Member Info for HeadInTheSand

A better question would be... why was whatever revision that turned out to be necessary submitted so late in the day? Remember, George was telling anyone who'd listen a couple of years back that first gas at Poundland would be Q3 2020...
another thing he's wildly over-optimistically estimated then (but not, one would hope, deliberately so).

Well, who do we reckon is a better indicator of sentiment? The market as a whole (currently busily voting with its feet) or the utterly unjustified and ever more desperate squeakings of Mr Multi-ID, Cuddo?

I think it's blindingly obvious from which quarter the attempted distortion is coming... not exactly working though, is it?

DoneK, I entirely agree with you.

It is solely about how much income can be produced out of Poundland and whether enough volume can regularly be produced at a low enough production cost to generate enough GP to cover ANGS's fixed, variable and debt-funding costs relating to Poundland.

Literally nothing else matters.

We will find out the answers to the above some time next year (I reckon well into Q2).

Cuddo is now copy n paste posting on various share discussion boards under at least three separate IDs (and multi-ID usage is always the mark of the honest man, isn't it?)

Anyhow, if Mr. Multi-ID's latest claim that ANGS is due instant riches as soon as the very simple matter of "connecting the pipe and turning the taps on at Poundland" is in the least little bit true...

...how come ANGS is now running over a year late (and counting) AND has incurred cost-overruns to the small tune of an extra £12 million quid being needed to get such a "simple matter" done?

I think it's becoming ever more clear why Poundland's previous owners were so keen to get ANGS to take Poundland and its associated liabilities (abandonment costs, anyone?) off their hands. I mean, whyever else would they effectively pay ANGS £2,499,999 for doing so?

Neogeo, your assumptions are wrong. I am neither "agitated" nor "worried" - merely pointing out the disconnect between your "full steam ahead"" claim (another groundless assumption) and the known and indisputable facts (company-stated timescales having been missed by over a year and counting, plus company-stated cost estimates having been overrun by £12 million).

There continues to be an easily spottable difference between realists and rampers here. Realists base opinions on known facts. Rampers can come up with no basis for their predictions and what's more, whenever confronted with facts running counter to their claims, always resort to insult.

As I've said, the cheerleader squad really REALLY hates it when facts are mentioned and cited. Wonder why?

Full steam ahead? Including one year (and counting) of delays and £12 million of extra unexpected costs?

If this is your version of "full steam ahead", I'd hate to think what reverse would look like...

Okay so an earlier post of mine got strangely deleted. Unsure why, since it was both fully factual and fully referenced. I'll repost it then.

HHDL's fugures for the last FY have just been released and they don't make for pleasant reading.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08808553/filing-history/MzMxMjgzNzEwOGFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0

https://drillordrop.com/2021/09/10/horse-hill-operator-declares-17-8m-loss/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

So although these specific figures were presumably already incorporated into the various group accounts of the holding companies, the detail newly available is interesting.

Revenue £0.75m
Cost of sales £1.9m
An eye-watering £9.5m of "administrative expenses" (up from £0.24m the previous year)
£0.6m of interest payments and
£6.6m of exploration write-off.

Not really any sort of a jewel in the crown asset, then.

Weald oilers are very obviously between a rock and a hard place. They have to keep maintaining that their alleged Weald "assets" are commercially viable (when very obviously they are categorically not) - or if they own up to the actual reealities of things, then their claimed NAV falls through the floor...

...and worse still, people will then start quietly mentioning phrases such as "abandonment costs", two words which will always strike fear into the hearts of the directors of O&G micro-caps, because that might well mean a definitive end to keeping their respective handsome salaries being paid.

I do wonder how the Hell HHDL is ever going to pay back the £16 million it now owes UKOG plc (up by £4.5 million from the previous year). For info, Alba is owed a "mere" £2.5 million and Doriemus just £0.55m.

In my very firm view, this is a seemingly inevitable car crash in now not so slow motion. I see only one possible outcome... and to me, the question is when, not if.

Seeing these crushingly poor HHDL figures, private investors in UKOG seriously need to ask themselves the following question:-

"Are we happy that the board of UKOG plc, the company in which we have invested, decided last year to "lend" a further £4.5 million of our hard-earned cash into this bottomless money pit?"

And yes, that money tossed in for another year to shore up the apparently bottomless Horse Hill sinkhole absolutely was supplied one way or another by investors. It simply cannot be otherwise, because let's face it, in its whole history, UKOG has never once generated annual revenues within a million miles of covering the costs of their generation.

I don't find it at all surprising therefore that the UKOG BoD have to date declined to ever invest even a single penny of their own money. I mean, whyever would they?

Ibug I entirely agree that when it came to the recent end June placing, that and the accompanying and clearly orchestrated frantic ramp in the last week of June allowed the mates and City boys to clear a very quick and very short-term c. 20% profit by forward selling their placing commitments into the artificially created very short-lived environment.

Mere private investors were of course offered no such nailed-on opportunity. As ever, they're the ones who foot the bill for these ongoing pantomimes. People indeed have got and continue to get rich out of UKOG... but categorically not PIs who've relied on company and associated ramper spin and assurances and who've invested for the mid to long term.

Private investors in UKOG are also effectively obliged to ask themselves the following question:-

"Are we happy that the board of UKOG plc, the company in which we have invested, decided last year to "lend" a further £4.5 million of our hard-earned cash into this bottomless money pit?"

And yes, that money tossed again into that sinkhole absolutely was supplied one way or another by investors. It simply cannot be otherwise, because let's face it, in its whole history, UKOG has never once generated annual revenues within a million miles of covering the costs of their generation.

