Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Would I rather have a PI's investment position in ANGS or Trafigura's?

Gee, that's a toughie...

Indeed. That "entirely out of left field" Gulf of Mexico alleged RTO "leak" has proven extremely convenient for the company.

Money Raiser, not once have I said that the senior creditors will push ANGS into liquidation - primarily because they were given ample legal grounds to and have (so far, at least) chosen not to. My view has always been that new financing will be made available - but at less favourable terms, because the creditors will want more certainty on getting paid back - and more reward for taking what is clearly an enhanced risk, given ANGS's failure to meet any of the terms of the originally advanced financing. That's just commercial common sense.

The above clearly shows that the creditors consider enabling ANGS to continue to be the best hope for repayment. Also, the fact that the creditors have not forced foreclosure (which they happily could have) strongly suggests that the asset value of Saltfleetby, title over the licence to which was provided as security against the original loan, is not as high as many of the pompom wavers would have everybody believe. Otherwise Trafigura et al. could have happily acquired that via foreclosure and flogged it, thus ensuring they got their capital and interest back.

This is not cherry picking negatives at all - it's extrapolating from the available facts.

Oh - and the fact that ANGS shares are still suspended, despite the alleged RTO having been announced as dead in the water remains a disgrace.

You won't get a reply to that perfectly reasonable statement, Oofy. Which is a pity, because Crocqman used to be one of the more reasoned and thoughtful posters on here. Okay, I never agreed with his views, but they were both reasoned and well expressed.

However, he's now living proof that being trapped in the ANGS lobsterpot is clearly not good for one's sanity. He's apparently convinced himself (or been convinced) that there's a nefarious bunch of posters criticising ANGS for some mysterious agenda (as he says, "we all know")... but has completely fled to recognise that a critical view of ANGS has been justified by subsequent reality literally every single time. And of course, just because the cold, hard reality of things eternally runs entirely counter to the narrative that cheerleaders wish for in no way stops it from being the cold, hard reality of things.

But it then gets even more bizarre (if syuch a thing were possible). Crocqman asks :

"But, interest rates dropped after October (in Dec) when we had a last proper update, with a split decision to drop again in Jan, and with consolidation you would surely expect to see better terms with one finance deal than with several existing deals, otherwise why would you consolidate?"

I mean, could things be misframed any more hugely? ANGS absolutely isn't contemplating whether it should consolidate its debts or not. Instead (as has been announced more than once via RNS) it has failed to meet its contractually enshrined payment terms - I won't use the entirely apposite "D" word, because it gets the pompom wavers all discombobulated.

Ergo as anyone still retaining even a vague grasp on reality is totally aware, ANGS, being unable to meet the contractual terms of the financing to which it has currently signed up, has its begging bowl out. It is entirely at the mercy of its senior creditors - to the extent that its continued existence entirely depends upon the latter agreeing to new financing terms - and it will have to bend over and accept any terms that said creditors decide to impose. Why anyone would think such terms would be more lenient towards ANGS than the current ones that they have been unable to abide by, God only knows.

Separately, I entirely agree that there is no longer any valid reason why ANGS shares should remain in suspension. The almost certainly mythical and convenient RTO has been confirmed as utterly off the table. Continuing cack-handed management of debt is no reason to allow suspension for any listed company - so the shares should have immediately come out of suspension as soon as the RTO was confirmed as being dead. That would then allow the cheerleaders to load up as they keep bleating they want to) and also enable those looking to escape from the ANGS lobsterpot with at least something. Everyone's a winner, eh?

It won't happen of course (as per PPP as Mirasol pointed out) but that doesn't stop the ongoing suspension from being an unjustifiable disgrace.

Well, I'm sure the investment as a minor player into the mythical Gulf of Mexico "opportunity" (which ANGS would presumably pay for in money they haven't got, because anything they do have and far more is already owed to the company's several senior creditors) will save the day.

It occurs that the best thing for the Telegram group and other pompom wavers is that news of any refinancing continues to be delayed, rather than being displayed in its awful majesty.

That way, posters like the world's worst Mystic Meg Onetomany can keep burbling on about positive updates being "any day now" (as he has pretty much every week since the suspension).

