Member Info for HeadInTheSand

So... anyone want to bet how long it'll take before George and his BoD apply for an exhumation order on the long-dead chances at Brockham and speedily release an RNS that absolutely won't say the following (but really should, if its intention was to be accurate):-

"We've run out of things with which to distract investors and base our never-ending "jam tomorrow" spiel on - so we're having to recycle previous long-defunct fairytales that have gone nowhere. On that basis, we've found some befuddled old geologist and after plying him with much port and a not inconsequential number of readies, we've managed to persuade him to look blearily again at the data on Brockham (yes, you heard us right... Brockham. And let's all forget about the inconvenient fact that it's already been thoroughly picked over and entirely dismissed by some of the most astute minds in the oil exploration business).

Well, great news! Before he fell asleep at our gentleman's club, our expert was prepared to say that actually Brockham was drilled in the wrong place and it in fact sits over a vast and easily extractable oil reservoir!

So, please forget about Saltfleetby (and Lidsey... and Balcombe... in fact, please don't even mention those or ask any difficult questions about them at all). It's all about Brockham now! Again! Another new dawn! Honest! Now just sign here..."

Okay, so tongue in cheek, maybe . But I seriously wouldn't put it past ANGS, with its undeviating track record of non-delivery...

Exploration, thanks for taking the time and sharing what's clearly an in-depth and informed historical perspective.

Me? I'd come to the exact same conclusion - but solely from a logical position that it makes no sense whatsoever for a permanently cash-strapped company that's having trouble raising the financing for its self-professed jewel in the crown at Saltfleetby to suddenly resurrect the long-dead spectre of Lidsey, when literally all its modest resources should be focussed on trying to deliver on Poundland Gas, as repeatedly promised...

...that is, unless they desperately need another shiny set of carkeys to rattle in the hope of distracting PIs away from what's going on (or not) in Lincolnshire.

I would so love to be wrong here on this - but ANGS experience strongly suggests I'm not.

Can someone please explain how this company has enough staff and cash resources to operate now on three unconnected fronts (namely SFBY, Balcombe and now oooh look, Lidsey)? Currently, they can't afford to bring even one home, without serious financing (which is still totally unsecured)..

How about George and his board concentrate all efforts on delivering just one project, as has been promised? A cynic might say that Balcombe and now "we've re-evaluated the long-known numbers" Lidsey is deliberate distraction away from whatever is happening (or I worry, not happening) at Saltfleetby.

People are sick of this, George... show us the damn money.

It'd be really encouraging nice if ANGS would focus on delivering just one project successfully. They're simply nowhere near big enough in terms of staff or cash resources to spin multiple plates.

All this very recent frantic activity to start pointing at previously busted flushes, such as Balcombe and now Lidsey, simply makes me think that all cannot be well re Saltfleetby and that the BoD already knows it badly needs to find some other shiny things to jingle in an attempt to distract shareholders.

What next? Maybe George will hold a seance so he can contact the long-dead opportunity at Brockham in an attempt to present that as something alive and worthwhile as well?

"...instead of wasting your time here deramping day after day."

...says the person who's blatantly obviously and continually looking to pick the pockets of the more naive. Seriously, you used to get a smarter set of wannabe hustlers - the current crop are painfully obvious.

There are IMV three types of posters on this board.

1. Those who have enough objectivity to see company communications such as today's Finance Update RNS exactly for what it is (substance-free can-kicking).

2. Those dewy-eyed and green around the gills who suffer from permanent confirmation bias.

3. Those purely self-interested short-term traders professing to be large long-term holders and buying more repeatedly, when all they're doing is looking to mug off category #2 above while they pocket a quick marginal gain.

Looks like the market's seen through this morning piece of substance-free puff and spin already...

Unsurprisingly, Takeyourbets has avoided mentioning the "best efforts" clause immediately preceding merely the 66-75% of what ANGS direly needs... and which makes the whole finance update RNS utterly meaningless.

Really? Not one single firm commitment announced. Can kicked down the road yet again. No change there, then.

I quoted from Hamlet before re ANGS, GL and this waste of ink RNS.

I'd have been better maybe quoting from Jerry Maguire... stop wasting everyone's time with nonsense, George - and show us the money.

Well, let's read the RNS, shall we?

"...the Company has received a "best efforts" expression of commitment in the form of a conditional Mandate Letter, for between £8 and £9 million toward the proposed £12 million..."

First, as anyone who's ever dealt with contracts before will know, "best efforts" is an utterly meaningless phrase, showing precisely zero legal commitment. Second, even this lack of commitment is £3 to £4 million short of what's needed - ANGS will clearly need a substantial top-up, even if this £8 to £9 million does appear.

Oh, wait...

"The Company has also been informed of indications and soft commitments for the same Loan Facility of approximately £11 million from an identified group of investors led by Aleph Energy" Oooo, another £11 million! We're saved! (Providing we entirely forget the fact that this amount is an "indication and soft commitment", i.e. just more meaningless puff at the moment).

The Mandate includes a 45-day exclusivity period for this joint financing effort until 5 April". So, 66-75% of what's direly needed not only hasn't been at all secured... it's been can-kicked down the road for a further 5 weeks.

This whole RNS is pure substance-free spin and at best a stalling tactic. Or to put it rather better, following this RNS ANGS still remains "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

I wonder if I'm the only person that suspects it might be better if Balcombe did get refused?

