Member Info for HeadInTheSand

"Utter rubbish", eh? I wouldn't be so sure.

Three reasons why ANGS may well need more funds in the short-term:-

1. The "up to 10%" cost over-run in "contingency" that was newly realised (Jan 6th RNS).

2. The possibility of any first revenues from gas production now being pushed back until end April at very best (Jan 27th RNS).

3. The cast-iron obligation for ANGS to maintain a free cash bank balance equating to three months of loan repayments at all times, as per page 48 of the 26th Oct revised valuation report. Here's the extract:

"Minimum bank balance to exceed rolling three months of interest payment plus minimum loan repayment"

By my reckoning, quarterly repayments on an amortising loan on £12 million at 12% ending Dec 24 would be around £1.3 million.

So I wouldn't be too sure that ANGS has no further short-term cash requirements. If it does, it would explain both the hastily arranged (E)GM thatwas called solely to seek the authority to issue up to 874 million new shares... and the superficially counter-intuitive decision by ANGS to consider a formal sale, when they've been consistently assuring investors that Saltfleetby is on the very brink of serious revenue generation.

I guess as ever that we'll have to wait and see.

The new IQs asked are pretty much all the same and from my POV completely understandable. If one has taken various company projections on what Saltfleetby is likely to deliver and by when as gospel truth, then ANGS's consideration of a formal sale at this apparently very advanced stage is counter-intuitive, to say the least. Expressions of PI surprise are entirely justified.

However, I also doubt that ANGS will (or even can) issue any more than very general reassurance, given we're in the midst of the process that it has put into motion. IMV, Crocqman is bang on with what he said about that.

It is more than a little mystifying why ANGS started this FSP, especially since the event which seems to have caused ANGS to start this off is an apparently low-ball "confetti only" possible offer from a company in a rather similar pre-revenue position? One has to ask oneself why would a formal sales process be kicked off?

I personally wonder whether it's to do with the strains that ANGS has on its free cash position? After all, we have now been told via RNS that Saltfleetby is "anticipated" to cost a degree more, due to an "up to" 10% shortfall in contingency. We also now know via RNS that first gas has been pushed back to the latter half of April (and first gas isn't full production, but either way, revenues out of Saltfleetby can only have been pushed back in tandem). Plus finally we know via the latest CPR/valuation report that it's a condition of the £12 million loan that ANGS at all times maintains a free cash balance equivalent to three months of repayments, which would seem to equate to around £1.3 million.

The "stress on free cash" nature of the above combined may explain why ANGS has taken this superficially counter-intuitive step with its consideration of a formal sale.

Market abuse equally applies to those trying to talk a share up without justification.

As to the advice to only take notice of what a company has stated in its own publicly issued information? That rather depends on how often said company's various previously issued promises, projections, estimates and assurances have proven to be accurate.

Probably best to pay attention to verifiable facts and reality.

BV I have issued no misinformation of any kind. If you'd only read what was posted, instead of instantly kneejerking and going off on one, you might just realise that.

Here's what I said. It is auditable and correct.

"...so far, going by public disclosure Form 8s issued, only SOU to date has its hat in the ring."

If you'd like to point out to any more form 8s, please do so.

I am well aware that George stated that ANGS has received up to six expressions of interest. Therefore, if those expressions of interest solidify into anything more concrete, then we should see more incoming Form 8s.

(I really do not understand what's so difficult here...)

As I've already said BV, insult is the only resort for those having difficulty invalidating counter-opinion.

I think you'll find that the only "showing up" here is of yourself - but as ever, it's an allegedly free world, so if playground insult is your preferred modus operandi, go to it.

Oh and you also might wish to check a dictionary for the meaning of the word "controlled". Rants never are.

BV you're surprisingly aerated this morning? Even more than usual... I hope that SFBY once eventually online shows the same sort of pressure.

Given your choice of playground language this morning while you shriek at others daring to hold different opinions to grow up, I'd respectfully suggest that pot and kettle applies.

And as usual the ramptastic choir have to resort to playground insult, for want of having any material with which to support their claims... depressingly boring.

Back to reality... so far, going by public disclosure Form 8s issued, only SOU to date has its hat in the ring.

Okay, so I think everyone would agree that there are two separate and crucial obligations for ANGS starting to loom into view, those being debt repayment and hedge fulfilment, both due to kick in by July.

Therefore, the date of getting to first production could not be any more material for the company. And being supplied accurate and updated information on this in a timely manner is equally material for the market.

So today (finally) we get an RNS showing a further 2 month delay... fair enough. Projects suffer delays regularly.

Except this latest admitted-to delay is hardly sudden new news. It has been blindingly obvious to anyone casually watching progress at SFBY for weeks and weeks (as has been commented here by more realistic posters).

Does anyone honestly believe that ANGS only became aware of these extra delays this week? Of course not - they've been as clear as day for weeks. So why has it only announced something this material today?

ANGS has a track record of doing this. It waited until the 1st December to inform that it was not in fact going to start the sidetrack it had up to then promised would commence on Jan 6th... something that had been equally obvious to realists for weeks and weeks.

However... there's still time to get SFBY producing. Though the window of leeway has all of a sudden now reduced to only 60 days. There had better be no more delays.

