Member Info for HeadInTheSand

The most honest thing in that comment is that ANG's "myriad" previous borrowings had resulted in "an unsustainable debt structure", something that the less blinkered here had been well aware of for months and months.

BV doesn't seem to have a clue as to what a profit is.

As the FY report clearly states, the company made a loss of c. £5.5 million.

There are therefore very obviously no profits to re-invest. So what's being "invested" is borrowed money and shareholder-supplied funding... because there isn't (and has never been) anything else.

When one gets down to the actual hard bottom line in the FY report (and you'll have to scroll an awful long way to find it)...

3. Profit/(loss) for the financial period

The Company has taken advantage of section 408 of the Companies Act 2006 and, consequently, a profit and loss account for the Company alone has not been presented. The Company's loss for the financial period was approximately £5,475,000 (2022: £2,168,000).

It is (eventually) clear that ANGS's actual loss for the full year to 30-09-23 was over 2.5 times bigger than the last full Financial Year.

So I really don't think the company can be considered to have reached any sunny uplands.

Couple of words of advice re that copl-media website

1. Spell check the entire website. Seeing stuff like "seperate" (sic) damages credibility.

2. Check the site thoroughly for broken links. E.G. the link to www.copl-legal.com/lander doesn't load anything.

3. Make sure you've taken expert legal advice on the statements made on the "background" page. Although "provably stating truth" is the best defence against any allegation of potential libel, I doubt that the CAG needs the distraction of any potential claims of libel at this stage, whether provable or not.

Simon, it's undoubtably true that ANGS has been producing post-hedge revenues from SFBY every month. How much is a matter for conjecture (I suspect that currently, it's around £1.0 to £1.1m a month). What this gets spent on is also a matter for complete conjecture - it's not at all clear what field Opex costs ANGS per month, nor what their standard G&A monthly costs are running at.

All we know for certain right now is that as of Apr 1st last year, ANGS had £3.2 million in the bank - BUT £3.0 million of that had literally just arrived, being the first junior bridging loan.

So apart from that, as of 01/04/23, ANGS had next to nothing in the bank. That was surprising enough in itself, since ANGS had only just raised £7 million at the end of Dec 22, which was meant to pay off the incurred historic hedge shortfalls (but as we subsequently discovered, none of that £7m was used to do that).

I doubt they're "squandering" money, but they're certainly spending a lot. There clearly continues to be an awful lot of historically incurred debt that's still hanging around - e.g. the ""legacy capex creditors from the drilling of the Saltfleetby-7 well in 2022-23" that have just been mentioned in the Feb 22nd RNS.

I'd also say that, if ANGS had lots of spare cash (and given that it's on record as stating it doesn't want to dilute shareholders.. despite having done exactly this since saying that), why is it paying off the £1 million of fees for arranging the refinancing in confetti? Why not use cash... unless it (as usual) hasn't got enough?

As you say, we'll get an idea of ANGS's cash position at least as of end Sep last year very shortly.

Re the "just agreed" £20 million loan...

There's already only £5.9 million of available cash left from that (and ANGS still owes PF £2.88 million, plus an estimated £300k of royalty to Aleph and Mercuria every single quarter ad infinitum). That's according to the Feb 22nd RNS.

Plus, the first use of at least some of that £5.9 million will be to pay off "legacy capex creditors from the drilling of the Saltfleetby-7 well in 2022-23".

So it's not at all like ANGS has suddenly got a float of £20m sat in its bank account.

What's interesting about today's RNS is the strong-arm tactics of the lenders in forcing ANGS to take Resolutions 2, 4 and 5 off the table (a tad embarrassing at this late date, but still). Resolution 1 allows ANGS to issue new shares to cover off already incurred debt (to Aleph, Mercuria and Forum), but by getting other resolutions removed, the lenders are seemingly not allowing ANGS to issue any new shares for cash-raising purposes, presumably without holding a full-blown rights issue.

It's very clear (as it has been ever since the original £12m Mercuria loan) who's running the show at ANGS... and it's certainly not the board of directors. The latter are very obviously at the utter beck and call of the lenders.

A quick recalc between now and end Jun 2024.

251 million new shares immediately issued to Aleph for refinancing fees.

c. 133 million new shares issued to Aleph and Mercuria to cover the 8% royalty for the Mar 24 to Jun 24 period.

c. 133 million new shares issued to Forum to cover the next £400k instalment on the £2.88 million that PF is still owed.

So, that'll be at least say 510 million new shares issued by the ned of June then. No dilution? Don't make me laugh.

Dear oh dear.

The Earl is back for a short-term ramptastic attempt with his usual misinformation.

