Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Assets on paper are worth nothing. The only thing that's relevant is whether those assets can be realised at a commercially viable manner.

As for Poundland, I would remind people that the value the gas field's previous owner put on this was actually minus £2,499,999 - yes, that's what it "cost" ANGS to acquire.

Since then of course ANGS has realised that it needed to borrow and bung in an extra £10-12 million to even be able to evaluate whether this "asset" can be coaxed into commercially viable production.

And that's something we won't know until well into next year.

Oooh a quiz! I love quizzes. Here are my answers.

a) none, nada, zip, sweet FA.

b) a fair while probably. Q3 next year?

c) Not at all (see answer to a. above)

d) Abso ******* lutely.

Separately and looking at the UKOG SP trend over many many months, one has to say that when it comes to protecting the eye-poppingly large wads of PI-supplied cash that the directors take out of UKOG every single month, Steve and his cronies are being quite smart in contemptuously refusing to invest a single penny in the company they're running (right into the ground)....

hTTps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fdAFmtq-o8

Guess what? The boiler room is still singing the same "jam tomorrow" theme tune. As they have continually done over the share price's inexorable one-way decline over the last few years. Meanwhile, today's SP is languishing 20%+ below the recent placing price (barely two months ago) and we now know that Basur-3 isn't looking at all clever (unsurprisingly)...

Boys, don't you think that your ever more obviously substance-free ramp attempts actually further damage any remaining tatters of credibility about this share?

(And yes, I freely admit it'd be hard to damage UKOG's credibility more drastically than the directors' continuing contemptuous failure to put any of their own skin in the game, but still...)

I'm sure that back in the day, you used to get a more skilful and subtle class of ramper. Today's crop seem as remarkably obvious as they are remarkably cack-handed and remarkably ineffectual.

Agreed. It's all and only about Basur. Loxley permissions, HH injections and geothermal burblings are all utter pie in the sky irrelevances. Basur or bust, in my view.

And how does UKOG itself feel about the company's future prospects? Not terribly confident, given the board's undeviating failure so far to put their own skin in the game and buy in. And that's despite having announced the infamous DDSPP on May 28th, something which they have failed to abide by and act upon for three months on the trot and counting..

Be fair... third place is 3rd place. But let's put some facts and hard audited numbers around that.

1st = Perenco (85.90% of all UK onshore oil production in May 21)

2nd = IGas (12.49%)

3rd = UKOG (0.70%)

Then 5 others sharing out the remaining 0.91% of May 21 onshore oil produced.

Mildly amusing for Cuddo (also known as Cantrememberthis2 amongst severeal other IDs) to himself accuse others of running multiple IDs...

Mind you, he's never been one to have more than a very estranged relationship with the actuality of things.

Cuddo, the adults here know that it is literally impossible for any private investor to go short on ANGS... so perhaps you should stop peddling that myth.

Continually regurgitating the same blatant factual inaccuracy does nothing for your already minimal credibility...

WG I agree. All the available evidence suggests that a successful sidetrack is crucial in order for ANGS to be able to hit the consistent production volumes it needs to cover incurred Poundland costs of all types. And like you, I am equally aware that the sidetrack being attempted is being drilled from a well that has had multiple unsuccessful sidetrack attempts.

The fact that ANGS are going for the sidetrack pre-production also strongly suggests that it already knows that a successfully drilled one is noecessary - or why wouldn't they have waited to see what Poundland could be coaxed into producing without a sidetrack?

Q2 next year, things will become a great deal clearer. Until then? It's all guesswork.

...except ANGS isn't going to produce any gas by year end.

And as the adults here already know, this isn't at all about ANGS getting to first gas (that's taken by the market as a given - though the jury's out as to when this will be achieved, given repeated delays).

Instead it's solely and exclusively about the sustainable and consistent monthly volumes of gas that can be produced from Poundland. Those (duh!) have to be sufficient in order for GP generated from their sale to cover off ANGS' fixed, variable and debt funding costs incurred in producing them, bearing in mind that it looks like 70% of produced volumes will be sold at well below market price, due to the hedge.

So we simply will not know the commercial viability of Poundland until we know those sustainable production volumes. And we won't know that until well into next year (I estimate mid Q2 at the earliest).

Anyone trying to assure investors of anything different to the above is merely spinning a line IMO.

The question re the sidetrack is a very good one. My view on its necessity is that it's not 100% clear, though I'd say it's likely to be needed.

Thing is, as we all know, ANGS incurred a great deal and apparently entirely unexpected primarily financing related costs in order to be able to start seeing what it could get out of Poundland - that extra £12 million which was suddenly needed.

This obviously means that the company's fixed costs in relation to Poundland have sharply risen, when compared to originally given estimates. That (of course) means that the field is going to have to deliver an increased (and for a fair while, continuous) level of £ note GP, in order to allow these costs to be covered. And that (obviously) means that a greater volume of gas than initially forecast is going to need to be produced.

