Member Info for HeadInTheSand

You don't have a monopoly on research, Ocelot.

I also focussed on researching Aleph (in fact, NB both Alephs - "Commodities" and "Energy") as soon as they were first mentioned.

This also led me to research Ishtar Ventures Ltd and Kemet Resources Ltd. Further to the above, I was also inspired to take a brief look at Maplewood Trading Ltd as part of this research.

Suffice it to say that the jury is VERY much (I do know how you love your capitalisation) still out for me.

Gallifreyan, I see no value or usefulness whatsoever in copy n pasting company RNSes.

Firstly, these are freely available elsewhere to anybody wishing to do the barest minimum of research. Secondly they don't flag the downside risk (especially when selectively pasted from) and moreover, all the CAPITALISATION in the world from those set on copy n pasting snippets won't change the level of reliability of the information contained therein in the slightest degree..

I'm beyond sure you know this already.

Takeyourbets,

"Fact is SFB will generate huge profits once operations get underway as we are producing."

You clearly do not understand the meaning of the word "fact". The correct word there is "supposition".

Ocelot, I really don't think that slavish copy n pasting from spin-filled ANGS issued RNSes demonstrates anything of any worth at all.

That is, apart from your long-standing and fervent devotion to convincing anyone who might thoughtlessly take note of your all too regular copy n paste fests that hey, there's jam tomorrow. This time for real.

Which unsurprisingly enough has long been the exact same marketing messaging emanating from the ANGS BoD, no matter which individuals that has consisted of.

Don't give up the day job... trust me, open mike night at the Comedy Club seriously does not beckon.

Gallifreyan, should I take it as read that you're a long-term holder who's for whatever reason posting under a new and very recent BB ID?

As for "Baseless positivity? Most of what we discuss is based on the RNSs."...

Surely you must realise that as far as AIM is concerned, any information contained within an RNS is at the very best liable to be misleading by omission (i.e. what it doesn't say)? In fact, looking at AIM in genera and the conduct of Nomads (those supposed guardinas of PIs' interests), in my experience they'll sign off on any info released by a company via RNS, without bothering checking on its realism or veracity in the slightest, unless there's no other option. AIM RNSes are for the most part about as reliable as those swathes of utterly spun interviews with CEOs that one sees.

Hence the importance (as I'm sure you'd agree) of doing one's own research entirely independently of the sunshine-filled puff issued by most AIM companies by RNS.

Is that a guarantee, Ocelot? Because currently, any relevant similarities outnumber the differences significantly.

As for the AAAG, this is much trotted out by the oh so sincere self-alleged long-term holders (who in the majority are all blindingly obviously short-term traders, as per usual) in an attempt to call into question the credibility of any less than stellarly positive poster on ANGS. Why? Because of course they only want to propagate an endless torrent of baseless positivity to aid them in mugging off more naive PIs as they short-term trade.

Was there an Action Group? I'm aware that one was promoted a year ago, but it was never going to be taken seriously. There are numerous companies that have flouted AIM regulation even more drastically than ANGS has been perceived by some to have done and nobody has ever managed to take any of those to task, legally speaking.

On that basis, I strongly doubt that anyone posting here, whether positively or negatively, ever took the ANGS version of an action group in the least little bit seriously. It was never worth more than a millisecond's notice.

To be brutally fair, it became increasingly clear from the start of this year that any company relying on the appearance of oil from the Weald in anywhere near commercially viable quantities was merely flogging a long-dead horse. Hence the desperate rush for ventures new in pastures from more than a few Weald oilers. So I don't hold it against ANGS at all that it dived so rapidly into Poundland Gas - because it desperately needed something.

Having said that, I do have concerns of varying levels on Poundland. The "too good to be true" nature of the original Saltfleetby deal. The fairly dramatically under-estimated miscalculation of funding needed. The very one-sided announced terms with Aleph for the sourcing of such increased funding and the ongoing lack of any commitment, coupled with the exclusivity that the latter has negotiated for itself. We'll just have to see what transpires.

Separately, I have other niggling issues re ANGS. Its recent and decidedly odd deal with Doriemus. The continuing attention it seems determined to pay to Weald oil (Why? surely everyone realises by now that this is at best a much unwanted distraction?) And the continuing involvement of JTP within the company.

The fact remains that for ANGS it is just and only about the successful monetisation of Saltfleetby. I guess we all have no choice but to wait until there's some clarity on whether that is likely or not.

@Takeyourbets... " Fyi I’ve used much of profits to buy my current house in Weybridge". Well, if we're talking about making profits from ANGS, you've either been shorting/spread betting it oryou're just another run of the mill short-term trader, doing his utmost to mug off more naive PIs with your oh so supportative comments here as you busily sell into any minispike.

Either way, any house bought on proceeds delivered by ANGS is far FAR more likely to lie in Hersham than on St. Georges Hill, methinks.

Crocqman, this agreeing thing is becoming a habit.

"It may be a small point, and it may go though without problem, or any significant change to the terms, but the SP did not react to this 'holding' news and is reflecting the current situation re: financing until such time as this arrangement is confirmed."

Absolutely correct on all fronts. Funding is not (yet) in place. There's merely a non-binding MOU in place between Aleph and ANGS and we won't know any outcome for up to 90 days.

