Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Onetomany, the ONLY party that has suggested an inability to pay - in fact, has effectively stated via RNS that there was an inability to pay, caused by "production variability" in Q1 - is ANGS itself.

Similarly, the ONLY party that, through a failure to provide an update to the information communicated in its May 27th RNS, has indicated to the market that it has now defaulted on the loan terms is again ANGS itself.

No, nobody expected ANGS to be able to conjure up sufficient extra funds to pay off the first Trafigura instalment within just a couple of additional weeks. What the rational here believe is that ANGS's entire borrowings are going to have to be remodelled at even more usurious terms. The current ones are harsh enough, requiring the £20m of principal to be paid off in quarterly chunks (£1.25m) over the next four years, plus an additional approx £8.5m of interest over the same period.

After all, the lenders hold literally all the cards here and can force through whatever terms they like.

Meanwhile, as it stands and going by what ANGS has announced (rather than Onetomany's permanently ludicrous and eternally wildly inaccurate claims),in the absence of any update since last Tuesday's RNS, ANGS has by now defaulted on its loan from Trafigura.

Presuming that alternative arrangements have been or are being made, it is farcical that no update has been forthcoming, given that the deadline extension which was granted expired on Saturday 31st May.

An RNS is absolutely required (and in fact overdue), solely because in the absence of any update, the information as released to the market so far effectively states that ANGS has defaulted on its loan repayments to Trafigura, which would not be a good thing.

I'm sure (well... I hope) that this is not the case - but the company 100% needs to update following on from the 2nd revised deadline announcement in the RNS of 27th May, because that revised deadline has now also expired.

Beretta... you got cash for what?

Tony, I am not being negative in the least. I'm not even talking about hedges, old or new, or the beneficial effect that changes in hedged volumes could have.

I'm simply quoting audited production figures (i.e. pure fact) to counter Onetomany's endless and nonsensical bleating that production volumes are majorly up.

Onetomany, when will you ever start dealing in facts? (No doubt never, because they're incredibly inconvenient for you).

I did of course mention the downtime (which was Apr 27th-29th), when I said "Looking at the reported figures, both April's and May's total volumes produced will be lower than March's. To be fair, this could be expected for April... but May as well?"

However I have to entirely agree with you, when you compare ANGS and its prospects with being assured that there's a million quid just waiting for you in a Nigerian bank account, which you can get if you'll just part with some cash up front. There's a great deal of similarity there - 419, anyone?

Not really.

As per the NSTA's data, here are the total monthly gas production figures out of Saltfleetby, plus the average production per day for each month:-

JAN 25. Total Production = 4.2722mcm. Daily Average = 0.1378mcm.

FEB 25. Total Production = 3.7257mcm. Daily Average = 0.1331mcm.

MAR 25. Total Production = 3.6317mcm. Daily Average = 0.1172mcm.

APR 25. Total Production = 3.2098mcm. Daily Average =0.1070 mcm.

MAY 25. Total Production = 3.3655mcm. Daily Average = 0.1086mcm.

Looking at the reported figures, both April's and May's total volumes produced will be lower than March's. To be fair, this could be expected for April... but May as well?

Onetomany will of course immediately claim that this is because the compressor has not been optimised yet. Wishful thinking again, I'm afraid. Regardless, even unoptimised, the compressor should have caused an improvement in monthly production volumes by now... but it just hasn't.

Again, how van "all be good"? Average monthly gas production has actually been lower since the compressor was installed. That strongly indicates that the field's issue with liquids is a good deal more significant than expected. Not good news, when Saltfleetby already wasn't generating enough revenue to allow ANGS to meet its already incurred debts.

(Well, expected by ANGS, that is. Saltfleetby's previous operators - including of course Paul Forrest - almost certainly had a good grasp of the field's future viability. Which is why they were all happy to pass the parcel bomb and run for the hills).

It's noticeable that Onetomany's efforts to polish the unpolishable are becoming ever more frequent, ever more desperate and ever more unhinged.

He's now scraping the bottom of the long-empty barrel by posting instantly disprovable porky pies (a habit which would actually make him suitable for a board position at ANGS).

Sad, really...

Geez... I really don't know if it's extreme wishful thinking, advancing dementia or downright insanity.

