Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Howey a slight correction. I don't want ANGS to fail. I do however want them to show a great deal more competence, a great deal more ability to actually hit their projected dates and costs and a great deal more transparency. And I certainly want as much gas as possible, as soon as possible out of the ground in Lincolnshire, regardless of who may be operating the field at the time.

I try at all times to keep any criticisms or counter-opinions I may level entirely fact-based - and to me, that's definitively not the case with the majority of the other side. I also do not see the point of praising a company to the high heavens for continuous missed assurances and continuous failure to update the market in a timely fashion. As any parent or indeed dog owner will know, you don't go lavishing plaudits on bad behaviour, if you want things to improve.

Again, I am beyond sure that, if ANGS hits its newly issued set of revised timescale and production estimates, it will do very well indeed. One hardly needs to be a rocket scientist to come to that conclusion. But no matter the howls of derision from the kneejerk peanut gallery, there is a time constraint involved as has been much discussed.

Yanis, 1.5p was what their last all-confetti "possible offer" was at, at the time. However things have changed.

The SOU MCap is today around £24 million. Even if it again offered confetti (taking into account its current SP and ANGS' own 1.3 billion shares/current MCap of c. £13 million ), that would mean that it would be passing a majority of its shares and thus control over to ANGS and its shareholders. That's surely just not going to happen.

SOU hasn't got any cash worth talking about and its MCap is way too low to consider making any sort of realistic all-paper bid for ANGS. It was pretty much always that way.

(...provided it hits the latest set of timescales and production volumes it's issued).

I think you'll find that the realists here have never assigned one shred of credibility to geothermal , despite George's repeated assurances for many, many months that it was going to be the next big thing for ANGS and his raising a fair amount of cash to at least in part fund - allegedly - ANGS's first forays into this "exciting new space".

Nobody even vaguely rational bought that for a second, because it made precisely no sense.

Silly buttons, it's sadly standard ramptasric tactics. Don't expect any semblance of logic.

Gideons in particular has been infesting these BBs for years under countless IDs, either ramping or ****ging off various O&G companies, depending on whether he's in or out. Currently he's ripping into Alba and UKOG, the latter being amusing because for months and months he had his nose hilt deep in the rear crease of Sando's salmon slacks. That is until Sando started to ignore him as some kind of stalking irritant. Hell hath no fury like a weirdo scorned, from the looks of the UKOG BB recently.

Unfortunately they neither breed them smart or honest in Salfords.

However all is not lost. He usually has one too many shandies at the weekend, gets more abusive than usual and gets himself banned. One can but hope...

Here's just one recent example of many,

Gideons
Posted in: ANGS
Posts: 1,460
28 Feb 2022 09:15

First gas is Q1 HITS . Read the RNS.

***********************************

...except that is not at all what the RNS said. Instead it was Gideons making up BS yet again (as the company itself has now made indisputably plain).

I'd call that a very clear distortion.

Bill, he didn't repeat what the RNS said. He deliberately misinterpreted it.

Tigra, I (of course) agree that the ability to re-inject produced water at Brockham is no bad thing.

However, my point was twofold. A. At one stage, the theory advanced by some here was that if re-injection permission were granted, ANGS could look to re-inject water produced from other sites like Lidsey, rather than paying for disposal. B. given the actual quantities of water produced at Brockham, as has been commented, it would seem to require an awful long time to re-inject enough meaningful quantities of produced water to have any significant effect on pressure.

Chaps, bear in mind that the Brockham water re-injection permission only applies to water generated at the Brockham site alone.

Selfish, I of course said nothing of the sort. I merely pointed out your blatant porky where you stated yesterday morning that a prior planning application meant that planning had already been obtained. Would you like me to repost that statement of yours again?

You'd be taken a little more seriously if you stuck to the facts, instead of making up whatever you feel like.

Oh Lord, Gideos is still here and busily back-pedalling on his last "Gas by end March! The company said so! Honest!" set of lies. No it didn't, but no surprise to see Gideons selecting reverse gear so hurriedly. Anyhow...

One thing clear from today's RNS is that ANGS is apparently going to need a successful sidetrack by October. George staets 1.5 million monthly therms without a sidetrack. That's equivalent to 5 mmscfd, which is fine and dandy as far as the hedged volumes are concerned in July to Sept. But the company is going to need more than that from Oct 22 to Jun 23, which no doubt explains the latest June 22 date for the sidetrack attempt. Presumably we have to assume that ANGS has got all necessary sign-offs to start drilling a sidetrack whilst remaining in production? If they haven't, then that raises a potentially tricky issue.

At least that puts a stop to Gideons' endless assurances that first gas would be reached by the end of this month because "the company said so!" (It never did... what an utter plank he invariably is). For all that the ramptastic tgagteam tried to shout them down, the realists stating May/June have been proven completely (and unsurprisingly correct.

However, that's about as good an RNS as it could be, in the circumstances. Providing ANGS hits its latest set of issued timescales, being in full production by June will be hugely beneficial for the company. Presuming it manages this, what now remains to be seen is what monthly volumes can be produced.

It's also good to heart they've settled the outstanding litigation, which they've determinedly not mentioned for months and months. That's now apparently put to bed.