What strikes me as odd are the following:-

Aleph has an exclusive 90 day effective "first refusal" - entirely at its discretion. For ANGS to cede to those terms and put all its eggs in one unconfirmed basket very strongly suggests that Aleph is the only game in town, for ANGS when it comes to providing funding.

That opinion is backed up by ANGS also agreeing to cover all of Aleph's "reasonable" due diligence costs, as the latter presmumably pores over the books and reports. One does wonder what's being going on with prospective lenders over the last several months? To me it sounds like the dataroom has been pretty much entirely vacant.

That opinion is even further backed up by the announcement of the stringent terms of the funding, should it come to pass.

In my view, it's now Aleph or nothing for ANGS - there's a very visible desperation for funds which has been clear to one and all for several months. That hardly makes for a strong negotiating position to start from, which pretty much explains all the "Forthe love of God, pass the Vaseline" terms agreed to above.

Ironically, that decision has probably done UKOG a favour, because it's becoming more and more accepted that Weald oil is and always has been a fairy tale. At least UKOG can now focus exclusively on trying to get its Turkey pipedream to some sort of monetised fruition.

Mind you, where UKOG has lost out today is by no longer being able to distract digruntled PIs with suitably vague promises of onshore UK gushers being just around the corner...

I trust the ANGS BoD is taking note.

Croc, agreed (again) that Poundland Gas is literally the only reason to hang around.

I'm more cynical than you re the other "assets". I suspect that they are being used as distractions by the ANGS BoD (because IMV nobody in their right mind would expend one minute or one penny more on pursuing them).

I also suspect that the ANGS BoD needs to be seen to go though the motions on anything at all to do with UK onshore oil in an attempt to give the look of justification to certain recent decidedly bizarre-looking transactions involving purchasing increased interests from third parties.

I sincerely hope that the Balcombe application gets refused today (as I am fairly sure it will be).

ANGS and its BoD seriously don't need any more distraction with the busted flush that is the Weald oil fairy tale - and cynics would say that they also need the opportunity to equally distract PIs with this finally removed.

To me, ANGS is now very obviously a one trick pony. Literally all the company's efforts and focus needs to be on Poundland gas and nothing else. I am staggered (and more than a little suspicious) that they're still spending time and money chasing the obvious rainbows that are Balcombe and Brockham (yes, that's Brockham FFS).

...but what there is an absolute burning need for (as we all know) is to raise £12m.

The sooner news of that finance finally being raised (and at commercially sustainable rates and/or via a PI non-damaging vehicle) gets cast in stone confirmation, the sooner speculation about any possible imminent placings will die back.

Over to you, Georgie...

Gallifreyan, by "peaceful", you presumably mean "censored of all opinions that run counter to the sacred writings of the ramptastic squad".

Interesting use of the word...

They've been auto-deleted by LSE's ridiculously simplistic system that allows just a few people wishing to entirely control the narrative to get posts and whole threads removed by hammering the "report post" link. Talk about pernicious...

I've never thought that resorting to censorship of counter opinions ever strengthened anyone's argument. Quite the reverse in fact.

Anyone else finding the still continuing assurances of "Tomorrow, Rodney, we'll all be millionaires" to be a stuck record that's long LONG past its sell-by date?

Crocqman, I don't think it was a case of any extra gambling at all, actually. As stated, I am convinced that ANGS and other UK oilers have internally had a bleak opinion on Weald oil prospects for months.

I suspect the reason for ANGS deciding to do this very counter-intuitive deal out of the blue was down to a combination of factors:-

1. Possibly a favour to industry colleagues they've been closely associated with in the past, as Mirasol has surmised. Who knows what mutual back-scratching and favour swapping actually goes on behind closed doors?

2. Possibly to clear a debt that was going to have to be declared as bad on the ANGS books, as Rastuss has postulated.

3. (and my most likely) Because the deal as done represented an immediate cash injection to ANGS of £260k. I'm sure they've been running on fumes for a fair while, especially with a view to upcoming required outlays (hence Riverfort's final loan payment of a mere £58k being made in paper, not cash) Thus I believe that ANGS absolutely was desperate enough to grab at the chance of a short-term cash windfall, even if in exchange for a much larger long-term liability.

AIMO, needless to say.

Baits, pretty much everyone apart from the die-hard believers (and of course the usual wideboys looking to pick their pockets) now sees that the wheels have entirely fallen off the whole Weald oil story. The main players seemed to have known this a fair few months back (not that they told anyone of course) - but IMV it was no coincidence that pretty much simultaneously ALBA suddenly started chasing gold, UKOG rushed off to Turkey and ANGS seized upon Poundland Gas.

I'll agree that Saltfleetby represents a better chance of revenues for ANGS than any hole in the Weald ever did, so that is of course a good thing. However, it just cannot yet be claimed that Poundland Gas represents "production and money coming in". Yes, the potential is there, but it's not actuality at all at the moment and the jury is still very much out. First on a) whether ANGS can get the substantially increased funding required to even get to gas production at manageable financing rates and second even if so, b) can Saltfleetby generate commercially sustainable revenues?

News on a) above shouldn't be too far away (one way or the other), but b) above won't be known (again one way or the other) for a good number of months yet.

Well, long-suffering PIs could do with a change in management.

I see the post censors have been out again in force - getting Mirasol's rather nice piece of irony re lenders and (lack of) collateral deleted, plus most of the thread about why yesterday's RNS re Riverfort being paid back in paper, rather than cash as per on all other occasions is bizarre (to say the least) to see as a positive sign.