Member Info for HeadInTheSand

*shrug* The expected answer from someone shown up to be telling porkies.

Well Rob, looking at the SP, it continues to seem that the market in general certainly doesn't know what you claim that "everyone knows".

But hey, you keep polishing in bewilderment...

If you read the farcical nonsense that BV was posting, then the reply "BV you are more of an idiot that I thought possible" would be considered as both restrained and diplomatic.

Rob, a few things to correct you on:

1. That £3.5 million wasn't a loan payment...it's the missed hedge payment (that George told everyone was covered by the Xmas megaplacing... but wasn't)

2. The next primary loan payment (£4.2 million of capital) is due by end Sept.

3. I pointed out quite correctly that ANGS would not be able to pay off the £3.5 million hedge shortfall from its funds at end March (£3.2 million.... or £200k plus an urgently raised injection of £3m from a bridging loan. That is exactly why ANGS had to urgently borrow another £6 million under the same eye-watering terms.

4. I never said they wouldn't get another £6 million loan.

It's sad but typical that when the know-nothing mindless cheerleaders are presented with oh so easily auditable and verifiable facts, all they can do is make stuff up. Maybe not so surprising that they just can't face up to reality though.

So Rob, what's going to get the SP moving up to where "everybody knows" (according to you) it should be? Any faint ideas?

BV you are more of an idiot that I thought possible.

Re-investing profits (note that word... "profits") in a business is a perfectly normal and tax-efficient thing. Borrowing money at credit card rates is not "re-investing profits" - since it involves paying out significant cash in interest to third parties (why am I even having to explain this?). To follow through on your logic, ANGS would have been better served borrowing at SONIA + 150%, rather than SONIA + 15%, because "hey, interest can be set off against tax!"

Sheer genius... you sound about as gifted a financial expert as the outgoing chairman.

Rob, I'll answer that question again. Although I have not been posting on ANGS for the last 7, 6 or even 5 years, I am a previous investor in the company who remains interested in it. I attempt to make all my post fact-based, unlike those of a more cheerleading disposition, who are virulently allergic to inconvenient yet factual truths being inquired about.

A two-part question for you:-

Given all the great things you're convinced that everybody "knows" about the company, why do you think the market views ANGS as (and I'll use your own words here) "still a sub 1p £35m MCap shi7box company"? How does that possibly stack up?

Secondly, given that the SP remains stubbornly under 1p despite your fervent belief that it should be way higher, what change do you think it'll take to get the SP moving up?

"...AND STILL WE ARE A SUB 1P £35M MCAP SHI7 BOX COMPANY ... WTF ..."

Looks like the market doesn't agree with what you claim everybody "knows", Rob.

As predicted by several of the more rational on here and as expected, ANGS is going to generate somewhere between £1.5m and £1.6m of post-hedge settlement revenues out of gas sales in July.

If there's one thing now that's liable to see the SP re-rate upwards, it'd be news of ANGS securing that slightly cheaper but far FAR more importantly, much more long-term replacement borrowing for $25m/£20m pounds.

Everything else is much of a muchness, so why would the SP be set move if nothing changes significantly?

BV you are a buffoon.

You keep claiming that paying an eye-wateringly high level of interest is a good thing because "all interest and fees are classed as expenses for Tax deduction against profits". HUH???

Yes of course all of a business's costs (finex, capex, opex, salaries etc etc) are deducted from revenues before tax is applied. That's stating the bleeding obvious.

But (and this may come as a shock to you) it absolutely does not follow that a business... any business... should do everything it can to maximise those costs in order to save tax.

Again you may be startled by this but believe it or not, accepted wisdom amongst those who are sane is that making a nett profit is infinitely more preferable to paying zero tax.

Or to put it another even more simplistic way in an effort to educate, it's just a tad better to generate some profits upon which corporation tax needs to be paid, rather than generate no profits at all because of costs being too high.

Seriously?

All politicians act pretty much purely on self-interest, enacting policies that are most likely to keep them in their comfy jobs.

There's been a bit of an encouraging wake-up call on the arrant stupidity of most of the green agenda rec ently... the fact that the Tories managed to hang onto the late and not so lamented BoZo Johnson's recently vacated seat in Uxbridge. Which they did so solely because a sufficient quantity of voters voted with their feet directly against Labour Mayor of London Sadiq Khan's cripplingly anti-motorist extended ULEZ zone.

Sure it's just one small thing... but a notably unlikely one. So hopefully the penny might just start to be dropping at Westminster?

Slating ANGS? I rather think that those of a more rational disposition here are working out why the market only vales the company at sub 1p.

You got a suggestion as to why that might be the case, BV?

BV is rapidly becoming the only person in step... it's the rest of the world that's off time.

As per usual, Gallder has explained perfectly what ANGS has *actually* done with 50% of the final 12 months of hedge arrangements. They've of course not negotiated themselves an extra 22% or £750k of profit... instead they've fixed their liability on that 50% to £6.25 million, come what may.

