Member Info for HeadInTheSand

The shiny "new" BoD don't seem to be covering themselves with much glory, do they? Just more goalpost moving and can kicking, from what I can see.

Sadly as Roger Daltrey and the boys said, it seems to be a clear case of "Meet the new boss... same as the old boss". Let's hope that the associated claim "We won't get fooled again" holds true...

AIMO

The market's loving that...

I would simply ask at what point do any scenarios (whether worst case, best case or mid case) get real-world truth-tested? By my reckoning some time well down the road in 2021 - and that's fine. Everyone's aware of that schedule (providing it doesn't slip).

ANGS' current SP? Well, the only key point of note there is that is clearly what the market *does* value ANGS at. As to why? I'd say it all revolves around whatever value the market is on average prepared to ascribe to ANGS' as yet unproven assets, together with a plus or minus factor assigned to the market's views on average of the credibility of the BoD.

That's nothing at all out of the ordinary in terms of valuing any company at a pre-revenue stage, surely.

4p by Xmas, maddog? On what possible basis? All the company's eggs are in the Poundland gas field basket and the potential of that (either as company saving or last nail in the coffin) won't be proven either way until well into 2021.

And please, spare me any fanfare over any return to Balcombe. If ANGS commits any resources or cash on the revisit (neither of which it's got any spare doing nothing), then that's simply throwing good money after bad. It's becoming ever more widely accepted that the Weald oil story is a damp squib - which is exactly why Poundland Gas (and Ankara oil, in the case of the Weald's other historical/hysterical ramping CEO) were so crucial for both companies. You can't spin a fairytale round a horse if everybody's already noticed that it's missing all four legs. Nope, you need a new horse.

The ID honestc now no longer shows up on an LSE member search. Which suggests that he either deleted his own account or had it forcibly deleted for him.

Either way I am not in the least surprised - despite his fervid assertions of being a "genuine investor in it for the long haul", what he actually was all about was glaringly obvious.

However, the good news of course is that the average IQ of those posting here has risen as a result. Until another new ID is created, at least.

gkb, I think the point is that very few people - including the market - think that Balcombe is worth anywhere near what ANGS has already spent on it (in terms of both Capex and Opex). So in that bitterly pragmatic sense, where we are today, it could be seen as a "free hit" - as JD pointed out, it's effectively valued at zero in SP terms.

To me the issue of spending any more cash, time or resources on Balcombe is now solely about throwing good money after bad. ANGS is hardly awash with any of those.

JD, I'm largely of like mind. With the one big caveat that I'm not sure that Balcombe is exactly a "free hit".

You're of course right, it absolutely is in terms of share price (as the lack of sustained positive SP movement re the planning application unsurprisingly demonstrates). But I can't help thinking that at best it'll prove to be a distraction (and at worst, both resource and cash-consumptive) at a time when ANGS needs to be very tightly focussed on seeing if it can bring Saltfleetby in next year.

I mean, it's not like ANGS has got bucketloads of cash and resources doing nothing, right?

Encouraging to see a general consensus of opinion - honestc aside of course - that it's pretty much all about Saltfleetby.

honestc, you have literally no idea what you're talking about, including with regard to my own investment strategy on ANGS However I completely acknowledge your right to keep on making a complete fool of yourself every time you open your mouth and start squeaking.

Oktane, like me, you clearly understand that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, what is it most likely to be? Certainly not a "genuine investor in it for the long haul"...

honestc, still with the immaturity, I see. Each to his or her own, I suppose.

To feel threatened (as you bizarrely put it) I'd have to perceive a "threat". None that I can see from here, I'm afraid.

Earlier you amusingly - but no doubt accidentally - posted that "you're an idiot. you are too wrapped up in your own self importance to accept anyone else's view or opinion."

You're quite correct in one respect. I am not prepared to blindly "accept" the view and opinions of anyone else, just because they've stated them, especially when the source is so obviously agenda-led. I am more than mildly surprised that you would even suggest that this is in any way a good idea? There's that pesky "critical thinking" thing I mentioned previously...

That's precisely why - entirely unlike you - I don't consider Georgie's Aug 13th RNSed assertion that Balcome is a "valuable asset" to be proof of anything at all and wonder why you'd wave it around so vigorously like it means something - especially when there's growing evidence to the contrary.

Interesting defence, honestc. The usual round of childish playground insults in place of anything substantive. I am entirely unsurprised.

I further note that despite your flatly denying my assertion that your only evidence for Balcombe being a valuable asset is "because Georgie said so", you don't even so much as refer to anything else.

These "genuine investors in it for the long-term" are really rather inept... and rather transparent.

honestc, let me suspend disbelief for a second and presume - despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary - that you are in fact a genuine investor in for the long haul.

Earlier you very proudly managed to copy n paste from the Balcombe RNS of Aug 13th and presented this as proof that Balcombe was after all a valuable asset. Well done! Except...

...the sum total of your argument seems to be... "Because Georgie said so."

