Member Info for HeadInTheSand

From the company's Jan 27th RNS:-

"Uncertainty remains around the delivery of three final skids on the above table - two of these due to a common sub-component. The Company continues to hold and encourage suppliers and contractors to work to a First Gas date in Q1, but will advise further on this date when able so to do, and does not presently anticipate any delay to shift more than 20-30 days into April."

That's a fact, Gideons... you know, one of those things you do your best to avoid. In the above, its most recent in a series of ever-revised goalpost-moving updates, the company has categorically NOT said it will achieve first gas in Q1 - merely that "it will encourage suppliers to work towards that date" (there's a shocker... what else would it honestly do?).

Those with far more O&G infrastructure commissioning experience have already pointed out from the Twitter pix that even April looks impossible, with maybe May being a best case scenario, provided that there are no more delays on anything at all (equipment required, PP rubberstamping, EA sign-off, NG sign-off etc etc).

Redbull's appraisal is indeed spot on and I completely agree it's that binary. Enough gas being produced by July and things will be fine for ANGS. Not enough gas being produced by July and ANGS goes pop, with the lenders then owning the field.

Some may recall it being said more than once that for ANGS, this is all simply and solely about "How much gas and by when?"

As to Gideons' latest nonsense assurance of "gas in Q1"? Well, even George has now stated this won't happen until late April - and anyone of a more realistic persuasion still believes that he's being typically overoptimistic with this latest in his long long line of ever-revised projections and promises.

Gideons, you're certainly right about tagteams suddenly appearing out of nowhere on this BB...

If I were you, I would take note of comments you got earlier, pointing out that your voluminous and regularly ill-informed posts are liable to be if anything off-putting and actually to have the reverse effect of what you seek. Entirely up to you though...

As before, there should be no hiccups getting PP approved - this has never been considered an issue to my knowledge.

Subsequent EA, HSE and NG approvals? We'll have to wait and see.

Gideons, I like to try to back my posts up with auditable facts (and not make stuff up, or misrepresent emails as replies, when the timestamps don't add up).

Still, I suppose your level of activity under this newest ID should be in some way admired. 539 posts in the 19 days since this one was created? You've clearly got a lot of time on your hands... perhaps you're living on Park Lane or something?

Fair enough BV - though I'd honestly have thought most would have had this webpage bookmarked, because timescales are so crucial for ANGS? Anyhow...

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

Go to the "Associated Documents" section, then down to the communication of 08/02/22 from the EA in the "Representation(s) Received - Consultees" section.

Gideons, my comments are solely directed at the all too often unfounded content of your posts. No need to byrne with anger.

Yanis no, not for the PP.

As I am sure you must have noted, the EA submitted a communication dated 8th Feb into the PP application, highlighting that as far as it was concerned, a variation would in fact be required to its own separate approval EPR/JB3107XB and that it had asked ANGS to supply more info re noise impact.

WG818, you're not really disagreeing with me. Like you, I'm sure, I've read the comments from the environmental officer at LCC and am aware of the issues that were identified for further information to be submitted. Those as you quite rightly say revolve round the size of the new flare stack and the overall noise emissions from all equipment on site.

Nom, I'm not exactly sure what the Langs are up to, but it'll be complicated and not at all obvious, that's for sure. Unlike most of the other parties taking up the recent placing who will have borrowed shares to sell before they bought, the Langs clearly held onto their placing shares and are accumulating more.

What continues to interest me is why the Langs came out firmly and openly in support of the seemingly derisory SOU all-confetti "possible offer", worth a 1.5p equivalent at the time, but less today. Nobody from the heavenly choir side of things seems to be able to suggest any feasible reason for that.

Gideons Tue 22nd Feb 18:41 "We have a new CEO now."
No we don't. George has been in place for over three years now and has presided during his tenure over a 90%+ drop in the SP.

Gideons Tue 22nd Feb 19:07 "I have never know such a open and informative bod in AIM"
Any genuine long-term holder or watcher of ANGS will be laughing their socks off at that particular claim. ANGS has an undeviating track record of the exact opposite.

Gideons Tue 22nd Feb 19:07 "One of the reasons I am invested here is that I am extremely impressed with CEO George Lucan."
Firstly, see above. Secondly, it's hard to see how anyone could be impressed with a CEO who assured investors that Saltfleetby could be put into production for a cost of 2.5 million (he's got that wrong by £12 million and counting) and would be producing by Q3 2020 (and he's got that wrong by 18 months and counting). Impressive indeed...

Of course, as a short-term trader, Gideons a) knows next to nothing about ANGS and b) doesn't believe a single word of what he posts. Which I suppose is mildly reassuring in terms of any view on his sanity, because otherwise one could only presume that they breed them really thick in Salfords.

WG818, there's literally no point confronting Gideons with facts. He'll just ignore them because they don;t fit in with his agenda. In fact, he simply doesn't deal in facts at all - on several occasions he's already shown through his posts that he knows almost nothing about ANGS ( for one, he didn't even know that it was Wingas that sold 51% of Saltfleeby to ANGS).

No, with him and his tagteam, it's all about the ramp. Facts are inconvenient truths to be entirely ignored.

Well, given that that all the information I quoted was taken directly from ANGS's own statements, it's hard to see what issue the heavenly choir has with this?

If output from the two wells does manage to cover off the hedge commitment (and the flow is certainly going to need to be in excess of 5 mmscfd from October this year to be able to do so), that only brings in £4.02 million of revenue for ANGS this year, going by their own figures shown in the Oct 2021 latest CPR. And that revenue figure is of course prior to any running costs or debt repayment.

For starters, ANGS needs that pressure build-up it hopes for to turn out to be real, so the two wells can deliver the hedge. And then it definitely needs a successful sidetrack - though when it's going to find a manageable time window (let alone the funds) to be able to attempt one, God only knows.

It certainly can't afford to suspend production (whenever it finally gets there) in order to drill a sidetrack, but as it itself has said, drilling a sidetrack when production is ongoing is a very complex process from a H&S point of view.

Gideons...

"...Shell who have already entered into an and agreement with Angus to buy all the gas produced from Saltfleetby".

Are you claiming that it's Shell that is sitting on the other side of the hedge, then?

But (and as you chose to ignore) GP Holdings and the Langs are in favour of the SOU all confetti "possible offer"... why?

I believe I'm right in thinking that GP Jersey and the Langs were among the chunkier ANGS shareholders in favour of the superficially derisory all-confetti SOU "possible offer".

The finance deal was also "imminent" - that was the exact word George used, as it happens - for months and months...

Gideons, what's the problem? I'm happy to stand by everything I've posted - and looking at the SP trajectory over the last three years, my own more wary opinion seems to have been fully justified by the cold, hard reality of things.

Reality and facts... you know, those things you and your ramptastic tagteam simply have no way of countering. But hey, you keep on with the playground insults - let's face it, you've got nothing else.

For the newly "magically appearing" ramptastic tagteam to **** off those with far greater experience and in-depth knowledge of ANGS (including current long-term holders) as "not having a clue what they're talking about" is genuinely laughable.

Every bit as much as the tagteam's endless claims that anyone holding a less than effusively complimentary opinion on ANGS simply must be some sort of crusty green ecowarrior.

This is a pathetically transparent attempt to discredit posts and posters that don't suit their short-term trading agenda - but their problem remains that they simply cannot address easily auditable and verifiable facts. Which is why we'll see the cheap insults continued - they've got nothing else.

Well, it's got to be either an acceptable bid (and there haven't been any firm offers yet) or consistently sufficient production of gas achieved within the next 18 weeks max. Literally nothing else will do.