Member Info for HeadInTheSand

PS Onetomany, you have a history of not understanding very much. You got all excited at the half-year report showing ANGS to have £785k of cash at the end of March... forgetting (conveniently?) that this cash only existed because ANGS had failed to pay (yes, that's the "d" word again) the very first £1.25 million capital instalment to Trafigura. Since then of course, it's also failed to pay the second instalment... and then there's the interest on top of that.

Are you sure you should be investing?

Well, let's truth-test ANGS's reported numbers for Q3 2025, shall we?

ANGS has just stated that it produced 4.16 million therms of gas in the period.

3.22 million therms of that production was hedged under the new hedges. That leaves 0.94 million therms of production to be sold at market pricing during the quarter.

But then you've got the eternal 8% ORRI royalty payment due to Mercuria and Aleph on the gross revenues of all gas produced from existing wells.

Even allowing for the small additional revenues delivered by the c. 3,600 barrels of oil out of Brockham and the c. 6,000 barrels of condensate out of Saltfleetby, that claimed quarterly revenue figure of £3.21 million looks entirely plausible to me. It's worth noting that the Jul-Sep 25 hedged price actually did ANGS a favour to the tune of about £150k.

Where's the correction RNS then, Onetomany, if it's so blatantly obvious (as you insist) that ANGS has dramatically under-reported the Q3 2025 revenue figures?

There won't be one.

You're obviously expecting a correction RNS then, Onetomany... care to make a bet?

I'm saying that the figures ANGS has released today are entirely accurate. No wonder you're worried.

Onetomany says "There is something not right about today’s numbers. Doesn’t make sense, can’t make sense..."

Don't tell me the penny is finally dropping? Naaah, too much to ask, I'm sure.

However, yes, it's true. Despite no longer being bound by the historic hedges, which Onetomany and his starry-eyed ilk assured everyone were the shackles on revenue generation, Q3 revenues are frankly pathetic (and worse, per therm produced) than when the company was operating under said hedges.

Yes, this revenue figure must seem bizarre to the likes of Onetomany (this BB's worst Mystic Meg of all time) and "I'm not allowed to post anything negative" Ocebot. After all, both were assuring anyone naive enough to listen that Q3 was going to be a bumper revenue quarter, because the hedge shackles were finally off...

...except it wasn't.

BP has actually got his sums slightly wrong. As stated by ANGS via RNS, Q4 2023's gas production figure was indeed 7.35m therms, with revenues of £7.2m. And as ANGS has just told us, Q3 2025's gas production figure was just 4.16m therms, with revenues of only £3.21m.

That's a 43.4% drop in production volumes over that period, BUT AT THE SAME TIME a significantly larger 55.4% drop in revenues?

So, despite the cheerleaders' desperate pompom waving, the company emerging from historic hedges has very clearly not helped revenues at all.

I also find it interesting a) that JTP has decided to run for the hills and b) that ANGS for the first time in an RNS to my knowledge has stated the "going concern" issue. Re the latter, I am beyond sure that the company was forced into making that statement - although it comes as no surprise at all for those who actually understand the mountain of financial problems this cack-handed outfit is facing .

It's actually amusing to see Ocelot get snappier than usual. His/her/its eternal attempts to smokescreen, divert attention away from the increasingly nasty mess that ANGS has got itself in and never ending efforts to polish the unpolishable are clearly exacting a toll.

Either that, or he/she/it is starting to worry about his/her/its "pound a post" monthly invoice being met...

Quarterly production is hardly difficult to work out, if one is a genuinely interested PI... (so that counts Ocelot out then).

Production Jul 25 to Sep 25 was (according to NSTA figures) 375 million cubic feet.

So that's a 6.8% increase over Q2's figures, but still 8.8% less than Q1's figures.

Does anybody believe that the alleged "out of the blue" and "sweetheart" RTO deal (that made absolutely no sense at all when considered logically) actually ever existed?