As we all well know, it's not like ANGS has either the funds or the staff resources to be capable of engaging with two completely separate and very different projects simultaneously. Plus the Weald oil fairy tale is by now viewed as debunked by pretty much everybody with an objective view.

Most importantly of all, given how vital SFBY is to the company's continued existence, the BoD's focus surely must be totally and exclusively on bringing that home - with absolutely zero other distraction. And I don't want them to have any excuses they can trot out or access to any more jam tomorrow myths and misdirections to spin to PIs.

So get with the only possible program, George... as we all have long known, for ANGS, it's Poundland Gas or bust.

"Hopefully not long now..."

Well, by my reckoning, there are now six working days left covering off Aleph's "no win, still fee" period of exclusivity. On that basis, we're without doubt due an RNS on by the latest Monday week (March 1st) announcing one of the following three things:-

1. Great news. Aleph's found us the finance, we've paid them their due diligence fees and here are the terms of that £12 million (hopefully commercially supportable ones).

or

2. Unfortunately, Aleph couldn't source the required finance, so we've parted company and are investigating other potential sources. We've still had to pay Aleph their due diligence fees, though.

or

3. Aleph's close to securing finances, but longer is needed. As allowed for by our arrangement with Aleph, their period of exclusivity has therefore been extended by mutual consent to to the nth of whenever.

I can't see how it can possibly be anything other than one of the above. I'm hoping for #1, but suspect it'll be #3 - which in my book would actually be easily arguable as being the worst of all possible options.

Could be, Yanis and Crocq. There's still time left. However, with only 12 days of original exclusivity period still to go, so just as likely in a couple of weeks that we'll hear of a mutually agreed extension period, as is allowed for in Aleph's "no win, still fee" arrangement.

I do hope not, but I'd certainly not bet against it.

...and Aleph's non-binding arrangement is a "no win... still fee" deal. I have a feeling that a mutually agreed extension on Aleph's 90 day exclusivity will be announced very late this month - but let's hope not, eh? Obviously an announcement of secured financing at commercially supportable rates would be best by far - but frankly, if this doesn't transpire, I'd rather have closure on all things Aleph, rather than kicking another can down the road. At least things would be less murky...

Seems to be more balanced/realistic opinions than has been typical on this BB recently.

From my perspective, this remains "sit on one's hands" time (and has been that way for a long while, to be fair, despite much trumpeted subsequently false dawn and subsequently missed self-imposed timelines coming out of Chiswick). No real point selling at the moment on the off-chance that ANGS pulls this one out of the fire - but IMV certainly no point investing another hard-earned dollar at the moment. I'm not even seeing signs of this one being good for a short-term trade with a quick marginal gain.

Wait and see time (still and yet again) IMO...

Although the Nov 30 announced "no win, still fee" 90 day exclusive deal with Aleph (who they?) raised numerous eyebrows, and although there looks to have been a number of schedule slippages since that point (why did ANGS do that small placement unless to acquire a limited amount of much-needed working capital to buy more time?), to be completely fair, we should give Jason "I'll incorporate a new one man band micro company every month" Joannou and his colleagues until Feb 28th to see if they come up with any goods.

Someone else - Gallifreyan, I think - just said that this is getting frustrating. No s**t Sherlock - but for the sake of just over two weeks, in my view there's no point bailing out right now. I personally don't have the slightest desire to add, though.

Maybe so... and I am sure every genuine LTH here sincerely hopes you're correct.

Having said that, ANGS "getting so far" with Saltfleetby hasn't proved to be much of a mark of anything. Let's face it, they'd got a fairly long way down the road before they suddenly realised they were £12 million short.

This is known as a PR puff statement - what else would you expect him to say?

I and most by now understandably wary others await news confirming that Aleph Commodities with its "no win, still fee" has managed to come up with the crucially needed financing and if they do, what terms such financing is under. Pretty much everything else is irrelevant at this stage.

But since you're clearly struck by Jason Joannou, it's possibly worth being aware of Ishtar Ventures Ltd (coming up to 5 months old), Aleph Energy Ltd (coming up to 3 months old) and AC Mena Ltd (coming up to 2 months old). Our Jason's obviously kept himself busy during lockdown incorporating a collection of one man band micro start-ups - for whatever reasons.

Given that there is still a marked lack of certainty over the very necessary finance being sourced, one would think it reasonable to assume that the ANGS SP would rise, once cast-iron news on this is released.

A few caveats though...

1. Has any impending announcement of financing being secured already been priced in (either due to a leak, honest expectation or wishful thinking?)

2. What are the terms of any concluded finance arrangement?

Me? I'll wait for news that can (one would hope) be relied upon and only once it's out and the detail is (one would hope) visible, then evaluate likely positive and negative impacts (because there will of course be both - TANSTAAFL always applies to any finance deal, of course).

Why do people feel the need to announce their personal filter lists? It's bizarre and all a bit kindergarten to me. "You're no longer in my gang! You're dead to me and I'm going to make sure everyone know it - that'll teach you! And my Dad's bigger than yours anyways!" Seriously?

Anyhow specifically on pointing out any parallels between ANGS and UKOG, I really don't think that's in any way whatsoever the sort of comparison one would want to draw, if one is looking to be at all supportative of GL and his BoD.