Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Heh. Beautifully put, Mirasol - and sadly matching my own p*ssed off opinions pretty much exactly.

Ocelot, in case you look to misinterpret Mirasol's very apt post, just remember that the word "irony" does not mean "a bit like iron".

Obviously. It's hanging onto cash when there's an expectation that it'll very shortly be needed to cover other outgoings or liabilities that cannot be satisfied with paper.

The point you're ignoring is the very small scale of such "cash management". Hanging onto a paltry amount of just £58k is clearly significant enough, given ANGS's cashflow position, to engender a change in policy. That tiny scale of things clearly evidences ANGS's notable shortage of liquid cash.

You're being deliberately disingenuous here, Ocelot.

As you and everyone else are now aware, in stark contrast to all other Riverfort repayments, the ANGS BoD did not pay the final instalment of £58k in cash, instead allowing Riverfort to get its hands on 9 million extra shares in lieu.

One obviously has to wonder as to the reasons behind this marked change in policy - and the most logical one by far would be that ANGS is extremely keen to hang onto whatever cash reserves it has left. It was unwilling to part with just £58k of cash to complete clearing of the loan - and I think it's very obvious why.

Ocelot, you write "How do you know they have not received expressions of interest for considerably more than the sum they are looking to borrow?"

I don't know that. I also don't know that Brockham's suddenly going to start spouting liquid 24 carat gold. I just don't consider either possibility very likely.

You then write "After all, £12m was too small for the international bank so they have now turned their attention to a number of other institutions, offices, etc."

We only have the BoD's word for that being the reason why the international bank wouldn't lend. You seem oddly happy to take that at face value - but IMO that does not ring true in the least. Any "experienced financier" would be aware of any minimum lending criteria well in advance, so would have known it was utterly pointless to have the discxussions in the first place.

And I think you're blithely ignoring - whether knowingly or naively - the clear signs of desperation shown a) by the fact that a finance deal has yet to be announced and b) today's 8 days late RNS stating that Riverfort exercised their rights to get paper, because they weren't given cash. That in my very firm opinion is blood in the water.

"Positive RNS"? You're having a laugh.

Remove the substance-free puff about Poundland Gas and all you are left with is the cold hard fact that the ANGS BOD thought it more prudent to give Riverfort paper, rather than pay back the final £58k.

If they're that worried about just £58k's worth of cash going out of the business, then they really must be running on fumes.

If (and it's a big if) they do manage to get the £12m of financing arranged, I wince to think what the terms will be. Lenders can smell desperation from a mile off and they'll price terms accordingly.

Does anyone still believe there is any mileage left in the Weald oil fairytale, in the face of hard audited facts?

The sooner the Anguish BoD avoid distracting themselves (and everyone else) with the Brockhams and Balcombes of this world to focus entirely and exclusively on seeing if they can get Poundland Gas to be commercial, the better.

Mind you, the fact that the wheels have by now entirely fallen off the Weald Oil bus is so incredibly obvious that one has to ask if the ANGS BoD is deliberately using Brockham (yes, Brockham of all places) as a distraction, because they know that all is not well at Saltfleetby?

This does feel more and more like it's circling the drain.

Securing the unexpectedly vastly increased funding (at a commercially bearable rate) to give them a chance to see if Poundland Gas can be made to deliver is the only hope that's left for Anguish, IMO.

Nothing else matters (as I expect the BoD well know, though will never say as they desperately point at distracting irrelevances such as Brockham) - it's hope Poundland can be got producing to commercial levels or bust. It really is last chance saloon.

Ocelot as you well know, that is not a small "all".

As you also well know, what critically needs to happen first is for ANGS to secure the requisite and vastly underestimated financing (and on commercially supportable terms) to give it any chance of getting anything at all out of Saltfleetby.

All too often does this company and its "genuine" BB supporters continually and frantically point towards rainbows in the middle distance, while simultaneously trying oh so hard to distract attention away from the very substantial short-term obstacles standing in the way of progress to that possible better future. And that's deliberately disingenuous.

Skyfarmer: "As I said previously members on here will make up their minds as to what’s really going on here?"

Maybe. They also will make up their minds as to who you are... this time. Until admin spot the IP address, that is.

Looking at the resolutions for the (honest it's not extraordinary) general meeting, I'd say the only Plan B knocking around would be to create those 715 million new shares, then try to place the 50% of those that they are allowed to in order to raise funds.

Mind you, I'd hate to think the discount that would be needed to shift that lot... even via several tranches.