One final thing, knowing the importance of word choice in RNSes... I would point out the difference in meaning between "delivered" and "provisioned/installed".

"A beauty of an RNS"? Seriously?

You mean the one where ANGS is forced by the passage of time to own up to what anyone (apart from those blinkered by hope or being deliberately disingenuous) has known for weeks? I.E. that there's a further 2 month delay on the project?

People have indeed been talking about timescales and the very clear fact that ANGS could not possibly hit the ones it had been sticking to and claiming that it could achieve. It's finally had to come clean and own up to that this morning.

"A beauty of an RNS", eh? I would hate to see an example of one that would fit your definition of an ugly one then...

Sins of omission (i.e. not revealing material information, either at all or in a timely manner) are sadly not that uncommon with AIM companies.

Far rarer (though not completely unknown) are sins of commission (i.e. companies knowingly spouting utter BS). CTAG, anyone?

,,,and if Paddy C has suddenly acquired 2 million more shares recently, wouldn't this be mandatorily announceable?

Same Disclosure RNS of today...

Why aren't JTP's 27 million shares listed in Section 3 as "a) Interests held by directors and employees of Angus Energy Plc"?

He may not be an official board director, but presumably he's an employee?

It's not complicated. ANGS's new authority does carry disapplication of statutory pre-emption rights. This is standard stuff and simply means that ANGS is not obliged to give all existing shareholders the opportunity to participate in any new placing (aka an Open Offer). ANGS can have an Open Offer if it so chooses, though it'd be unusual to do so.

The better question is... would all existing shareholders want to invest more of their hard-earned and take part in a new placing? It's not as if they'd be issued new shares for free...

Mirasol, I also agree - that's a given. I see no viable reason why the company should not be making all efforts and overcoming all unforeseen new obstacles in progress to first gas.

"The closer they are to being able to deliver on time and on budget the less risk for a buyer and therefore a higher price." Absolutely true, with the flipside being "The closer it gets to July without first gas being achieved, the more risk and therefore a lower price."

VHB, I'm unsurprised that your response to a factual post is based on cheap insult, but still.

I've no idea why ANGS might want to raise more cash, though the "anticipated" cost-over-run on contingency the company mentioned in this year's Jan 6th RNS may provide one answer.

I'm merely pointing out the cast-iron factual oddity of the company deciding it immediately needed the authority to issue such a large quantity of new shares just ten weeks before the AGM falls due. Why go to the bother and expense of calling a single agenda item GM, when it could have waited just ten weeks and then table the exact same resolution, unless the need was urgent?

But hey, feel free to avoid the question and respond with more trite insult.... it is after all an allegedly free world and I do acknowledge that facts can be irritating things.

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.

PS of course if ANGS is now deadset on selling either Saltfleetby or the company, then yes, it presumably won't need to place.

But first that doesn't mesh well with all the revenue/profit projections that the company has continually issued, while equally continually assuring investors that these are just around the corner. And with those two separate and ever-approaching obligations (debt repayment and hedge fulfilment), it'd be a daring CEO who wound back efforts to get to first gas and instead bet all the company chips on an acceptably sized offer going through in the required narrowing timescale.

As has been much commented, the most obvious indication that a placing may well be required soon was ANGS's decision to suddenly call a rushed single issue GM taking place two weeks back. The sole purpose of that GM was to gain the authority to issue a much larger number of new shares (874 million) and such authority was approved.

None of which would be that unusual (save possibly the number of new shares now permitted)... but this GM was called just ten weeks before the AGM to take place at the end of March, where such a resolution could easily and more normally have been included.

That strongly suggests that ANGS is looking to issue more shares (for whatever reason) before March 31st.

I would actually be concerned if ANGS doesn't take whatever steps may be necessary to cover the recently mentioned Saltfleetby budget/contingency shortfall (as per Jan 6th RNS).

Sure, it would be infuriating to have it confirmed that they've got their sums wrong yet again at this allegedly very advanced stage... but art of the practical here - what's the alternative, given those two separate alarm clocks of debt repayment and hedge fulfilment set to go off in just over 5 months' time? Flogging the asset or the company off for a load of confetti would hardly seem in keeping with the potential of Saltfleetby that they've kept assuring everyone of.

Yanis, there's really not much difference between your and my opinions at all.

"It's as if Angus have given up on getting the gas out and are concentrating on the sale."
It does seem like that. One has to ask why? Or if this isn't the case, where are the activities to cover the latest funding shortfall?

"The longer the delay the bigger the need for additional funds becomes, also the bigger the loss of potential profits that could eliminate the need for another raise."
All true. Plus, the longer the delay, the less either Saltfleeby or ANGS becomes worth to a potential purchaser, because the seller is going to be in an ever more distressed state, courtesy of the ever-ticking debt repayment and hedge fulfilment alarm clocks.

"In my opinion, unless they seriously increase site activity within the next few days then even first gas by April/May very likely will not happen ."
Again I agree entirely. July 1st is the drop-dead deadline (as per alarm clocks above). God help them if it turns out a sidetrack is needed after all to get sufficient volume out... when would that be done?

" It's either that or we are not told the whole truth... We need transparency!"
Absolutely.