Member Info for HeadInTheSand

While you're about it, page 48 makes enlightening reading too re the terms of the loan.

Presuming he is genuine, BV is ever so bitter today, eh? We all call things wrong now and then, BV... accept it and move on.

BV as everyone will be aware, the "job done" reference I made specifically relates to all those IDs desperately posting in an attempt to pump up the SP before the placing and then disappearing - hence, their job is now done, exactly as per the UKOG example I gave.

I'm presuming (as already stated) that you're not one of those who knowingly tried to grease the path of this placing?

1. Yes, disapplication of pre-emption rights was approved (as is normal), so this most recent placing did not need to be an open offer.

2. Yes, ANGS absolutely did seriously need the cash, both because Saltfleetby needs yet more spent on it (mentioned in Jan 6th RNS) and because of the positive cash balance obligation in the Ts & Cs of the £12 million loan (detailed in the Oct Valuation report and confirmed in today's RNS).

3. The 14% would possibly dilute the support for the derisory SOU "possible offer", but only providing that none of those supporting that took place in the placing (we don't know yet).

Still trying to discredit those of a more realistic opinion who suggested caution, BV? Now that genuinely is very strange indeed in the cold hard light of reality (something the uber-positive always have trouble addressing).

Bizarrely and as I've said, on balance and being brutally pragmatic, although I definitely question how this latest placing was set up and executed, I honestly cannot see it on balance as a bad thing.

Yes it sucks, yes the company should have been far more transparent as to the actual state of things... but, given those two separate alarm clocks due to go off this summer, what was the alternative, if ANGS needed more cash (which it very clearly did)? Lesser of two evils, in my book...

BV I answered your question. Let me do so again.

I have commented before on the striking similarities between ANGS and UKOG. I have also specifically suggested that genuine ANGS shareholder should take a look at what went on with UKOG between mid June and early July last year.

Let me summarise what did. A sudden influx of new and incredibly positive posters, abuse and attempted drowning out of anyone expressing a more cautious opinion over there, an RNS issued by UKOG on 28th June stating they'd just started drilling at Basur-3... and the UKOG SP spikes from 0.175 on June 16th up to 0.24 on July 2nd. Guess what happened next?

That's right. A big fat placing was announced on Mon July 5th at 0.18p and all those uber-positive posters strangely instantly melted away. Needless to say, it transpired that UKOG had rushed the drill and drilled in entirely the wrong place (which it had to announce just 4 weeks later on Aug 3rd) and no more drilling has taken place since. UKOG's SP rtoday is 0.1p.

You seeing any similarities here? Looks like the exact same playbook to me...

Now I'm not saying that you've been posting your recent uber-positivity in bad faith. Quite the opposite - I told you that I took you at face value as someone who'd just got it wrong.

And it's a bit pathetic to try to put words in my mouth. I categorically do not think that genuine long-term ANGS shareholders are mugs. However, I do think that frequent attempts have been and continue to be made to mug PIs off.

Clear enough?

BV I'm prepared to take you at your word that you've been a mug, rather than someone operating in bad faith.

As to whether I'm going to buy in? I'll pass, thanks all the same and ignore the "opportunity" in much the same way as I ignored your other encouragements to buy in at a considerably higher price, right up until this latest placing.

In my very firm view, it's way too high risk - plus the company and its "executive dream team" have done nothing to merit either my trust or my hard-earned. Quite the reverse, in fact.

George Lucan, CEO, commented: "...It is critical that that the Company is able to negotiate from a position of strong liquidity, remaining fully compliant with the terms of its development loan facility, and able to face all contingencies during the run-up to First Gas."

Quite correct. This very well telegraphed placing (why was anyone surprised?) is to address two things.

1. The latest shortfall in funds required to get Saltfleetby over the line (mentioned in the Jan 6th RNS).

2. The obligation under the terms of the £12 million loan to maintain a positive bank balance equalling three months of repayments, which is going to be at least £1.3 million, probably more (detailed on page 48 of the latest CPR/valuation).

Given that ANGS *has to* get Saltfleetby to production within an ever-narrowing timeframe (debt repayment and hedge fulfilment obligations) and given that ANGS *has to* maintain the above-mentioned positive bank balance, what else did people expect it to do?

Okay, the motives behind the active choice the board made to set an FSP in motion look highly questionable... but leaving that aside and ANGS's eternally dubious levels of transparency, it absolutely had to raise more funds.

Lesser of two evils. What would people rather ANGS had done? Give up, flog Saltfleetby off for some worthless confetti and walk away?

The most telegraphed placing I've seen in a long time. Mystic Meg wasn't needed at all.

Oofy, what do you reckon the quid pro quo for SOU was or will be?

One of the biggest issues for ANGS which again has been mentioned by the realists, but which has (naturally) been shouted down by the placing greasers is the fact that it needs to maintain a positive bank balance at all times equal to three months of repayments on the £12m loan at 12.5%,

That obligatory condition of the loan is buried in the last revised valuation report (it's on page 48) and certainly hasn't been highlighted by George.

By my reckoning, 3 months of repayment on an amortising £12 million loan at 12.5% with 11 quarters to run amounts to at least £1.3 million (and probably more).

So not much of the £1.4 million (gross) that ANGS is raising may actually be available to spend.

I still find it staggering that people didn't see this coming a mile off (of course leaving aside the ramptastic squad, who knew it was coming but quite deliberately did all they could to deceive, mislead, misdirect and grease this placing away).

