Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Although very obviously a member of the squad (another suddenly appearing ID who joins yesterday claiming no doubt to be a "committed long-term holder who's been watching on the sidelines for years" - and just as Cuddo's endlessly repeated drivel gets him put on the naughty step), EchDelta isn't Cuddo. Well, not the person who's controlled the Cuddo ID most of the time. However, despite the claim of being one of "us ordinary investors", he certainly isn't that.

Two quick points. I would say that if we're talking about " wicked and vile" and people looking to "harm to ordinary investors", it's those who spend massive amounts of time and effort trying to convince anyone gormless enough to listen that ANGS is a "guaranteed, nailed-on, cast-iron, easy money, about to moon, diamond hand, 7x multibagger" - and purely for their own self-serving motives - that are a good deal more "wicked and evil".

I would also point out that yesterday, once Cuddo and his outlandish, disruptive and substance-free nonsense had been put on the naughty step, how much more civil this BB became. Simply because you're not going to get people countering ridiculous and unevidenced assertions if none are being made.

Yanis, I agree that, if ANGS has managed to get its production estimates reasonably accurate, then it should be able to meet the hedge commitments. However, sadly we all know that ANGS has proven itself repeatedly to be not at all good at making accurate estimates, a thing which causes a little wariness.

Plus, don't forget it has other already incurred liabilities aside from the hedge - those primarily being operational cost and particularly debt funding related (CLN, £12 million facility etc). Thus It needs to generate enough gas consistently a) to meet the hedge and b) to at least cover the costs of its already incurred liabilities - and sure, those two things are not discrete, because hedge revenue goes towards paying incurred liability costs.

Which is yet again why knowing how much gas can be consistently produced out of Poundland and by when is so unutterably crucial.

PS Gkb obviously still reads this site, because he's this morning posted on another share BB, asking for his regards to be passed onto yourself.

As stated elsewhere, although very necessary, I'm not expecting EA permission to be refused (though the speed with which any approval is given is clearly important).

Although an absolutely required stepping stone along the path of getting to where it needs to be, EA permission is not the biggest issue/question facing ANGS. Those remain (yet again):-

"How much gas and by when?"

Directly connected to that is the necessity of ANGS being able to fulfil its volumetric commitments under the hedge. And connected to the latter is the necessity and/or benefit of the company drilling an early sidetrack successfully.

Yanis, my understanding re gkb is that he lost patience with LSE's BB admin policy and the apparent ease with which those with more dubious agendas could get perfectly factual and politely expressed posts deleted. He therefore requested his entire account to be shut down.

(That's at least what he has said on another popular share BB where he now posts - up to you whether you set any store by this or not).

This discussion of EA permission is actually detracting away from Nom's originally posed question. RE the EA, all that's needed to be said is that ANGS needs the permission and as soon as possible. That's a given.

Here's Nom's question:-

"Does anybody know if Angus have insurance in case they are unable to meet the production they have hedged for next year? Things could get messy if they cannot deliver when gas prices are multiples of the price they have hedged 70% of the conservative estimate of production."

This has been raised a few times, both here and elsewhere - and it's one of the several extremely important details not publicly known about the terms of the hedge that ANGS signed up to.

Now... ANGS has continually assured one and all that the amount hedged (which let's not forget is a fixed amount) should be reasonably easily produceable, because that fixed amount correlates to roughly 70% of ANG's "conservatively projected" production volumes.

So, on that basis, one would hope that there would be no chance of it failing to meet its volumetric commitments under said hedge. However, its ability to fulfil its hedge commitments won't become known by ANGS until Poundland is actually in consistent monthly production.

Having said that, I've been interested in ANGS's at least superficially counter-intuitive eagerness to drill the sidetrack early, especially given that to do so a) does not deliver a guaranteed success and b) is inevitably bound to delay production start by some length of time. (and so potentially miss out on some or all of a pre-hedge period of 100% of produced gas sales at heightened prices).

ANGS has stated that it hopes that a successfully drilled sidetrack would double produceable gas volumes, which would of course be a good thing. On the same presumption, It would also therefore derisk the chances of falling short on any hedge volume commitments, should any transpire.

I suspect that this is why recently ANGS has finally started now pushing so hard for an early sidetrack, because I'd also presume that failing to fully deliver against the three year hedged volume commitments might get very nastily costly.

