Member Info for HeadInTheSand

You know, this apparently endless cycle of issued estimates, assurances and projections that then seem to be eternally missed, only to be followed by a prolonged radio silence feels rather familiar.

It's now halfway through November and no sign of anything at all (apart from the aforesaid depressingly usual heap of missed schedules). Aren't they meant to be embarking on the sidetrack in roughly two months' time? And getting to actually pumping gas in just three and a half months (according to George anyways)?

Re the ladling out of oodles of highly positive-sounding assurances, then followed by an information vacuum until the point that an update is effectively forced out by the passage of time, long-term ANGS holders may be getting the strangest feeling of deja vu... Brockham, anyone?

If Ocelot only knew...

The posts on the rival site are all spam attempting to ramp ANGS. These are not confined to the ANGS discussion page either, but are appearing on discussion boards for many other shares.

It's raising visibility all right... but the impression that's being given is definitely NOT one that the Ocelots of this world would wish for. Over on the rival site, people who wouldn't have paid a blind bit of notice to ANGS are now saying (and this is a very typical quote) that it's obviously a complete dog of a share that some idiot is desperately trying to ramp.

(That's not a verbatim quote though - because the ones I'm seeing use far FAR more robust language, which would get me banned here if I repeated it).

Be careful what you wish for, eh, Ocelot...

ED, as predicted, the copy n paste spamming of ANGS next door on AD*FN by your multiple IDs is simply serving to make ANGS look even less credible than it does normally to a much wider audience.

So, if I were you, I'd desist, because what you're doing is having the exact reverse effect of what you want. Up to you, though...

Caravanboy, so what you're saying is that George and chums are very happy to publicly announce that there's loads of kit going to be arriving on site in October (and to even put up random pictures on Twitter of freshly refurbed parts sitting somewhere in the US awaiting shipment)...

...but then to pull a complete u-turn and stay entirely tight-lipped when said kit starts to arrive on site?

Does that HONESTLY sound likely to you? Or in fact, to anyone?

With things all seeming to slip (yet again) at the House of Angus, that "prudent" mention of first gas by March as per the latest revised OIL CPR is now not looking quite so prudent... but still more realistic than ANGS' subsequent insistence that it's going to achieve first gas by February.

Where are the equipment shipments? Already between 2 to 6 weeks late, given that we were assured that kit would start turning up on site in October... and we're as near as dammit halfway through November.

And they're still set on attempting the sidetrack before trying to get to first gas? That now puts getting to production very firmly in Q2 by my reckoning - and that's with nothing else getting screwed up.

You have to ask, given the fact that ANGS's executive dream team have still not once ever met any single schedule, projection, assurance or estimate they've given, what are they?

a) Serially and eternally unlucky?
or
b) Serially and eternally incompetent?
or
c) Serially and eternally disingenuous?

It seems that those are the only three possibilities...

An excellent and entirely on point post by Crocqman as ever, and one with which I of course agree. It is all about delivery from Saltfleetby - the "how much gas and by when?" that I keep bringing things back to.

Crocqman is only wrong on one minor and by now entirely irrelevant point. This from ANGS' Jun 2019 RNS re Saltfleetby:

"At this stage the Directors are confident that reconnection at commercial rates is possible within the £2.5 million budget and advised timescale of completing work between May and August 2020."

So the very first timescale projection stated by ANGS for first gas being achieved was indeed Q2/Q3 2020. Mind you, that was the same RNS that also assured everybody they could get to first gas at a cost of £2.75 million, all of which they already had.... so not George's finest Mystic Meg moment by any means.

But yes of course it's self-evident that ANGS has suffered multiple slippages and delays.

One of the most depressing things about ANGS is their habit of continually moving the goalposts.

Caravanboy is quite right to point out the statement made in the 26th Oct RNS that says:

"We aim to update shareholders during the course of November with a more defined and detailed timetable for both the side-track and commissioning schedule."

However, in an answer to an investor question posed just 11 days earlier (and worse, answered just 7 days earlier), ANGS said this:

"Yes. We have in mind a further presentation THIS MONTH on precisely this level of detail with a list of all suppliers and their best estimates of timelines etc." (The CAPS are mine).

They just don't seem capable of adhering to any schedule they give, do they? No wonder LTHers are liable to become "patients" at this rate...

Nom, the market clearly (and very understandably) continues to view any prediction coming out of ANGS with extreme wariness., as is clearly evident from the stubbornly stagnant SP.

You're of course right to highlight the silliness of all that "what if..." nonsense from a few weeks back about selling bucketloads of gas at top dollar prices before the hedge kicks in - nobody with any smarts ever bought into that, despite the frenzied efforts of the cheerleaders, cf. that stubbornly stagnant SP again. Given the company's undeviating track record of failing to hot any estimate ever given, the market is definitively NOT going to count any ANGS chickens before they hatch.

If not reaching first gas until Q3 is now a realistic timescale, then that does potentially raise decidedly awkward questions about fulfilling the hedge. On this subject, I remain interested in seeing when the sidetrack attempt will actually be made - because I still suspect that a successful one is going to be needed to deliver enough volumes (at least from Oct 22 onwards). I'm also not setting much store by the "sustained pressure increase and reservoir refill after shut-in" story - that sounds more like hope than researched projection to me.

However, the undeniable fact remains that, because it keeps on missing schedules it has publicly announced (this time re equipment arrival), ANGS absolutely owes it to PIs (and the market in general for that matter) to provide revised schedules AS SOON AS it knows that a previously announced schedule has slipped. The mysteriously non-appearing equipment is a classic case in point - ANGS told us this would be on-site from October. It clearly isn't - therefore ANGS is leaving the market labouring under a misapprehension that it itself gave voice to.

