Member Info for HeadInTheSand

As is permanently clear, those cheerleaders looking to mislead really REALLY hate cold hard facts, backed up by incontrovertible evidence.

Now, many will have noticed the desperation from the latest crop of rampers that have very recently popped up here like mushrooms on a dungheap to deny that the hedge is a commitment to deliver a volume of gas.

They ignore the fact that this is pretty clear from the language and wording of the June 3rd RNS from ANGS and merely call those pointing out that the hedge is for a committed-to volume of gas liars, without any counter-evidence to support their trite insults.

Okay, not that any more evidence should be needed, but here's the company's own response to an investor question asked and answered at the end of May this year, taken straight fro the ANGS website:-

"Most of these questions have been superseded by our recent announcements: in particular the hedge of c. 70% of target production is in place at 43p/therm..."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

Case proven - that is unless the cheerleaders want to accuse the company itself of spreading falsehoods?

Separately re the likelihood of a sidetrack happening sooner rather than later, I note the following words from ANGS's same answer of just 4 months ago:

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

Being confronted with easily verifiable evidence must be absolutely infuriating for you both, eh NeoGeo and JD Nau? I wonder exactly who it is who's so keen to spread "fabrications", who's making up "false details" and "fake news"... and who should now be "embarrassed"?

Neo, you are saying I "fabricated" the AECOM report with its expertise-led estimate of how long a sidetrack would take?

You are saying I "fabricated" the words within ANGS Jun 3rd RNS, sketching out the terms of the hedge it has committed to?

You are saying I "fabricated" the freely viewable OGA monthly production figures from Saltfleetby during its last and most recent period of operation?

You really can't handle fully attributed and fully evidenced facts, can you?

I gave you full attribution for those details, Neo. Let me remind you.

The AECOM report.

The OGA prodsuction figures

ANGS's own June 3rd RNS.

Now unless you're claiming that AECOM, the OGA and ANGS themselves are all making falsehoods up...?

As usual, the cheerleaders simply cannot deal with inconvenient and fully evidenced truths. No surprise there, then.

Neo, the difference between your posts and mine is simple.

You just shout "Liar". I provide source evidence.

Remind me... who should be embarrassed?

PS JD Nau, given you're ignoring the hard evidence which others have been kind enough to supply you with (Aecom, OGA etc) it's a tad ironic that you're claiming its others who are "poorly researched"...

1. Any sidetrack taking sixteen weeks... as mentioned in the Aecom report, a link to which has been provided to you and which you've chosen to pretend not to have seen.

2. Re the hedge relating to a volumetric rather than a mere percentile commitment, let me repost the answer I gave you yesterday, which again you've seemingly chosen to ignore:-

"Re volumetric rather than percentage commitments, I suggest you read the relevant ANGS RNS and pay careful attention to the language used. It's from June 3rd this year. I'll even quote the relevant snippet for you:-

"Simultaneous with drawdown, the Company has hedged (the "Hedge") approximately 70% of the Company's and its partners' share of future gas sales, estimated under a conservative projection, for three years beginning in July 2022"

If you believe this to be a percentage arrangement, simply ask yourself why the words "approximately" and "estimated" are used. No need for either, if it's purely a percentage deal."

I have never once said that production needs to be 10mmscf per day in order to meet the hedge commitments. I have however said that in my opinion only, it seems likely that a sidetrack will be needed - primarily based on the fact it'd be lunacy for ANGS to consider any delay to production start for any other reason. However and for clarity, this remains an opinion.

3. I have no idea what you're talking about re "compulsory". Presumably ANGS will drill the sidetrack if it is either necessary or on balance preferable to do so.

4. You've changed your tune. Yesterday you were claiming such figures didn't exist - and then you were pointed at the OGA website, where they clearly do - and independently audited at that. 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.

I think it's pretty obvious who's peddling the fake news here...

Does anyone actually care who's filtered who? Does it matter?

BV, "if possible" is an odd phrase to use, no?

Of course it's "possible" (funds to do so permitting - and I expect ANGS has definitely got enough left of the £12 ringfenced for Poundland to do that).

The question is surely much more... is drilling a sidetrack as early as possible a sensible idea?

Possible Answer A: NO, because it would cause a long delay to getting to first gas and ANGS could seriously do with making hay while the sun shines.

Possible Answer B: YES, because it is needed to be able to produce the volumes committed to under the hedge.

Again, without knowing exactly what was committed to under the hedge, any projections post July 2022 are pointless.

Neo, agreed it would seem utterly counter-intuitive to go for the sidetrack up-front...

...except if it's being viewed as necessary to fulfil already signed up to commitments under the hedge.

As per the Aecom info, sidetracking looks like it'd take up to 16 weeks to complete (successful or not) - and it's vanishingly unlikely that this could be done while the field was kept in production (it's within the bounds of possibility, but would make things very complex).

Presuming no early sidetracking, I still think your "full production from Feb 1st" estimate is very definitely on the highly optimistic side of things. My own most optimistic guess would be some time in April 2022 - and even that's pretty rose-tinted.

But regardless of that, the only core and absolutely crucial number that matters in the grander scheme of things in my very firm opinion is:-

What consistent volume of production can be achieved out of Poundland from July 1st and for the following three years?

Neogeo's prediction will be accurate, providing all the following assumptions also turn out to be accurate:-

1. First gas is achieved on February 1st.

2. Full production starts as soon as first gas is reached.

3. Consistent daily production from start is 5 mmscfd (without any sidetrack).

Obviously if items 1 and 2 slip from a timescale point of view, the pre-hedge bluebird period shortens in line.