No wonder then that the UKOG BoD refuse to invest even a single penny of their own money. I mean, why would they?

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08808553/filing-history/MzMxMjgzNzEwOGFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0

https://drillordrop.com/2021/09/10/horse-hill-operator-declares-17-8m-loss/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

So although the specific figures just released on HHDL were presumably already incorporated into the various group accounts of the holding companies, the detail newly available is interesting.

Revenue £0.75m
Cost of sales £1.9m
An eye-watering £9.5m of "administrative expenses" (up from £0.24m the previous year)
£0.6m of interest payments and
£6.6m of exploration write-off.

Not really any sort of a jewel in the crown asset, then.

Weald oilers are very obviously between a rock and a hard place. They have to keep maintaining that their alleged Weald "assets" are commercially viable (when very obviously they are categorically not) - or if they own up to the actual reealities of things, then their claimed NAV falls through the floor...

...and worse still, people will then start quietly mentioning phrases such as "abandonment costs", tow words which will always strike fear into the hearts of the directors of O&G micro-caps, because that would mean a definitive end to keeping their respective swill troughs for their greedy snouts.

I do wonder how the Hell HHDL is ever going to pay back the £16 million it now owes UKOG plc (up by £4.5 million from the previous year). For info, Alba is owed a "mere" £2.5 million and Doriemus just £0.55m.

This is a seemingly inevitable car crash in now not so slow motion. There's only one possible outcome... the question is when, not if.

Hey BV. Keeping to the space theme and also recognising the piping drivel squeaked by the ramptastic brigade, maybe we'll get one of the clangers next?

I am led to believe that GKB is alive and well and posting "next door" so to speak. I think he got heartily sick of LSE admin policy and the way that well-researched (and thus inevitably negative) posts could seemingly get auto-removed by the pompom wavers.

It's very odd.

If UKOG plc were a private company, then it could apply for exemption from audit, since it easily ticks the two out three boxes required for audit exemption (annual turnover less than £10 million and number of employees fewer than 50).

But it's a publicly listed company, so its accounts are therefore mandatorily auditable - as was done with the FY 2020 report.

Curiouser and curiouser?

Cuddo's also deleted his much promoted (but tragically underfollowed) Twatter share tipping page... that's the 2nd time he's done this in a week.

As even some of the more positive were telling him here earlier today, his ramps were frankly - and I quote - "embarrassing", so I imagine he may have been subbed.

Yeah, the market's obviously just loving hearing about George and ANGS getting all busy on geothermal... who needs revenue (let alone positive GP, let alone positive EBITDA) in the foreseeable future when there are more longer term pipedreams to promote?

How about ANGS delivers on the one thing it's got some faint chance of doing first?

Nom, according to the released info, this "presentation" (or Bedtime Story Hour, if you'd rather) seems to be exclusively limited to ANGS' thoughts on and plans for... geothermal.

Oh joy.

They didn't like the opinion I posted? I'll do it again.

What a surprise.... it's Jackanory with George time again.

This increasing urgency for ANGS to wave the pompoms around geothermal is IMV really not an encouraging sign. As anyone who's done the briefest of research will already know, proving the commercial viability of any potential geothermal site is inevitably going to take many tens of millions of pounds and many years of time - and again IMV , ANGS has the luxury of neither.

This seems to be an attempt to distract away from what's actually going on (or not) at Poundland. It's Poundland that should be ANGS' SOLE FOCUS - because that represents the only chance that the company has of producing any revenue (let alone profitable revenue) in the foreseeable future.

That's what ANGS investors need to hear about, not more can-kicking "jam tomorrow" fairytales that at best will be a distraction away from what the company exclusively and desperately needs to get on with delivering.

What a surprise.... it's Jackanory with George time again.

This increasing urgency for ANGS to wave the pompoms around geothermal is IMV really not an encouraging sign. As anyone who's done the briefest of research will already know, proving the commercial viability of any potential geothermal site is inevitably going to take many tens of millions of pounds and many years of time - and again IMV , ANGS has the luxury of neither.

This seems to be an attempt to distract away from what's actually going on (or not) at Poundland. It's Poundland that should be ANGS' SOLE FOCUS - because that represents the only chance that the company has of producing any revenue (let alone profitable revenue) in the foreseeable future.

That's what ANGS investors need to hear about, not more can-kicking "jam tomorrow" fairytales that at best will be a distraction away from what the company exclusively and desperately needs to get on with delivering.

I would suggest that you're finding the board unreadable primarily because the company has become uninvestable in.

And that's something that the UKOG board clearly knows and agrees with - at least to date - because, despite commitments made to the contrary and plenty of substance-free spin aimed at encouraging others to invest, they've so far decided not to put one single penny of their own money in.

Whatever it says, it will include phrases like "potentially transformational", because Sando-penned RNSes always do... after all, he has to keep spinning fairytales in order to keep the swill trough filled, doesn't he?

And to be fair, UKOG is all about transformation. Over the years, it has proven itself consistently expert in transforming the value of any longer-term PI's investment from something large into something considerably smaller.

Also worth noting that this lamentable outcome has never been anything suffered by the board of directors themselves, solely because to date, they have self-evidently never viewed the company they're running as any sort of worthwhile investment for even a penny of their own funds.

A small point-ette. In computing, there's a well-known acronym known as GIGO... garbage in, garbage out.

So basically, if ANGS's RNSes don't present the whole picture and/or if George's words and assurances in various softball PR puff sessions are heavily spun, any assumptions based on these will be fallacious.