PS has anyone else noticed that previous nonstop positive posters such as EchDelta, BalancedViewer and VeryHappyBunny (to name just a few) have all of a sudden entirely disappeared?

How odd (not). Jobs done - at least for the moment. You have to love the murky shenanigans of AIM...

Correct Ocelot. The company has obviously known for many weeks that it was short on cash to get Saltfleetby over the line. This placing was telegraphed from the second it announced the very rushed and very odd single agenda issue (E)GM back in early December, and was assisted by the equally very odd active choice to embark on an FSP.

At least George's reasons for doing the latter are now abundantly clear to one and all...

SillyButtons, like that's ever going to happen.

What will be mildly interesting will be to see just how many of the vociferous ramptastic squad that have appeared here over the last couple of months now melt away, job done.

Correction to my post above. They'e done well getting this away at 0.8p, especially given that the last palcing only raised £750k and 0.65p.

A tasty 20% margin for the city boys though...

This is clearly primarily for the contingency shortfall at Saltfleetby and general working capital. It can hardly have come as any surprise to anyone with the slightest objectivity - I mean ANGS told everyone it was short on contingency budget via RNS on Jan 6th. And then rushed to get a new and much larger authority to issue shares a week later. You didn't need to be Mystic Meg.

Yanis, see my other post to Howey. This is not the worst news possible. Yes it sucks, yes, there's been the usual lack of transparency from ANGS, yes the active choice to launch an FSP now looks even more questionable.... but I'd say it's the lesser of two evils, hard though that may be to swallow.

@Howey, although this was very obviously telegraphed (as all the realists here have been saying and all the cheerleaders have been busily denying... what was the rude word VHB used about the claim that ANGS needing more money?)...

...being purely pragmatic, this is not bad news. Yes it's a(nother) diluting smack in the face for LTHers, BUT...

....if ANGS needed more money to get Saltfleetby over the line (as they openly stated they did in the Jan 6th RNS, something which those posters here greasing the way for a placing kept denying), then they should absolutely go and get it. In fact, they've done well (though I'm not sure they've been entirely above board) in getting this away at 1.02p.

Ask yourself this... what was the alternative? Give up, flog the asset off for confetti and walk away? It may be irritating (and the "fortuitously timed" active choice to launch an FSP can certainly be questioned), but it is IMV the lesser of two evils.

Just for interest:-

HeadInTheSand
Posted in: ANGS
Posts: 3,959
Price: 1.05
RE: Their fame is spreading 26 Jan 2022 09:08

Completely agreed, nhawan. So, if ANGS knows that more funds are needed (again) to get SFBY over the line, for instance to cover off the anticipated contingency shortfall mentioned in this year's Jan 6th RNS, in my book, however infuriating that might be, it needs to get busy and fast addressing said shortfall.

As you say, waiting around in hope is not an option.

@Howey, it's certainly true that things are progressing at Saltfleetby. That's self-evident.

The questions remaining are:-

Are they progressing fast enough to beat those two separate ticking alarm clocks of debt repayment and hedge fulfilment?

Has ANGS got all the funds in place to get Saltfleetby over the line?

Will Saltfleetby produce enough gas to meet revenue/hedge needs without a successful sidetrack?

Nobody knows the answers to any of those, so they're each matters for personal judgement, based on whatever supporting realworld evidence you like. Some will take ANGS issued information as credible, no matter how often it may get revised. Others will pay more attention to the company's track record on meeting its projections. It's a matter of individual choice.

I still do not understand why ANGS has taken the quite deliberate choice to launch a formal sales process, when it's assuring all that it's on the brink of delivering literally transformative revenues out of Saltfleetby? It could have quite happily merely unequivocally rejected the all-confetti 1.5p SOU "possible offer", just as it did SOU's previous three "indicative proposals". There's no need to have launched an FSP, especially since all SOU-mooted offers/proposals would have to be seen as derisorily small.

I can only imagine that there are a few more not yet generally known hurdles to overcome in the road to full gas production. I cannot come up with anything else that would make sense of the FSP.

Anyhow in the grander scheme of things, not long to wait for much improved clarity now. First gas is now promised in under three months - and if that doesn't happen, then the arrival of debt repayment and hedge fulfilment obligations a couple of months max after that will literally force clarity on things.

If this is the case, why did ANS bother to launch a formal sale process? Why didn't it simply "unequivocally reject" the all-confetti and presumably derisory 1.5p SOU "possible offer" (just like it did with SOU's three earlier lower value "indicative proposals") and carry on driving full steam ahead with getting Saltfleetby over the line?

Now that did cause a chuckle.

The eagerness of some to ignore auditable facts that are already in the public domain (or to pretend these don't exist) continues to surprise.

The 3rd Dec "Result of Placing" RNS announcing that a gross figure of £750k had been raised did indeed state that the funds raised would be put towards:-

· Increased contingency for its Saltfleetby budget;

· Geothermal subsurface and potential site acquisition work (5 target sites identified)

· Planning and regulatory matters in respect of its current oil fields, including work to resume production at Lidsey during Q1 2022, subject to regulatory approvals; and

· Working capital and general costs.

(As a side note, £750k in't very much at all to go towards those four items. As has been pointed out, such an amount would only cover c. 3 months of average cash burn, forgetting about anything else. Anyhow...)

However, just over a month later, the Jan 6th RNS announced that "...the Board anticipates a further increase in the contingency for the project (up to 10% of budget)".

NB the word "further".