Member Info for HeadInTheSand

@ nhawan

You now say "It is probably a good thing for now since it causes the company to focus on SFB instead of trying to raise more cash for Balcombe."

I completely agree with you - but just a tad of a 180 degree u-turn from what you were saying just 24 or so hours ago...

Never mind. Providing there is potential at Poundland Gas (and God help us all if there isn't), this is as I have been saying for some time - and as you now suddenly agree with - good news for ANGS.

C'mon George. Stop faffing about chasing pipedreams and deliver on Saltfleetby as you've long promised. Show us the money.

Ivans and roganjt, I could not agree more with the pair of you. It's quite a relief in some ways - I thought I might be the only person thinking that approval for Balcombe would be a seriously negative thing.

Maybe now FINALLY George and the BoD will concentrate on nothing but getting Saltfleetby to a revenue-delivering position. As I've said repeatedly, to me, ANGS is a one trick pony and Poundland Gas is its only viable trick.

So come on George, get the financing confirmed and for just once, deliver on your promises in Lincolnshire, instead of distracting the company (and/or distracting investors) with more mid-term rainbow-chasing.

gkb, I've not missed either of those things? First, surely it's a well-known given that they don't have the cash to pursue any project at all at the moment, let alone 5. Second, I referenced the only logical reason that I can come up with for the sudden appearance of the pipeline of rainbows as being that the self-alleged Lincolnshire "jewel in the crown" asset may already be known within ANGS as really not being the game changer that they've repeatedly assured everyone it is.

Balanced, my point was merely countering the assertion that a "yes" to Balcombe might cause a temporary upward blip in the SP. To my mind, a "no" to Balcombe would be distinctly more positive, for all the reasons I've outlined more than once.

I'm absolute NOT saying that the SP is going to go up, regardless of the result. It's merely a question of whether the market will view a "yes" vote on Balcombe as a positive thing or a negative thing. I'm in the latter camp, since a) I want George entirely focussed on bringing in the already much slipped and vastly more costly than it was ever meant to be Poundland Gas project as he has repeatedly promised and b) I don't want ANGS distracted by anything else while looking to achieve this and for once deliver on something revenue-generating.

I still find it jawdropping that a company that still hasn't got anywhere remotely near the cash to deliver on what it has assured us for months is its jewel in the crown primary asset is all of a sudden looking to engage (or re-engage) on potentially up to four further fronts. It seems utterly barking mad... that is, unless they already know all is not well in Lincolnshire and so desperately need some more shiny cans to kick into the middle distance.

It could actually see some uplift in SP, no matter which way it goes.

It's the chance to somewhat better establish the value of a potential asset on one hand (which would be a good thing if such evaluation produced real-world encouraging indications) versus the resource-draining and cash-consumptive opening of a second front, when the company still hasn't got the funds to deliver on its long-promised primary asset on the other.

Being purely selfish here, I'd like planning to be passed, get seized upon by the cheerleaders and deliver a tolerable enough short-term uptick in the SP so I can bail out. But if planning is passed, such is my view on the distraction this will cause within the House of Angus and the resultant further delays I very firmly believe this will cause in Lincolnshire (presuming things are going there according to George's latest re-revised schedule, which I doubt) that I'll not be throwing in another penny.

I remain entirely unconvinced that getting planning permission for Balcombe tomorrow would be a good thing for ANGS and its investors. In fact, my own view is quite the reverse.

I don't believe the company is in any position from either a cash, time or resources point of view to operate on two (let alone five) fronts. I further believe the narrative previously punted by the company that it's all about Saltfleetby is accurate. Giving ANGS the opportunity to distract itself (and the concurrent opportunity to distract investors) on other projects I do not see as a positive thing at this cliff-edge stage.

Bring in Saltfleetby as you assured us all you would, George and get it delivering revenue. Once that has been achieved, then - and only then - go chasing other rabbits.

Indeed Crocqman.

Posts from last night/this morning have indeed gone missing. They certainly were there - but have been removed.

The usual reason for this is LSE's lamentably easily manipulated "auto-delete" function - if enough users report a post, it (and anything following it in a particular thread), get auto-deleted. Which makes it way too easy for certain people to control the narrative.