In response to that staggeringly gifted piece of analysis and reasoning, I'd simply say three things:-

I tend to find it useful to apply critical thinking, rather than gormlessly swallowing what I am told - especially by those with agendas (such as BoDs) - as the gospel truth.

I believe that recent actions on the part of both ANGS and UKOG in terms of rapid diversification elsewhere form part of mounting evidence that there's a quiet realisation that the wheels have largely fallen off the Weald oil bandwagon. I reckon Lucan and Sanderson came to the same realisation at pretty much the same time -- hence their separate urgent needs to get involved in new ventures to spin.

If you honestly think that you can believe anything that's said by a company - even in an RNS - you really haven't been around AIM long. It'd take anyone mere minutes to find shedloads of RNSes where the information released stretches facts to way past their breaking point, regardless of Nomad sign-off. Okay admittedly under the previous regime, but ANGS' own history evidences this blatantly obviously, with the utter fairytales spun about Brockham.

All of which is why my view remains that it's now solely about Poundland Gas for ANGS... and nothing of significance will become apparent about the real-world potential of that until well into 2021.

gkb...

"No the time to do that would have been just after Brockham, citing read across and complete change of strategic direction, I've called that out that several times now."

I completely agree that would have been the perfect time to do it... and I bet they wish they had. By now, literally any time or money spent by ANGS on anything in the Weald very definitely seems to me to be no more than the company going through the motions - solely because if it didn't (after its previous statements - including ones made under the new regime) it would have a number of very tricky and pointed questions asked of it about exactly what it knew and exactly when it knew it.

Ocelot...

The reason I distinguished between Poundland Gas and the accumulated tax losses is merely because, if the former turns out to be another busted flush, at least the latter would have some potential value to any organisation in a similar game, because of transferability.

I'd love to hear a reason why this is being touted by the usual suspects as "great progress"? (Apart from the obvious boiler room shenanigans, of course).

I'm unsure why ANGS bothered with Balcombe - unless they felt they had to, given previous over-optimistic company issued statements. There seems to be a slowly growing but as yet not categorically spoken view among companies, investors and experts alike that the Weald oil story in general really isn't all that it was initially and vigorously cracked up to be. (Which is why the rapid diversification we've seen from ANGS and UKOG was IMV so necessary).

Now okay, if ANGS isn't investing any significant time or cash in its return to Balcombe pitch, then it doesn't matter one bit. However, I'd say that its entire attention and resources really need to be focussed solely on nothing but Saltfleetby.

To me that's the sole significant potential asset that the company has (apart of course from Ocelot's much-loved offsettable tax losses). And the potential (or not) of that remaining asset won't start to become visible until 2021.

Not that this makes ANGS uninvestable at all. But IMV it's now solely and exclusively investable in on the basis of whatever potential value one sees in Poundland gas. The way I see it, anything else is just white noise, distraction, diversion and misdirection, whether well-meaning and unintentional or deliberate.

Well, the "honest" part of honestc is clearly ironic (as is of course be expected from such a "committed and genuine" investor... who first appeared here with his voluminous one track uber-positive squeakings less than three weeks ago).

I'm pretty sure I know what the "c" stands for too...

TakeYourBets... you say "Headinthesand you were attacking us encouraging pi’s to sell at 0.7p..." Really? Where is my sell recommendation? Please provide.

I've never encouraged anybody to sell or buy at any price. Keep up the ramping and keep claiming that you're a genuine investor as much as you like... but how about you lay off other blatant falsehoods?

Blimey! Common sense breaks out on the ANGS board. That won't last...

Agreed that Brockham and Lidsey are the proverbial dead parrots and not even worth paying half a second of attention to.

Also agreed that the previously much-trumpeted Brockham and Lidsey high risk long shots were under the auspices of Vonk and the previous management...

...AND JTP, who's still there, like the Dominic Cummings to Georgie's Boris. The continuing presence and involvement of JTP - who let's face it has never answered regarding his bizarre share dealings - does precisely nothing for ANGS credibility. I agree 100% with BUTD on this (for the first time ever, as it happens).

I'm now deeply cynical about the "commercializability" of Weald oil in general - as I'm sure both GL and SS at UKOG also are, hence both companies' rapid ventures into pastures new. However, if revisiting Balcombe does not soak up many company cash and staff resources or draw attention away from the only important possible asset (Poundland Gas), maybe that's an okay punt to take... I wouldn't do it though, because IMO it'd be throwing good money after bad. I'd still bet it'll turn out to be non-commercial though.

Nope, it's all solely about Saltfleetby. And on that basis, there'll be nothing conclusive for months.

AIMO DYOR yadda yadda.

Heh Will... looks like you did quite well out of this one. Hats off to you, sir... a nicely timed in and out. What price did you manage to exit at?

Aren't they just? The Thought Police are out in force, with their twin-pronged agenda of getting anything less than swivel-eyed ramptastic opinion deleted and of course removing any trace of whenever the yawning flaws in their more ridiculous comments are highlighted.

I always thought that STTD stood for "Short Term Traders' Deceitfulness"? It'd be a whole heap more appropriate, after all...