Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Yanis, quite right. Which is precisely why ANGS needs to update the market with the latest revised timescales, rather than leaving George's latest "first gas by mid-Feb" projections hanging out there to either mislead or be mocked.

The point about updates is that they're meant to be issued before previous projections get missed, not after.

"We all know Saltfleetby will come online whether next month March or even April."

Couple of things...

Yes, there's little to no doubt that Saltfleetby will come online, but I don't think that anybody outside of ANGS has a clear view of when. Presumably ANGS must have a better idea of when this might be - but it's not sharing. (Unbelievably, George still hasn't amended his most recent "first gas by mid-Feb" prediction - but given where things very visibly are, I don't think anyone believes that for a second).

However, the "when" is crucial for ANGS, as it always has been. As is the "how much gas" as well. As everyone must already know, there is a limited and slowly but inexorably closing window within which either a) Saltfleetby needs to be got to full production and equally importantly, to sufficient production, or b) ANGS needs to sell the field and/or the company.

There's time still, but George and crew need to get moving a lot more urgently down one route or the other.

Baits, don't ask me to defend the degrees of hypocrisy or lack of realism exhibited by what seems to be the large majority of the eco brigade, because I simply can't.

Still, I think the assertion that a sizeable chunk of those posting less than positively here consists of undercover climate activists potentially funded by hostile nation states is more than a tad Qanon in its likelihood of being at all accurate. There are more than enough pure and verifiable fact based reasons for anyone to be less than impressed with ANGS, the chief of which to me is the company's seemingly deliberate and ongoing lack of transparency.

I guess we're just going to have to wait and see how this latest FSP confusion plays out. It remains true that, whatever ANGS decides to do, it needs to do it quickly. Debt repayment and hedge fulfilment obligations get closer by the day...

And again with the myth that anyone not desperately impressed with ANGS and its management must be some sort o eco-warrior. Bizarre...

As to explaining things? I'd like George to explain clearly:-

1. what the company's latest revised estimate is on the timescale of getting to first gas (because it sure as Hell ain't mid Feb).

2. how much extra it's now going to cost to get there

3. if it needs to raise more funds via placing in order to get there

4. if it even believes it can get to first gas by itself or not.

Nom, they actually didn't reject the paper offer that was nominally worth 1.5p at the time. That's the one they chose to announce the FSP on the back of.

It was the earlier, lower confetti SOU offers that were "unequivocally rejected".

Taverham, that's a more than justifiable take - though possibly a little bleak.

This literally all comes down to how much credibility people give to the ANGS BoD and the information it has issued and continues to issue.

If (and yes, it's a big "if") ANGS can bring Saltfleetby to a sufficient level of production by July 1st at the absolute latest, then things should be fine. There's still five months to go, so there's still time, provided there's no more meaningful delivery, provisioning or regulatory approval delays.

But there's also the matter of potentially more funds being required to get Saltfleetby over the line. We already know about the "anticipated" shortfall in contingency - but this surely shouldn't be a problem, now that ANGS has got the authority to issue a sizeable number of new shares.

This is what irritates me so much about ANGS. They promise something and as time goes by, it becomes increasingly obvious that promise cannot get met... but they don't offer any realistic update.

So if ANGS knows it needs another unexpected £x million to bring Saltfleetby home, raise the funds required and tell the market. Or if realistic estimates on first gas have now slipped into April or May, keep at it and tell the market. Or if ANGS knows that after all, it can't bring Saltfleetby in by itself, get on with either selling the field or the entire company.

As far as offers are concerned, the potential problem is that, the nearer the date gets to July 1st without full production having started, the less ANGS will be seen as being worth, IMO.

BV, that makes no sense. He can't be referring to the hedge.

Producing gas for sale by mid Feb (and thus 4 and a 1/2 months before the hedge kicks in) would obviously be massively positively material. But that's just three weeks away...

BV, GL's last statement did indeed say that.

On that basis, I take it you're expecting first gas by (or very close to) mid February, as per GL's most recently issued prediction...

Good luck with that.

BV, not stressed. However, still irritated at the lamentable and ongoing lack of transparency and candour.

ANGS has still not amended its most recent on-record estimate of first gas by mid February. That's now just three weeks away...

Do you think that's at all likely? Do you think the company still believes that is in any way possible? Do you think the market deserves a more realistic update?

"Angus, in my view, needs to be working full steam ahead on getting gas asap, irrespective of the possible sale."

Absolutely correct, Yanis and as some of the more measured have been saying here ever since the FSP got RNSed.

The one thing ANGS can NOT do is sit on its hands and wait so see what may or may not happen. Those separate two alarm clocks of debt repayment and hedge fulfilment continue to tick...

So, if ANGS needs to raise another swathe of cash to get Saltfleetby over the line (as strongly suggested both by the Jan 6th RNS and the hastily-arranged single issue (E)GM), sure, this latest underestimate will be infuriating... but FFS get on with it.

Or if ANGS has realised it's not in a position to get Saltfleetby to production by itself, then FFS get on with selling the asset and/or the company. Whatever you do George, do NOT do nothing.

