Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Gideons, much quicker than you expected, eh? What, you've been expecting things to be even more delayed than they already have been???

Presumably you must have been expecting first gas some time in Q3 or something then? And presumably,y you've never believed any of George's projections either, including the most recent one? What a farcical and obviously ramptastic comment.

One word. No. There's a huge amount still to do.

cl2201, you are quite correct. I'd forgotten about those warrants.

(Okay Feb 3rd, but you get my point...)

cl2201, your statement could only be correct if by Jan 18th SOU had been told by ANGS about its planned 175 million share placing that wasn't announced to the market until Feb 4th.

Surely that's not too likely?

What's mildly interesting about the SOU all-confetti "possible offer" is what it valued Saltfleetby at - that being 1.5p (yes, of SOU paper at the time ) multiplied by the 1,093 million ANGS shares in issue at the time. That roughly equals £16.4 million, if my calculator is to be believed.

And that also very roughly equals what ANGS paid for it (a quid) plus what ANGS has spent on it (the £12 million loan, plus say £ 2 million interest, plus say the £2.5 million they got given for taking the field off Wingas's hands).

On that basis, on the surface at least, it would seem odd that some of ANGS's chunkier shareholders are in favour of the SOU paper offer. It would be useful to know why.

Gideons, as before, read the RNS. The 1.5p (as was then) "possible offer" was not rejected by ANGS. It was the previous three indicative proposals of 1.0p, 1.3p and 1.4p that were "unequivocally rejected".

This does not of course mean that the 1.5p offer would be recommended by ANGS (they've simply not said what they think about it either way). One of the reasons as to why they've not given their opinion may well be that major shareholders holding (at the time) around 15% of ANGS total equity supported the SOU 1.5p possible offer.

If SOU decides to make a firm offer, it is inevitably going to have to be different. Since the "possible offer", both companies' SPs have moved significantly, plus ANGS now has an extra 15%/175 million more shares in issue.

Whether SOU sticks to its original c £16.4 million all paper valuation, goes higher or withdraws remains to be seen.

If you read that RNS carefully, the final SOU "possible offer" (of at the time 1.5ps worth of SOU paper per ANGS share - but since then of course, both the SOU and ANGS share prices have moved and ANGS has more shares in issue than it did when the possible offer was made) has not in fact been rejected by ANGS.

It was the three previous even lower value SOU approaches that were "unequivocally rejected".

BV, why exaggerate things? So far just one "possible offer" and up to five other potentially interested bona fide parties, none of whom have (as far as we know) submitted even a "possible offer".

Just let it play out and see what's forthcoming, eh?

I agree - it's either got to be a firm bid or sufficient quantities of first gas within the crucial timeframe.

I would gently point out that there are not "six separate bidders vying for the company" at the moment. What there actually are, are six potentially interested and bona fide parties who have entered the ANGS data room - and what they see there will presumably lead them to make decisions on whether they'll submit a bid or not.

SOU is bound to be one of these six bona fide interested parties. However, nobody outside the company itself is going to know who any of the other five potentially interested parties are, or what level of financial muscle they may or may not have - and there's next to no chance that ANGS would disclose this info either (and frankly as BV has pointed out, it would be bizarre if they did).

The only way we'll ever find out who any of these potentially interested parties are is if they decide to make a formal bid, because that would (obviously) be announced. If any or all of them decide to withdraw, we'll end up never knowing who they were.

PS Howey, as to "nothing positive to say about ANGS", that's largely true.

However, although I'm very cynical about the way the latest placing was teed up and conducted, it absolutely was without doubt a good thing - and the fact that this was got away at as high as 0.8p was also surprisingly good, in my book.

Okay, I find the methods used by ANGS in this highly questionable - but in my book, the fact remains that the outcome was a good result. Because not placing would have been literally disastrous, as I see it.

Howey, that's a fair and balanced post. Where I'll differ is that repayment of the loan and fulfilment of the hedge presumably continue to apply regardless? Those commitments will need to be satisfied one way or the other.

