room kicks in.

My money's on 70 of Crocqman's filtered posts over the last 40 or so hours having been authored by Gideons/Adrian, the Salfords sleaze sleazeball.

Kind of you to say so, Yanis. Mind you, you're not alone. As you may recall, on one memorable occasion not so long ago, I (and I am next to certain WG too) helped educate the ANGS board by posting a completely factual link to its very own issued document that it most vehemently denied the existence of, which contained statements that it equally vehemently denied ever making.

Made me chuckle, anyways...

Heh Howey. I think it would be fairer to say "half empty" - though that's a marked improvement on my views up until the last RNS. I hope for all genuine LTHers that they hit this latest set of projections in terms of both timescales and production volumes - but I'm personally not staking anything on that. Once bitten, twice shy and all that...

I think SOU is far FAR more of a basket case when it comes to being able to make any sort of worthwhile offer than ANGS is. SOU has no cash worth talking about and way too small a current MCap in comparison to make any sort of all-paper offer worth considering. It's a seemingly pointless extension as far as anything to do with SOU and any possible actual bid is concerned IMV.

BV I think that geothermal is a very long, very complex and very expensive road to travel before anyone can get anywhere, especially given UK geology. We're not Iceland.