Member Info for HeadInTheSand

There is no doubt that the Tories (and TBF other Western governments too) blindly signing up to the woke green agenda and rushing headlong down the net zero path, come what may, is utterly stupid and going to cause untold chaos and economic pain.

The UK (and pretty much the whole world) is going to need fossil fuels for decades to come. The likes of Greta Thunberg and Sarah Finch have not got one single clue about the real-world bigger picture and the impossibility of 100% adopting policies they're screaming for now - they' and their ilk are nothing more than ignorant, impractical, swivel-eyed and foaming at the mouth fanatics. Basically they're "holier than thou" wastes of space.

Sure, everyone would like to end up in a net zero position and only using renewables. That's a worthy objective. But FFS any transition towards this has to be sensibly and realistically managed, which is exactly what the UK government and others are busily not doing.

If you weren't yet another newly appearing ID, McNimby, you'd already know that at least one of your ABC claims is entirely wrong. Not that there is the slightest need for me to have done so, but I have paid for my right to be able to comment on ANGS.

And of course you ignored the three indisputable facts I laid out. Your sort always will...

The big problem for this most recent ramptastic tag team is that they simply cannot deal with cast-iron facts.

Such as, over the last three years ANGS has been a truly disastrous long-term hold.

Such as, Saltfleetby is running 18+ months late (and counting) and £13+ million over budget (and counting).

Such as, if ANGS does not get Saltfleetby producing enough gas consistently within the next 18 weeks max, it's game over for the company.

None of the above is disputable in any way - but that won't stop the new crop of endlessly squeaking rampers from doing all that they can to mask those cast-iron facts.

Maddog, I presume that people posting on this board include previous investors, current long-term holders, current short-term quick flippers and those considering investing. As to kdnc, I don't know that stock at all - unlike several multi-IDs here, I only have the one ID - and it's the same on the two share messaging boards I post on.

Gideons is legendary under all of his short-lived IDs for changing his opinion more often than normal people change their underwear. It's all tragically transparent - he knows next to nothing about ANGS, as he's accidentally demonstrated on several occasions.

Separately, it is mildly amusing that looking at the small glut of new, vociferously and invariably positive posters, one's so genuine and deeply researched that he thinks Saltfleetby is an oil field and another is so well-informed that he thinks Balcombe is a gas field.

Anyhow, ANGS has plenty to be getting on with (and crucial deadlines to meet) without worrying or distracting itself (or others) about Balcombe. Or Lidsey or Brockham for that matter. Or anything geothermal either. It's all about can they get to full gas production in time and simultaneously can they produce enough?

We'll know for sure within 18 weeks... because that's the very latest when the alarm clocks are set to go off.

Regardless of how cynically one views micro-cap UK O&G companies and the degree of their tendencies to be lifestyle companies merely geared to keeping their boards in clover at the expense of investors, Sarah Finch is to all intents a swivel-eyed fanatic with no foothold in the real world - so it's heartening to see her being ushered so firmly off-stage and towards the exit door.

Petroleum, just for info, the official OGA figures for Saltfleetby's last 12 months of unimpeded production (during the field's final six months of production, there were issues with the nearby Theddlethorpe processing plant, so those should be discounted) show an average equivalent daily production rate of around 4.2 mmscfd.

Which would be okay for the first three months of the hedge, but not enough for the nine months after that. So yes I agree, a successful sidetrack is very likely to be necessary. But the problem with that is twofold:-

Firstly, all previous attempts to sidetrack from the relevant well (SF07 - and there have been more than a few) have been unsuccessful.

Secondly, although not impossible, it is very complex to drill any sidetrack while production is ongoing. Which makes things a bit of a rock and a hard place for ANGS...

Gideons/Adrain, if you were a genuine long-term investor, rather than the usual quick flip short term trader, you'd presumably have done at least some research. You clearly haven't.

George is repeatedly on record as stating that a successfully drilled sidetrack was expected to roughly double produceable volumes (okay we'll leave aside George's lamentable lack of accuracy on any of his projections... as well as deciding to ignore the easily auditable fact that repeated previous efforts to sidetrack from the well in question have all proved unsuccessful).

ANGS assured all its investors that sidetrack drilling would be started on Jan 4th this year - even long after it was very obvious that the site would be nowhere near ready to allow any sidetrack drill. Finally on Dec 6th, ANGS conceded that the long-promised sidetrack would now be delayed until some time after production start. There was no question of any safety issues, because drilling was going to take place before production was started (now clearly no longer the case).

Obviously maximising production flows out of the field would be a good thing (and especially at a time when gas prices are so elevated). Equally, given the hedged quantities that ANGS has signed up to fulfilling, ensuring that the field produces enough gas to fulfil those (and especially from Oct this year, when the commitments ramp up) would also obviously be a good thing.

Sadly, ANGS failed to get the site anywhere near ready in time to allow any sidetrack drilling - and now will have to hope that the field initially produces enough volume without a sidetrack. Moreover, although it is faintly possible to drill a sidetrack while production is running, that's a very complex process with all sorts of health and safety concerns to be overcome - so it looks like either ANGS doesn't look to maximise production volumes by sidetrack drilling, or bites the bullet and halts production while one is drilled.