How much gas and by when, George? What's your latest guesstimated answers to those two life or death questions?

BV, I dip in and out of several relatively regularly - but not to any meaningful level. I remain completely convinced (through chequered experience) that in 95% of cases, by far the best way to attempt to make money on AIM-listed shares is to short-term trade. However, I just don't get the time to do more than dabble with small amounts when short term trading (to do this seriously requires paying near-on permanent attention, as I am sure you know).

The last remaining AIM stock I hold to any significant degree and actually consider as a mid- to long-term value proposition is Zoo Digital (ZOO). I've happily held that for over a year now.

...except of course if the asset is as valuable as more than a few suppose. The terms of the loan to ANGS are onerous to say the least - and the field itself has been put up as surety.

As with most lenders of last resort, it's pretty much invariably heads they win, tails you lose.

Or let me put it another way and ask a question... where's the downside risk for the lenders?

BV I am afraid that, looking around the multiple lifestyle companies that exist on AIM, all entirely geared up to paying their executive managements healthy fat salaries for as long as possible without delivering a thing back to long-suffering PIs, your assumption just doesn't stack up. I'm sure you could name as many as I can.

So just because various AIM company directors invariably talk a great game, sadly this doesn't mean that there's categorically a "prize at the end".

ANGS's recent heightened referrals to both Lidsey and geothermal worry me. Why are they trumpeting the prospects of these two right now (and in the case of Lidsey, yet again)? It feels like faily obvious misdirection to me - primarily because If the company cannot get Saltfleetby to deliver sufficiently, they're simply not going to be around to promote the nebulous potentials in any middle- or long-term rainbows.

Saltfleetby, George. Where's the equipment promised for Oct? What's the latest estimated schedule for drilling the sidetrack? What's the latest revised estimate for reaching first gas? Basically George, how much gas and by when?

ocelot... "The shareholder rights activists got their open offer and UKOG obtained an additional £462,554 (before expenses), so the end-result was satisfactory."

Could you be any more disingenuous? PIs categorically did NOT get the open offer on the same terms as the institutions. Yes I know the offer price was the same (0.18p)... but the timing was radically different.

As anyone keeping an eye on UKOG can see from the SP movement in the 2 weeks run-up to July 5th this year (and the remarkable sudden ramptastic cheerleading here from numerous brand-new IDs suddenly appearing for that brief fortnight), the SP was pumped in order to let those taking part in the institutional placing forward sell into the spike and trouser a quick 15 to 20% . The institutional placing then gets announced on July 5th, the SP bombs to below that announced price (where it has remained ever since) and only then are poor mug punter PIs given the opportunity to buy in (at a substantial premium to prevailing market pricing). God alone knows why any did.

Remind me... exactly who was this end-result "satisfactory" for???

BaggsMyName (aka EchDelta, CuddoThis Now, CantRememberThis2, HelloAmora, 3Put and too many other iDs to list)...

Looking at your ever more desperate spamming of this ANGS-specific BB on LSE and on at least a dozen unrelated share BBs over on ADVFN this weekend, has it not occurred to you that you're actually damaging whatever little credibility ANGS may have with your ridiculous and repetitive actions?

In amusing news, the post from ED below (aka Cuddo, aka at least 10 other IDs and counting) has this evening been word for word copy n paste spammed across at least a dozen other share discussion boards next door on AD*FN by yet another of his IDs over there (HelloAmora) - in a tragic attempt to drum up interest and sucker a last few.

I guess the cheerleading shills really are getting desperate...

WG, sadly, given that almost all on here literally only just discovered that the OGA official audited production figures even exist, I think it's vanishingly unlikely that they'll have done their own research to the same levels that you have - even though it would be particularly informative for them to do so.

You know, even after all this time, some PIs just baffle me. First, nobody seemed to have looked at the official OGA figures (freely publicly available to one and all) till it was pointed out yesterday where these were... and that's odd enough.

But then apparently a statement that says it's someone's "view" that something "should be" the case is considered as prety unequivocal? Seriously??? That carefully chosen language is the very definition of equivocation - how can anyone be this naive?

BV yes it would, I suppose - though far more important/relevant will be to find out how long any potential increase in pressure will last. If it's months and months, that'll be beneficial of course - but if it's much more temporary (a la "opening a can of Pepsi"), then that'll be largely insignificant.

I still say with this one the proof of the pudding will only be in the eating - so as ever, "how much gas and by when?"

Seriously? Literally none of you apparently hyperpositive investors knew how to check the OGA actual and verified production figures per UK field before I let Peter know how to?

What the heck basis do you apparently invest on then? Blind faith and unquestioningly believing what a company wanting your money chooses to tell you? Without checking and doing your own research to verify claims???

Just bizarre - but hey, each to their own, I suppose...

PS you'd need to zoom in so the map shows Saltfleetby alone, then select "Filter by map extent", choose whatever date range you like and then knock yourself out downloading a csv.

Peter, you're missing one rather important fact...

I am fully aware of the compressor problems affecting Theddlethorpe from August 2017.

Which is PRECISELY why the 12 month average I took to give my 4.17 mmscfd figure ran from August 2016 to July 2017, so SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED that production-impeded period.

The OGA data on Saltfleetby production by month from first start point is freely viewable and downloadable from https://ogauthority.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=984eeea3b1664049b12c02a28478bdaa

As ever, I find it's always best to rely on independently audited and reported facts, rather than what some AIM micro-cap might assert in an investor presentation.