Separately, here's a much more reputable media outlet's take on the hugely inflated European gas futures market and the problems it and associated hedges are causing traders like Gunvor and Mercuria.

This is what Bloomberg has to say on the subject:-

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-08/top-traders-boost-loans-cut-positions-on-gas-spike-margin-calls

Ocelot, we all know that.

The absolute core questions here remain "How much and by when?" Oktane is right to point out the potentially dire consequences of not being able to fulfil the fixed volume hedged.

This is why I've been so interested in the sidetrack and wonder if ANGS suspects it's needed to be able to fulfil volumetric hedge commitments. One would hope not, given that ANGS have assured repeatedly that the hedged volume was based on a conservative production projection .

However, if ANGS is also correct in its hope that a successful sidetrack might double production volumes, I can see several arguments for drilling this earlier, rather than later. And even if that meant missing out on two or three months of 100% of produced gas sales at today's notably inflated prices.

Unfortunately PI's are groping in the dark here even more than ANGS. Things will become far clearer a) when the amount of consistent production from Poundland becomes known and b) if/when detail on the hedge commitment becomes available.

Looks like Ivans missed the memo then...

Somebody clue him in please.

The only way anyone's going to miss out on any profit opportunity on UKOG is by not short-term trading it (and getting the timing right).

As any sort of a long-term (or even mid-term) hold, this one is a complete and utter non-starter As it has always been - for all the reasons frequently highlighted here by those prepared to advance a realistic viewpoint.

I think you'll find yourself needing to re-break 1p...

My understanding of the £12m is that it is exclusively to be used for getting Poundland up and running, not for paying off other existing liabilities the company may have previously incurred. - hardly surprising.

I also don't think there's a snowball's hope in the tropics of getting to regular volume production (NB different from first gas) before the end of Feb - and especially if the company decides to go for the pre-production sidetrack option.

With a following wind, if everything goes right and there's no more slippages (and they don't go for the early sidetrack), maybe, just maybe by the 2nd half of April.

Patrick, "you ain't no saint" is a bizarre comment, to say the least.

Or, looking at the other side of that particular coin, perhaps you are suggesting that the chorus of recently appearing ever-positive cheerleaders here are all utterly altruistic and saintly individuals, determined to make sure that as many people as possible benefit from the "easy money" that this "diamond hand", "nailed on" and "cast-iron" "7x multibagger" is "100% guaranteed" to provide shortly?

Seriously?

Cuddo, I imagine the question on when to sidetrack or not may be more complex than you suspect. I imagine it will revolve around sacrificing short-term bluebird profits for a couple of months versus a (hopefully) increased average mid-term production volume.

Almost impossible for any outsider to call either way, without knowing what ANGS knows or at least believes.

Cynder, although I agree entirely with your view on the frankly disgraceful May 28th RNS first announcing details of the DDSPP, Phimx is sadly correct, in my view. UKOG carefully picked its words to give its directors just enough wiggle room not to be obliged to participate at all.

However... was the May 28th RNS a quite deliberate attempt to mislead at a period when the BoD was under pressure from a) the Sanderson Out campaign and b) a General Meeting to be held just 9 days later on 7th June to gain shareholder approval for a literally crucial placing? Make your own mind up...

In its hastily revised answers to investor questions over the last few days, ANGS continues to be ridiculous. Here's what it now says:-

"Worse still by claiming to have discovered an “internal” company document he implies some great conspiracy by the Company and its Board, rather than sharing his source from the outset "

Again, what are George and his board talking about? This is nonsense.

Again, let's look at some easily provable facts here.

1. Nobody to my knowledge has claimed to have got hold of some “internal” company document at all.

2. On the contrary, it has always been pointed out that the document was both authored by ANGS, was part of its submitted sidetrack application into Lincs CC, was publicly available and where it could be viewed.

3. This info and the "source" (ANGS itself) was made clear from the get-go - see below:-

"HeadInTheSand
Posted in: ANGS
Posts: 3,442
Price: 0.825

RE: Ignore The Fake News 23 Sep 2021 23:42

Re point 1, the planning application submitted by ANGS/Aecom into Lincolnshire County Council makes it clear that the sidetrack is estimated to take 16 weeks. That's what ANGS/Aecom's own application states. You may find the relevant document here:-

https://lincolnshire.planning-register.co.uk/Disclaimer?returnUrl=%2FPlanning%2FDisplay%3FapplicationNumber%3DPL%252F0073%252F21

The relevant Associated Document to view is the document is the Planning Statement itself and the relevant section therein is Section 4.1. "

That post was made on Sept 23rd... so it's perfectly clear that the nature and source of the document was stated aA WHOLE WEEK BEFORE ANGS's extraordinary and embarrassing kerfuffle and rapid yet grudging partial u-turn...

