Member Info for HeadInTheSand

How about...

...until ANGS finally delivers on something it has said, assured, projected and promised?

It's never done so once throughout its entire history, whether under previous management or the current "executive dream team", so ANGS remains - perfectly justifiably in the eyes of the market - suffering from entirely self-inflicted "little boy who cried wolf" syndrome.

Speaking of promises, assurances and Twitter...

...it may be useful to remind ourselves of this:-

https://twitter.com/angusenergyplc/status/1339978671092883457

Those are Angus's own 3D modelled renders of the above-surface pipework required at Sfby. That Tweet was made over eleven months ago (!!)... but as we can see from this month's set of sad Tweeted pix, none of this has been done yet.

How much gas and by when?

Four out of those five questions are very well asked. I'll be interested in the replies...

...though why ANGS should need to be prompted to issue revised schedules after it has (as usual) missed whatever it last assured remains a matter of considerable surprise.

Yes, the market's clearly loving it and lapping it up. It can barely contain its exuberance.

Just one item of the many and varied equipment pieces required finally arrives on site - and at least a month late. Never mind about where all the rest is or where the groundworks are... let's have a party.

How much gas and by when?

25th November and just one piece of all the entirely necessary equipment has arrived - and at least a month late. (Good list of what's actually needed, Yanis).

I'm still not seeing any sign of the required groundworks, but more to the point... why is ANGS busily avoiding issuing a revised schedule update and putting something in writing? Instead they're continuing their latest tactic of hoping to keep PIs quiet with random Twitter pictures.

Not good enough, George. PIs pay your salary (after all, you've presided over a literally zero revenue company for 20 months now). When it comes to provisioning the site, ANGS is on record with a schedule of things re Sfby, all of which has now been missed. Example... the latest RNS issued categorically states that equipment will be delivered to site in October (it wasn't).

ANGS therefore owes it to those whose money it's blithely spending to provide a clear update in writing as to what the latest re-re-re-re-revised schedules are, rather than attempting a lame fob-off via Twitter pix.

ED's playing with fire following his recent yellow card... back to the endlessly regurgitated reams of copy n paste spam nonsense.

Longer-term ANGS holders are well-used to assurances being made, then when promised dates pass, a prolonged radio silence.

I'd love to be wrong, but this smells so like the run-up to the "Everything's just rosy, honest!" and then suddenly "Oops! Terribly sorry PIs... but the truth of things is actually the exact opposite" Brockham bombshell of a couple of years back.

How much gas and by when?

I hardly think that giving an opinion that states "the SP is going to drop like an iron ball" and apparently by 35%+ can exactly be called "ramping", Mirasol?

However, I do agree that there is effectively zero opportunity for any PI to short this stock by any means.

Anyone else thinking ED has had a telling off? Either way, the current end to board spamming is a welcome relief, even if it turns out to be only temporary.

In other news, if ANGS wants to give the SP some life, it needs to provide updates. Frankly it seriously ought to be doing that anyway, because the dates applying to its latest swathe of already much-revised projections have by now come and gone.

Still planning on starting the sidetrack drilling on Jan 4th, guys? Still hoping to get to first gas by February (as the company still estimates)? Or even by mid-March (as the latest revised CPR states)?

Yanis, it's genuine long-term PIs who've invested significant sums like you that deserve far FAR better treatment.

ANGS continues its unbroken tradition of making promises, predictions and assurances, missing them all, then going into extended periods of radio silence without explanation or update, before issuing another set of (dramatically revised) promises, predictions and assurances.

Rinse and repeat. The apparent contempt for those who have paid their wages since the get-go (and still do so) is breathtaking.

Visitors to this BB can't fail to note the endless repetitive copy n paste spam posting of ramping nonsense by one particular poster (albeit one that also uses multiple IDs to spam other bulletin boards discussing ANGS).

Simple question - ask yourselves why.

Slippage, slippage, slippage.

Where's the promised update? (Originally promised for Oct).
Where's the equipment that was meant to be onsite last month?
Where are the groundworks that were meant to have been started in Sept?

And yet ANGS is still maintaining that it will start sidetrack drilling on 4th Jan (less than six weeks away)... AND get to first gas by Feb (ANGS's latest issued estimate) or mid-Mar (the revised OGA estimate)...

Tick tock... this radio silence is frankly contemptuous.

How much gas and by when?

Another desperate attempt to drown out more cautious opinion with ramptastic nonsense from the multiple ID copy n paste spammer, pretending oh so hard that he's a genuine long-term PI.

The jury's out as to whether EchDelta, the man of many IDs, is a paid boiler room stooge (and not a very competent one), or a short-term trader who got his buy-in point wring (and thus not a very competent one either).

Either way, his sole motive is very obviously to pick the pockets of more unwary PIs. The contempt he displays for genuine long-suffering ANGS PIs like Yanis shows him up for exactly what he is... as would the briefest look at his strenuous activities under numerous guises on AD*FN. His is a sick way to attempt to earn a few bob at the expense of others.

Re Ocelot and the lenders, they'll without doubt have a "heads we win... tails we still win" deal.

PeterA, actually the more wary case does not depend on all those things "going wrong". Instead, it's all about your #4, namely the amount of gas that can be consistently produced out of Sfby (and by when).

I disagree mildly with your take on the OGA figures. If you look at the last 12 months of unhindered production (from memory, July 16 to Jun 17), then the average was not the 5 mmscfd you claim - but perhaps the hoped-for pressure build-up will come to ANGS's aid there then?

As everyone should know, ANGS has two simultaneous obligations to satisfy: the debt repayment of c. £15.2 million by the end of 2024 and separately delivering the hedged volumes between July 2022 and June 2025. ANGS's ability to fulfil both of those separate but related things totally depends (obviously) on it being able to get sufficient quantities of gas out of Sfby in an appropriately timely manner.

