Member Info for HeadInTheSand

What's mildly amusingly noteworthy about this response is that it fails entirely to acknowledge that the " concerted disingenuousness" from posters using differing aliases (aka multiple IDs) is invariably of the ramptastic persuasion.

I mean, if this and other share discussion bulletin boards hadn't been afflicted with EchDelta of a thousand faces, the post count over the last couple of months would have dropped by two thirds. As would the nonsense levels in direct tandem.

Geez. I mean, okay Prince Multi-ID Ramptastic's eternally ludicrous predictions on the ANGS share price have a) always been farcical and b) based on nothing but self-interest... but he now seems to be spiralling off into the deranged world of numerology? The ANGS SP he assures all is destined to match the year number?

Not only is this certifiably insane, but he's clearly failed to take into account that, if the SP were to mirror each year, this would result in a thousandth of a penny gain. Annually. Great long-term value hold, then...

Yes the hedge was insisted upon by those lending the money.

As to the Damocles part? Still unknown... that supposed 5 month leeway looks like it's being substantially eaten into - and whether the hard and fast volumes committed to are 'conservative ' or not (without a successful sidetrack, the attempt on which has also already been delayed) is entirely unclear... and will remain so until we get independently verified consistent production figures.

Or to put it another much-repeated way... how much gas George? And by when?

No surprise to see ANGS confirming the fact that the hedge (of course) is not related to the amount of loan outstanding and that it is an entirely separate and distinct binding agreement.

It's mystifying how some alleged genuine investors show so little knowledge of basic financial instruments.

I don't think much of your choice of friends, BV... a proven multi-ID spamfest ramper? looms a bit desperate, no?

Anyhow, each to his/her own, I guess.

BV, that's easy to answer. Because there may be money to be made with a quick flip or two. However, there is no way on God's green earth that ANGS should in any way whatsoever be considered as any sort of long-term value hold, in my beyond firm opinion.

Looks like those desperately positive have realised (finally) that trying to discredit those of a more realistic and fact-based opinion on ANGS by labelling them as part of a mythical Evil Global Shorting Conspiracy (tm) is fooling nobody.

So the new cri du jour is that anyone in the slightest critical of ANGS, George and his "executive dream " simply MUST be some sort of eco-warroir...

Newsflash. Occam's Razor applies here chaps. The simplest solution is always the most likely. So perhaps... just perhaps, mind... the company's being run by a gaggle of incompetent and purely self-serving fools.

...two weeks of frantic efforts to talk the SP up in advance of the mid-Jan placing that literally has to happen, if ANGS is going to stay in existence. No doubt we'll get plenty of random Twitter pix, plus strong hints that Brockham is the UK's version of Kuwait after all (and please only s****** quietly).

All to allow the city spivs who have no doubt all by now agreed to participate to make their quick and easy 10 to 15% for a few days' work. So expect redoubled ramptastic efforts (sadly).

The only short-term questions to occupy both existing and potential investors are:-

How many new dilutative new shares? And at what price?

And that's months before we'll get any answers to "How much gas and by when?" Honestly, only a company with the talents of ANGS could miscalculate and wrongly plan so badly and so repeatedly.

Happy New Year...

BV, you as if I am back in? As that was politely asked, I'll reply in like manner. No, categorically not.

I had very briefly considered (up until yesterday evening) whether this was worth a short-term trade, with a view to exiting just before the Jan placing gets announced. However, following the new info (supplied by a journalist, rather than the company, a thing which I still find jaw-dropping, given that IMO it's beyond a doubt material), I'm relieved I avoided the momentary temptation.

I now won't even consider any re-entry until after the expected Jan placing. I personally now don't expect first gas till May at the earliest, and I also suspect that the next placing is going to need to be significantly larger and significantly cheaper than I had first thought.

That's an honest description of my current thinking. Open agenda and nothing to hide here.

BV you seem to be getting aerated by others posting fact-based opinion that differs from yours? Playing the man, not the ball is a tad trite, is it not?

Plus I thought that you believed that no matter what anyone posted here, it made no difference, so your snippiness is yet more curious...

I'll put your odd behaviour down to disappointment on your behalf, following the latest revelation that ANGS decided not to tell existing and potential investors about. Yet again.

BV, I'm not posing as anything?

I'm simply posting opinion as informed by facts (although with ANGS those facts are often revealed far later than they should have been). I can't see how anyone rational would object to this?

Don't blame me for the nature of the facts... the responsibility for those lies squarely with ANGS.

I'm really not sure that having to radically redesign infrastructure at the very last minute at the one "asset" that has to save the company can be said to be "good news"??? This change has been forced upon them amongst other things by safety requirements. How come they did not know??? And only applying now for permission to install equipment to handle condensate? All this is going to take substantial extra money (hence the urgent new authority being sought) but far more importantly, substantial extra time.