So, no claims of any unearthed "internal" document at all - that's just more misdirection on the part of ANGS and an attempt to spin an entirely false narrative - presumably in an effort to save face?

And certainly no accusations against ANGS of some "great conspiracy" at all. Petulant incompetence maybe, but"great conspiracy"? No, not at all.

As the last few days have shown with depressing clarity, they're don't seem to be anywhere near smart enough to be able to cook one up.

Auditable and very easily verifiable facts again... always much hated by those looking to spin false narratives.

Actually, the lack of professionalism shown by ANGS here is frankly staggering.

They've gone from a stance of "You're lying! No such document exists! You live on Mars! We challenge you to produce such a document!"...

...and then when their own publicly available document is produced (again), they rapidly change their position to one of...

"Oh okay, such a document does exist... but forget about that. And anyway, we built a lot of leeway into that statement... plus you're clearly triying to make out that the board is involved in some sort of conspiracy!"

HOW? By quoting verbatim from ANGS's own document that it itself made publicly available???

Unbelievable. ANGS is now complaining that PIs apparently shouldn't be taking the time and trouble to note and refer to the information it itself provided on a freely viewable public document - and if they do take such time and trouble, they're then accusing the company of some conspiracy???

Really not, George. You're simply being reminded of your own information. You've hardly got any right to get all childishly snippy when people merely look at and set store by information that you and the company have previously and recently made public.

As I said, staggeringly unprofessional and cack-handed.

DoneK, no internal document was "discovered" by anyone.

The document where ANGS categorically stated that the total duration of the sidetrack project is estimated to take 16 weeks WAS first cited by several when this issue first arose and a link to it on the Lincs CC planning website WAS given at that time.

ANGS's own planning application was and still is freely downloadable from the Lincs CC website and has been since April this year.

What on earth is ANGS talking about? Seems like this latest "answer" is them just digging themselves an even deeper hole?

Of course geothermal isn't in the share price, because it's simply a wish statement, rather than being based in any current or short- to mid-term reality.

What ANGS in reality is at the moment, is a one trick pony with one single gas asset that it has to see if it can get to commerciality as fast as possible. It has no geothermal assets and as George came clean about yesterday (though to nobody's surprise) is that the company's oil "assets" aren't assets at all - to use his own words they've "fallen away".

As mentioned before, this does cause some concern re ANGS being forced to shell out abandonment/site restoration costs for any of its erstwhile oil "assets" that have "fallen away"...

Anyhow, forget the misdirection, on (hopefully) with Saltfleetby. That's the only thing that matters.

If the company doesn't generate the revenue out of Poundland to cover its already incurred commitments (those being debt financing costs and the hedge), it won't exist to chase any geothermal unicorns.

It was interesting to hear George pretty much dismiss the company's oil "assets" (with the possible but very unlikely exception of Lidsey) . It's certainly true that he specifically atated that two of them have "fallen away"... interesting choice of words.

However this begs a few pointed - if a minimum of two of ANGS's "assets" have "fallen away":-

1. why hasn't this news been released to the market via RNS? It would certainly seem to be material, especially given the company's erstwhile bigging up of those self-same assets in previous RNSes?

2. what impact does this have in the short-term re abandonment costs? It'll be hard to convince the regulatory powers that be that any licence is still alive and kicking when George is now on record as describing them as having "fallen away"... oops.

3. Presuming that one of these "fallen away assets" is Brockham, why the Hell did ANGS agree to take on Doriemus's share in that? Strikes me that Doriemus did some smart business there, passing the parcel bomb to some more gormless outfit.

When will George realise that, if someone is happily prepared to PAY you to take an alleged "asset" off their hands, things are not liable to be quite as rosy as they may seem at first glance?

Lucky, you talk a big game from behind your keyboard. Let's see if you have the courage of your convictions.

Simple question for you.

Will we see an RNS on Monday confirming that the directors have bought in under the DDSPP as committed to?

Yes or no? Your answer is awaited with interest. As will be your refusal to answer.