Or there may be a Wonga out there prepared to take a helluva gamble at a suitably usurious rate?

Or then again, JTP himself has form doing interesting and unexpected things with ANGS shares... maybe he could get hold of his erstwhile buddies at America2000 and cook something dramatic up?

I know it is, Rastuss. I was amused at the sheer chutzpah of Georgie quite deliberately leaving the E word out. You're quite right of course - there are quite enough obvious emergencies surrounding ANGS at the moment, without everyone's favourite peer of the realm adding to that in print.

PS does "stale bulls" in Lucan-speak translate into "genuine investors who put their hard-earned into ANGS in good faith but who the company have over time continually and severely mugged off?" Perhaps that's one for the Investor Questions?

Well Rastuss, the way I read the (it's not an E) GM (honestly) resolutions put forward for approval, if approved, ANGS could issue a further 357 million shares or so for placing/raising cash (50% of the amount that could be allotted).

However, it's already known that the BoD has a more than keen need for cash - I mean why else agree to "buy" the Aussies out of Holmwood? Because IMO that "purchase" got ANGS some much-needed short-term cash in exchange for assuming an IMO far more substantial future liability. Hang on, doesn't that deal sound more than a bit like Poundland Gas? Anyhow...

The point is that the market in general knows that ANGS needs to raise funds - so what amount do you reckon those 360 odd million shares would raise if a placement was attempted? Not very much at all, even if the offer was fully subscribed (which I doubt it would be). It'd be a clear fire sale.

Hence the absolutely crucial importance to ANGS of getting those equity loans over the line - getting Resolution 1 approved is key to that. But either way, there looks like there's dilution a-headin' down the track.

AIMO DYOR yadda yadda etc etc.

Agreed Rastuss. On the basis of Occam's razor - i.e. the most obvious explanation is most likely to be the correct one - one would have to assume that this latest and non-AGM related seeking of for authority to create double the number of shares currently in issue simply must be connected with getting the new loans over the line.

Nothing else would make sense.

Precisely Croc... as as you say, seeking such authorities at AGMs is both standard and prudent practice.

However and as I said in my recent post attempting to clarify the meaning of the resolutions seeking approval, looking for an authority to allot *double* the number of shares currently in issue is mildly surprising and unusual, to say the least.

Ocelot "Are you a shareholder, HeadinTheSand"

--------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. Now that I've done you the courtesy of answering your question, perhaps you'll do the same.

How much of a retainer are you on, Ocelot?

Indeed I do know that GKB. I'm also aware that erstwhile directors have a strange habit of retaining very close links with the companies they're allegedly either no longer or much more minorly involved with.

Did anyone say JTP?

Disagree. In any dealings between the likes of Doughball Dave, that seasoned and wily Aussie wideboy (in more than one sense) on one hand, and Gormless George, our fine, upstanding and dewy-eyed peer of the realm on the other, who dya reckon would come out substantially ahead?

Which of the two do you think would now be heading rapidly for the hills while laughing his head off? And which would be better off making sure they very carefully count their fingers, having shaken on a deal that just seemed too good to be true?

I know who my money would be on...

Why is anyone surprised at this?

(Well, unless you're taking an anguished look back at uber-positive but ultimately utterly misguided trumpetings from the company in the past about the potentials of Holmwood. The fact that they and others managed to cheerfully raise funds from PIs on the back of the next busted flush that is Holmwood is quite a jagged little thing to now have to swallow. However...)

This is just another nail in the coffin of the Weald oil story (and I for one am surprised that there's any more room for nails). The wheels very obviously fell off this overall sorry saga when Stout Steve at UKOG and Georgie L here both very rapidly diversified away earlier this year... one to Turkey and the other to Poundland Gas. IMO, there is no simply fund-raising mileage left in the Weald oil fairy tale - so operators very desperately needed pastures new.

This of course applies equally to Balcombe and Brockham (though why the last is even being mentioned again, God only knows. It's an already confirmed money pit).

For ANGS, as even several of the more level-headed faithful*** have said, for months it's all and it's only been about Saltfleetby. Now it's a question of a) whether they can afford to do it and b) whether Wingas were after all cretinous to offload it at the price it did.

*** And when considering bulletin board comments, any from either blinkered zealots, company shills or "genuine LTH" short-term traders can and should be blithely ignored.

Why sell? I'd have thought it was obvious...

Because COPL is currently a short-term trader's dream stock. The share price moves up and down faster than a lady of negotiable affection's lingerie. On that basis, it's not difficult to make a fast marginal 5% gain, then rinse and repeat ad infinitum.