He says "Fantastic Rns for current holders, no more issuance of shares by directors." Sadly, this is categorically untrue.

Resolution 1 stands and will give the BoD the ability to issue £3.6 million of new shares at nominal value. That's an authority to issue 1.8 billion new shares.

Unsurprising, since ANGS immediately needs to issue 226 million new shares to the two Aleph entities to cover the balance of the fees for arranging the recent replacement financing. It also needs to issue approx 100 million new shares at the end of every single quarter starting from Mar 1st to Aleph and Mercuria to cover the 8% royalties die on gross production revenues from Saltfleetby (it could be more, because those shares will be issued at a 15% discount to the 30 day VWAP at the time).

Finally, it's strongly implied by Resolution 1 that Forum is going to be paid out the majority of the balance of the £2.88 million owed to it in newly issued confetti on a quarterly basis, with the first £400k payment being due at the end of June this year. Those shares will also be valued at at a 15% discount to the 30 day VWAP at the time, so call just the June payment due approx. 200 million new shares.

"No more dilution", eh? That's a farcical attempt to mislead and it's the exact opposite of what the recent RNSes state clearly in black and white.

Upset?I'd be delighted... and especially for Onetomany. Only 19 days and 1.15p more to go....

I'm still waiting with interest to see the accuracy of your uber-confident prediction of a month or so ago that the SP will be at least 1.5p by the end of this month, Onetomany...

I see that the Chuckle brothers are doing their best to get excited about some long-distant fairytale...

As to the announcement of a an ANGS GM for next week being "good news" (as per the first post in this thread... why?

There's only one purpose of this meeting (and it's effectively an EGM - they couldn't even wait for the AGM which presumably will be held a couple of weeks later). And that is - to get a massively increased authority to issue new shares.

ANGS very badly needs this because a) it has exhausted all existing granted authorities. b) as per the Feb 22nd and Mar 6th RNSes, it immediately owes 2 Aleph entities a balance of 226 million shares for fees on arranging the replacement finance and c) again as per the Feb 22nd RNS, it's going to be paying Aleph (again) and Mercuria approx. £300k per quarter in new shares (valued at 15% below a 30 day VWAP) as royalties on gross production revenues. Even being generous, that'll be an additional 100 million pieces of new confetti issued every quarter, looking at the current SP.

And that's before ANGS has thought about trying to raise any more cash or paying back any other of its existing debt in new confetti. No matter what and going by ANGS's RNSes alone, there is inevitably dilution ahead.

So apparently there are now directly contradictory messages being issued by HL...

I think you'll find the only fool here is the person who tried to claim that the 25 million trade today (transacted at 0.30p) was a buy....

His post got deleted out of embarrassment.

Geez.

We all know that "the company has announced that a payment is to be made in the coming days." It made that announcement (for the bazillionth time) on the cloudtag.com website.

Amit's been announcing pretty much the same thing on the company website since December 2021.

Not really news, except it reveals that ANGS was down to the last dregs of its authority to issue new diluting confetti (a matter the BoD will be sure to sort out very shortly at the AGM).

The two Aleph entities are still owed a further 226 million shares for fees on arranging the £20m refinancing, which they'll get pretty much immediately after the new confetti resolutions are passed this month.

If the current company position represents being in a "big league", I'd hate to see what relegation would look like...

"ANGS is in a growth stage"...

SP again at a 52 week low,...

MCAP down to under £14 million...

£20 million just borrowed at 13% to pay back some (but not all) of existing debt...

8% royalty on the gross value of all production from current SFBY wells in perpetuity triggered...

Production volumes stubbornly stuck at c. 2 million therms a month...

Gas prices below the level that ANGS stated made the field "commercially viable"...

Earnable revenue capped by the existing hedges (or their "fixed offtake agreement" replacement...

The BoD about to issue shedloads of new confetti to pay back fees and more historic debt...

If that's "being in a growth stage", I'd hate to see what not being in a growth stage would look like.

Barney, do you have one iota of proof that Phil is not telling the truth (apart from his post not fitting your desperately desired narrative, that is?) Thought not...

Oh and the 4.5 million shares referred to would have only amounted to c. £13,500 of transactional value, whether they were a buy or a sell, so hardly a meaningful amount in the greater scheme of things (though I'm sure it smarted a fair bit for 360Phil). It's less than a quarter of the holding (numerically speaking) that one of the chief cheerleading fantasists here claims to be holding (much to the amusement of those more sane).

Cindy's back out of the woodwork all of a sudden. Now there's a blast from the past... who next? AberdeenMan? DavidGreece?

I can readily understand why the IQs were abandoned. Pretty much precisely because they produced "an archive of material" that was easily comparable and contrastable with reality as it turned out.