And if production volumes are less than 5 mmscfd, earnable revenue in the pre-hedge bluebird period diminishes in line.

Having stated those caveats, I think it must be generally agreed that getting to production ASAFP should quite literally be the only thing concerning ANGS and its investors at the moment. The company needs to saddle itself with no distractions whatsoever until Poundland is up, running and producing to whatever level it's going to.

Every dog has its day, eh?

Sando's had years and years of trousering a five figure number every single month - pretty much entirely funded by PIs - despite having delivered on nothing at all. That's a whole lot longer than a day...

Anyhow, we're only 9 days away from October 1st. That's the first Friday in the new month - and thus the day that the UKOG directors committed to buying into the company they're running under the RNSed terms of the DDSPP.

Will they renege on their commitments for a jaw-droppingly contemptuous fourth month in a row? Watch this space...

5 to 8 months? Really not.

Hedge starts July 2022... best guess estimate for first gas is now Apr IMO, so maybe, just maybe 3 months. And also don't forget that first gas doesn't mean the start of consistent monthly production.

However, if ANGS goes for sidetrack drilling up front (as I ever more strongly suspect it knows it simply has to), add another 16 weeks to the timing of first gas.

Agreed that it has to be "assumed" that gas will flow. But that's not really the point.

The key questions remain "how much?" and "when?"

And the eventually forthcoming answers to both of those are absolutely crucial, especially with a view to the timing and the terms of the committed-to hedge.

Oktane, precisely. The actual terms behind the hedge are very unclear- however, what seems clear to me is that it's for a fixed volume of gas, and definitively not (as some seem to believe) for a mere percentage of whatever monthly production turns out to be. That fixed volume is according to the company "around 70% of conservative production forecast".

As you say, this does potentially expose ANGS to substantial risk, if it cannot produce the volumes required to be delivered under the hedge contract - though there are measures it may have put into place to mitigate this risk, eg the put options you mention as possible.

I don't think they've done that. Which is why the spectre of a production-delaying sidetrack keeps being raised. I suspect that George already knows that a sidetrack will need to be successfully drilled in order to have a chance of producing committed-to volumes.

Forget ANGS's reliance on some outdated CPR... the biggest sign of this is the last set of official OGA figures from when Poundland was last producing. Those show an average yield around 50% of the "conservative" 5 mmscfd that ANGS seems to have been assuming and has worked its numbers on.

We'll see...

Again, UKOG produces effectively zero gas.

Therefore it's stating the painfully obvious to point out that It would make no difference to the company if the future spot price for gas was £5 per therm.

Seriously, cheerleaders? I realise that Sando has left you next to nothing to attempt to spin after the ongoing Basur-3 non-event... but future GAS prices???

Little wonder that the directors continue to refuse to buy into the company they're running. They clearly don't believe for one second that it's a worthwhile investment - and let's face it, they'd know better than all.

Right, let's look at the maths previously quoted above.

Let's say Poundland can be coaxed into delivering 5mmscfd (that's a hell of a presumption, because that's what the CPA that ANG uses estimates. The last available OGA figures when Poundland was last producing show average productions figures 50% lower than that). Anyhow...

5 mmscfsd is indeed 50,000 therms.

Now ANGS is committed to selling c. 70% of its production at 43p per therm from start of hedge for three years,

That leaves it 15,000 therms per day to sell on the open market (presuming it can generate 5 mmscfd).

Therefore every 1p over and above 43p would therefore be worth an additional £150 per day to ANGS - or about £55k per annum (presuming 24/7/365 production) per additional therm penny.

Needless to say, if ANGS can get to meaningful production of gas volumes before the hedge kicks in, that would be majorly beneficial for a brief period. However, I would not put it past George to look to drill the sidetrack as soon as possible - I think the company already knows that a successful sidetrack is needed to get it anywhere near the volumes it has been estimating. Or as others have said, it'd make no sense to even consider it.

Sans sidetrack? I'd estimate first gas by start Q2 at the earliest. With sidetrack? The hedge will arrive at the same time as first gas.

AIMO.

Ibug... a "giant con" since the get-go? Well, without even having to think about it, I'd point to:-

Sando's denial that he ever mentioned "billions of barrels of oil" was promptly debunked by the BBC releasing footage showing that's exactly what he said...

UKOG's RNS of May 28th this year committing its directors to buy in under the DDSPP, such purchases starting from July 2nd, combined with to date, no such buys having taken place (and what are the chances of them not missing 4 months in a row, do you reckon? We'll find out in exactly 2 weeks' time).

Add to that:-

All the broken promises,
The wildly inaccurate estimates,
The continual talking up of the share price without any director feeling it a good idea to buy in,
The eye-watering monthly salaries being paid out to the board,
The even more bizarre six figure bonus taken by Sando despite abject and contining utter non-delivery,
The clearly orchestrated pump and dumps just before institutional placings get announced (thus giving the city boys a nailed-on and quick gain by forward-selling)...

You make up your own mind.

Out of sheer interest, given the title of this particular thread, what is UKOG's revenue from gas production from any of its so-called "assets"? Ever? In its whole history?

On that basis, exactly where is this produceable gas that InfesterInfester clains that UKOG "has"?

Ibug... "gottle of gear, gottle of gear, two pee to four pee, two pee to four pee".

My thoughts too. With the never-ending parroting of ridiculous "jam tomorrow... this time... honest!" predictions by the cheerleading squad who are - as you correctly imply - mere mouthpieces for the company, it does make one wonder exactly where Sando has got his hand up...