Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Why? Because the board has a never-changing habit of wearing massively rose-tinted spectacles when it comes to estimating any timescale or cost. And they don't revise said projections, even when it has become obvious to everyone that their last issued promises simply cannot be met. That's the thing that George and chums continue to do that's probably the most damaging thing to the company's tattered credibility.

I agree with Taverham. With the way things are right now (multiple equipment delivery slippages, EA permit still not issued, necessary groundworks nowhere near completed etc etc ), to me it looks like ANGS will be doing very well if it manages to produce a meaningful volume of gas to sell prior to the the hedge kicking in. Two months of production (at whatever volume that turns out to be) at absolute best, the way I'm seeing it.

How much gas, George? And by when?

Still surprised to hear that some think the EA permit isn't pretty much a formality?

Sure, it's important to get signed off as soon as possible - that's a given - but does any serious investor or sector watcher honestly think there's doubt about it being granted? Because it it isn't, that's game over for ANGS.

I'm with YHanis on this one. There's very little chance of the permit being refused... but even once it's been granted, that doesn't at all mean that success is nailed on for ANGS.

The permit is just the first in an equally vital set of stepping stones, all of which need to be hit. Basically it's all about...

How much gas and by when?

...either that, or the answer was rushed following your nudge and George has mistaken Saltfleetby for Lidsey?

That's a very fair question.

Unlike Crocq, I believe it's fairly trivial (and very frequent) for an institutional investor to arrange to forward sell shares by agreement with another already holding said shares, and then effectively replacing those a few days later.

It's basically very similar to a short, which is something that, although not open at all to PIs, is a mechanism available to institutional investors, should they so wish.

Looking at the volumes traded over the last week (and as several others have commented), it looks as if those wishing to make a quick turn on their placing shares did so by forward selling, as is normal.

Mira, okay maybe... but is right now the most sensible time to do that? I mean they're not expecting first gas for another 3 months best case (according to the latest revised CPR... I personally don't give any credibility to ANGS's own estimate of Feb, which would seem to be another example of its long-ingrained significant over-optimism).

I'm not sure he's allowed to do that via RNS, BV....

BV, but they've stated they're now not attempting the sidetrack until Q2? As per 30th Nov RNS:-

"The rig procurement for the side-track continues to be held back by logistical issues and rather than risk a drilling programme running over into our commissioning timetable, the Company has decided to defer the side-track until shortly after First Gas."

and:-

"...the sidetrack itself scheduled for April/May 2021".

Confusing, to say the least?

Well, I can only think of one reason a rig would be on SF7... but that doesn't stack up in the least with the company's RNSed update of 30th November (unless they forgot to cancel).

Yanis, I think the more important question would have been...

Why did it take George so incredibly long to let the market know about schedule slippages? ANGS simply had to have been aware of them for weeks.

Yes, there are always external factors outsider a company's remit to influence that can come into play. However what ANGS has always had total control over is transparency - and it's really done itself no favours at all by clearly choosing not to be so.

But hey, who knows... maybe this time they've finally learned their lesson? I personally doubt it, but one can but hope.

Anyhow, much more importantly... how much gas and by when?

Oh and ED? None of those of a more cautious persuasion about ANGS are a "cabal" of paid short sellers acting in concert with locals. That assertion is beyond deranged.

Far more likely is that there are those being paid to promote the stock - they're easily spottable - they are always careful to select a "strong buy" opinion. Most genuine posters don't bother.

As to why you're finding ADVFBN quieter? That's because, having spammed every single ANGS thread over there (and plenty of other ones too) with ramptastic copy n pastes under several of your multi-IDs (UltimateJustice9, 3Put, Solo4Yous and DaveMarn being particular faves of yours), you've now decided to just spam in your own echo chamber thread. Well done. Long may it continue.

As I've said before, I have paid for my right to comment on ANGS (not that I needed to, but still). Unlike so many I have nothing to hide... many of the cheerleaders here should try that... it's so damn relaxing not having to keep a track of all the previous porkies one's told under multiple IDs).

I note a couple more bits of equipment have turned up, which can only be a good thing. I still think that first gas within Q1, what with the numerous (and all apparently unforeseen) slippages, is staggeringly unlikely.

However, as some may recall having heard before, this all and solely remains about...

"How much gas and by when?"

So… chief ANGS cheerleader EchDeltas has this to say this morning:-

“EA permit.
Locals and SHORTERS may say its a dead cert.
It isn't
Need that coming in.”

That’s just a tad bizarre, no? Why are these alleged “locals and shorters” (none of whom actually exist, but still, let’s humour him…) being criticised for believing that EA permission is pretty much nailed on?

He’s quite correct to say that EA permission is without a doubt needed – but equally, if this was as uncertain as he seems to be trying to make out, then given that it is indeed so crucial, the SP would in my very firm view be FAR lower than it even currently is?

There’s still plenty of risk and uncertainties revolving around Saltfleetby, but I wouldn’t for one second suspect that EA permission is at all high in that list.

This is so odd that what I suspect ED is up to is preparing the ground for a small pump attempt once news on the EA granting permission is released. Except this already has to be seen as a foregone conclusion – because without it, Saltfleetby doesn’t happen – and then what would ANGS’s prospects look like?

Morning BV. Yes, that was one of the four reasons that George put forward. It's up to each individual to decide the real-world priorities of each reason.

"If people want to waste their life so be it but the end result will be the same."

Presumably that statement applies equally to any poster, regardless of opinion.

BV, since Ocelot decided to post just one of the four reasons that George put forward for the recent placing being needed, I simply decided to post another of them.

If partial pictures are acceptable here, then no harm, no foul.

The net proceeds of the Placing will be applied towards:
...
-- Working capital and general costs.

Curious as to the relevance of this latest copy n paste? Is ANGS producing any oil? Has it produced any oil in the last 18+ months? In fact, has it produced any anything in the last 18+ months?

I suggest the company and its PIs focus exclusively on gas for the foreseeable. It is literally all that matters and getting Saltfleetby to commercially viable levels of production in a commercially viable timeframe given already incurred liabilities is a matter of survival for ANGS. Anything else is an utter irrelevance until that's been achieved (or not)..

So... how much gas and by when?

The only thing that matters for ANGS in the next 6 months is (utterly unsurprisingly)...

HOW MUCH GAS AND BY WHEN?

BV, then my answer to both your questions is no.

However, as I have said before, I have paid for my right to have and express opinions on ANGS (not that I needed to in the least, but still...)