Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Two things.

First "bona fide". This does NOT mean "having plenty of financial muscle and spare cash". It merely means "in good faith", i.e. the partner is entering into discussions with the genuine intention (as far as can be established) of making an offer if it likes what it sees. SOU's (derisory) all-confetti "possible offer" of (at the time) 1.5p of paper per ANGS share was a "bona fide" approach from a "bona fide" potential offeror.

Second, I am surprised that anyone genuine would ascribe much credibility to anything the company itself says any more, solely on the basis of track record. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" for sure... but "Fool me umpteen times"?

The latest ramptastic tagteam has been the least talented in terms of subtlety, spouting the most ridiculous and easily disprovable of falsehoods. "The field's fully connected to the National Grid!"... err, no it absolutely isn't, at least not yet.

One has to ask whether this blatant type of swing trader actually causes more damage to an SP than anything else?

So Gideons... you're claiming that Sa.tfleetby is already connected to the National Grid, that all the pipework have been installed and that the golden weld has been completed, are you?

You do realise how ridiculous such easily disprovable claims make you look, right?

No, scratch that. It's not important to you, provided that you can sucker a few into buying into your blatant lies (and into ANGS), so you can exit with a marginal gain on your swing trade.

Ecoloonies not economies

GIdeons, firstly I have no desire to stop gas being extracted from Saltfleetby. Let's face it, the UK needs all the natural gas it can get, Great or no Greta. Your attempt to portray those less than impressed with ANGS's competence as some sort of economies is just more deception.

Speaking of which your statement that "a nice new pipeline is connected straight into the grid" is another barefaced lie. No such pipeline has been completed yet, let alone signed off on by either the HSA or the NG itself.

As ever with ANGS, there are the realists who deal in verifuable facts... and those such as Gideons who simply lie and make things up in an effort to pick the pockets of the unwary.

Except... early 2021 is long gone. Mid 2022 looks more likely, though still not assured. And nobody knows (yet) what volumes the field can be coaxed into producing today. If it's around the same average amount that the field last produced during its last 12 months of unhindered
full operation (ie BEFORE any problems at Theddlethorpe kicked in), it won't be enough to fulfil the hedge obligations from Oct this year onwards.

Check the figures and facts yourself on the OGA website... all the monthly historic production data is freely viewable.

Mirasol,, no kidding.

Baits is clearly unaware that Saltfleetby hasn't produced any gas for well over four years (easily proven by the briefest of looks at the OGA figures).

What is it they say about idiots and liars? They just can't deal with cold, hard, auditable facts.

Your dog could do better than the official OGA figures showing production from Saltfleetby, eh, Baits?

The last gas production recorded from Saltfleetby was in Nov 2017. And that was a very small amount.

https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/data-centre/oga-open-data/production/

Knock yourself out. Or alternatively, never let easily verifiable facts stand in the way of fabricating a myth.

Baits, Saltfleetby has not produced gas for almost 5 years now. That is not to say it won't again. What remains unknown (still) is when it can be brought to production start again and what volumes can be produced whenever it does start operating again.

We know that ANGS is hoping for a sustained increase in pressure having built up over the 4+ years of inactivity, because the field was producing significantly less than 5 mmscfd during its last UNIMPEDED 12 months of operation back in 2017, which isn't enough to satisfy hedged volumes from this October onwards.

If this pressure build-up turns out to be the case, that would be good, because it would presumably lessen the need for the urgent drilling of a successful sidetrack.

BV I have never expected PP to be refused at all. IMO that was never going to become another of the various problems ANGS faces re getting Saltfleetby to full production.

Gideons please stop trying to deceive. The "truth hasn't come out all of a sudden" that Shell has agreed to buy any gas that Saltfleetby may produce. That was publicly and clearly stated many months ago and has long been known by everybody.

Except you, apparently? How odd... perhaps it's because you've only very recently appeared "all of a sudden" on LSE.

The fact remains that Shell will happily buy gas from multiple sources of all sizes (if they can produce any). But this does not mean they'd want to buy an utterly insubstantial (and currently unproven) gas field.

Of course I won't. ANGS was obviously desperate for the cash because it had (again) run low on funds. It needed yet more (unexpectedly) for Saltfleetby and it has that "positive bank balance amount" which it MUST maintain at all times under the terms of the £12 million loan.