Oh the irony. Onetomany (the world's worst Mystic Meg) says "Really quite alarming that hits and wg appear to genuinely not understand. I thought it was just deliberate scaremongering but seems genuine knowledge gap."

And yet he by his own admission is slower than most when it comes to working out the numbers and what the RNSes are actually saying:-

***********

Onetomany Premium Member

Posted in: ANGS

Posts: 2,097

RE: Sinking ship?

3 Nov 2025 15:55

I’m not following the numbers, nor is anyone else on here. I’m happy to admit I am confused, you should try the same instead of continuing the condescending posts.

***********

Onetomany Premium Member

Posted in: ANGS

Posts: 2,097

RE: Sinking ship?

3 Nov 2025 16:03

I’ve worked it out. I hadn’t understood the accounting practices for the hedges. My bad.

***********

There's an awful lot more stuff on ANGS that you're demonstrably incapable of grasping, Onetomany. I sincerely hope you're educating yourself better on IMM, Onetomany (though I sadly very much doubt it).

OTM proving that he can't understand RNSed detail again.

ANGS updating the market with accurate information? That'll be a first.

Quite possibly... but all debt, loan or otherwise, is senior debt. WG's helpfully provided figures are without doubt very close to the truth, with an overall current debt figure of between £37 and £41 million, all of which is completely calculable from officially RNSed information (including HY and FY accounts)... presuming that one has the savvy to understand these (which leaves Onetomany entirely out then).

The sole element that WG may have missed is the eternally accumulating ORRI royalty of 8% of the gross value of all gas sales from existing wells. According to the last RNS to mention this, none of that liability has been paid yet either.

There is (or at least was, or should have been) potential in SFBY for PIs, had ANGS ever got it right. Unfortunately it didn't.

Yes, there's still a fair amount of gas there for the pumping. However, with the frankly cack-handed financial naivity shown by erstwhile ANGS BoDs (yes, Pinocchio Lucan, I'm looking directly at you), that "fair amount of gas" is now merely liable to benefit ANGS's largest creditors, rather than deliver any meaningful nett profitability.

As for the oh so convenient Gulf of Mexico alleged opportunity, we all know thta the mythical RTO is no longer even a faint possibility (if it was ever in any way on the cards, which in my book is decidedly unlikely). The chances of ANGS investing into said GoM "opportunity" even as a minor partner will I am sure turn out to be equal nonsense.

I still find it remarkable that a company can continue to have its shares suspended simply because it's got itself into a nightmarish financial mess and is having to remortgage everything in a desperate effort to get out?

I knew it was too good to be true...

James, there is both a semantic and legal difference between

a) defaulting on something (in ANGS's case, the contractually enshrined payment terms of the Trafigura loan, as it has announced)

and

b) being found in default (which would require the breached party to issue a notice of default, as you mention).

b) cannot happen without a) having occurred, but b) does not automatically happen just because a) has occurred.

So if we're being sticklers, yes, ANGS has categorically defaulted, but has equally categorically not (yet anyways) been found in default. My murderer analogy remains apposite.

It's all a bit irrelevant anyhow. Trafigura seemingly will allow ANGS to effectively remortgage (though those discussions are taking a ludicrously long time). The sole matter of interest (pun intended) are the terms which Trafigura will unilaterally impose, because as is blindingly obvious, it now holds literally all the cards.

For the last time (yeah, some hope)... and for those who have difficulty with the English language.

ANGS has defaulted on its loan.

Now before the usual suspects have their tizzy fit, this SIMPLY AND ONLY means that ANGS has not adhered to the contractually enshrined payment schedule pertaining to that loan, instead breaching those. We all know that to be true, because ANGS has RNSed that this is the case.

However... the lender Trafigura has (so far at least) chosen to take no action on that defaulting, i.e. it hasn't declared a default, nor has it issued a default notice (as far as we know). Apparently Trafigura has decided not to take any legal steps to action said factual default. Of course, it has every right to do so, but for its own reasons, it hasn't (and I for one, don't think it will for a second... that is, unless something else nasty and unforeseen crawls out of the ANGS woodwork).

It's literally that simple.

To try to make this even more clear, if you murder someone, you are both categorically and factually a murderer, no matter whether you get found out, or convicted, or not.