Neither of the above two alternatives is exactly the brightest of prospects.

Oktane, 100% agreed. I've noticed a few seasoned players taking up straddles very recently.

Well, right up to the 6th of December, George was continuing to promise ANGS would start drilling the sidetrack on the 4th of January. This was of course completely unrealistic, as everybody with an ounce of realism knew - and the resultant delay on that (which George eventually had to own up to) had nothing to do with COVID and everything to do with ANGS's traditional wild inaccuracy.

No they're not all crap... but some seem to be remarkably and consistently unlucky when it comes to be able to meet their own projections.

Gideons/Adrain, clearly (and utterly unlike you), not everyone feels it appropriate to lie his/her ass off, just to attempt to mislead the unwary and pick their pockets for a marginal gain.

Irishmouse, the SOU all confetti offer is just a "possible offer", so wouldn't really need retraction.

If ANGS hasn't started to get gas out of the ground in sufficient volumes to meet both its debt repayment and hedge obligations (the former being c .£1.35m per quarter and the latter being c. 3.4 mmscfd Jul-Sep, then ramping up to well over 5.1 mmscfd for the next 9 months before dropping back again), then its future looks exceedingly bleak.

Both of those liabilities start kicking in from July this year absolute latest...

The "brand new" and extremely vocal ID Gideons doing his level best to pump the price so he can exit with his quick flip marginal trade - the exact same shtick he and his ilk run on a fair few other shares. Yawn.

The key point remains, how much gas and by when? ANGDS has two entirely separate deadlines rapidly heading into view.

The first of those being the first debt repayment on the £12 million loan at 12.5% . That looks like it'll fall due in June - and if (best case) that's only a quarterly repayment falling due, it'll be around £1.35 million.

Secondly, there's the obligation to fulfil the hedge in July and for the following 35 months. ANGS needs to be producing at least 3.4 mmscfd for the months of July to September, but then get production up to well above 5.1 mmscfd for the next nine months, if it is to meet its hedge commitments.

So yes, pretty much any leeway in getting to first gas, then full production has already been used up. They seriously need to get a move on now, with no further delays at all... or things will start to look very bleak indeed,

The mildly interesting thing is that anyone not singing the praises of ANGS to the rooftops is automatically labelled by the ramptastic squad as a "greeny" - presumably in some sort of effort to discredit any expressed more negative opinion. And frankly that's as bizarre as it is laughable.

As any genuine and longer term watcher of ANGS - whether previously invested, currently invested or considering investing -
knows for a cast-iron fact - there are plenty of real-world reasons to be less than impressed with ANGS and its seemingly endless litany of unfulfilled assurances., lack of transparency and wildly inaccurate cost and timescale projections. These of course have precisely nothing to do with whether one is in favour of or against fossil fuels.

Howey, if only those of a more positive viewpoint here were as reasonable and as genuine as yourself, Yanis and even JamestheSecond, this bulletin board would be a far more informative place/resource.

I see you've already spotted (unsurprisingly) our latest extremely vociferous ramptastic poster's chameleon-like nature, depending on where he is on his quick flip cycle on whichever stock. Short-term traders who pop up like mushrooms on a dungheap always cause BBs to deteriorate.

GL to you and those of like motivation.

Possible offer of 1.5ps worth (at the time) of confetti categorically not rejected. No other possible offers announced. No firm offers announced at all. Sufficient production of gas required within 18 weeks at the very latest - or the company goes pop IMO.

I'm not sure that can be accurately described as a "nice position "...

Gideons really is trying all the old hoary favourites, eh? Anything to try to make a few points on his alleged 0.81p short-term trade...

"At the time, Saltfleetby was the largest onshore gas field in the UK. Early production rates were more than 50 million standard cubic feet per day."

Maybe, but as a quick look at the official OGA production figures show, the average daily production coaxed out of Saltfleetby over the last 12 months when it was fully producing (and yes, the last 12 months BEFORE problems at Theddlethorpe started to impinge on those daily production figures) were actually around 4.3 mmscfd.

Not exactly 50 mmscfd, is it, Gideons? Nice try though... (not).

"How much gas and by when?"

If track record on accuracy is anything to go by, so far at least, those with a less than positive opinion on ANGS have been repeatedly proven to have a far FAR better batting average, when it comes to projections vs what eventually turns out to be true or not.

Gideons/Adrian, I base my opinions on facts and the actual reality of things. I certainly don't base it on anything the company may assure (on the basis of "fool me once, shame on you. But fool me twice, shame on me").

This latest ID of yours is very recent - and you're already on record as only just having bought in at 0.81p (allegedly). So, rather than being the genuine and committed LTH you make yourself out to be, it's instead blindingly obvious that your sudden and nonstop outpourings are solely an attempt to make you a quick buck on a short-term flip. You of course don't believe one word of what you post - and nor should anyone else.

Standard AIM BS, sadly.