It's beyond bizarre... as is George's decision not to reveal any of this to the market. That is truly shocking. As always with ANGS, it's what they don't tell you that kills...

This is now all about what substantial extra delays have been introduced.

All well and good, BV... except ANGS clearly didn't have much of a clue was was needed on site either... and they#'re meant to be the "experts".

A new flare is now required for safety reasons... guess that explains why there's been no HSE sign-off then.

However as is obvious, the real issue here isn't about Lincs CC signing this off... or even the extra bundles of cash now needed for site revision, re-lay out and additional equipment. It's about fresh incurred delays. I mean, ANGS had delivery nightmares first time around, with months of delays and slippages... what's the new equipment now being required going to mean?

Lucan MUST inform the market as to what the company's hastily revised latest set of projections for the timescale of first gas are now. IMV this should have been announced as soon as ANGS knew about it - it's absolutely material.

My personal estimate for the timing first gas has now been pushed back by a couple of months minimum.

Yanis if you follow the link given within the Drill Or Drop article to ANGS's new submission on the Lincs CC planning website, you'll see info on the new flare now required for safety reasons (plus other info on what ANGS is now having to implement at Saltfleetby),

BV, do you not think that this last minute required revision is very definitely material information that should have therefore been announced by the company?

ANGS has clearly known about this enforced change for some time. Let's face it, its revised planning application was submitted over a week ago, and that sort of lengthy document doesn't get created overnight.

Surely it should have informed the market about this? It's bizarre that instead investors have had to rely on a sharp-eyed journalist...

The significant issue here isn't Lincs CC approving this last minute revised planning application. Nor is it even the extra cash that will be required for additional equipment and unforeseen extra groundworks.

Nope, it's the extra delays that now will have inevitably been introduced into the project. ANGS MUST inform today what it foresees these as being.

Well, I guess a number of questions have now been answered (but shockingly, not by ANGS). Anyhow, we now know:-

* why ANGS suddenly decided it needed a fair chunk of extra cash fast. The extra equipment required isn't going to come for free and nor are the resultant delays. It sure looks like there aren't going to be any revenues from produced gas any time soon.

* why there's been such a lack of groundwork activity at Saltfleetby. Numerous items of equipment are going to need to be added and/or resited (many of the recent Twitter pix have been of the Theddlethorpe end of things, not the Saltfleetby end.

* why there's been no HSE sign-off (promised in early December). Basically, ANGS's planned infrastructure was unsafe, as we now know. What are they going to do with that too small flare stack?

* why there's been no EA permit issued yet. ANGS has just been forced to radically revise its site plans.

The two things I find most incredible are 1) that ANGS got its planned infrastructure for Saltfleetby so badly wrong at this incredibly late stage and 2) that it took an active decision NOT to inform the market about this very significant news. It is literally unbelievable that both existing and potential new investors should be informed about this latest screw-up by a third party publication.

This could get quite nasty quite quickly. Exactly what does this bombshell mean for the date of your expectation for first gas now, George? Care to be transparent for a change?

Bridgedogg, to mention just one item in this bombshell, for safety reasons, they've only just found out they need a whole different flare stack.

Well... I guess that might explain why they suddenly decided they needed the authority to issue a shedload of new shares so hurriedly (i.e. more cash).

Guess when ANGS submitted this substantially revised request for planning permission? Last Thursday... the 16th of December. So, a number of very obvious questions arise:-

Why so incredibly late in the day?

What sort of delays is this now going to cause in getting to first gas?

What extra equipment is now needed and what's the lead times on that?

Why does the xompany not think that such significant new news is not compulsorily notifiable? Does it think it acceptable that PIs have to find such vital information out from a third party journalist?

Does the company think it has been honest tweeting a.l these pictures of work at Saltfleetby, when it already knew it was seeking planning permission to radically remodel/re-lay out the site?

Is the f,are stack the arrival of which the company made such a song and dance about now redundant, given it's now been revealed it wants a larger one?

Sorry, but this seemingly doesn't just smack of abject incompetence. In not revealing this extremely meaningful information, ANGS has seemingly been quite deliberately disingenuous.

Hiw long has ANGS known it wanted to change everything around? This does NOT look good. At all.

Sageman, plenty that I agree with there.

If a gun was held to my head telling me I had to pick one or die, I'd buy into ANGS rather than UKOG every time.

More to the point, you are absolutely correct. It does indeed remain "all about timescales to first gas and cashflow." Well that and, given the hedge commitments, the volume of gas consistently produced too.

However, I'm of the mind that ANGS won't get to first gas until mid Q2 at best... but I guess we'll see. I'm actually much more interested in seeing the volumes that ANGS manage to get out of Salfleetby.

And I still firmly expect a Q1 placing, because I can see no reason whatsoever why ANGS wouldn't have waited to table an increased authority resolution at the AGM (just 10 weeks later at end March). IMV it must know it needs more cash (for whatever reason) before that AGM takes place.