Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Crocqman states "It is solely elevated gas prices that offers any hope here."

He's quite right. At say c. 70p per therm, there was going to be nothing left worth having for retail (although with even halfway competent management, Satfleetby should have easily been a nice and profitable asset at that pricing level - but hey ho... we are where we are).

Interestingly, although to date there has been no real legitimate reason for such a ludicrous delay in the refinancing plus associated terms announcement, now there probably is, what with the chaos in the Middle East. Not that ANGS has any say in the matter, but neither side of the (non-)negotiating table should be looking to enshrine new financing terms in concrete while the core element underpinning that financing (that being of course the price of gas) is so incredibly fluid.

For those with longer memories, ANGS has form on seriously over-egging the pudding. I remember Pinocchio Lucan extrapolating how much ANGS was set to earn when gas (very briefly) rocketed well over 400p a therm at the start of the Ukraine conflict. This of course never happened because a) that blip was very short-term and much more importantly b) the ANGS management at the time were way too incompetent to get production running.

Happy days... not.

Personally, Ocebot, I associate your endless and continued rose-tinted spectacle-wearing posts on this and other O&G tiddlers for literally years and years as a sign of either desperation or a 10p per post reward mechanism.

Separately, a mildly interesting style to MoneyRaiser's latest post. Mainly AI-created, but with added puerile playground insults, just to make it his very own. It says nothing new, of course, because there isn't anything new (that we're being told about anyway).

The only noteworthy things worth watching and waiting for are:-

a) ANGS's production volumes, the direction they're heading in and the sustainability of such

b) the FY results, which may give some modicum of useful extra info specifically on debt, albeit necessarily delayed.

c) confirmed detail on the refinancing, which is taking a ludicrous - and inexplicably long - amount of time.

Again, nobody knows what ANGS has managed to pay.

All we know are some of the things they haven't managed to pay.

I don't think ANGS has stated either way whether it has kept up with interest repayments on its £20m loan from Trafigura or not. Sure, we know it failed to make capital repayments (because we were told so), but interest repayments? Nobody outside the company and Trafigura knows whether these have been missed as well.

So this is probably yet another thing lost in the non-communicative murk.

More to the point - what is taking so long? Nine months and counting to sort out a refinancing deal, where the lender holds all the cards and thus can impose any terms it wants? That's ridiculous.

My advice remains that you should stick to AI generated posts, MoneyRaiser, because at least those make you seem mildly intelligent. In direct contrast to your own typed much shorter and primary schoolesque comments.

A few things.

Extrapolating from a mere week of production volumes - and those volumes in a honeymoon period as well - is a tad disingenuous.

ANGS has already missed the deadline for Balcombe, according to the county council (not that this is any bad thing. Balcombe is/was a meaningless distraction).

Why the **** is the refinancing possibly taking this long? There's no confusion now that the (very conveniently timed) RTO is entirely off the table...

This will be the only time I agree (if only somewhat) with Onetomany (famously the world's worst Mystic Meg).

Providing that ANGS can bear whatever reaming Trafigura is going to give them with the its refinancing terms, announcing those terms and lifting share suspension on the same day (or thereabouts) that the next set of FY figures is due makes some sort of sense.

(Not that ANGS has ever been prone to making *any* decisions that make some sort of sense, but still...)

The combined might of artificial Intelligence categorically and clearly states the folowing:-

"Angus missed scheduled payments to both Forum Energy and Trafigura when they fell due.

In credit terms these are payment defaults managed through creditor forbearance rather than enforcement — defaults in substance, even if not formally declared."

Tragically and as fully expected, Onetomany desperately and frantically squeaks the following:-

"They haven't defaulted!"

(You can almost hear him stamping his little feet as he tosses his dummy out of his pushchair).

Anyhow, I don't think ChatGPT, OpenAI, Co-Pilot, Gemini and Grok have much to worry about then.

Artificial intelligence versus desperate and deliberate human ignorance... gee, who to pick?

It's a bit tragic that ChatGPT should have to be called in to explain that ANGS has defaulted, when anyone with either:-

a) a higher IQ than their shoesize, or

b) the most basic grasp of commercial reality or

c) not in being driven by a facts-avoiding cheerleading agenda

absolutely knew this to be the case (and the correct terminology) months and months ago.

Not that this will slow down the ocebot, Onetomany and their ilk continuing to squeak desperately that the emperor's new clothes are still looking absolutely wonderful, but hey.

Of course and as ChatGPT quite correctly and clearly states, the committed default(s) are indeed largely irrelevant, for as long as the lender(s) decide that applying forbearance is the best thing for them to do. But again, anyone with half a braincell has again already known that for months and months as well.

Aaaah that's better.

AI again doing its thing and injecting some much-needed maturity and a far more adult vocabulary into MoneyRaiser's posts again.

