Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Get real, Ocelot.

If George cannot get Poundland producing enough gas and in a timely manner to service ANGS' already incurred high levels of debt financing costs, in my very firm opinion, there isn't going to be a company to go chasing years-long geothermal rainbows that will require tens of millions of pounds to even be able to see if they are potentially commercially viable.

Given - and quite literally - how life and death Poundland is for the company, all the other can-kicking puff is a pure attempt at misdirection and distraction. I view it as frankly alarming that George spent so much time on this. It's an irrelevance at the moment to the company's survival... as he must know. So why downplay Saltfleetby? Does he have something to hide?

Get the gas flowing in sufficient consistent volume and with zero further delays, George. Absolutely nothing else matters.

TheWetBandits, I think you meant "Who knows, SS might resign and be replaced with someone with some drive. In fact, any drive (that is, apart from the sole drive to keep paying oneself £25k+ of PI-supplied funds every single month, despite abject and eternal non-delivery."

I'm sure that's what you meant to say...

Investverysmart, as a self-alleged "committed long-term investor who keeps adding more", how can you possibly not know about the update being provided today???

This was very publicly announced weeks ago and as a well-researched investor into ANGS, you surely must have been aware of this?

Or perhaps...

....with concrete, possibly?

You won't get an answer from Lucky on that one, Mirasol, because you've asked a fact-based question. The cheerleaders REALLY hate facts being pointed out, because they just can't make them fit with their uber-positive fairytale narrative. All they can do is resort to trite insult and hope nobody notices.

It's the exact same reason why Lucky has continued to duck answering my politely and repeatedly asked question as to when he estimates that Sando and cronies will finally put some of their own skin in the game and buy in under their own announced DDSPP.

Don't hold your breath...

GJ2020, easy question. If gas flows reach the volume they need to be and in the timescale this needs to happen, then clearly I will have missed out on an opportunity.

That's obvious, no?

And if this happens, I'll in all sincerity be delighted for those genuine PIs who benefit. What really rankles with me at the moment is the ramptastic misinformation being pumped out by the very obviously less than genuine, who would have everyone believe that this is a "come what may", nailed-on, guaranteed, 120% multibagger and who do everything they can to suppress indisputable facts, when those don't fit the narrative they want to pump.

Yes, ANGS may turn a corner and be mildly or even possibly substantially successful... but then again it might not. This ain't nailed on - and It literally all depends on the "how much and from when" at Saltfleetby.

Cuddo, if your first statement is true - namely that "no idiot beats down their own stock", then the other side of the coin must equally be true - namely that "every idiot ramps the living bejaysus out of their own stock".

As to the rest of your post, it contains the usual libels and falsehoods. If you want to know what I genuinely believe about ANGS, see my post to RT003.

No, Cuddo's wrong (because for reasons best known to himself, he overexaggerates wildly and also presents this as a nailed-on certainty...

....but you on the other hand are pretty much entirely right in what you say.:-

"Nothing is guaranteed in life but if Gas "flows" make no mistake the SP will be many multiples of the current level.

This will multi bag in 2022. The ONLY repeat only requirement is will the Gas flow. If the answer is yes than simply welcome to a huge payday."

There's not much there I disagree with at all. The scenario is not as digital as you present it - because as I'm sure you lnow, it's not just about "if gas flows" but much more about "how much gas flows and when".

We just don't know what volume of gas ANGS has hedged for the three year period, only that it equates to approx 70% of ANGS's "conservatively estimated" target production levels. So let's make a pure guess a number for that conservative production target... let's say 4 mmscfd. On that basis, ANGS would have hedged say 2.8 mmscfd from July 22.

Okay, based on the above pure guess...

1. IF ANGS can produce meaningful quantities of gas prior to July 22, it gets itself a very nice bluebird windfall, given current gas futures pricing.

2. IF ANGS can produce its target production quantities from July 22 and consistently onwards, it'll do fine. Not unbelievably well, (because of 3 year hedge pricecapping 70% of its output), but fine nonetheless.

3. IF ANGS can produce more than its target production quantities from July 22 and consistently onwards, it will do very well indeed (obviously because it's got more gas to sell at current significantly elevated prices - at least for the near term).

4. IF ANGS cannot produce enough gas to fulfil the hedge commitments, then that's trouble. One would hope thta the company's "conservative estimate" on consistently achievable production levels turns out to be both realistic and accurate, because if it is, then this scenario will not apply.