If not, a far more pertinent question would be... why was the ANGS BoD (who absolutely yes, are continually culpable of at best utter incompetence to the nth degree) so keen to see the shares go into suspension?

This ridiculous denial from the pompom wavers that ANGS has not defaulted is truly ludicrous.

Bubblepoint is also wrong, as it happens... ANGS has not "technically defaulted". Nope, it has actually and very obviously defaulted.

By its own admission, ANGS has failed to pay the (very first) two instalments against its contractually enshrined £20m loan from Trafigura - and probably the third instalment too, though we have not been told about that one. Ergo, it has not abided by that contractual agreement, ergo it has defaulted against such. Claiming that "Oh only the lender can decide if ANGS has defaulted or not" is utter nonsense.

A simple analogy may help to educate the cheerleaders here (not that they need educating, because they are of course being deliberately disingenuous). If I park my car on a double yellow line, I am parking illegally. Sure, I may be lucky and not get a ticket, but that does not in any way change the 100% true and cast-iron fact that I have indeed categorically parked illegally.

And what's the result of this? Simply put, it gives literally all the power to Trafigura, who can choose to give notice of that obvious default and take action to compel payment or seize assets if it so wishes. Or - as seems to be the case here - Trafigura can force ANGS to sign up to a "resculpted" agreement with the revised terms being whatever Trafigura wishes to impose. That's a Hobson's choice for ANGS - pretty much sign up to the amended agreement or get wound up.

We all await to hear the details of this revised arrangement, but it's a racing certainty that it will be even less favourable to ANGS than the original.

Either way, the issue of whether ANGS defaulted or not is closed. If ANGS hadn't defaulted, it wouldn't have to be going cap in hand to Trafigura, begging for a resculpting of the debt.

There absolutely was a default. Two missed quarterly payments in fact, those being end Mar and end Jun this year, with ANGS publicly stating that at those times, it did not have enough cash to make either payment.

Okay, since then, we've had the ever more spurious looking RTO, plus of course the forced discussions with Trafigura the lender to avoid it issuing any notice of default. Those discussions are ongoing - the recent RNS assuring that "non-binding terms" have been agreed upon isn't worth the paper it was written on (the clue being "non-binding").

Nevertheless I'm reasonably certain of the following things coming to pass:

1. The debt will be restructured and will be on even more favourable terms to Trafigura (and thus even more weighty on ANGS).

2. Paying off Mercuria & Aleph to get out of the ORRI (that's the eternal 8% royalty on all gross production values from existing wells that ANGS is contractually committed to pay over) is going to cost the company a very painful amount... but as per the recent RNS, it sounds like Trafigura is insisting on this (and after all, it holds every single card).

3. There will be no RTO (and I doubt there was ever any realistic chance of being one).

Well, despite Onetomany's eternal compulsion to offer up ridiculously unrealistic predictions and "jam tomorrow" assurances (none of which, as cold hard reality has proven time and again, have ever been remotely accurate), and despite his utterly unsuccessful attempts to ramp this stock...

....maybe in the face of such unbroken and crashing failures, he can take some comfort in the possibility that God does indeed love a trier.

Onrtomany states "One thing I like about these boards is that you can’t edit your posts. So, when clowns make false claims it stays with us forever."

Too right. So many to choose from, but this from Onetomany in Feb 24.

Onetomany Premium Member

Posted in: ANGS

Posts: 1,473

Price: 0.375

No Opinion

RE: GM 27 Feb 2024 20:38

All good news. Balance sheet strengthened and dilution the least of our worries as debt gets paid down, income sky rockets with gas price increasing, production increasing, oil flow coming soon plus any new opportunities taken on board.

I think you’ll start to see better communication soon and won’t be long till that first webinar and Q&A.

Last week was a turning point and value will be clear very soon.

And this a year later in Feb 25

Onetomany Premium Member

Posted in: ANGS

Posts: 1,473

Price: 0.31

No Opinion

RE: Mms have no supply on 0.3214 Feb 2025 12:02

£150m market cap not unrealistic target near term.