Absolutely ANGS *must* restructure its existing debts - because as it has made clear, it cannot afford to pay them down on existing terms or schedules. If allowed by the lenders and those who are the beneficiaries of other obligations already incurred by the company, that is categorically not going to come for free.

And if that wasn't enough, the cheerleaders' theory is that SANGS - the company with zero transatlantic/offshore drilling experience that has never once hit a self-set target or turned a profit and that has royally screwed up on every single one of its UK assets despite repeated assurances to the contrary - is in fact going to be lent a further sh*t-ton of money to purchase a "low decline / cash positive" asset in the Gulf of Mexico... *AND *in so doing, it's going to remain in full control and existing holders aren't going to get diluted in any way.

And people honestly think that this hallucinogenic pipedream is in any way likely?

Impressive, OTM. You've heard of Google. Coffin Dodgers Rest Homes inc. must have a connected device that residents can take turns with (no doubt with supervision).

"...from a mobile if you have one of the new touch screen types..."

...

"...one of the new touch screen types..."

...

Words fail me. Those fancy new "touchscreen types", eh? Well, Apple released the first iPhone back in 2007 and by now we're now on the iPhone 16.

Is anyone else starting to think that Onetomany must be a perma-resident of Waiting For God Elderly Care Homes Ltd? It'd explain a whole lot...

Your first supposition is entirely correct, Patrick. I'm making the banal mathematical point that it's impossible to have a negative knowledge (though Onetomany gives it a really good go).

On the current topic (that being, how is ANGS going to acquire any meaningful asset when it itself has next to nothing to offer in return, with its only worthwhile asset already being way over-geared)...

...Onetomany claims that he knows more than I think. To be fair to the world's worst Mystic Meg, I will happily grant that it is mathematically impossible for him to know less than I think.

Onetomany, as has been shown by your many literally laughable predictions, promises and assurances over the years, the real world is not somewhere that you're remotely acquainted with.

Agreed re not extrapolating from a couple of single day's production levels.

However it's now clear that May's' overall production is going to end 5-10% lower than March's (pre-compressor) overall production. April's overall production was also considerably lower than March, but TBF they were trying to optimise the compressor in that month.

The take-home point surely is that, despite additional time and cost, ANGS simply cannot produce enough out of Saltfleetby to wash its face, taking into account both opex costs and other already incurred debt obligations. The company itself made this abundantly clear in the May 7th RNS, when it stated:-

"Production variability during the first quarter of 2025, before the booster compressor was commissioned, has resulted in the first principal repayment of £1.25 million, being deferred as part of ongoing discussions with Trafigura about resculpting the repayment schedule."

That was Q1. The figures for April & May strongly telegraph that Q2 total field production is going to be lower than Q1's.

This is categorically not going in the right direction.

OTM, any form of dilution would mean (of course) that holders will be shelling out yet again.

As to "funding plan for the new cash cow"? As is bleakly plain, ANGS has no spare cash itself. Moreover, it has shown itself to be incapable of generating enough profitable revenue to pay down its already incurred borrowings and other obligations, whether those be to Paul Forrest or Trafigura. It's having to remodel its existing borrowing by can-kicking (no doubt at extra cost), so what else is it going to do? Borrow more? And if so, on what Shylockian terms?

Yep, this is going to cost existing holders, no matter what. Mind you, ANGS has to do something, because Saltfleetby is never going to wash its face.

Oh hold on a sec. Mystic Meg Onetomany (he of the famously ludicrous "1.5p by the end of March 2024 - guaranteed!" assurance, who's also continuing to valiantly vie with the Ocebot for the title of LSE's Least Successful Ramper) is now promising that this is "good news" and "exciting times, very". That's all okay, then.

Given that it can't generate enough revenues to wash its face, I do wonder how ANGS is going to fund this alleged "asset purchase" that's allegedly being "rounded up"? By paying out in magic beans, perhaps?

....aaaand the can gets kicked again, but down a concerningly ever-shortening road.

The thing which puts the kybosh on rose-tinted speculation about RTOs or compasionate lenders is that (as always) ANGS cannot produce enough to generate anywhere near enough cash, given both its opex needs and its already incurred obligations.

Still, I suppose that another 5 days hardly changes the price of cocoa....