Member Info for HeadInTheSand

ED, you're not very well researched if you don't know who that is and his odd connection with ANGS.

Yes the EA permit is a must-have, but I don't believe there will be any issues with it being granted (providing ANGS has made sure it's ticked all the right boxes). IMV, that's pretty much a given.

Now we've been made aware of a yet again updated schedule, including the new "news" that the sidetrack now won't be drilled early (utterly unsurprising, given there was next to no time left to do so and the site is still nowhere near ready), as ever it solely remains about...

How much gas and by when?

If there were any shorters, I expect they would.

Me? I'd like to see a rise, but one based on reality, not deliberately created Twitter rumours.

ED, repeating lies doesn't make them true. It's just another yawn-inspiring attempt by you and your ilk/multiple IDs to discredit those expressing opinions based on the actual reality of things.

Reality, you know? That thing the cheerleaders absolutely detest... inconvenient truth is too small a term for it.

"She called things correct with other companies in the past. That’s why people follow her."

The source of this entirely unsubstantiated rumour (which seems to be the only hymn sheet the cheerleaders have left) has 60 Twitter followers...

Hardly Warren Buffet, then...

Oh look... another "new" ID punting the created rumour again. Nobody could call these manipulation attempts particularly subtle, could they?

It looks as if the LSE admin has decided that the trumpeting of suddenly appearing and utterly unsubstantiated rumours contravenes its policy re attempted market manipulation - hence the mass post/thread deletions.

So, someone has paid "loving words for hire" Malcy to mention ANGS... and an utterly unsubstantiated Twitter rumour is being trumpeted around...

A cynic might suspect that ANGS is running out of money to pay the salary bills and other non Saltfleetby-related costs. They can't use what's left of the £12m for that, remember.

I'll be watching what takes place over the next week or two with interest...

To be completely accurate, all we know now is the latest in a series of much-revised schedules from ANGS.

There is no guarantee that this latest schedule will be hit either - it may well slip again (the way that every Saltfleetby schedule has so far).

It's worth asking oneself why ANGS has suddenly decided it's important for them to add that lengthy "all of the above may turn out not to be true - so don't bank on it" caveat paragraph at the end of this latest RNS. That's a brand-new policy...

Be fair, Nom. At least ANGS and its increasingly desperate cheerleaders are consistent - they've never concerned themselves with the actual reality of things.

Either that ED... or you simply called it wrong.

Well... it's really only one RNS. The second one needed to be issued, because ANGS got the dates wrong by a year in the first and needed to correct this.

What is mildly surprising is that RNSes - even AIM ones - are meant to go through a fairly rigorous checking and sign-off process before being issued. And not just from the company issuing, but also from the Nomad, to ensure that the information contained therein lies within the region of accuracy.

So God knows how this year/date screw-up got missed? Probably because it was a last minute rush job...

Asked today:

"There is still a concerted effort, by clearly disingenuous posters ,in online forums to discredited the company and its partners using negative supposition. What does the company intend to do about this ?"

This is brilliant. "...using negative supposition", eh? Well, the thing is that so far - as has been categorically and repeatedly proven - literally ALL ANGS's "suppositions" have turned out to be wildly over-positive and therefore have not been delivered upon. Those who have posted more "negative supposition" in terms of the likely dates of anything being achieved have to date turned out to be absolutely bang on accurate.

So actually, it's ANGS itself that bears full responsibility for any so-called "negative supposition".

I can tell you exactly what ANGS should do to to combat this. Deliver what you assured you would when you assured you would. So basically:-

A) Stop issuing wildly overoptimistic schedules that all then get missed.
B) Once you know a schedule is going to slip, let the market know as soon as you do.

That way, you'll stop proving those taking what you promise with a wheelbarrowful of salt from being right every time.

Simples.

Rees, you ask what the company has lied about? There are two types of deception - that of commission and that of omission.

Don't tell me that the company only found out today that the majority of the equipment required was now going to be up to three months late. It's obviously known this for weeks - and yet it never informed the market. Instead it left the market labouring under misapprehensions which it itself had previously put out.

WG818 has already pointed out the other obvious incongruity re the necessary groundworks only just being tendered for. Question... given that ANGS has had access to the loan for many months, what the hell have they been doing?

Finally and as per my earlier post of today, I (and I am sure most of those of a more realistic opinion) do not want ANGS to fail in the least. BUT I do want want them to tell the truth when they become aware of it.

So, if they have issued a schedule and they know it's going to be missed, they owe it to investors to provide a revised update. Not doing so is tantamount to misleading the market - and this latest up to three month slippage in equipment arrival compared to their latest assurance of only last month is without a doubt significant.

So start telling the truth as and when you know it, George.

You know what would add value! ANGS telling the truth when it realises it.

Lidsey is (of course) being used as a "jam tomorrow" distraction, at the very least in the hope of smokescreening the fact that Saltfleetby has slipped again by another 3+ months - and the fact that ANGS must have known about these delays for weeks before finally getting around to announcing them today.

Long-term ANGS watchers may suspect that Lidsey is again being bigged up for supplementary reasons, given that first gas from Saltfleetby has without a doubt been pushed back (together with any revenue). ANGS is still a zero revenue generating company, remember? As it has been for 19+ months and counting... and they can't use the £12m loan to cover off any costs, apart from ones specifically relating to Saltfleetby.

I do idly wonder how much cash they've currently got left to keep salaries paid and other monthly costs met?

You mean apart from the 3+ month delays on Saltfleetby that ANGS has clearly known about for weeks, but not bothered informing the market about, instead leaving the inaccurate impressions that it itself gave out there?

Yeah, truly excellent. Not disingenuous at all. Not deception by omission in the least.

Is anyone else surprised that ANGS chose to lead this RNS announcing significant (but obvious to anyone with any smarts) delays to Saltfleetby with some "jam tomorrow" puff about Lidsey?

No? Didn't think so...

I simply ask... why up until 20 minutes ago had the company left the market labouring under the impression (that ANGS itself had given only recently) that it would start the sidetrack on Jan 4th... when it already knew that it had not even started the tendering process to get the necessary groundworks done? I mean, seriously?

As for "ANGS making a lot of gas"... sadly that still applies to their RNSes, and not Saltfleetby. They'll now be getting to first gas before the sidetrack, so I hope all their optimistic predictions re sustained pressure build-up are not the usual rose-tinted spectacles nonsense this company is so prone to.

Guess what? "How much gas and by when?"

Yanis, I agree... it is somewhat of a relief to FINALLY get some sort of an update. However...

Looking at today's update, it's clear that ANGS has known for some time that things have slipped way beyond their most recently announced schedule - as can be seen from:-

a) the significantly revised dates of all that equipment which was meant to be onsite from October, and

b) the fact that they are only now just (!!!) tendering for the necessary groundworks... HUH?

Why oh why didn't they release this information sooner??? I mean, it was obvious from the random Twitter pix released a week or so back that no groundworks had taken place? So how come they only inform the market now?

The least surprising news in the RNS (as anyone with half a braincell had worked out) is that they're not going to start drilling the sidetrack on Jan 4th, despite the company having insisted it would only a month ago.

Well... if this latest much-revised schedule doesn't slip yet again, now that they've given up on the utterly unachievable sidetrack schedule, they might squeak first gas just within Q1 if nothing else goes wrong. Mid Feb is out of the question though, IMO.

(You know, it just shouldn't be that companies leave it till the very last minute to correct information that they themselves have recently issued, especially when everyone's already long worked out that their last update was over-optimistic nonsense. Still...)