Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Nobody knows the detailed terms of the yet to be finalised replacement global financing, so nobody can say it's either positive or negative in terms of what it'll mean for the company.

(Though to be fair, it'll be positive in the fact that it would stop the company having to find £7m to pay off the 2nd short-term junior loan within the next 14 days).

We do know that it'll have a "fixed offtake rate" enshrined for produced gas, but we don't know for how much monthly gas, nor what that fixed offtake pricing will be.

Having said that, market gas futures pricing are moving markedly lower, as has been commented. What effect that has on ANGS obviously depends on how much of its future monthly production will be subject to a sales price cap under the new financing.

All of a sudden, the buyer (!!!) - who let's not forget has already (according to Amit Christian Andersen anyways) had his $50 million for the licensing sale tied up in escrow since July 7th last year - is now agreeing to pay out additional interest on this sum???

How can anyone possibly think that this has any ring of truth?

I seem to have been asked another question by BV, namely "WHY WOULD A MULTI BILLION POUND MAJOR WANT TO BE A PARTNER OF A SO CALLED INCOMPETENT OUTFIT AS YOU CLAIM!"

I suspect the use of CAPS means that to him, this question is quite important, so I'll give him the courtesy of my opinion, since he's directly asked for it... though I should state that I personally think the answer is crushingly obvious.

Why would Trafigura wish to lend ANGS money (presuming the refinancing deal goes ahead)? Because in doing so, Trafigura will do its clearly capable best to ensure that it makes a healthy return for itself on the deal.

What form (or forms) that healthy return is likely to take won't be clear until the details behind the putative refinancing are made known.

You do make me laugh, BV.

Anyone with even the most basic knowledge of English will know that the expression "to pose a question" is entirely correct.

Honestly, is that all you've got? Making farcically ignorant claims about allegedly incorrect phraseology that only serve to make you look stupid? Do carry on.

First time I've seen you pose this question, BV. And it's a surprise that you do, since it's already been much discussed, but I'll give you an answer.

Why does ANGS want to enter into a new loan agreement? Because it desperately needs to buy itself time.

Otherwise amongst several other things, it's going to have to come up with c. £7m of cash (or possibly more confetti, if the lender agrees) by the end of this month to pay off the 2nd junior loan.

Au contraire, BV. I'm sure that all genuine posters are very keen to see the detailed terms within the global refinancing package that Trafigura will impose. Those will be crucial.

As discussed last week, the production figures RNSed today are hardly new news. They're within 2% of the figures already posted by Gallder and Singhie - as taken from the daily NSTA production reports.

The estimated revenues (£7.2m) that ANGS has RNSed for Oct-Dec are the gross revenues from gas sales, i.e. before the hedges for those 3 months have been settled. Once settlement of those hedge contracts is taken into account, that revenue figure drops to just over £4.5 million for the quarter.

But again... this is not new news. And the market will have already been aware of it - so today's RNS is neutral.

As has been mentioned, one of the several things that OneToMany has decided to utterly ignore when making his bold "the SP will treble by the end of March" prediction is the "fixed price offtake agreement" that Trafigura will impose as part of the global replacement finance arrangement - and said fixed price offtake afreement will last "at least until the scheduled maturity date of the Refinance Facility", according to the Dec 20th RNS.

That of course will put an artificially low ceiling on the amount that ANGS will be able to sell a large portion of its produced gas at - so at this stage, before any such crucial details within that refinancing agreement have been made known, it makes the possible market pricing of future gas very largely irrelevant.

Plus (as ANGS confirmed in its answer to an IQ on Sep 1st), paying off the original senior loan will indeed trigger the 8% royalty to Mercuria on the GROSS value of all gas sales...

Pish, eh?

When it comes to predictions and assurances, the obvious way to establish whether someone has been talking "pish" is to compare those against the reality of things as it emerges.

