Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Wow... just wow.

I suppose one or two might consider Wheato's still continuing (!!!!) optimism in the face of years of undeviating lies to be admirable in some bizarre way? However, the rest of the planet will no doubt be amazed at his apparent ongoing gullibility.

How can ANYONE still believe a single word Amit utters - or has ever uttered - in the face of his being caught out telling the most blatant of lies about Johnson and Johnson? The mind truly boggles.

I mean, can ANYONE point out just one single thing that Amit has said over the last 10+ years with regard to Cloudtag which has turned out to be in any way factually accurate? I strongly doubt it. The reverse task is of course child's play - there are literal mountains of his statements that have turned out to be utterly false.

And yet Wheato's still optimistic? It literally takes all sorts, I suppose...

That was the famous announcement in which Amit claimed that he could withhold (entirely imaginary) funds from any shareholder saying nasty things about him, which gave us all a good laugh.

By the phrase "continuing to defame the company", Amit was presumably actually saying "I hate it when people state easily and multiply evidenced facts" - after all, he's not someone who likes inconvenient truths at all.

Of course, since that point, he's had to publicly admit that his equally publicly stated claim that Johnson & Johnson was the buyer was a complete pack of lies, presumably after J&J's lawyers told him that they'd sue his a$$ off, if he didn't retract that latest in an endless series of blatant porky pies.

Although vociferously claiming differently for several years, Cloudtag never had a wearable.

So if that's your avenue of research, you're wasting your time here. Now, if you were a psychologist interested in topics such as confirmation bias, herd mentality and Stockholm Syndrome, that'd be a very different matter.

If one believes that the highly convenient (and highly conveniently leaked) RTO was not entirely mythical, then that would be a reason for the initial suspension.

However, we have now been told by RND that this is entirely off the table (if it was ever on it).

ANGS trying to refinance its way out of the crashing £29 million of debt mess it's got itself into is categorically no reason at all for a continuing suspension to be allowed.

Aaaah, Malcy, who'll say anything any AIM minnow wants him to, provided his palm is crossed with a few pieces of silver.

Perhaps if Malcy were ever considering being taken as a serious commentator, rather than just a convenient mouthpiece for hire, he might wish to ask a few screamingly obvious questions, to wit:

"...the board has stated that it is now pursuing a ‘strategically advantageous minority, non-operated interest"... SO, WHAT ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH IS ANGS GOING TO USE TO PAY FOR THIS MINORITY INTEREST? IT'S ALREADY £29 MILLION IN DEBT.

"Also good is that is not a reverse takeover"... SO, WHY ARE THE SHARES STILL SUSPENDED, THEN?

I really don't believe that a company can continue to hide behind an "almost certainly mythical from the get-go", but now "in any event firmly off the table" RTO as a reason to keep its shares suspended. ANGS is through its own undeviatingly consistent incompetence in a massive financial hole and the fact that it's currently having to bend over and take whatever shafting Trafigura chooses to give it is zero reason for a continued suspension to be allowed.

In line with the below, we also already know what costs ANGS racked up in the half year to end March 2025.

As before, these costs do NOT include any derivative loss (or profit) made on the hedges, nor do they include ANY financing costs.

The half year figures show:-

"Cost of Sales" at £2.854 million for the half year to end Mar 25.

"Depletion Cost" at £3.576 million for the half year to end Mar 25.

And "Administrative Expenses" at £1.505 million for the half year to end Mar 25.

No costs reported in the half year figures for either "Impairment Charge" or "Share Based Payment".

That totals just about £8 million of costs for the half year. And that's without taking into account any of the costs of even starting to service any of the charges relating to ANGS's various major debts (currently amounting to £29 million and counting, as we now know).

Again, it's really not a pretty picture.

Mirasol is correct. We have so little information from ANGS - though we do at least know that the ORRI (the eternal royalty payment due to Mercuria/Aleph) is 8% of the gross revenue generated out of all existing Saltfleetby wells.

What we do have though is costs info from the last two FY reports. Igroring derivative profit and loss, and again ignoring finance costs, we have four cost elements detailed in each of those two two years.

We have "Cost of Sales" (£7.334 million in FY24 vs £6.923 million in FY23).

We have "Depletion Cost" (£8.732 million in FY24 vs £8.491 million in FY23).

We have "Administrative Expenses" (£3.253 million in FY24 vs £2.906 million in FY23).

We have "Impairment Charge" (£4.770 million in FY24 vs £3.717 million in FY23).

And we have "Share Based Payment" (£0.410 million in FY24 vs £1.377 million in FY23).

Remember, these are costs that do not include losses (or profit) from derivative contracts, nor do they include any financing costs.

No matter which way you cut it, if those five cost elements are typical and are being largely repeated again this year, as they total roughly £24 million in each of the last two financial years, that really doesn't make things look too clever.

