Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Very shortly, and I'm surprised we've not seen it yet... unless any other mandatorily announceable item needs to be included in the same RNS

Yanis, read the resolution. I believe it's a replacement authority, not an additional one.

360phil, you're certainly not alone in that thinking - though I imagine the uberpositive won't like your view much.

So, hastily arranged single agenda item (E)GM today... I'm sure the resolution allowing up to 874 million new shares to be issued will be passed. (NB not that this means at all that ANGS will instantly issue all of them). But given that it seems they still had the ability to issue c. 300 million new shares under their existing authority that they're now looking to replace today, their desire to immediately and rapidly increase this to such a degree remains a little surprising. As does the timing of today's (E)GM - and that of the very recent RNS mentioning alleged casual expressions of interest received and the start of a "formal consideration of sale" process by the board. People will draw (and have drawn) their own conclusions from all that, one way or the other.

However, there's only 4 days till Monday 17th... and less than three weeks till the end of the month. As ever with ANGS, it's a case of waiting to see what'll happen next. Something's bound to, IMV.

Okay, but what value would SEL settle for? And would it settle for paper at this pre-production stage?

@James2, absolutely greed that SFB being in single ownership would make things a great deal simpler.

But if George's latest commissioned CPR figures and various stated estimates and assurances are to be believed, surely SEL would be nuts to sell its nigh on half share in SFB cheaply? You've seen the price expectations being stated here by people, were ANGS to sell its own 51% stake...

It also depends on what they knew and when, Bill, together with the reasons for making the RNSed announcements they have from Dec 20th onwards (and the order these have been made in). All of that's a matter for individuals to make their own minds up about.

Bill, yes and no. It is indeed entirely sensible and normal for any listed company to have headroom to issue more shares (though the amount of headroom that ANGS is now seeking - up to 874 million new shares - is somewhat surprising).

What's been much commented on is the timing of such authority seeking - with a single agenda item GM being called just ten weeks before the AGM (where the tabling of such resolutions would be pretty normal) That's more unusual.

Jeremy Hunt's playing the local MP game here. Dunsfold's in his constituency, he knows the local residents (his voters) are firmly against Loxley, so he's never going to come out in favour of it - on the grounds of pure self-interest and not damaging his local majority.

BV, I'm surprised you seem to be pushing for a BB where just one flavour of opinion is allowed? Can't imagine why...

I would have thought that just having endless and nigh on identical opinions expressed in terms of any discussion would be a) utterly worthless and b) intensely boring.

Why is it that you consider just uberpositive opinions to be "interesting", I wonder?

Trite ad hominen again, BV? Unsurprising, but mildly disappointing - and faintly embarrassing.

However, as I have said before, each to his/her own... I'm not one for trying to stifle opinion.

It must beg the question though... why are two relatively substantial (1%+) holders inspired to sell out right now?

Presumably, they must not agree with the imminent gain positive case being put forward?

Mira, of course agreed if the entire company gets sold.

However, if just the asset is sold, yes, that's more tricky. I think ANGS would still be on the hook as well, because they're the arty that contractually committed to it for 36 months. So they'd either have to persuade the putative buyer (and of course those on the other side of the hedge) basically to adopt the same committed-to hedge, or they'd have to buy out their obligation under the hedge, which at current gas prices looks like it might be rather pricy.

And if any new buyer is going to have to agree to be bound by an identical hedge as part of the asset purchase, that's surely going to affect the offer price? I mean, I'd far rather be in a position to sell produced gas at say 200p, rather than a fixed c. 40p for the next three years...

Guess we'll just have to wait and see...

BV, as soon as news of the hastily arranged (E)GM got announced, I was sure (and stated my belief here) there'd be a quick flip profit to be made, up until that actually taking place. Sure, I didn't expect the short-term spike to be as sharp as it is - but then again, I didn't expect George to subsequently announce a "formal consideration of sale". Very handy, that...