Or to put it another and much-repeated way, "How much gas and by when?"

PeterA, the disconnect is all about applying a judgement call. That judgement call is literally all about the credibility of ANGS's (much revised) projections.

You're happy to go with them - and that's fine. As I've said, your maths is perfectly correct, based upon ANGS-issued figures being accurate.

I on the other hand am a great deal more wary about any SANGS projections or estimates - largely based upon the consistent revision of timescales and costs re Sfby emanating from ANGS ever since the original acquisition of the field (I'm sure I don't need to remind anyone of the first projections from George... first gas by Q3 2020 and at a cost of £2.75 million, all of which funds the company said it already had). And that's fine too.

Given that neither of our calculated scenarios requires rocket science level maths, and looking at the inert SP, I would however respectfully suggest that the market as a whole seems to contain significantly more sceptics than believers.

Regardless, none of us have any choice but to wait and see.

PeterA, the exact payment schedule against the loan has not been revealed, so estimation is indeed required.

What we do know is the following:-

The amount of the loan (£12 million)
The period of the loan (4 years)
The date of loan signing (May 2021)
The interest rate applied (LIBOR + 12%, so call that 12.2%)
The type of loan (amortising, so repayments going towards both interest and capital)

If this were a mortgage on the above terms, this would require repaying at £317k per month, every month, for four years, starting back in June this year, and giving a total repayable over the 4 years of £15.2 million.

However, presumably ANGS has made no repayments against that loan so far (it hasn't had any revenues now for 19 months and counting), so therefore the outstanding loan balance will potentially have increased due to monthly interest being applied.

Either way, it would seem that as of right now, ANGS has 43 months left (or 10.75 quarters) to pay back the loan plus interest accruing. As of right now, had the full £12m been drawn down from the get-go (and it wasn't), approx. £610k of loan interest would have already accumulated and been applied to the principal.

(For the purposes of simplicity, I've ignored the 3%/£360k commitment fee payable out of the facility).

Slight correction to my previous post. The fixed gross monthly revenue of the first 5+ mmscfd of gas produced between Oct 22 and Mar 23 is around £750k per month, not £600k. The hedge price during that period is £0.5205.

This hedge price falls to £0.3755 in Q2 23, making the first 5+ mmscfd of gas produced them worth c. £520k per month.

The point remains. How much gas and by when?

PeterA, given ANGS's need to start paying over a fairly hefty chunk of already incurred debt financing by June (or possibly July), it really is first and foremost about how much gas and by when.

If ANGS has managed to get to full production by say early April, AND that full production is consistently running at 5 mmscfd or more, then the end Q2/start Q3 debt repayment issue goes away, because the field would then have produced enough revenue-generating production to cover the first swathe of financing costs. If either that date is beaten or that volume exceeded, then things are better. If either that date slips or that production volume is not consistently achievable, then things are markedly worse.

You are of course right to point out that gas produced in excess of the hedged quantities is also very important. This becomes especially true from Q4 2022 onwards, because from then on for ten months, the first 5+ mmscfd produced (presuming it us) will only generate gross monthly revenues of c. £600k, given that the fixed hedge price is £0.43 per therm.

ANGS is going to need more revenue than that to service debt (or to have accumulated a very large warchest of spare cash by selling substantial amounts of gas before the three year hedge kicks in).

Peter, as usual your figures stack up and are calculated perfectly correctly - but they are based upon assumptions. Those being:-

1. That Sfby will be producing from Feb.

2. That Sfby will produce from the get-go at a minimum of 5 mmscfd.

The first of those is becoming less likely as each day passes (and the ANGS commissioned latest revised CPR itself estimates mid-March for first gas). I don't think anyone now believes that full production will commence from Feb 1st - after all, there's still no kit on site, the groundworks don't seem to have been started and there's less than six weeks till New Year and the alleged start date of ANGS's sidetrack attempt.

The second is the subject of guesswork. Will the sidetrack be successful? Has enough sustaining pressure built up to cause the field to continuously deliver 20% more than it did when last in full operation? We just don't know - and won't until the sidetrack is drilled and then first gas reached.

What we do know is that ANGS's stated intention remains to drill the sidetrack first. Given that getting to first gas as soon as possible due to both debt repayment and hedged volume commitments would seem to be a far more sensible priority, this strongly suggests to me that ANGS believes it needs a successful sidetrack to be able to deliver sufficient production.

I should also point out (using your figures) that come July, even if the well is producing at 5 mmscfd, ANGS's revenues would then drop to sub £1m (because of the fixed hedged price applying to roughly 2/3rds of production).

However, if ANGS can produce meaningful quantities of gas well before July, then I agree, things will be in a happier place.

So as ever, it's all about how much gas and by when.

You want hard cold reality? This is actually brutally simple, once one ignores all the billion daily posts of endlessly repeated copy n paste deceptive puff and spin from the multi-board multi-ID ramptastic spammer.

There are the only two issues in play. That's obvious. These are as follows:-

Sfby as a whole needs to be producing enough revenue by June to meet the not insubstantial first swathe of already incurred debt funding costs.

Sfby as a whole needs to be producing enough volume of gas as a whole to meet the hedge commitments from July and onwards for a further 35 months.

That's it.

Re the above absolutely crucial milestones, the company has restated its intentions to drill the sidetrack starting Jan 4th. That's now just six weeks away. Further to that, the company's still claiming mid Feb for first gas, though it's true that the latest revised CPR states mid-March.

However, as per the company's tweeted pix of last week, there's still no equipment on site and the necessary groundworks don't yet seem to have been undertaken. To my mind, that makes a Jan 4th sidetrack start date very unlikely and a mid-March first gas date equally unlikely.

So yet again... how much gas and by when, George?