Onetomany (who continually proves himself to be the world's worst Mystic Meg) keeps bizarrely squeaking that "the terms of the new financing deal will be more favourable to ANGS"...

Sorry, but to claim such a thing is ludicrous in the extreme. As others with even the faintest grasp on reality have commented, following ANGS's now having missed three contractually enshrined payments against the original £20m loan, they're now an eye-popping £29 million in debt. With ANGS already having utterly missed the very first three capital repayments back to Trafigura, whyever would the latter lend this bunch of cack-handed incompetents a substantially larger amount on better terms???

They wouldn't of course and aren't going to. ANGS's last RNS highlighted that the company simply has to accept the refinancing package under any terms, or go pop. And all that Trafigura (and Mercuria... and Aleph... and Paul Forrest) want to ensure is that they all get their many pounds of flesh as fast as possible.

"More favourable terms", Onetomany? As always, you're living in dreamland.

...There'll be nothing left, after the senior creditors have taken their sizeable chunks of flesh.

Although the shares should without a doubt have come out of suspension as soon as yesterday's announcement that the mythical RTO was off was made, it's going to be a bloodbath when they're again tradeable.

We were told on the 19th of May that (conveniently):-

"Following recent market speculation, Angus Energy (AIM: ANGS) announces it has entered into a non-binding agreement to purchase a group of producing assets located in the Gulf of America ("Potential Transaction").

Given the nature of the Potential Transaction, this would constitute a reverse takeover under Rule 14 of the AIM Rules for Companies and accordingly, the Company's shares have been suspended from trading."

Not that this was ever credible, but still. Anyhow we have just been categorically told in yesterday's RNS that there is no longer any possibility of an RTO (hardly a surprise), but instead, ANGS is thinking about acquiring a minority stake in a Gulf of Mexico offshore oil operation (presumably paying for that stake with buttons, because ANGS also announced that it's only been able to pay trade creditors and and hasn't had the funds to clear down any of its major debts totalling £29 million, missing several contractually enshrined payments so far).

So ANGS has now announced there's no prospect of an RTO... so why are the shares still suspended? A company cannot suspend its shares just because it via eternal cack-handed management has got itself into a debt nightmare and desperately needs its lenders to agree to a dramatic restructuring of that debt to avoid going pop?

Separately, Stockraiser has recently posted AI's thoughts on ANGS, which run as follows:-

"In a debt restructuring scenario involving a cash-generating asset like Saltfleetby, the incentive for creditors is high to find a solution that allows the company to operate, as this offers the best chance for debt recovery. The non-binding agreement with Trafigura is a strong signal that a framework for a deal exists.

Therefore, the probability is high that Angus will successfully restructure its debt because it is a necessity for the company and likely the most profitable outcome for the creditors. However, the final, binding agreement is still pending, making the outcome uncertain until the final announcements are made."

I think AI has got it spot on. The major creditors don't want the hassle (or the abandonment liability) of operating Saltfleetby, so as AI opines, they will come up with "a solution that allows the company to operate, as this offers the best chance for debt recovery". Such a thing would be "the most profitable outcome for the creditors" and those creditors want their payday - both what they're owed in terms of capital and all the interest on top.

And in turn ANGS will sign up to whatever usurious terms Trafigura, Mercuria/Aleph and Forum Energy decide to impose because it simply has no other choice, if it wants to avoid going under As AI states it's "a necessity for the company". No sh*t, Sherlock.

What AI doesn't mention is the outcome for private investors if this all goes ahead (as it probably will). That's because all outcomes there look irredeemably bleak. There'll be no

...and yet, every post that BP has made has turned out to be far more accurate than any of the constant and fact-free cheerleaders drivel that you eternally spot, OTM.

Easily manageable? How come they've so far managed to pay nothing back? They've had 5 months of production under the new hedges and, with their failures to make any payments to the senior creditors, debt has now risen to £29 million

...and growing with every month because of a) the interest due on the £20m Trafigura loan at at least 12% and b) the eternal 8% royalty owed to Mercuria & Aleph on the gross value of anything produced out of Saltfleetby's existing wells.

FFS they've not even managed to pay Forum off for the acquisition of Saltfleetby all those years ago.

Onetomany states "thankfully there hasn't been any default"...

In complete contrast, the ANGS RNS states "As previously notified, while the Company continues to meet its obligations to trade creditors, it has sought to DEFER and restructure its arrangements with three key creditor groups where payments are currently OVERDUE, namely the senior debt provided by Trafigura (including amounts due in relation to crystallised and other hedging arrangements), the Overriding Royalty Interest in connection with the Company's principal Saltfleetby asset and the Deferred Consideration due to Forum Energy Services Ltd. In aggregate, the total amount of debt being restructured is circa £29 MILLION."

(CAPS are mine).

