Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Ironic, Robday, since you don't seem a fan of informative posts, as per your reaction to the link being posted to the Viking CCS project.

That article covers the possibility of using the once vast offshore/North Sea Viking field for carbon capture storage, filling the depleted gas field it through its existing connection to Theddlethorpe.

Details on the project are here:-

https://consultation.vikingccs.co.uk/the-project

Apart from geographical proximity, I'm not sure that it's got a huge amount of relevance to Saltfleetby?

Thanks Gallder.

July revenues @ £1.53 million post derivative settlement pretty much bang on what those having done a modicum of research expected.

"I would much rather see Angus maintain production, maybe even poke another sidetrack for further "infill" to optimise drainage for at least the next 5-7 years. giving time to hopefully build a decent war chest for whatever they line up in the future."

That would without doubt be the sensible thing to do, BP. Unfortunately, while questions regarding the sufficiency of short-term cashflow remain, the SP isn't going anywhere. So the cheerleaders clearly need to find another hobbyhorse to flog, hence all the recent tubthumping about Centrica and gas storage.

It's not totally clear though. ANGS entirely ducked the question asking why cash from the £7 Xmas megaplacing was not used to pay off the hedge shortfall, when the company specifically stated that it would be. It merely stated that it's been paid off now (by using cash from the very recently secured second £6m shorrt-term bridging loan).

However (if it can be believed, which is sadly something one always has to bear in mind with ANGS), apparently there are no more nasty legacy debt surprises to be sprung on investors. The company just has to be able to manage timely payment of its existing and already incurred short-term liabilities.

Well, you never know...

Something needs to happen for sure, because, courtesy of the usual company opacity about its levels of short-term debt, it's turned out not to be about the sidetrack after all.

In other news, it seems that Bozo Johnson has (accidentally) done one good thing. By resigning in a huff as an MP, the by-election he brought about in Uxbridge has put the crippling stupidity of the vast majority of the so-called Green agenda firmly to the front of the political stage. Rishi's showing clear signs of engaging reverse gear, while Sir Keir won't even speak on the subject, for fear of either alienating Labour's traditional working man/woman base or causing the dewy-eyed woke Leftistas to spiral into a self-righteous hissyfit.

Interesting times...

The market isn't stupid, so it's taken into account all the known info.

I'd simply like to know views on what piece of new news might to reverse the SP's markedly downward trend of the last several months?

I have my ideas, but it'd be good to hear others.

Patrick, there are various ways to find that info, but probably the easiest/quickest is to visit the company website and download each full year report.

In the "NOTES TO THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS" section near the end, you'll find a section called "Share Capital" (often it's note 15) that gives you the number of shares in issue at the start of that FY, the number of shares in issue at the end of that FY and the list of transactions that caused any change within that FY (or HY).

Here are the figures as per those FY and HY reports:-

As of the FY ending Sep 30th 2018, ANGS had 381.7 million shares in issue.

As of the FY ending Sep 30th 2019, ANGS had 540.8 million shares in issue.

As of the FY ending Sep 30th 2020, ANGS had 715.2 million shares in issue.

As of the FY ending Sep 30th 2021, ANGS had 966.5 million shares in issue.

As of the FY ending Sep 30th 2022, ANGS had 2,764.3 million shares in issue.

As of the HY ending Mar 31st 2023, ANGS had 3,434.1 million shares in issue.

Since that point, as per the RNS of 21st July, ANGS has issued further shares and the number of shares in issue currently stands at over 3.6 billion.

And then there are warrants that the company has issued on top of that, but that would be much more time-consuming to track.

Rob, you complain about personal attacks... then claim I'm attacking you by merely pointing out your own repeated personal attacks against other posters???

Riiiiight. Have a nice day now.

Robday, there's this thing called "self-awareness"... you really might wish to try it.

Here's what you posted only an hour ago.

Robday

ANGS

Today 08:12

"Your comments above are again a personal attack at another investor you know nothing about."

"Finally, nobody's accused you in this thread, Rob..."

I'd recommend that you switch to thread view (rather than message view) when it comes to this or any other BB, Rob, otherwise you'll continue to find things confusing and get conversations mixed up.

There's a green toggle button at the top right of the share chat posts when you first open the chat page...

Many people (myself included for sure) believed that a successful sidetrack that doubled production levels (and that's exactly what the sidetrack has done) would be transformative for ANGS and cause a significant upwards re-rate in the SP. Such beliefs were (at least for those bothering doing a modicum of research) based on all the information that the company had made available at the time.

However, this clearly hasn't happened. Quite the reverse in fact. So that leads to any rational investor or potential investor needing to ask themselves two very simple questions, namely:-

Why - and especially after a successful sidetrack - is the ANGS SP in the toilet?

and

What now needs to happen to reverse the downward slide in SP?

With the additional info that's come to light over the last couple of months, the answer to the first is simple - cashflow issues, caused by short-term debt being considerably larger than previously revealed by the company. Okay, not nice and definitely not transparent, but hey, we are where we are...

So what's the answer to the second? What now needs to happen to move the SP upwards? Again a very simple answer - get a much longer-term replacement financial facility that the company will be able to afford to pay, because of that longer term.

That's pretty much all, IMV.

PS It is as deeply ironic as it is amusing that you're complaining about "personal attacks" being made on posters that people know nothing about, Rob.

Try reading your last twenty posts... you may just be able to detect the faint whiff of double standards.

A couple of teensy points.

This is Gallder's thread (if a thread can be said to have an owner).