Yes, yet more dilution is again another slap in the face for long-term holders. Yes, ANGS has shown its usual entire lack of transparency by continuing to maintain right up until the placing getting announced that everything was going along swimmingly and that there were no more obstacles, either cash or schedule related. And yes, the motives behind the company's choice to launch an FSP at this precise moment are deeply suspect...

But raising a heap of more cash was quite literally essential. Without doing that, I very much doubt there would still be a company for very much longer at all. So for sure, A sh*tty stick, but equally for sure, the less sh*tty of the two available to grab. Not raising was categorically not an option, if the company was to continue in existence, IMO.

360Phil, of equal interest, given the alleged laughably cheap confetti offer from SOU, is why ANGS did not "unequivocally reject" this (at the time) 1.5p paper offer, but more interestingly, why this offer attracted the support of some pretty chunky ANGS shareholders, between them holding around 15%?

If it's all on the very brink of coming up roses as George continues to assure one and all, why would they be in favour of the SOU deal?

Shell is involved, but only is as much as it has agreed to buy any gas that Saltfleetby may eventually produce and nothing more. It'll have hundreds of such arrangements with on- and offshore field operators the world over.

As to "the UK's largest onshore gas field"? That's a bit like ""the tallest man in that five a side soccer team". In Shell volume terms, the amounts of gas that Saltfleetby may produce are in the fractions of a percent of what Shell produces and shifts overall. Against Shell scale, Saltfleetby is infinitesimal and thus pretty much entirely irrelevant.

Tescos agrees to buy all the apples lots of fruitfarms produce, but it really doesn't then follow that it would be interested in buying one tiny and unproven orchard...

Yanis, the one thing that the disingenuous ramptastic squad hates more than easily verifiable facts being cited that instantly puncture the fairy tales they try so hard to create...

...is a genuine long-term shareholder expressing his absolutely justifiable fury at the murky goings on and the near entire lack of transparency on the part of ANGS and its "executive dream team ".

Which explains their frankly callous desire to get you (and the many like you) to shut up and keep quiet.

Of course the mention of Shell being interested in acquiring an (in their terms) infinitesimal onshore UK gas field that may or may not be coaxed,e into producing a very few mmscfd is literally laughable.

But then again after this most recent slap in the face to the genuine, the short-term ramptastic squad is really having to scrape the bottom of the barrel. There's precious little left to try to spin.

Ocelot being economical with the truth as usual. SOU's first approaches to ANGS were in October, as confirmed by both companies directly.

The reason for the placing is brutally simple: ANGS was short of cash. Both in terms of covering the latest unforeseen hike required to get Saltfleetby over the line and to avoid breaching the minimum positive bank balance figure that is a hard and fast condition of the £12 million loan George signed up to.

That's literally all.

The latest placing (£1.4m gross) actually delivers less than the amount ANGS needs to keep at all times in their bank account, as per the conditions of their £12 million loan.

Of course we're not (yet) aware of what other cash reserves they have left. However, we will get a pretty good idea fairly soon, what with the release of the annual report due in early March. That'll show the cash on hand position as of end Sept last year, there's been no revenue since and and we're all aware of what's been raised since then.

Danno, a hedge is a commitment to supply a pre-agreed fixed volume of a commodity (in this case, gas) over a pre-agreed fixed period of time (in this case, monthly for 36 months starting from July 2022) at pre-agreed fixed pricing (as detailed in the valuation report).

Anything that ANGS produces over the hedged monthly quantities can be sold at market rates, if the company so chooses. If ANGS produces under the hedged monthly quantities has to be made up.

Mirasol's 3.34 mmscfd production figure holds true for the first three months of the hedge. Come October, ANGS needs to be producing in excess of 5 mmscfd every month for the next 9 months in order to fulfil its hedge commitments.

I would guess that the people who "bought in this raise" are already quids in.

Credit due to George? Not so much... the raise was 100% required. IMO without it, ANGS wouldn't have the money to get Saltfleetby to first gas (which would have been a disaster) and almost certainly risked being in breach of the "positive bank balance amount" that's a hard and fast condition attached to the £12 million loan (which would have also been disastrous).

It's good for the company at least that they have staved off those two things (at least for the moment).