Member Info for HeadInTheSand

BV,

DaveMarn (aka EchDelta aka 3Put aka UltimateJustice9 aka KRoberts aka ClareWossname and a hundred others) permanently spam ramps on the other site. (He does this on boards over there that have nothing to do with ANGS too, much to the annoyance of other individuals who now have ditinctly jaundiced views on ANGS due to his efforts).

However, you're right. His rantfests have increased since all his IDs over here seem to have (finally) been identified and sent to the naughty step by admin - so next door is the only outlet he's got at the moment.

I still say we're due a fairly sizeable placing in Q1 (and before the end of Jan). On that basis, I'm expecting a modest rise in the SP - right up until the placement gets publicly announced. Because that's the way these things are always worked.

Well, BV, according to you, posting negative or positive thoughts on a share BB won't make any difference either way anyway.

So why worry about what people are posting?

You'd better be quick. In my very firm opinion, there's a big fat Q1 placing coming. As usual peak pricing will be in the days just before it's publicly announced, to let the city spivs make a fast 10-15% for a few days' work.

I've always been sure that EA permit will be allowed. It's a question of when. Every delay at the front end prolongs ANGS finally getting to first gas - and looking at the gradually diminishing timescale between now and when obligations kick in (both debt repayment and hedge delivery), boy, does it need to hurry up.

As I've also mentioned a few times, the next regulatory hurdle after EA is HSE sign-off, which many seem to have forgotten about. According to ANGS's most recent stated info on this, this was forecast to be gained in early Dec - but of course there was no infrastructure in place to sign off.

...and quite deliberately continue to attempt to mislead too, by the looks of things.

EchDelta what you are actually doing is being deliberately misleading.

You have already told everyone here today that you're not expecting first gas till May or June...

...and yet you're showing revenue projections that presume ANGS is in full production from March 1st.

That'd be known as "total dishonesty" then. How utterly unsurprising.

...except ED you're on record this morning as telling everyone us that first gas won't be till May or June.

Therefore a cynic might just suspect that you're deliberately trying to mislead with your "WOW" figures, as you've strangely calculated them on ANGS being in full production from the 1st of March.

Tragically blatant.

ED, you have told everyone repeatedly here (including today) that you yourself do not expect first gas until May or June. Here's what you said just this morning:-

***********
EchDelta
Posted in: ANGS
Posts: 879
Price: 0.625
Strong Buy

RE: For My Selling Friends 21 Dec 2021 11:38

Sageman

First gas isn't going to happen in my opinion anytime soon.
I suspect EA permit comes in Feb March 22
May June 22 First Gas

***********

On that basis, you waving about a set of figures based on ANGS being in full production from March would seem to be the height of quite deliberate deception and a blatant attempt to mislead.

Laughably transparent.

Returning to reality for a second...

Gas futures pricing makes absolutely no difference at all to ANGS until it is producing gas.

And even then, gas futures pricing still makes absolutely no difference at all to ANGS unless it is producing more volumes of gas than it has hedged and fixed the price on (around 43p per therm average for 36 months from July 22).

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

Well, though the asker can't spell "off", at least that question (if answered) will give complete clarity.

Separately I also do not believe for a second that there will be an issue with getting the EA permit (if there is, it's game over, as many have commented, but I cannot believe that will be the case).

Instead, I suspect the big issue with this is the timing. It's clearly going to be later than ANGS had (with George's usual over-optimism) publicly stated it hoped, but I'm sure it will come. But that's just the next essential step... after that we've got HSE sign-off (which again was over-optimistically estimated for early December from memory - a tad tricky with next to no infrastructure in place to sign off on).

Of course, continuing delays at the front end really don't help, because It's actually brutally simple. Basically, ANGS needs to be producing sufficient gas - and in time - to a) generate enough revenue to meet its debt funding repayments and entirely separately b) to deliver the entirely of its monthly volumetric obligations under the hedge. It needs to be doing that by July at the very latest - that's when the hedge kicks in, though it may have loan capital and interest repayments to make before then (its repayment schedule against the £12 million facility has not been made clear).

Or to put it another way... how much gas and by when, George?

There's no case for new PI money at the moment IMO, because of the Q1 placing very clearly telegraphed by this week's RNS. I think any smart money will wait to see at what price that occurs at.

Lucan's not proven himself that clever at spotting immediate value opportunities though, has he?

Take Saltfleetby as an informative sample.

Acquired 2 1/2 years ago in June 2019 at a negative cost of minus £2.5 million.

Meant to be brought to first gas at a cost of just £2.75 million.

Meant to be producing gas by Q3 2020.

Nuff said?

Ocelot, what makes your post nonsense is that ANGS has an AGM coming up at the end of March. (Well, that's been the date for all its other AGMs).