So... as I and others have said before, for ANGS it is all and only about getting to consistent production ASAFP and achieving sufficient consistent production volumes to meet (and hopefully surpass) its already incurred commitments, both debt funding and hedge related.

This is the sole imperative for the company and literally all that it should be concentrating on. And IF it does that (and particularly IF it succeeds in achieving scenarios 1 and 3 as per above), then yes, of course I agree the share would then multibag next year. However, IF scenario 4 comes to pass, then the share absolutely won't.

Not chilled enough to offer an answer though...

Not going to hazard a guess, Lucky? Why not? Too embarrassed at calling this wrong, perhaps?

I reckon on four in a row of the board reneging. What do you think?

...before the first Friday in October. You know, the day in each month where Sando and the UKOG board committed back at the end of May to purchase shares with their own (okay, PI provided) money in the company they're running (apparently into the ground).

What's the betting this time around? Will the directors FINALLY stump up some of their own cash and buy in. Or will they treat PIs with utter contempt for a 4th month on the trot and demonstrate yet again that they don't for one second believe in the prospects of UKOG (despite what they keep spouting whenever trying to extract investment cash from others)?

Answers on a postcard please...

Interesting accusation of dishonesty there, MoneyRaiser.

Ok let's see how truthful MoneyRaiser and his much-quoted guru (aka alternate ID) JD-Nau are being. And let's use facts to establish that (you know, those things the ramptastic squad can't cope with.

Today MoneyRaiser says this:-

"Sageman head in the sand is early a mole and a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Him and wg818 is clearly employed by someone (I know who) to specifically deramp Angus on a daily basis... ...Their true colours have been shown and investors such as jd-nau have shown them to know nothing."

Leaving aside the bizarre libel, let's take a look at what JD-Nau has said over the last few days:-

JD-Nau
Posted in ANGS
RE: 100m mcap
22 Sep 2021 12:59
What is the link to the OGA production data that you refer to and where is the documentation showing that the Angus hedge is about a minimum volume of gas rather than a percentage of production? Are you just making them up?

and

JD-Nau
Posted in ANGS
RE: 100m mcap
22 Sep 2021 13:41
I am also waiting for the documentation showing that the Angus hedge is about a minimum volume of gas rather than a percentage of production?

and

JD-Nau
Posted in ANGS
RE: 100m mcap
22 Sep 2021 14:40
I am still waiting on the link to the documentation showing that the Angus hedge is about a minimum volume of gas rather than a percentage of production. Or are you trusting "a bloke off twitter on that too"?

and

JD-Nau
Posted in ANGS
RE: 100m mcap
22 Sep 2021 15:38
Where do you get the figure of 16 weeks from? Is there any documented links on this of is it just another thing that you have madeup/"been told by a bloke on twitter"?

Re the last, this was the incredibly well-researched JD-Nau disputing the fact that any sidetrack was estimated to take 16 weeks. He went very quiet on this when he was provided with a link to ANGS' own planning application to Lincs CC which gave this estimate. So it was ANGS' own figure.

It's all there in his post history. I think the above makes the tactics being used by some here abundantly clear. It also very clearly shows which side of the debate is prone to simply making stuff up.

Sageman you're AGREEING with me FFS! That is PRECISELY what I've been saying! Of course the hedge is for a volume-based commitment, because that's how futures work (as both you and I are clearly already aware).

It's been the cheerleading squad who have been howling insults and spending days trying to tell me the above is wrong (for whatever reason) and that the hedge is based on a mere percentage of eventual production (of course it isn't).

Sure, what we don't know is the actual volume hedged, because that's not been stated. All we know as you perfectly correctly state is that the amount hedged equates to approx 70% of whatever ANGS believes its conservatively estimated production will be.

Regardless, and as you and I both know, the hedge involves a volume/quantity as all futures do.

"Good for gas producers such as Angus..."

Probably, except Angus isn't (yet) a gas producer.

And more strangely none of those of an eternally positive disposition seem prepared to offer any estimate at all as to when Angus will start to produce consistent monthly volumes of gas?

Come on chaps... it's not that scary a question?

You're right, Ocelot. Currently (and for how many months havbe they been zero revenue? 17 and counting, isn't it?) ANGS has been a pony with no tricks at all. If only they had even one revenue-generating trick...