Obviously if the entirety of ANGS is sold lock, stock and barrel, the company's signed-up to liabilities go along with that, together with its assets.

And if just Saltfleetby is sold (which would require the explicit prior approval of the debenture holders/lenders anyway), ANGS would still be on the hook for the loan repayment (c. £14.5 million I believe, which presumably it would then have to pay out of whatever monies it had received for the field). BTW I have no idea what would happen to the 8% revenue override or how this could be managed/valued.

As to what would happen to the hedge in the case of just Saltfleetby being sold? Either the new owners would have to agree to take it and its commitments on as part of the deal (but that would have to be explicitly agreed by those sat on the other side of the hedge). Or failing that, ANGS would presumably again have to buy its way out of the hedge contract (again presumably out of whatever monies it had received for the field).

Gideons, the fact that you seemingly cannot comprehend the not unusual concept of "deception by omission" is not my problem. Or are you just deliberately pretending such a thing cannot exist?

As to what has provably turned out to be "baloney", surely I can't really need to refer you to ANGS's many and various assured projections over the last couple of years as to the timescales and costs required to get Saltfleetby to first gas?

Really BV? All I've ever pushed for is for ANGS to be considerably more truthful in a considerably more timely fashion. To date, it's not so much what they say... it's what they fail to say.

PI's, both current and potential, deserve that. And on that note, I'll let you carry on with trying to talk the share up.

Correct, James. It's still all about "how much gas and by when?"

I am beyond certain that I am not alone in remaining utterly convinced that ANGS would do itself far more favours if it came out with actual and realistic projections on this, rather than issuing some latest revised timescale and/or cost estimate that it then invariably seems to miss by a mile.

So if first gas is now realistically expected by (say) late May, then fercrissakes tell the market that. Don't leave it hanging on some end March/mid April expectation that you've set.

It's like the sidetrack fiasco. The company waited until the 1st of December to inform the market that drilling start on the sidetrack was now going to be delayed until some time after first gas - but right up until that point, it had continued to assure the market that the sidetrack would start on Jan 4th... even though the site could very obviously not be readied in time to make this possible.

It's all about transparency, trustworthiness and credibility. It's incredible that ANGS seemingly still has not realised this.

As has been pointed out by those of a more realistic nature already...

It is entirely up to any potential seller as to what information they make available in a data room.

It is equally entirely up to any potential buyers as to what extra information they may then request, if they feel they need more when weighing up any putative offer.

It is then entirely up to the potential seller as to whether it then makes the extra information requested available.

Obviously things are much simpler if there is utterly complete disclosure of all relevant info from the get-go, but it is not any sort of requirement.

It'd be interesting to hear what has been "made up"...

The FY figures absolutely are due in a month's time.
Those absolutely will give a clearer picture as to current free cash balance.
This absolutely is all about "how much gas and by when?" (as it has been for months and months).
Repayments on the £12 million loan and delivery obligations on the hedge absolutely do both start from July (and possibly June for the loan payments).

The above are all facts, so of course the latest ramptastic tag team will be violently allergic to them.

nhawan, with full year figures due out within a month, which will give a much clearer idea as to cash position (end Sep 2021 cash balance, plus subsequent raises, less subsequent monthly G&A), I wouldn't see now as being the smartest time to take a punt.

Plus, this still remains about nothing more than "how much gas and by when?". And I don't believe the company can realistically get to first gas within April, despite its latest in a series of much-revised assurances. On that basis, what with the two ever-approaching alarm clocks of debt repayment and hedge fulfilment, I personally don't expect 0.80p to be the low point.

"NOTHING relevant is withheld"? Seriously?

It's up to ANGS what publicly non-disclosed information it makes available in the data room, and it's up to any interested parties to ask to see any extra detail that they consider to be relevant, if it's not already in there, if they wish.

The phrase "caveat emptor" exists for a reason...