On the plus side, gas prices look like they'll be healthily higher than originally estimated, if/when ANGS finally starts producing. However, muting that benefit is the fact that ANGS hedged 70% of their production - and for the record, I don't blame them at all for doing that - it's just prudence to do so.

Having said that, the exact terms and commitments under the hedge agreement have not been made clear. If it's a simple commitment to sell 70% of any gas volumes produced at a fixed price over a fixed period of time (which is what I suspect it to be), then that's fine. Sure if so, ANGS will be sellign almost 3/4s of what it manages ot produce under current market value, but that's okay, as per above.

If however the hedge commits ANGS to sell a fixed volume of gas (rather than a percentage of production) at a fixed price over a fixed period of time - and ANGS for whatever reason cannot produce that entire committed to fixed volume, then there a definitely bad things ahead. (I personally do not believe that even George would have committed the company to such a dangerous mechanism as this).

So... is the sidetrack crucial? I strongly suspect that it is, in order to cover debt financing on the seriously elevated set-up costs - but not to offset shortfalls under the hedge.

But who knows? It's all best guesswork.

Really... why?

It's currently entirely unknown if any gas can be commercially viably extracted from Loxley? And it'll take many millions of pounds and many, many months to answer that question either way.

You've got to love the deliberately disingenuous way the cheerleaders always try to spin things. Perhaps better to focus on UKOG's throw of the dice in their last chance saloon... how's Basur-3 going?

You're quite correct, Ibug... two months it is.

This delay has been ongoing for an eyebrow-raisingly long time. It's hard to imagine what the problems actually are? Is there something that they're reluctant to reveal until the last possible moment?

The accounts are by now so overdue that the Companies House webpage you link to, Ibug, now shows that there is a proposal to strike the company off.

I think this means that they now have a hard deadline of 10 working days to file their accounts, or the company will be automatically struck off and dissolved for non-compliance.

matherdj, one has to remember that the cheerleading squad really REALLY hates cold hard facts and the actual reality of things being pointed out, because this clashes so obviously with their agenda and the endless "jam tomorrow" fairytales they try endlessly and desperately to spin - hence all they can do is attempt to nitpick.

Lucky, I will rephrase just for you.

It is a matter of indisputable fact that, despite all their puff and promotion - and let's not forget their announcing of the DDSPP back at the end of May - the UKOG board have to date decided that putting any of their own money into the company they're running would be a bad investment. This situation currently shows no sign of changing whatsoever.
Presumably the only possible reason for that can be that they have absolutely no faith or belief in the prospects of the company they're running. Let's face it, they'd have the clearest and most informed view on these...

Happier now?

Separately I did pose a very simple question to you the other day Lucky. You're prone to making predictions of future share price rises, so I simply asked you if you thought the UKOG board would fail to buy into the company under the DDSPP for a third month in a row. You busily ducked that question - and (of course) the board reneged on the DDSPP commitment again.

I'll ask you again - and this time you'll have 30 days to give your answer. What's your prediction as to UKOG's directors buying in as per the DDSPP at the beginning of next month, then? Will they do it? Or will they renege on their commitment for a fourth month on the trot?

I and I am sure others will await your opinion on this with interest...

How exciting! Now if only UKOG was producing even a single cubic foot of gas to sell...

And before anyone starts banging on about Loxley, exactly how many millions of pounds will need to be raised and how many years will it take for this site to even be properly evaluated?

Separately, I think I must have missed two RNSes today?

Firstly the one announcing the UKOG directors' buying in last Friday, as per the DDSPP (though I seem to have missed the ones on that subject from beginning of July and August as well).

Secondly the one informing the market of the material information that UKOG failed to acquire any of the extra licences it applied for in Turkey. If it was materially important enough to tell the market it was applying for these, it's certainly as if not more important to inform the market that it has failed in this endeavour. That news was confirmed elsewhere a couple of weeks back, after all...

They're not very good at abiding by what they are obliged under regulation to do at UKOG, are they?

I note that as ever, Crocqman is being the voice of common sense and reason, in that he deals exclusively in facts, truths and realities. The cheerleaders won't like that... they're severely allergic to reality.

Cuddo, back to reality.

In terms of attacks, you're the one perpetrating these. As evidence, anyone wishing to check out your uber-insulting posts on another very popular sharetalk BB (where you appear under your Cantrememberthis2 ID) can see this in a second.

Long-term holders in ANGS express their disagreement at your eternally positive posts, because they're full of uttetly unsubstantiated jam tomorrow predictions. Dependent on the day of the week, you'll predict anywhere between 2p and 12p being imminent. That level of bizarrity is going to wind people up.

Also, I doubt very much that anyone believes that you're holding anywhere near what you claim to be. The briefest of looks at your posting history - here and elsewhere under your multiple IDs - shows you running the selfsame ultra-aggressive routine (you know, the one where you suddenly appear, pretending to be a genuine investor committed to the long-term and having bought in big) on numerous other stocks - for a succession of brief periods.

This is the oh so obvious mark of someone who's either a short-term swing trader looking for a marginal gain, or a member of a boiler room.

Again, there is no possible way to short ANGS.