"Constructively" merely (and only) means that Trafigura aren't going to foreclose, instead offering refinancing. Why? Because Trafigura judges that to be the path that will deliver it (and only it) the greatest return (starting off with having the best chance of getting its already advanced money back).

As everybody knows, it's a given that Trafigura is holding quite literally all the cards and can do/enforce/impose whatever it wishes. However, I don't think anyone expected Trafigura to exercise its already long acquired right to make ANGS go pop for severally breaching contractual repayment schedules. (For info, they could have foreclosed months ago - there's been no need for them to wait since then).

I'd agree that the comment in the RNS suggests what most have long expected - namely that a new refinancing deal will be reached. though God knows why it's taking this long. (Well, I say "deal"... Trafigura will draw up whatever it wants and ANGS will have no choice but to sign up to those terms, but still...).

I'd also say that it's pretty self-evident that Trafigura considers it in its own best interests (and solely in those) that ANGS should be enabled to keep going in some format. Though what the actioning of that enablement will leave for others to benefit from, given its terms, remains very much to be seen.

After months of radio silence from ANGS, this latest RNS, plus a sudden small influx of multi-ID cheerleaders suddenly popping up out of nowhere to wave their threadbare pompoms, makes me think that the long overdue announcement on refinancing is not far off (but I really don't think it's going to look at all pretty), and that the frankly unjustifiably continuing suspension is soon to be lifted.

There is none, just a multi-ID cheerleader popping his head up and trying to stir things up to get his jollies. Same old, same old.

On a relevant subject, if LSE has allowed an extension to ANGS's share suspension (as it clearly must have done, given that the six months were up last month), shouldn't that be something that the company announces via RNS? It's certainly material...

Gee. After a fair few weeks of tumbleweeds blowing across this forum, as ANGS shares continue in a suspension that should no longer be allowed (doubt about being a going concern absolutely does not constitute a valid reason for suspension), we're getting an orchestrated ballet of pompom wavers suddenly appearing out of the woodwork.

Always good for a laugh, but one does wonder why.

I remember pointing out back in 2016 that there was a wearable from XiaoMi already in production and freely available on alibaba.com to anyone for the princely sum of US $17 - and providing url links to it. That device did everything the Onitor claimed it could do and more. I also remember DavidGreece very quickly doing everything he could to shut that piece of info down by drowning it out.

Fun times...

"amazing that nothing has leaked about this fantastic opportunity".

Yes, isn't it? Well, apart from the conveniently coincidental (aka almost certainly orchestrated) leak that gave ANGS the opportunity to temporarily get its shares off the market, while it was having its trousers yanked down by Trafigura, Mercuria and Aleph.

Given that ANGS has now RNSed that there is no RTO in play, one has to continue to ask why it has any right to keep having its shares suspended. Completely screwing up its finances and massively overborrowing, to the extent that it has to agree to whatever terms its lenders feel like imposing is no reason at all to allow any company an ongoing suspension.

Quite the reverse, in fact - those wishing to exit the permanently cackhandedly steered ship Angus in light of this latest and largest looming iceberg are quite deliberately and quite cynically being prevented from doing so.

** I. like Spikey, would therefore...

Wheato, I'll try to reply calmly and kindly.

You say "If I’m wrong, show me the evidence."

Well, firstly, as everyone has pointed out, not a single thing that Amit has claimed has ever turned out to be true, but many, many things have turned out to be point blank blatant falsehoods. I, lie Spikey, would therefore suggest that the most cursory examination of Amit's track record on veracity would clearly show an undeviating one-way trend.

In similar vein, there's the "definition of insanity" cliché that also applies here - you know, doing the exact same thing time and again, but expecting a different result. So, believing a single thing Amit has ever said has invariably led to unmitigated disappointment - what's set to change?

Finally, Amit, like many not particularly adept hustlers, has long banked on the fact that it is logically impossible to prove a negative. Thus why nobody can categorically prove that there is no deal and no money (as he has always known well and relied upon) - and equally thus why nobody can "prove you wrong" as you ask.

But it's the exact same logic which makes it impossible to categorically disprove say, that the British royal family is actually a collection of multi-dimensional lizard people from planet Tharg, or to categorically disprove that Elvis is alive and well and working in a burger joint on one of the outer moons of Neptune. So it's not in the least a robust or useful thing to hang your hat (or faith... or hopes... or dreams) on.