It would be completely normal practice to apply for the authority to issue new shares at that AGM, if current authrities have been exhausted (as they clearly have). Many companies do this at AGMs.

However, ANGS apparently can't wait that long, even if it's only 10 weeks further on from their hastily arranged single issue (E)GM, scheduled for Jan 14th.

Therefore, they must need a Q1 placing for whatever reason.

ED, you claim "This stock is substantial in potential... We all know that".

This is patently untrue.

I'd refer you to the share price. The market clearly does NOT "know that" and remains equally clearly dubious about ANGS's ability to successfully commercialise Saltfleetby, given its already incurred - and separate - debt funding and hedge obligations.

And guess what the market's waiting on? Verified real-world information, not missed promises and wildly over-optimistic projections. It's had way WAY too many of those throughout ANGS's entire history. Or to put it another way...

How much gas, George? And by when?

Given recent SP movements over the last month, those "shorting" (not that it is even possible for any PIs to go short, but still) would not be "realising their losses, but instead would be making a nice fat profit when they close their short.

So... let me get this right, ED. You're advancing the possibility that ANGS teeing up an obvious Q1 placing is because they want to buy a geothermal asset...

In other words according to you, the company may want to spend money it's not allowed to under the loan covenant terms (because doing so would take its bank balance down below the stipulated minimum) on a speculative geothermal asset which, being geothermal, would take many years and many millions of pounds to see if it could be viably commercialised...

...and it (according to you) may want to do this at a time when it hasn't managed to make its one "live or die" asset work and is instead experiencing existence-threatening delays on this?

And you call this "prudent management"??? Riiight.

Additionally, one does not have to look too far away to establish that an alleged "asset" or "opportunity" being available cheaply does not necessarily mean that buying it is an immediately good idea. I believe that ANGS were effectively paid a pound shy of £2.5 million by the previous owners to acquire Saltfleetby... you don't get much cheaper than that.

Perhaps George and cronies should instead focus exclusively on getting Saltfleetby to work. Because if it doesn't, there's no ANGS. So... how much gas and by when?

Despite the hedge obligations remaining inn place regardless, there would still of course be a benefit in ANGS paying off the loan early, in that (as with any amortising loan) doing so would reduce the overall amount of interest payable, if the loan is paid off before term.

However again, doing so would not reduce or shorten the hedge commitments (as detailed in Table 6-4 on p 49 of the Oct 26th CPR. Nor would it reduce in any way the royalty arrangements also contained within the loan arrangement.

BV I am not being "rude to shareholders". I am simply strongly disagreeing with your assertion that if ANGS pays off the loan early, its committed-to hedge obligations disappear.

I believe you to be entirely incorrect on this - and if you are, then you are (presumably entirely unintentionally) misleading others.

Please feel free to point out or refer to any ANGS-issued documentation or mother information which states that, as the loan is reduced, so the hedge reduces in tandem. If there is any, I will happily apologise and eat humble pie.

The problem is (if you are wrong as I am beyond sure you are), then any prediction on future revenues based on your take risks being wildly over-estimated.

I say again - politely but firmly - the first xx therms of gas produced by ANGS every single month will be sold at a price of yy, for 36 months from July 2022. All the info showing this is on page 49 of the Oct 26th revised CPR in tabulated form.

To my knowledge unless of course you prove differently, there is no way for ANGS to exit this hedge arrangement - and certainly not by paying the loan off early.

As to why the lenders insisted on a 36 month hedge? That's easy to understand. They wanted to ensure a minimum revenue was secured for the majority of what ANGS is projecting to produce out of Saltfleetby. Doing that derisks their loan, in that ANGS's revenues would not be reduced by a fall in gas pricing, should such occur. The fact that gas pricing has gone entirely the other way was unforeseeable and is frankly irrelevant.

Again and quite genuinely, feel free to point out any ANGS information that states anything in any way different from the above.

BV's error seems to be in thinking (God knows why) that the loan and the hedge are two sides of the same coin. They're not.

They are two completely separate contractual arrangements. One's a loan (duh) and one's a hedge contract (duh again).

Yes the lenders insisted that ANGS hedged a large percentage of its predicted production, in case the bottom fell out of the gas market, because they needed the surety of ANGS securing a known price for its production quantities. But that is all.

Bottom line? If George wins the Euromillions tomorrow and inmmediately pays off the entire £12 m facility (or however much they've drawn down) including all interest accrued to date...

...the 36 month hedge commitment still remains fully in place. (As does the royalty arrangement, for that matter, but that's something else).

PS Taverham, you are of course right. ANGS can do whatever it likes with any monthly volume it may manage to produce over and above the fixed hedge quantity pre-agreed for that month.

(I'm glad at least some people understand the basics of a hedge contract...)