Member Info for HeadInTheSand

I'll agree (and have already done so) that there's still time for ANGS to pull this off - but no real leeway left.

If they do manage to get everyhing sorted in time, the degree to which they pull it off solely depends on how much gas they can consistently get out of Saltfleetby.

Outback, it's tiring - though perhaps hardly surprising - that you misrepresent my position which I made perfectly clear.

The company is irrelevant. In an ideal world, I would not wish posters who knowingly lie, misrepresent and mislead to profit from such activities, that's all.

Outback, since that was a measured (and well-written, thank God) reply, I'll respond in kind.

I'm not desperate for the company to fail in the least, because as I have said there are a fair few genuine long-term shareholders posting here and they deserve better. I'll freely admit that if there were a way for the company to fail without losing LTHers any money at all, but causing ouchy losses to the recent crop of falsehood-spreading and pitifully ill-informed ramptastic shills and swing traders, I'd be all in favour of that - but that is of course impossible.

As before, having some experience of ANGS and similar companies, I'm very much in favour of transparency, rather than BS, because that's what PIs deserve. Unfortunately, ANGS has proven itself singularly lacking in the former and the recently appearing ramptastic tagteam massively overendowed with the latter.

I suspect people would find a much more orderly BB if the usual moronic suspects didn't post bare-faced ramptastic lies all the time...

Gideons, it's hardly a difficult question. Most people have bothered reading the latest CPR.

However, since research is clearly irrelevant to you, let me help. There's a table on page 50 of the latest CPR. Rates used in preparing it were c 250p/therm for 2021, c 150p/therm for 2022, c 85p for 2023 and c 66p/therm for 2024. Try doing some research.

But as has been pointed out, the value of gas in the ground is utterly irrelevant to ANGS, if it doesn't get enough out in time.

Gideons "The SP has been around the placing price of 0.8 since the small raise."

Well, it was 12.5% higher than the placing price at 0.9p COB on Feb 25th. And as for "small raise"? I don't think that a placing that increased the number of shares in issue by over 16% can be justifiably called a "small raise".

The only thing small about it was the amount raised, but that's a direct result of the ANGS lowly SP and won't come as any comfort to those who got diluted. Again.

I wonder who is it who is so prone to telling untruths?

Gideons, it is unbelievable that you are still insisting that first gas will be reached in the next 29 days (it's impossible) - and that you are claiming that this is what the company said (it categorically didn't).

You are entirely wrong on both counts. As will become blindingly obvious in just over 4 weeks' time.

The hoped-for pressure build-up was actually mentioned by ANGS many months ago, in reply to an IQ. It remains to be seen if this is the case.

Re Theddlethorpe (I'm glad you've finally discovered this), a more salient point is the average monthly production rate from Saltfleetby in the 12 months directly preceding any issues arising at the gas processing plant. You can check those figures out yourself at the OGA site (or could, if doing any research was of the slightest importance to you).

Outback... "Or even better, perhaps HeadInTheSand can help me to understand".

As I have said more than once before, I have paid for my right to hold and express an opinion on ANGS (not that I needed to, but still).

I actually have entire respect for genuine long-term holders and their fortitude and wish them all the best. What I personally object to is the misinformation and downright falsehoods being spread by the latest crop of magically appearing shills and short-term traders.

And I also fail to understand why counter-opinion, when backed up by cited and easily verifiable facts, should be of concern to anyone . If anything, it should be useful.

Absolutely correct, BV. That's never been in doubt... but of course, only if ANGS is able to produce more volume than the hedged quantities.

This is bizarre, because it's the same that it's always been. If ANGS manages to produce the hedged quantities in the timescale, it'll do okay. If it manages to produce more than the hedged quantities in the required timescale, it'll do very well indeed. If it doesn't manage to produce the hedged quantities or doesn't get to full production in the timescale required, it'll go pop. This surely comes as no news.

Or... how much gas and by when?

...and 29 days before Gideons has assured everyone that ANGS gets to first gas.

It'll be interesting to see how that's done without all the essential equipment even being on site.

Sparrowhawk, I'm more than happy to answer those questions. The price of gas is now at around 400p per therm, but that's not the point.

The mistake (either deliberate or unintentional) is to view Saltfleetby and ANGS as one and the same thing. They're not. The putative value of Saltfleeby has without out a doubt risen very significantly over the last two years. That is a fact.