Either way and as you know, investors deserve (and frankly, have the right to) a greatly increased level of transparency and meaningful updates. I mean fercrissakes, George is STILL on record as saying first gas by mid-Feb... that's just three weeks away,so it is just not going to happen - so revise your estimate, George! It's long past the time that the company should be being a whole lot more candid about what's actually going on, what's now likely to happen and when.

Good post, Yanis. You're one of the few voices of reason - no doubt because you actually are a genuine long-term holder (unlike so many quick flip short-term trading posters here).

You're absolutely bang on right - it is completely pointless to attack/insult those with a differing view. In fact, doing so merely shows that those who insult posters can't think of any points to counter what has been posted. Hence all they can do is go down the oh so obvious and oh so boring route of trying to discredit the poster. It's an age-old tactic - play the man, not the ball.

The current preferred insult in a long line of farcical accusations is that anyone posting negatively must be a member of Extinnction Rebellion or the Greta Thunberg Fan Club. Oh please... though I suppose it's fractionally more credible than the claim that anyone posting negatively is without doubt on either Vladimir Putin's or Xi Jinping's payroll, or both.

This is of course ridiculous - as with all these things, the simplest explanation is always by far the most likely. So it's simply that some here are less than impressed with ANGS's ongoing track record in sticking to what it has said or achieving what it has promised, and what they see as a marked and continuing lack of transparency from the company. And that is all.

BV, seriously.... what on earth are you talking about? This is actually getting deranged. Even more than your usual.

BV, calm down. For the record I don't want ANGS gone (I just want them to be a great deal more transparent). I don't want any genuine long-term holders to lose money on this either (but as for the many short-term ramptastic traders, I couldn't give a rat's behind for any of them/you).

Also, since my personal back yard doesn't quite extend 200 miles north, I don't think I can be realistically called a Nimby. And I will seriously miss my diesel engined car when it can no longer be replaced with a like-for-like equivalent, so treehugger or swampy doesn't really fit much either.

However, if spinning these deluded myths help you make it through your day...

As to posters endlessly spreading the same old single tone stuff? With respect, nurse, mirror for BV please.

Have a nice weekend, all.

BV a serious question... do you honestly believe all these claims you're making about posters here and elsewhere? Because if you do, it sounds worryingly like some form of paranoid psychosis?

However, if it's just more of the usual attempts to smear anyone expressing a more cautious opinion, then you're probably fine, psychologically speaking at least.

Don't come across even more ridiculous than you usually do with under your many IDs, ED.

Also, I wouldn't go using phrases like "shame on you". Because according to some, that categorically guarantees you're some sort of nimby or swampy member of XR or something.

This has got a fair way to play out before things become a good deal more clear.

Sitting on a 300% profit? A tad of an exaggeration there. If someone had bought in at the recent low point (say 0.65), they could have almost doubled their money.

Not to be sneezed at, of course, but hardly a 300% profit.

I'm all for genuine long-term holders getting excited about the current rise - and for them I hope it's sustained.

However, the accusations from those very obviously less genuine about who posters of a more cautious view may or may not be is getting farcical. I might as well do something equally ridiculous and categorically state that BV is actually Bernie Madoff or that EchDelta is in fact Elizabeth Holmes.

Anyhow, as I've said, let's see how this plays out as the weeks go by, because things will inevitably become clearer. I still believe that ANGS is going to need either to raise or to sell in order to get Saltfleetby over the line in the crucial timescales required.

I'm mildly surprised to find myself agreeing with VHB, but what the Hell... as so often with ANGS, these are strange times.

The "confetti only" possible offer from a company as geared and as precarious as SOU seems to all intents and purposes utterly farcical and a complete waste of time.

The only surprising thing is that ANGS didn't reject the 4th indicative proposal instantly and with the same rapidity and unequivocality that they did the three previous SOU approaches. One cannot help but wonder why not?

Well actually, according to the CEO's most recent stated estimate on the timing of gas starting to flow, you're being way too pessimistic there. George's latest projection on this subject is "by mid February"... though I doubt that anyone else at all believes that schedule to be achievable.

I still find the reasons why ANGS announced an FSP at this allegedly advanced stage curious. Some people have said that they're obliged to announce even any indicative interest expressed... except that can't be correct. ANGS certainly didn't announce any of the three previous "unequivocally rejected" possible proposals from SOU, going back into early Q4 last year, did it?

Everyone will have their own thoughts about this. I personally suspect ANGS faces a choice of either raising or selling, in order to get Saltfleetby over the line. And that the FSP announcement of the (on the surface utterly farcical, but not rejected by ANGS) SOU provisional offer was put to use as a stalking horse to see if there's any other interest out there and at what price.

Regardless, whatever ANGS decides to do, it needs to do it sharpish. It can't sit on its hands re Saltfleetby for too long.

You're certainly a recent ID, VHB.

I'm sorry that you've got so snippy just because your previous post claiming that ANGS had unequivocally rejected the 1.5p paper offer from SOU got shown to be just plain wrong. to date, ANGS has not rejected this possible offer at all.

Perhaps reading RNSes more carefully might help to prevent you - accidentally no doubt - from potentially misleading others?

And by the way, how is Uncle Stevie?