Yep, he's a gifted analyst, for sure.

Despite his usual substance-free claim, what Onetomany entirely fails to mention is that ANGS did not have enough cash to pay Trafigura the quarterly capital payments due at either the end of March or the end of June this year. Given the (convenient) suspension and the discussions (yet again) on "debt resculpting", we have no idea whether ANGS managed to scrape together enough cash to make the end of September quarterly repayment.

For information, those quarterly repayments amount to £1.25m of capital repayment per time... and then there's at least £6.6m of interest due over the four year payback period (though this could well have gone sharply up under the terms of the £20m loan, given the conditional increased interest rates that get applied in the event of missed payments).

So, by the end of September under the current terms, ANGS owed Trafigura a minimum of £4.16 million... and as we know from the half-year results, it only had £785k in the bank as of the end of June this year (and having not made any repayments at all).

A "fine surplus"? Maybe in Onetomany's head that's full of dreams, rainbows and lollipops, but in the real world.... nope. Not at all.

OneToMany, this bulletin board's permanent title holder of The World's Worst Mystic Meg after his endless series of assurances and predictions, none of which has even come remotely close to being accurate, is now accusing others of - wait for it - "making themselves look foolish"...

Oh, the irony.

BP posts "mainly due to being technically in default"

The sadly limited Ocebot finds this incomprehensible and so ignorantly asks "And if not a technical default, then what does "TECHNICALLY in default" mean?"

Well, let me help here. The word "technically" is an adverb, hence it provides a descriptor for a verb, not a noun. In this case that verb is the present participle "being" in BP's quote above. So, BP quite correctly states that ANGS's current state of being, technically speaking, is that it is in default.

This is a very different claim from stating that ANGS is "in technical default". There, the word "technical" is an adjective, providing a descriptor of a noun, in that case, the noun being the word "default".

It's quite useful being able to identify the niceties of grammar, when one is often obliged to fisk (look it up) the meaning from deliberately obscurely worded RNSes. As always, the devil is in the detail.

"They aren't in default and never have been. In other news, water's not wet and never has been. Nor is fire hot and never has been either."

Today's allegedly "excellent" update reveals precisely nothing, apart from Trafigura being prepared to continue discussions with ANGS about refinancing - with no meaningful agreement having currently been reached - and apart from the alleged RTO "dream deal" clearly not being anywhere near as attractive as was first made out by the company.

Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, shame on me.

But fool me forty times and counting? I clearly need specialist care and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a pair of pointy-ended scissors, let alone the AIM market.

As already stated (and as is obvious to those who understand English), the ONLY thing that can be gleaned from today's otherwise pointless RNS is that Trafigura is still prepared to have conversations with ANGS about how and under what terms it may allow ANGS to restructure its current sizeable debts. Ans as we all know, that refinancing is something that ANGS desperately needs.

Again, a "non-binding" agreement - and one that is further subject to as yet unspecified and unagreed covenants - is no agreement at all. As of right now, nothing has been agreed.

Here's a non-binding agreement . I hereby agree to give OneToMany twenty grand... at some unspecified point in the future... and only if I ever feel like it. Hardly one to take to the bank.

What seems to also be gleanable from today's non-event RNS is that the alleged RTO deal really isn't that much of a sweetheart deal. The ANGS board is in no hurry to decide to agree on this and "is going to meet in the coming weeks" to make their minds up. They're clearly in no rush, then.

Whatever happens, ANGS really does need to get its skates on. From memory, the licence on Saltfleetby that it operates under only has 18 months left on it, before it needs renewing/extending. And if Ed Milliband is still in situ at that point, I would not be holding my breath on any extension.

How do we know the cash pile is quite big?

Sure, it's true that average production seems to be getting Jan/Feb levels again (which is a positive), but we also know that ANGS owes many times more than the cash it's generated. On that basis, nobody outside the company knows how much spare cash the many people that ANGS owes have agreed to currently leave the company with.