But ANGS (and SEL) have both put their joint rights in Saltfleetby up as collateral against the £12 million loan which they're having to start making capital and interest repayments on shortly. Similarly, the second and separate obligation of the hedge kicks in from July. If ANGS fails to deliver on either of these already committed-to obligations, IMO the company collapses and the debenture holders get the field.

Which is why it remains all about "how much gas and by when?" (And not at all about "What's Saltfleetby worth today?". because gas in the ground isn't going to help ANGS meet its obligations at all).

Here's a couple of questions that require facts as answers. And both those facts are known. See how you do.

Simple question #1. How much of the already hedged production would be available for ANGS to sell to Shell at current market rates?

Simple question #2. How many offers or bids have there been to date and from whom?

There is none. The "green activist" label seems to have taken over from the "evil shorter" one, being used by the quick flip ramptastic traders in an effort to discredit those who stick to laying out the facts.

Facts... you know, those things that the ramptastic squad have no answer for.

Well, it'll only take 30 days now to show that Dumb and Dumber, the know nothing ramptastic Chuckle brothers have no clue what they're talking about and are just making it up as they burble their incessant BS.

Tick tock. "First gas in March"... what a joke.

I'm more interested in when they'll attempt the sidetrack as it happens.

No... the lenders have.

They're in a win-win position. They either get their £12 million back, plus eye-watering interest on top, plus an 8% revenue override... or they end up owning a gas field that's gone up substantially in putative value since the loan was agreed and that's had £12 million's worth of provisioning and equipment already spent on it.

Crocqman and Yanis are both as usual correct.

Yes, it's an absolute given that whatever gas can be got out of Saltfleetby is for the foreseeable future worth very substantially more than when ANGS took its 51% stake. But the key here is very obviously getting that gas out.

There's a big difference between the putative value of the gas field, which is one thing, and the worth of that to ANGS, which is another - and time/production dependent. ANGS needs to get producing enough gas within the crucial timeframe (i.e. by July latest) or it risks losing ownership of the field to the lenders/debenture holders.

Separately, the new (Feb 25th) EA letter on the Lincs CC website strongly suggests - as realists have pointed out here - that first gas is definitively not going to be achieved this month (frankly, that was pretty obvious anyway, except to the ramptastic squad).

As I've said several times, there is still time for ANGS to pull this off - but there's precious little leeway or slack left now. How much gas and by when?

WG the Dumb and Dumber tagteam are having the usual problems when confronted with incontrovertible facts. It's amusing to note Mr. multi-ID Cloves response to my two simple questions below. He of course ducked them.

As anyone with the slightest knowledge of ANGS knows for an absolute fact, ANGS cannot sell any of the committed-to hedge volumes to Shell. And there have been precisely zero firm offers or bids to date, just the one all-confetti "possible offer" from SOU.

Simple question #1. How much of the already hedged production would be available for ANGS to sell to Shell?

Simple question #2. How many offers or bids have there been to date and from whom?

Neither of he above are tricky ones... you've already been given the entirely factual answers.

Let's stick to some facts, shall we? You know, those things the ramptastic squad are so violently allergic to.

1. The "news" that Shell is prepared to buy any gas ANGS may produce is not news. That was announced many many months ago and everyone (apart from the new crop of rampers who have done next to no research of any kind) has been aware of that for ages. A far better question is - will ANGS have any gas available to sell to Shell? If it does get to full production in time (July), most/all/more than all of that production is already committed to fulfilling the hedge.

2. There have been no offers as of yet for ANGS. There have been three "approaches" last year, all from SOU and all rejected by the ANGS board. This years "possible offer" (not "offer") again from SOU for (at the time) 1.5p's worth of SOU confetti per ANGS share has not as yet been rejected by the ANGS board and has in fact been supported by those holding c. 12% of ANGS shares at the time.

Gideons and Cloves (under whatever ID he's using today) will no doubt do their best to muddy the above - but those are both cast-iron and very easily verifiable facts for people to make what they will of.

..and re Shell. yes an agreement for Shell to buy any gas that ANGS manages to produce was announced by ANGS. So what? The volumes involved are so small in Shell's scheme of things that it's neither here nor there to Shell.

The only important thing is for ANGS to show itself capable of getting to full production in the first place.

And as it happens, there'll be precious little (if any) gas to sell to Shell even if they do manage to get to full production by July 1st - because the vast majority of that production (if not all.... if not more than all) is already committed to fulfilling the hedge obligations that ANGS signed up to. It'll actually be those sitting on the other side of the hedge that will be making serious moolah, if ANGS delivers the committed-to quantities.