Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Nomlungu

"I think most would agree that ANGS are pressed for cash, so the convertible loan could have been expected to be settled with shares, not cash, early next year. If you agree with that premise, then the noteholders have decided that getting the free share and 4% return on the loan is preferable to be being issued with shares at 1p. That does suggest that they may not be expecting the 2p or 3p that some are predicting.

It does remove some pressure on ANGS's cash resources, which is a positive if they are able to avoid doing a placing as soon as I expect."

Spot on.

Taking a more reasoned approach to today's CLN RNS (unlike the ramptastic squad who try to convince everyone that literally everything is unbelievably fantastic news...)

Is the extension of the CLN a good thing? Yes on balance it is - because actually it's a highly necessary thing too, given the situation that ANGS currently finds itself in.

ANGS certainly wasn't going to be able to pay off £1.4 million to Knowe by Feb 20th next year out of cash in hand and probably also wouldn't have been keen to see a load of warrants floating around as part of doing this. The only way it could have done this is by going for a placing - and at current share pricing, raising £1.4 million to pay Knowe back would have gone down like a rat sandwich.

Pushing out the need for repayment by 12 months at the cost of an extra year's interest (presumably another £56 grand due in April 2023) and with the gifting of an extra 11 million shares free of charge (a mere 1.125% dilution) is sensible, given that ANGS are still in an uncertain pre-revenue state.

So, nasty and currently unaffordable bill postponed, which is good. Back to it all being about how much gas and by when?

DoneK, ANGS unfortunately continually tends to be more "overdue" than "due"...

However, I'll agree that the proposed date for sidetrack drilling is of considerable interest. I've said before that I suspect this is a tricky judgement call to make.

But as to your comment "side track works date to be announced end of the month, if not sooner..."? Which month? Surely not October, because I'd venture that the EA will need to rubberstamp things first, and we're still waiting on that...

Again, surely nobody is surprised that ED is Cuddo or an associate?

As I said, the concerted recent attempts to ramp this share by a new crop of suddenly appearing and "brand new" IDs (plus a few old friends popping back up) is probably the most caution-inspiring factor of all...

I strongly suspect that the thing making long-term ANGS holders most wary here (and on other share discussion bulletin boards for that matter) is the rapidly increasing influx of tagteam cheerleaders.

Unusual amount of activity today - and following on from notably increased bulletin board activity over the last few weeks...

I'm personally reserving judgement on the brevity (or not) of this latest "assault on 1p" until the end of this month, by which time I think the potential (or not) of its sustainability will be much clearer.

I really don't expect any issues with getting the EA permit - and I doubt that many do either. However, that's not the core issue, which remains:-

How much gas can Poundland consistently be made to produce and when will consistent production be started?

Knock yourself out - report away.

Forget all the fluffity spin and nonsense - including the recent amusing "let's all have a love-in" nonsense.

Quite literally the only things that matter are... how much gas can ANGS get out of Poundland and by when?

Once those two answers are a great deal more clear, the direction of ANGS's likely future is going to be much more easily predictable.

EchDelta, you'd have a little more credibility if you stopped continually spam-advertising the lunatic ramper Cuddothisnow's tragically underfollowed backwater share-tipping Twitter page...

Well if its 16 weeks as this latest incarnation of Cuddo maintains, that takes us to start Feb next year before EA approval is granted. One cannot help wondering why ANGS was so incredibly tardy in submitting its application?

Be that as it may, although 100% necessary, EA approval does not turn Poundland from a project into "a reality". The only thing that will make George's last throw of the dice in Lincolnshire worthwhile is for the field to produce enough volume of gas consistently to allow ANGS to at least cover its already incurred obligations (fixed and variable costs, various debt funding costs and of course delivering the hedged volumes) - and to get to that point in time.

So as ever, it remains "How much and by when?" And we won't know answers until well into 2022.

...except unless Saltfleetby delivers sufficiently, there isn't going to be a mid-term.

"How much and by when?"

"However, 120p per therm is my estimate to really give serious revenue streams with only 2-5mmscfd. It is all there in the calculations."

Unfortunately, there's a potential large error in those calculations because of one very important unknown.

Say ANGS manages to consistently produce the midpoint of what you say, namely 3 mmscfd. All well and good - except if ANGS has also hedged the equivalent of 3 mmscfd for three years, then it really doesn't matter what the open market price is for gas at any time during that period, because their sell price is fixed at 43p per therm ( and one therm is equivalent to 100 scfd). It's only any volumes that might be produced over and above whatever the hedged amount is that would benefit from the capability of being sold at open market pricing.

I remain surprised that ANGS hasn't revealed the actual production volume that has been fixed under the hedge, because that strikes me as both crucial and material information.

BV, you're a braver man than I. Best of luck.