On balance, I'm not bothered about missing out on a quick flip. I'm not into short-term trading for a number of reasons. I do take some solace in the fact that, even if I'd held on until now, I would have ended up selling at pretty much the exact same price I did in the summer. .

Speaking of questions, anyone got an opinion on what happens re the contractually committed-to hedge obligations which ANGS's has solely signed up to if it sells the asset which is meant to fulfil those commitments?

BV if it's any business of yours (it isn't), well under a couple of grand (so, insignificant), but a loss in the mid to high 20%s (so, annoying).

For the record, it is impossible to predict something as fact. That's why they're called predictions, not facts. As a side note, this is something that George is very well aware of, as he has repeatedly shown, but that's by the by.

I'd of course agree that, such has been the sharpness of the recent and "fortuitously timed" short-term SP spike, were there to be a placing any time soon, it could now be got away at a price higher than previously guesstimated (unless it's eye-poppingly massive).

So I'll wait until later in January to see if what I expect to happen now happens - and the effect that has (if it happens) on the SP. 3 weeks isn't long to wait...

BV, disappointingly misrepresenting again, I see.

Yes, I took a loss selling in the summer (and at where the SP is now). That loss was insignificant in £ note terms, but as I've said, irritating in percentage terms. I've been entirely open about this - perhaps that's something you might try being? It's a lot classier than the trite ad hominem BS.

Speaking of honesty, you won't find me having offered any advice to anyone. Just counter opinion to the endless jam tomorrow 120% nailed-on multi-bag promises assured by so many (notably including yourself since your buy-in).

As I've said, let's wait till after the (E)GM and end January to see if things become a deal more clearer.

BV, it's mildly disappointing to see you going down both the deliberate misinterpretation route and the continual issue-ducking "play the man, not the ball" ad hominem route. However, each to his/her own, I guess.

The point remains that it's useful to have a mix of opinions to consider, rather than just a Moonies/Scientologist style single view discussion board.

Let's see how things look by the end of Jan, eh?

The point about the authority being sought is not at all about it being sought.

Any responsible listed company will make sure it's got headroom to issue new shares. That's completely standard practice - and if necessary, such an authority request is usually included in the set of resolutions tabled at an AGM.

The size of authority being sought by ANGS (874 million new shares) is mildly noteworthy - but the most noteworthy thing is the timing of the authority being sought. ANGS's AGM is presumably scheduled for March 31st - so it could have included such a resolution then. But it didn't - it has gone to the time, trouble and cost of calling a single issue (E)GM to gain a sizeable new authority to issue just ten weeks prior to its AGM....

Yes of course this doesn't mean it'll suddenly issue all 874 million new shares on Jan 14th (presuming the new authority gets approved, which I am sure it will). But the timing of this is without a doubt curious, given the above.

Thanks for your concern.

Nope - just watching from the sidelines. As I've said, I expect things to be a lot more clear by the end of this month.

Taking the potential sale of the asset seriously for a second for the sake of argument, this strikes me as potentially complicated.

Obviously, the asset is currently used as the security against the supplied financing. That's in and of itself not desperately problematic - presumably, ANGS would have to pay back the lenders out of any money received for Saltfleetby, if it did get and accept an offer.

However, the hedge agreement which ANGS has separately and solely contractually committed to would seem trickier. Any prospective buyer of the gas field presumably isn't going to want to be committed to selling output at 40p rather than at say 200p - so I'd doubt that they'd want to take the existing hedge commitment on (if it's even transferable). Or if they were to, it'd presumably mean a reduction in any offer they'd be prepared to make? Or quite possibly, ANGS would have to buy its way out of its hedge commitment (at whatever that might cost) in the event of the asset being sold.

I'm not quite sure how that would be ironed out... anyhow, as stated, things are set to become clearer by the end of this month IMV, following the (E)GM.

A 2 part reply, BV. First line was for you.