This morning, Ocelot's claim that Balcombe planning permission being granted this week would be a "favourable" thing and my counter to that, stating that it would in fact be a negative thing (more distraction, more cash consumption, more opportunity for the BoD to be less transparent on Saltfleetby) have both vanished.

"Those who feel Angus should be watched like a hawk are unlikely to become new investors in Angus."

That made me chuckle. The reverse of that presumably is that "it's only those who are merely prepared to take a casual glance that are likely to become investors in Angus"?

I'm also interested at this moral high ground that Ress amongst others is trying to claim for himself when he cries "but to try and lose the average man his money is just a low thing to do!! And theses people have done nothing to you neither!!" That's extremely shaky to me.

So Ress, if one is invested here but thinks the company really is not covering itself in glory or being managed at all well (as describes more than a few here), what's the moral thing to do? To keep consistently singing the company's praises regardless, in the hope that some new less informed investors will come along and be attracted into buying into a company that you believe is unfortunately suspect, so you can bail out? Or to say nothing despite your own beliefs, but in pretty much the same hope?

Neither policy sounds too morally upright to me... more like a game of "pass the parcel bomb". Probably best then that you let people express their opinions as they wish, rather than attempting to play the sanctimonious card, no?

There are undoubtedly those who would simply love to ensure that any share discussion bulletin board contains nothing but rampantly positive cheerleading posts.

Some of these wishing this will be genuine long-term private investors - though why such would not want to at least be aware of reasoned contradictory views beats me. Some will however be short-term traders looking to make quick marginal "in and out" trades, leaving others holding the baby.

If someone counsels for censorship, my view is treat them and everything they say with extreme wariness.

My personal view is that the market as a whole is asking itself why that decidedly odd "Investor Presentation" document was released by ANGS and why its content suddenly additionally referenced a swathe of either resurrected or brand new projects, rather than focussing exclusively on the Saltfleetby self-alleged jewel in the crown, where logic would dictate the company should be putting all its efforts, resources and the cash that it hasn't got yet. I don't think this will have gone down well.

Compounding that question would be a further one - namely, why George chose right now to pay for a classic Malcy powder-puff love-in session, with him being lobbed a number of ludicrously easy soft balls to take a swing at. That won't have gone down well either.

There's a very justifiable school of thought that would say the company is attempting to puff itself up well beyond the bounds of reality - and such activities most often tend to shortly precede an effort to raise short-term cash to keep the lights on a little longer.

Not that I am entirely of that mind. Despite ANGS's still ongoing perilous lack of cash, it would be hard to believe that the BoD would have the gall to seek any short-term smaller fundraising routes so soon after the last surprise one. However, to the more casual viewer, that may well be exactly what looks like is going on.

"Saltfleetby has its CPR, the other assets are not currently revenue-producing."

The second half of that statement is undoubtedly true. As to the Saltfleetby CPR, you're presumably referring to the one from last March? If so, that's the one which stated that it'd only cost £1.5m to get to first gas, and that this itself would be achieved by Q3 last year?

As things have turned out since, I'm not sure I personally would place an ongoing truckload of faith in that particular document...

It looks like the auto-LSE censoring utility kicked in, but that your post has since been manually reviewed.

But that's all by the by, gkb. It's an important enough question to merit its own thread.

...and as with all things, the market decides. In this and every other case, debt pricing is evaluated and established on exactly how "junky" any lender considers such debt to be.

Here's a perfectly reasonable question asked by gkb47 this morning that for some unknown reason seems to have worried some enough to get taken down. Can't imagine why...

However, as the question is so valid, I thought I'd helpfully repost it.

"The elephant in the room here is that if LL was talking to banks about a £12m loan as far back as March 2020 then why was the narrative being played to the market when the CPR was released on 5th March 2020 that the CAPEX requirements to Angus were only £1.5 m (mean or likely case) including the SF5 drill:

"The report envisages capital expenditure to Angus of £1.5 million (mean estimate) to bring the gas on stream in 2020 and to drill a horizontal side-track to well No. 5 during H1 2021, the latter to accelerate recovery. The Board does not anticipate any other capital expenditure to capture and monetise these identified reserves. The Board may however consider further expenditure from 2022 onward to monetise the contingent resources."

Why was a 12m loan being discussed for an asset that was supposed to cost £1.5 m to Angus? Market was not informed of the revised costs and the need for such a large loan until 23rd September 2020."

Why indeed?