Get Saltfleetby producing. Nothing else matters. Once that's sorted, then look at other avenues.

Yanis, my view remains that the company simply must get Lincolnshire up and running ASAFP - even more true, given current/future gas pricing - and that literally anything that's liable to detract attention away from that is not beneficial.

I would think it must be accepted by one and all that, given pre-Lincs incurred liabillities and especially the commitments incurred around SFBY (£12m and hedge), this has to be absolute and in my book, effectively exclusive priority, at least until up, running and producing whatever it turns out it will produce.

Once that's bedded in and ANGS has a known income stream, then maybe other ventures.

It's all about Saltfleetby - or should be, from a company focus and efforts point of view.

Peter, your calcs - as you know - depend on the assumptions you've made. And frankly, there are just too many variables.

The "up to 16 weeks" time estimate for the sidetrack (ANGS's own estimate by the way as per its planning application into Lincolnshire is of course irrelevant if it's neither on balance commercially advantageous nor commercially necessary for the sidetrack to be drilled in the short- to mid-term.

The fact that the hedge is volumetric (as made clear both by ANGS's RNS and its answer to an investor question, both of which have been recently quoted) is key - but without knowing what those volumetric commitments actually are in therms per month, also impossible to model.

Pretty much the only variables that need clarity is the consistently produceable amount of gas that can be got out of Poundland and when this consistent production will commence. Those two things need definition first, before pretty much anything else can be modelled.

To make this point, take the following two extreme examples:-

ANGS starts full production on Feb 1st (without a sidetrack) and the field instantly and consistently produces 10 mmscfd. ANGS has hedged 3.5 mmscfd, (that equating to 70% of the much bandied about 5 mmscfd figure) starting from July 1st. Happy days - the company and its investors will do extremely well indeed (though the 10 mmscfd figure in this scenario is massively unrealistic).

or

ANGS starts full production on May 1st (again without a sidetrack) and the field unfortunately only consistently produces 2.5 mmscfd (as it averaged during its last most recent months of operation, as per the reported OGA figures). ANGS has still hedged 3.5 mmscfd, (that equating to 70% of the much bandied about 5 mmscfd figure) starting from July 1st. In this case, that would be serious trouble for the company and its investors.

It's a question of wait and see.

Cuddo, you can carry on reposting the same lies as long as you like. However...

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. Here's what it says:-

"4.1 Description of the Proposed Development

Angus Energy is proposing to drill a single side-track well from one of the existing Saltfleetby wells (SF-7) at the Saltfleetby B wellsite....

The Proposed Development will be temporary in nature; the total duration of the development is estimated to be 16 weeks."

Re point 2, ANGS's own answer to an investor question as given at the end of May this year makes it clear that the hedge relates to a volume of production. Here's what the ANGS answers states:-

"Most of these questions have been superseded by our recent announcements: in particular the hedge of c. 70% of target production is in place at 43p/therm..."

So... those are ANGS's own words. They've hedged about 70% of their target production - i.e. they've hedged a fixed production volume of gas that equates to approximately 70% of what they hope they're going to produce. This the hedge commitment is clearly volume-based.

Re point 3, nobody to my knowledge has claimed that the sidetrack is "compulsory". ANGS will presumably drill the sidetrack if it believes it is either commercially advantageous to do so or commercially necessary to do so. However on its own website, ANGS stated the following in an answer to an investor question just four months ago:-

"The side-track of SF7 is targeted for autumn but, in any event prior, to resuming production."

"Prior to resuming production" according to ANGS' own words. Now admittedly, the company's view may have changed since May, but certainly only 4 months ago, they were viewing the sidetrack as very high priority for whatever reason.

Re point 4, the statement regarding average monthly production figures from Saltfleetby being around the 2.5 mmscfd mark from when it was last in full production stands. That averaging (obviously) does not include months when there was no production. Unfortunately for you, anyone who can be bothered can go check those OGA figures themselves. This is particularly amusing since only yesterday JD Nau was claiming these figures didn't exist. Oops.

There's the back-up evidence for what's being put forward. The ramptastic squad claiming that all the above is just made up are looking ever more stupid. And ever more desperate for that matter.

BV, I am sure both those conditional statements are accurate.

So what needs to happen is for Poundland to produce 5 mmscdf and for everything to go well.