Completely separately, interesting article on the BBC website today re the EU and its heavy dependence on Russian fossil fuels:-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60654586

A couple of snippets from that:-

"The next seismic change bubbling in Brussels? A looming energy revolution, provoked by a simple question: What's the point of punitive financial sanctions if Vladimir Putin's war chest is refilled on a daily basis with oil and gas revenues?

The EU depends on Russia for 40% of its natural gas and a quarter of its oil imports.

EU countries pay about €1bn a day to Moscow for those supplies, according to Bruegel, the Brussels-based think tank.

The US - which is far less reliant on Russian energy supplies than Europe - says it's considering banning Russian oil imports as part of its sanctions against the Kremlin.

On Monday, standing next to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Lithuania's foreign minister agreed. "We cannot pay for oil and gas with Ukrainian blood," he said."

...

"France's Emmanuel Macron is nervous too. He hopes to be re-elected president next month.

The last time he was blamed for petrol price hikes in France, it sparked months of massive street protests by the "gilets jaunes", the yellow jackets, so-called because of the high-visibility vests they wore.

So, while on the world stage, President Macron presents himself as the European champion of carbon neutrality, energy prices are such a sensitive issue in France that he introduced €100 bonuses for the poorest voters this winter, to mitigate fossil fuel prices as part of his re-election bid.

It's notable, too, that French energy giant Total says it's staying put in Russia for now, despite the Kremlin's onslaught against Ukraine, while competitors BP and Shell have voluntarily pulled out."

How unsurprising to see the French show their traditional absence of intestinal fortitude and their love of self-serving and hypocritical double standards. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose... Macron really does make me sick.

I actually pretty much agree entirely with that article by Steve Hilton. It mirrors my own opinions exactly.

Selfish, you have already conceded this afternoon that the application has not been approved, as per below. This was after you'd been kindly schooled by those who have bothered researching ANGS and deal in facts.

SelfishMcNimby: Today 14:02
Just in case you missed it, the decision will be made on or before 17th March.

And yet, just 6 hours beforehand, you and your other tagteam Chuckle brother Gideons were trying to assure everyone that planning for the new elements had already been granted, as per below.

SelfishMcNimby: Today 08:20
Doesn't prior approval mean it's already got?

Gideons: Today 08:21
Yep :)

Man but you two must really hate facts. Black and white evidence is so difficult to argue with, eh?

I wonder who's the liar here...

Now 21 days till first gas, according to you repeated vociferous assurances, Gideons. Not that you care because your motive is solely to mislead, but in just three weeks' time, you'll be even more clearly shown up exactly for what you are.

I didn't think you'd be able to manage a cogent reply. Always your problem when confronted with incontestable facts....

Selfish I can't work out whether you're jsut entirely ignorant or determined to mislead. It has to be one of the two.

None of the "new elements" have had planning approval granted, pretty much because they're new - how could they have been approved? They're all subject to the same "prior approval" application. Needless to say, a prior approval application is an application for prior approval, a thing which has not yet been granted. That's why it's been applied for.... by means of an application.

You do realise how deceptive and/or clueless you're making yourself look, right? It's a tad tricky to contradict what's plainly stated in black and white on the Lincs CC planning portal... have you actually ever viewed it?

Seriously, Selfish? "Prior approval" is a specific and discrete term when it comes to planning permissions. You have already conceded that the application has not been approved yet (and amusingly have directly contradicted yourself and Gideons from earlier today in doing so, as per below).

SelfishMcNimby: Today 08:20
Doesn't prior approval mean it's already got?

Gideons: Today 08:21
Yep :)

Anyhow, it remains to be seen whether it will be passed on March 17th and whether Lincs CC will allow these "new elements" to be covered by the new application.

Redbull, it's self-evident that, if ANGS manages to produce meaningfully more than the volumes hedged, what with the c. 10x increase in gas pricing, it will do extremely well. That's not been in doubt for months - and is even less in doubt now, courtesy of what the Kremlin's done to gas prices (I'm actually surprised that Gideons and his ilk aren't secretly hugely grateful to Vlad).

Your 10 mmscfd is highly optimistic and even according to George with his rose-tinteds would require a highly successful sidetrack having been drilled. The company's hoping for in the region of 6 mmscfd without a sidetrack, because they're equally hoping for a sustained pressure build-up after going on 5 years of inactivity. They'll certainly need 5+ mmscfd in order to cover the hedges from Oct 22 to June 23.

But as you state, that massive increase in gas prices is a two-edged sword, because of the hedged volumes. So sure, it's a binary play as always hinging on "how much gas and by when?" (I've lost count of the months I have been saying that for).

For a remarkable change, Adrian is largely accurate.

The Balcombe site lies about 600m south of Balcombe village, with the nearest property being around 250m to the NNW. Although only 50m away from the main B road, it is in the middle of a wood.

The Brockham site is about 800m southwest of the main village, with the nearest properties being 500m to the east.

However, I imagine that Chas was talking about the resistance to date to the fracking of Brockham.

Actually Selfish, literally all it indicates is that there are those here who disagree with your and your ilk's ramptastic opinions.

But hey, your sort will never miss out on an opportunity to spin the "green activist" myth to try to explain away less positive opinion.