A far FAR more pertinent question to ask IMHO would be this:

If everything really is as rosy as George made out to Malcy, and all the ducks are already so incredibly well lined up... whyever did George feel the need to do this powder puff interview in the first place? Why not let the imminent hard news do the talking for him?

I could take a guess...

"because the likes of you keep raising doubts."

Seriously? If people posting on a bulletin board could materially affect the price of a share one way or another, we'd all be millionaires.

Stating the bleedin' obvious here, but It's the market that decides the worth and credibility of a company, judging it against what it says and much more importantly, actually delivers - not a collection of random posters (me included) on some random bulletin board.

A cynic might point out that this is merely a puff piece (like all such arranged interviews) and nothing said is in the least binding. Malcy's hardly Andrew Marr, is he?

"There was a forced pause in Saltfleetby because of the debt facility delays"
If they'd done their costings properly to start with, they wouldn't have suddenly realised they desperately needed an extra £12m. Against any scale, that's a pretty large failure to notice.

"By advancing Lidsey, Brockham and their geo-thermal project, they are showing they have not been wasting their time."
But for the foreseeable future at least, these absolutely are a waste of time - and resources. They cannot afford to progress any of these - and they shouldn't even be able to spare the attention. Let's face it, it's not like ANGS has mountains of cash and crowds of expert staff, both sitting idle, just waiting for the next opportunity?

I think it's a little disingenuous to blame the (as far as I know) long non-existent "AAAG" for ANGS' most recent bout of lacklustre performance. It strikes me that it's the BoD and the company itself that is entirely and uniquely responsible for the current lamentable state of play.

Crocqman is (as usual) bang on the money with his appraisal below. Concentrate exclusively on the most likely cash-generative and commercially worthwhile project - and damn well bring it home. Once you've done that and got revenues rolling in, then and only then start chasing other potential prospects.

This is trebly true of ANGS, which hasn't even yet secured the financing to be able to bring in their self-alleged jewel in the crown at Saltfleetby, so God alone knows why they're now re-raising some mad desire to re-engage with Balcombe, Lidsey and Brockham. And if that wasn't enough, they want to also get involved in chasing what could with extreme charitableness only be described as a very long-term and highly expensive geothermal project in Cornwall?

Call em a cynic if you like, but to me, this is such bizarre behaviour that it only makes logical sense if the BoD knows that things really are not looking good in Lincolnshire. Either they are having real trouble getting the unexpected £12 million to finance the cost over-run. Or it's going to take even longer to deliver on than we are being told now. Or they've come across previously unrealised problems with the gas field.

This would (unfortunately) explain why there's such a sudden flurry of ANGS doing its best to point at a whole swathe of other projects - presumably in an attempt to persuade investors that there's more to the company than Saltfleetby. Except in realistic terms, there simply isn't. One would almost forecast yet another placing attempt, such is the surreal nature of the latest puff and spin emanating from the company.

Be that as it may, I firmly and quite justifiably view ANGS as a one trick pony, for all its attempts to pretend otherwise. It's Poundland Gas or bust, IMO.

Jesus... they actually have decided to jangle the rusty Brockham car keys again! Under the title "Hope Reinjected" - you couldn't make it up (I thought I had earlier today - but obviously I wasn't being as tongue in cheek as I thought).

So...

1. Saltfleetby is nowhere near delivery and the much-slipped schedule to first gas is still totally dependant on "no win, still fee" Aleph.

2. Lidsey's been magically found to be a mini-Kuwait all of a sudden, rather than an utterly uncommercial random hole in the ground that all other experts have maintained (they must have got that befuddled old geologist really well oiled before he could be persuaded to say that).

3. Balcombe (which has equally never delivered anythign of value) is with the planning committee for approval.

But fear not, investors! A new sparkly set of car keys has been dreamt up for the BoD to rattle! They're going to drill big holes in Cornwall now! Yeah, that's bound to do it! And it'll take them years before they have to show anything of value...

So, this company with zero cash and very limited staffing resources is now set to engage on four separate fronts, when it can't currently cover the costs of even getting one started. Genius.

Well, for the next investor presentation after this one, I now expect George to come up with either cold fusion or a fast breeder reactor powered by rainbows, unicorn manure and magic pixie dust. Let's face it, with this latest fable, ANGS has completely exhausted anything even faintly within the bounds of possibility.