Mind you, although the artificial tone is a relief when compared to his own, I do think it'd be occasionally nice if he were capable of giving us his own opinion in his own words

MoneyRaiser, that was a rather trite playground post, no? Not of your usual type - you know, the ones you beg ChatGPT to write for you.

It is beyond obvious that a well-run company should not have to depend on the knock-on effects of any random and unpredictable geopolitical events in order to stay in business.

Mirasol correctly says "The only real guide we have is when they said trhey wre paying the trade creditors but not the finacing debts. I wonder how fast that debt is actually increasing - it must be horrific by now after 9++ months."

Re the most senior creditor (Trafigura), the current terms of its loan are:-

£20m on a 5 year fixed term (from end Feb 2024).

No capital or interest repayments required in Year One.

20 quarterly capital repayments of £1.25m required starting end Mar 2025.

Interest rate of 12% per annum (SONIA + 8%).

We know that no capital repayments were made at either Mar 25 or Jun 25, because ANGS didn't have the cash at the time.

So after Year One (the grace year) ANGS would have owed £20m of capital and £2.23m of interest, totalling £22.23m pounds.

Presuming they've so far paid nothing back, £22.23m over now four years will attract 16 quarterly repayments of £1.39m plus a total of £5.87m of interest, totalling £28m.

Geez... ANGS is hardly going to announce that "negative discussions with its creditors remain ongoing", is it?

These 'positive' discussions have been going on for coming on 9 months now, which seems an inordinately long time for something so allegedly positive.

The fact remains that, until effective radio silence is broken and we actually get informed of the terms of this refinancing, we simply cannot know what sort of revenues that ANGS needs to generate in order to pay its creditors back, what the timescale is for doing so and how much (if any) will be left over, once debt has been covered.

It's still a farce that the shares remain suspended long LONG after the almost certainly mythical RTO 'opportunity' was categorically taken off the table.

Onetomany (long proven as the world's worst Mystic Meg) squeaks in hope rather than realism: "Good that we have under 30m total debt".

To be fair, that's not the most inaccurate of his countless predictions - he's only 15% low at least. Trafigura's owed around £29 million, the ORRI partners (Aleph and Mercuria) about £3 million and counting, and Paul Forrest about £2 million.

I'm sure I've forgotten another substantial creditor (WG818? Your forensic accountancy is better than mine), but the above figures are as rosy as it's going to get.

Onetomany (the world's worst Mystic Meg), the current debt numbers I quoted are matters of public record. In fact, I think I've missed out on a few million - easily done because financial management has been cack-handed at ANGS for years and years now. No doubt WG818 will be able to advise.

Now I know you're desperate to promote an alternate reality, Onetomany - but frantically squeaking that the numbers are incorrect just because reality doesn't mesh with your pompom waving does not change the nature of reality one tiny bit.

But okay, I'll play along... presuming Trafigura does agree to the refinancing (and I believe they will, though the terms are not going to be pleasant), how many tens of millions of pounds do you reckon will now need to be refinanced?

As before, we still don't have the information needed.

In terms of senior creditors, ANGS owes Trafigura around £29 million (capital plus annual interest @ 12%). It owes PF around £2 million for the original SFBY purchase. It owes Mercuria and Aleph around £3 million on the eternal 8% ORRI that it's also never paid to date.

I honestly forget if there are any other large sums owed - I may well have forgotten remaining amounts to settle previous hedge contracts - but let's go with the £34 million above as a starting point.

So... for the last 8+ months, it's been "renegotiating" with Trafigura. We still don't know the terms that Trafigura will impose (and ANGS will have no choice but to accept... or go pop, as per the going concern language in all recent RNSes). Once those are known and there's clearer sight on ANGS's regular opex expenditure and also any future short- to mid-term capex needs, then we'll see what level of post capex/opex monthly revenue ANGS will be required to generate in order to meet the terms of any new refinancing, how possible that is, and what if anything will be left over.

Without knowing that stuff, any speculation is pointless.

The first two repayments of capital loaned were missed, the reason for the first of those being that ANGS didn't have enough cash at the time (end Mar 25), to meet it. Why they also missed the second (due end Jun 25) has not been confirmed.

...are those that we've still not been told.

What is ANGS's current level of indebtedness? (Depending on whether or not they've managed to pay any creditor anything back during the oh so convenient suspension period, the clever money says somewhere between £35 and £40 million).

and

What post-opex profit does ANGS need to produce in order to meet the terms of whatever the new financing deal will impose?

I remain majorly surprised that these refinancing negotiations have so far taken over 8 months (and counting). And staggered that the share suspension should still be allowed, given that the almost certainly mythical RTO was confirmed over two months ago as being entirely off the table.

(Not that it was ever on it... but still...).

Sufc, you can hardly be surprised at Onetomany's totally evidence-free claims?

All he ever does is continually squeak that good times are just around the next corner - and to date, he's never got a single prediction right. He is as incompetent a ramper as he is a clairvoyant.