Expressing a less than positive opinion on ANGS categorically does not mean that one must be an activist (that's a very basic logical error called "setting up a false dichotomy).

Similarly, ascribing worth to opinions that are more wary again categorically does not mean that one must be an activist (same basic logical error - in fact, justified counter-opinions should be the most useful of all).

Finally, nobody's accused you in this thread, Rob, of being a bot or a multi-ID or (seriously?) of being associated with Drill Or Drop (God alone knows what gave you that idea).

SB re the 50% of the last year of hedges that have just been unwound, I would also be interested in Gallder's view on that question, because it's not clear from the RNS.

I (like Gallder, I believe) initially thought that ANGS and Mercuria had effectively agreed to fix the floating price of gas for those last four quarters on 50% of the hedged volumes. If that take is correct, then ANGS has fixed its liabilities on that 50% to c £6.25 million over the final year (Jul 24 to Jun 25).

However, on a re-read of the RNS, your other take also seems possible, i.e. that ANGS and Mercuria agreed an exit price per quarter on 50% of those hedged volumes. If so, then ANGS has fixed its liabilities on that 50% to c £9.2 million over the final year (Jul 24 to Jun 25).

Robday, in fact why concern yourself with anything any poster may write? Why bother working yourself up into a rage and trying to slate those who may express a more negative opinion on ANGS? They're either right or wrong - and there's a pretty easy way to work out which.

Surely the SP is the only thing to pay any attention to.

For months, all BV has been able to do is to make stuff up. Either about the company or about posters whose fact-based opinions he is virulently allergic to. He has nothing else.

BV are you not even monolingual?

The phrase "3.6 billion share owners" is entirely accurate... there are indeed owners of 3.6 billion ANGS shares. If you insist on my parsing this for you, the "3.6 billion" is an adjectival usage, numerically qualifying the immediately following noun, namely "shares".

But the above will be beyond you, so let me (necessarily) dumb this down. Consider the phrase "green car drivers" - now, do you think that refers to drivers of green cars? Or martians who drive cars?

It is ridiculously trite to maintain that someone using that phrase intended it to mean "there are 3.6 billion owners of ANGS shares". Is that honestly the only tactic you've got left? That's tragic.

@Deacs, that's a fair question.

First off, my ongoing issue with ANGS has always been the same ever since I first got involved with the company 4 years ago - its continued lack of full disclosure. I actually have posted positively a few times (but sure, not many) on ANGS over that period - but every time that positivity has turned out to be premature, because the next previously undisclosed nasty and game-changing fact then becomes visible.

However, that's not what you asked. So okay, positives about ANGS. Well, it starts and stops with the Saltfleetby asset, which undoubtedly has real-world value. It has shown itself capable (currently at least) of producing 36 million therms of gas a year. Even if you factor in a 10% annual reduction in flow , it would seem to have a useful producing life of 8 or more years.

(There's also a potential post-production value to the site in terms of being converted into a gas storage facility, but as I have no clue how much that would cost to enable and because even starting such a project is several years away, I'm leaving that one to one side).

So... what ANGS needs to do is simple. It needs (literally) to buy itself the time for ongoing monthly post hedge settlement revenues generated from gas production to cover debt and other liabilities. That's why I believe the replacement $25m/£20m facility to be absolutely crucial - although not cheap, it'd be a bit cheaper than existing debt - AND it'd buy ANGS that time.

Currently, ANGS is lurching from cashflow crisis to cashflow crisis. Dec 2022... "We've run out of money. Quick! We need to raise £7m!" Mar 2023... "Dammit! We're down to our last £200k. Quick! Let's borrow a short-term £3m at Wonga rates!"... Jun 2023... "We still haven't paid off that £3.5m missed hedge liability we've always known about! Quick! Let's borrow another short-term £6m again at Wonga rates!"

Bear in mind that ANGS has always absolutely known at all times what liabilities it has incurred (hedge arrangements, loan repayments, acquisition staged payments etc etc) and when payments against all those them are falling due. And also bear in mind that the above cashflow crises have occurred while the field has been delivering ANGS millions in revenues between Sep 22 and Jun 23, even after the applicable hedges have been settled. Where have they gone?

Anyhow...

So... there's your positive. Provided ANGS stops being sparing with the truth, providing it stops doing the corporate equivalent of paying off credit cards with even more expensive credit cards and providing it gets that £20m 18 month replacement facility, that should finally put it in the clear and allow it to successfully monetise Saltfleetby. It's the next two years up to Jun 2025 that are crucial

(Unless it turns out that there's something else it's conveniently forgotten to tell us about... sorry, but with ANGS, one always has to be aware of that possibility).

AIMO

"Personally, , was expecting them to increase debt, in order to maintain their margin for manoeuvre..." err nope, really not.

ANGS was categorically forced to increase debt - again at Wonga rates - so as not to default on one of its immediate liabilities. You know, the £3.5 million hedge shortfall that George claimed in the Dec 19th RNS was covered off as part of the £7 million Xmas megaplacing. That turned out to be what can only be described as completely untrue - how very ANGS.

BP, although I entirely agree that ANGS desperately needs the new $25m/£20m replacement facility, your view on how much will be left after covering immediate liabilities is a little too bleak. You've forgotten that ANGS will have paid off the £3.5m mentioned above out of the £6m it's just additionally borrowed, so you can no longer count that as an ongoing debt.

However in part counter to that, there will in addition be around £1m of interest to pay on the £3m and £6m bridging loans, plus interest due on the remaining balance of the senior loan.