BD, latest in a series of much revised estimates on first gas from ANGS is now Feb 22 as you say. However, a fair few (myself included) expect further slippages on this and thus that consistently achievable production volumes won't be known until Q2 next year.

Plus there's the whole horizontal question that remains unanswered. Would going for an early sidetrack be beneficial? ANGS has recently stated that it hopes a successful sidetrack would double its production volumes - so then it's a question of weighing up further production delays causing short-term pain vs the mid-term gain of increased production volumes.

Throw into that conundrum the possibility of a successful sidetrack actually being necessary in order for production to comfortably exceed the fixed amount hedged by ANGS and it's not at all a straightforward call.

Sounds like wait and see time to me?

EchDelta, credit where it's due. To me, that's the most reasoned portrayal of a more bullish case for ANGS that's been posted here in years - and the lunatic ramptastic cheerleaders with their endless squeaks of "Guaranteed money, nailed on, diamond hand 7x multibagger!" should take note.

There's plenty you posted that I agree with...

"The Board need to remain 100% focused on delivering Saltfleeby. There is plenty of Geothermal opportunities to 'Develop' than deliver once Saltfleeby production dates are well and truly behind us." --- Absolutely right. Unless Poundland delivers sufficiently, in my very firm opinion, there won't be a company around to pursue more mid-term rainbows.

"As for how much and when, this is important absolutely but there has been a nice spin-up Natural Gas Prices." --- Hasn't there just? Again entirely accurate.

"If, this is a very big if, if the Gas Prices remain elevated in the region of 120, that is 200% more than the hedge levels at 40p, I would say that negates low levels of production." --- Yes and no. Sure, that is indeed a big if (though gas pricing staying elevated looks likely). But far more important is the fixed quantity hedged by ANGS. If it only manages to produce not much more than this because of low levels of production, then currently high gas pricing would only have a minimal positive effect. (Side note:- if ANGS can't produce enough volume of gas to fulfil its hedged commitments, I honestly don't know what the downside effect of that would be? Nothing nice, I suspect... however, hopefully George has got his "conservative projection" numbers right and this won't come into play).

"If production per day is in excess of 4mmscfd consistently at 120p levels then I firmly believe the value-driven investment case goes up." --- I agree, - but only provided that ANGS has hedged a volume less than a 4mmscfd equivalent (as per above). Personally, I would guess this to be the case - but it'd be incredibly useful to know what daily production equivalent has been hedged.

"Q2 2022 is the real deal for Angus Energy and thats 5 months away." --- Absolutely. That's when things become much more clear and we'll know which way this one s going to break. Red or black?

"So I certainly can see warrants at the 1.2p level probably exercised around 1p." --- here I'll differ. Those warrants have a 2 year life span and thus don't need to be exercised at pre-defined pricing (if desired) until end Jan 2023. I can't see any compelling reason why the holders of said warrants would feel the need to exercise them early while the SP remains lower than the exercise price.

Roll on Q2 2022 next year - because that's when we'll get a clearer picture on "how much and by when?".

"We will be testing 1 p soon...."

Possibly - but by my calculations, the ANGS SP has "tested" (and indeed broken through) the 1p level about 12 times already over the last two years - only to fall back every single time.

So I honestly don't think that breaking through this level again and for the 13th time in 24 months would necessarily be anything to write home about.

Yes, EA permission is essential... but it's not the be all and end all .(Of course).

Presumably ANGS's "target" is and remains "gas as soon as possible". (Of course).

However, the only things that matter are how much gas can ANGS consistently get out of Poundland and by when? (Of course).

The answers to those two questions are in my very firm opinion pretty much a matter of life or death for ANGS. Which is why I personally don't expect any dramatic rerate until the answers to both are a whole lot closer to being known for sure.

The thing is, if people don't post nonsense, others won't feel the need to debunk it.

Despite the oft-repeated myth of the Evil Global Shorting Conspiracy (TM), clearly those of a more negative persuasion simply aren't inspired to post when the more lunatic fringe of the ramptastic squad are muted.

To be fair, TWB "another green day" does make it sound like there's been a whole succession of "green days".

But looking at UKOG's track record over pretty much any meaningful time period during at least the last three years, those "green days" have self-evidently been vanishingly rare and far FAR outweighed by those of a decidedly more red variety..

However, let's see what transpires next...

Disagree, Mirasol.

There's clearly a few separate individuals involved and there's clearly a degree of orchestration, though confusingly they seem to share control of various IDs. Did it not strike you as odd that most of the time, Cuddo couldn't spell or punctuate and generally ranted on incoherently - but now and then a post would appear (still allegedly from him) that was clearly written by someone with definitely more smarts?

Case in point - it would never in a million years occur to the incoherent version of Cuddo to use a word like "starkest".