Om that basis, it's immediately obvious that the single biggest "pish" talker in ANGS recent history has been GL (plus of course, anyone choosing to treat whatever he said as gospel and to regurgitate it). The examples showing that GL had a personal "pish talk" rating of nigh on 100% are both well-known and legion, so not worth relisting in their entirety, but to choose just a couple:-

"There's no ANGS internal document stating that the sidetrack would take up to 16 weeks!" (GL in IQs).

Yes there was - this was the timescale given in ANGS's own planning application as submitted into Lincolnshire County Council.

"The sidetrack will take a maximum of 6 to 7 weeks and anyone stating otherwise must be living on Mars!" (GL in IQs).

The sidetrack ended up taking 25+ weeks.

"The £7m Xmas 22 megaplacing will be used in part to pay off the majority if not all of the hedge shortfall!" (GL in Dec 22 RNS).

None of the funds raised were used to pay off any of the hedge shortfall, meaning that ANGS was instead forced into taking out the first credit-card rate junior loan in 2023 to cover this liability off.

Okay so RH has been at the helm for 9 months now (since 19th April 2023)... how's he looking?

Signed off on 21st July on the 2nd double-sized £6m junior loan, stating in IQs that "the alternative to this debt, which is necessarily subordinated to the senior debt, is equity – and that would be an expensive solution for what is only a short term cashflow issue".

Unfortunately, despite the above statement, the first £3m loan was paid off entirely in equity at the end of Sept - and at a share value of 0.66p, instead of the "contractually guaranteed" 1p minimum enshrined in this loan's terms when signed up to. This made the repayment in confetti especially painful and expensive for holders.

Promised that the replacement global refinancing package "could well be concluded before the end of 2023, but in all events would be finalised and in place by end Jan 2024."

Nope... it's now slipped into February (and hopefully no later).

So... RH isn't (yet, anyways) at GL's level of consistent blatant porky pie telling... but it's not the most auspicious start.

Triple the currentcSP by the end of March, eh? A bold prediction... I guess we'll see.

Yes, a good evening to all genuine posters... and to BV as well.

BV for the last time, I first looked at ANGS in 2019, so I've not been "slating them for 7 years" - again that's just you making stuff up to fit the narrative you'd like to create.

I did indeed state on ADFVN (shortly after I sold my ANGS holding 3 or so years ago at a small but intensely irritating loss, which I also publicly announced on ADVFN) that I could see no reason to put any more of my hard-earned into this share.

Easily auditable facts (such as the share price, a matter of historic record as even you would have to admit) show that to date, my decision not to invest again has been bang on correct. Unlike yourself apparently, I'm no fan of being forced into averaging down time and time again.

No harm Barney... it'd be good to have it confirmed, I suppose.

Isn't this pretty much known already, courtesy of Gallder and Singhie and their reported rolling NSTA figures?

Calendar Q4 production expected to be around 7.43 million therms.

Sadly not factual, BV. Again, if you want to be taken more seriously, I suggest not making stuff up.

Here are the actual facts yet again. I invested in ANGS prior to GL's appalling stewardship (not that his predecessor was particularly better) - and decided to sell out a year or so after His Pinocchioship took up the reins (so about three years ago). Having done (and continuing to do) my research on ANGS, I keep an eye on the stock to see if it shows any sign of becoming an investment opportunity in my book.

To date it hasn't in any way in my opinion, so equally to date there is nothing that makes me regret selling out 3 years back.

BV, just for the record, I have never once requested that any post get deleted , because I am a major believer in people having to own their own words.

Also, having never had (to my knowledge at least) any post of mine directly deleted - though if a previous post from someone else in a thread gets deleted, then I believe that all subsequent posts end up getting deleted as a result, which can be a tad annoying - I would suggest that if you want to avoid giving anyone grounds for requesting deletion of any of your posts, try to ensure you post in a civil manner.

If you had some, you'd still be able to make any rational points without fear of post deletion, if you just avoided the playground insults.

Just IMO...

Potential in Saltfleetby? Do we need to go through this ancient history again?