So... despite the apparent riches that Onetomany (the world's worst Mystic Meg) and his cheerleading ilk have been trying to assure anyone naive enough to listen are pouring out of Saltfleetby, the company by its own words hasn't been able to service any of its long-term debts, only paying its short-term trade creditors. A combined £29 million and counting to Trafigura on the loan, Mercuraa & Aleph on the eternal 8% royalty on the gross revenues of all production from existing wells, and the balance of what they owe Paul Forrest for the Saltfleetby acquisition in the first place. That is NOT small change.

As per usual, ANGS is clearly cash-strapped yet again. They already cannot pay what they owe - and yet want to buy into a minority non-operator stake in some alleged project in the GoM? Presumably with buttons, because they've not got moolah.

Smoke and mirrors - what ANGS should always have done was to get Saltfleetby right. This latest wild goose chase smacks of UKOH and its smokescreening turkey trot over to Basur (and we all know how that turned out).

At least we've had confirmation that the shares are not suspended because of an alleged RTO (and in my view, this was never the case)... no, they're suspended because there's a genuine risk of the company going pop.

"The Company's shares are expected to remain suspended from trading on AIM pending the conclusion of its financial restructuring."

and

"The Board reiterates that failure to reach a suitable agreement could create material uncertainty in respect of the Company's ability to continue as a going concern."

There's the real reason behind the ongoing suspension.

This is simply an untruth from Ocelot. There have been further words on the alleged RTO.

For example...

13th October

"Further to the announcement of 19 May 2025, the Company is continuing with its due diligence on the purchase of a group of producing assets located in the Gulf of America. The Board is meeting in the coming weeks to agree whether or not to proceed with the transaction. The Company will update the market accordingly."

3rd November

"Further to the announcement of 13 October 2025, the Company is continuing with its due diligence on the purchase of a group of producing assets located in the Gulf of America. The Board is meeting in the next week to agree whether or not to proceed with the transaction as currently structured. The Company will update the market accordingly in respect of any further developments. "

Presumably the "next week" referred to in the RNSed info directly above was the week from 10th to 14th November. That's now passed... so what's the update???

(Yet another broken assurance from ANGS, so I'm not holding my breath...)

Regardless, the company owes both the market and its long-suffering shareholders a much overdue and crucially, a MEANINGFUL update.

Ever since May 19th, all ANGS has repeatedly said is "Oh, discussions about refinancing are looking positive" (against a backdrop of announcing that it missed paying at least the first two capital repayments of its £20m debt), together with "Oh, we're still not sure whether we want to take up the mysterious and alleged RTO opportunity."

That is simply not acceptable, six months in - especially since ANGS is now also (and has clearly been forced into) saying that without refinancing, it's not going to be a going concern. The lack of information is a disgrace but sadly, no surprise from this cack-handed outfit... I mean, as people have commented, there's no documented evidence as to who's actually in an executive position at the company.

Mind you, we all know that all the shots are being called by Trafigura, and then Mercuria, Aleph and Paul Forrest, none of whom have any desire (or any obligation) to give a rat's a$$ about private investors.

Does it though?

According to you and your fellow cheerleaders, the Saltfleetby asset is worth many millions - many times more than the current company debts. If that's the case, then it makes not a blind bit of difference to Trafigura if ANGS prospers or not. In fact, Trafigura might well be considerably better off if it called in the loan and picked the asset up for distressed peanuts.

The RNS was clear. Either Trafigura is prepared to offer new funding terms (which ANGS will have no choice but to sign up to, no matter what those entail) or the company can no longer be considered as a viable going concern and promptly goes pop.

Love for hire Malcy again... meaningless.

Where's the good news?

In Q1 2025, ANGS announced it had produced 4.55m therms of gas and declared a revenue of £5.32m in that quarter (under the old price-restrictive hedge arrangements).

In Q2 2025, ANGS announced it had produced 3.90m therms of gas and declared a revenue of £3.44m in that quarter (again under the old price-restrictive hedge arrangements).

In Q3 2025, ANGS announced it had produced 4.16m therms of gas and declared a revenue of £3.21m in that quarter (under the new an alleged much more lucrative hedge arrangements).

If that's meant to be encouraging, I'd hate to see what Malcy would define as bad news.

I would make an educated guess that Onetomany has suddenly realised that he completely misunderstood the creative accounting surrounding the tangled hedge arrangements used by ANGS in reporting previous FY and HY results (the £10.803 million EBITDA figure it reported in the FY accounts ending Sep 24 was particularly amusing).

I wouldn't assume anything with ANGS, Noel. As to outstanding Trafigura debt (the £20m loan), all we know for sure is that ANGS missed the very first two quarterly capital repayments (each of £1.25 million), because they told us they had. As to what happened with the third capital repayment that fell due at the end of Sept, God alone knows. Same with the interest due on the £20m loan and the myriad other already incurred liabilities.

I do however suspect that the 8% eternal ORRI royalty is a special case and so has in fact been deducted, because it is specifically payable on all gross revenues generated out of existing well gas production.