Saltfleetby was meant to be a cash cow just as a natural gas producer, according to GL. As things have turned out over the last three years, this has very definitely not proven to be the case. Despite George's numerous promises, the amount of extra debt that has needed to be incurred to get SFBY to its current production levels has mean that the field absolutely cannot be considered a cash cow.

Does anyone really need to be reminded of the £12 million senior loan at credit card rates, as yet still only c. 50% paid down?

Or the hedges attached that to date continue to significantly depress earnable revenues for ANGS?

Or the £7m Xmas megaplacing a year ago, that was in large part not used for the purpose stated?

Or the emergency first £3m junior loan (again at credit card rates) that was taken out in Mar 23 (recently paid off in confetti, despite assurances from the ANGS BoD that loans were taken out instead of dilutative placings)?

Or the emergency second £6m junior loan (yet again at credit card rates) that was taken out in Jul 23, and that's due for repayment at the end of this month?

Way to exploit potential, ANGS...

We need to see the detail surrounding the apparently delayed global refinancing package. Allegedly this is going to amount to £20m, allowing the balance of the senior loan (c. £6m) and the entire 2nd junior loan (c. £7m) to be paid off in full, plus allow Paul Forrest to be paid off some of the c. £5m owing to him in cash rather than more paper.

This replacement financing will apparently come with some form of hedge attached (called a "fixed price offtake" by ANGS in the its RNS on this subject). This will again have a limiting effect on what ANGS can actually earn out of produced gas sales - it remains to be seen what.

This replacement financing will seemingly trigger the "8% royalty on all gross revenues until production end" due to Mercuria.

Yeah, that Saltfleetby potential as a producing gas field sure has been exploited to the max...

And this is becoming ever more obvious, which is why the latest ever more desperate pompom waving from the cheerleaders is all about pie in the sky gas storage, (with zero thought as to the required costs and timescales involved)...

Although some PIs may be dreamers, the market as a whole is not stupid. There's a swathe of good reasons why ANGS has an MCap of sub £20m.

I'll let you two cognoscenti argue the technical ins and outs to your heart's desire. Mere linguists such as myself haven't got anything to add to such a discussion.

However, being a linguist is often a major benefit when it comes to ANGS and its ilk, because wording of company statements remains very important... it's always all about identifying the wiggle room. On that basis, does "gas storage" necessarily mean natural gas? I 'm pretty sure that both hydrogen and CO2 are gases...

"...believe me I have very high expectations of the SP in the coming 12 Months imo!"

...just like you did for the previous 12 months. At least you're consistent, BV, even if that's just consistently wrong.

Earlier today, you accused me of being jealous of shareholders who have bought at a higher price than I could today? This confused me just a tad, since my motivation when investing is to attempt to make a profit, i.e. buy something and then sell it at a higher price. Colour me radical.

Leaving that to one side, what's needed is the detail behind this delayed replacement global financing package.

It's all very well for ANGS to claim that there's £57 million of gas to extract from Sfby (albeit the valuation in the latest CPR has been done at roughly 20% over current gas pricing).

However, if one looks at the amount of gas they've extracted in the last 15 months (Oct 22 to Dec 23), that's been about 33.1 million therms (give or take) at a gross (pre-hedge reconciliation) value of around £35.4 million.

Okay so ANGS didn't benefit from all that revenue, courtesy of the current hedge arrangements, instead getting approx. £22.2 million, prior to any other costs being applied. Still, that would seem to be a fair chunk of cash... which then begs the question, why did ANGS need to raise £7m via placing in Dec 22, then just 3 months later have to borrow £3m at eye-wateringly high rates in Mar 23 and then only 4 months after that have to borrow a further £6m again at credit card rates in Jul 23?

There's an awful lot of cash being spent somewhere - and it's provably not all been used to pay off historic debt.

Great news for BV. He'll be sure to tell all that he's averaging down. Yet again.

Buys vs Sells