Hopefully this might help the penny drop for the seriously confused Tony_Currie?

Tony_Currie, sadly you need to radically rethink what you be.ieve about the 50% unwinding of the last 12 months of hedges, because ANGS has categorically NOT '"obtained a much improved guaranteed price per therm up a healthy 22%".

"Personally I can see the SP double by Christmas"...

Anyone else got a sense of deja vu? Last year, the endless assurances from the faithful were along the lines of "5p by Xmas! Nailed on!",. However I suppose thar a doubling of current levels is at least a little more modest.

But to have any chance of getting to that level, ANGS needs to sort its short-term cash flow issues out once and for all. The latest £6 million doesn't do that - it's not enough. Plus it really was lastminute.com and as such attracted another Wonga interest rate and Shylock-style fees.

ANGS badly needs that $25m/£20m longer term replacement facility to give it more time to produce and thus generate revenues to pay down debt.

Separately the decision to partially unwind the final year of hedges and fix the loss on 50% of that to c £6.5 million was interesting...

The market is sure loving it...

@Topshot, absolutely. That would certainly be the sensible thing to do... but they've left things very late.

They must have known for months that they needed to find a serious amount of cash. Way more than the original bridging £3 million and I strongly suspect, a fair bit more than the possibly materialising £6 million as well.

I wonder what GL spent the Xmas placing money on instead? Certainly none of it was used for paying off the hedge shortfall, despite RNSed assurances to the contrary...

From the Decd 18th RNS announcing the Xmas megaplacing.

"Reasons for the Fundraising and Use of Proceeds

The Company is undertaking the Fundraising to progress its strategy and the net proceeds will therefore be applied towards:

- Hedge expenditure: £3.3 million. As part of the Company's rolling hedge programme relating to gas sales from Saltfleetby, and due to the late start of production from Saltfleetby, some of the original hedged volumes due in Q3 2022 were closed and new hedges of an equivalent amount, but at much higher prices, were restruck in H1 2023. Whilst the Company had been seeking to defer this liability to include it within H1 2023's commitments and has been in discussions with the hedge providers to that end, it has now been unable to agree this. AS SUCH THESE FUNDS ARE EXPECTED TO SATISFY THE MAJORITY (IF NOT ALL) OF THE EARLIER CLOSED HEDGES."

It must be such a relief to know that the inveterate porky pie teller is on his way out.

It's all a tad odd.

First we had GL telling the market that the hedge shortfall payable yesterday had been pretty much entirely covered by £3.3 million of the megaplacing done last Xmas (in fact, covering the hedge shortfall was one of the core reasons he gave for that £7m placing... but as it's turned out, none of the cash raised then was used to pay off the missed hedge liabilities).

And then we got the first £3m "bridging" loan in late March. The company obviously already knew that was going to be nowhere early enough - and the primary purpose of that loan seems to have been so that the company could report some cash in the bank at the end of the half year.

And now we're getting (probably) the next £6m bridging loan, primarily to pay off a debt that GL had already raised money to pay off, as per above... and looking at other large lumps of payables rapidly coming into view, it's still not going to be enough.

Better get that $25m/£20m longer term replacement facility sorted ASAP then.

And yes it would be farcical if ANGS ends up paying Aleph duplicated fees in cash and shares.

That good cash flow is going to total about £1.5 million for July on 3 million therms produced.

That's a more than reasonable comparison, 360phil.

Even if they get this latest £6m short-term bridging loan through, that's not going to be the end of it.

Sure, it'll solve the immediate issue, the £3.5 million due today on the missed hedges (you know, those missed hedges that Georgie Porgie L said were pretty much entirely covered by half of the £7m raised at the Xmas megaplacing 7 months ago)...

...but that latest £6m doesn't look like it's enough to cover off other short-term debt lumps fast approaching, plus ongoing opex and G&A costs.

ANGS needs to pay back the first £3m bridging loan (plus interest) by end Sep. That's £3.23m.

ANGS needs to pay off £4.2m of the capital of the original £12m loan by end Sep as well. There'll be interest due too.

ANGS then needs to pay back this latest £6m bridge plus interest by end Sep - or possibly end Dec if it extends.

And then there's the next staged payment to PF looming as well - the last one was £1m, but there's still c. £5m owing for the acquisition. And then there's the ongoing field opex and G&A costs to cover each month...

Even with the £6m, things look squeaky tight from a cashflow perspective over the next few months, given the post-derivative settlement revenues that SFBY production is making available to the company.

RH really needs to secure that $25m/£20m replacement facility because ANGS needs the much longer (18 month) repayment period which that offers. That would solve all short-term cash issues - as far as can be told.

Speaking of which, the only thing that might save the Tories from getting atomised in Uxbridge (BoZo's recently hastily vacated seat and one of today's 3 by-elections) is voters' justified fury at Labour's mayor of London Sadiq Khan's extending the ULEZ policy, which is due to be imposed on long-suffering car drivers in a few weeks.

Another zero thought bit of green nonsense set to hammer a goodly chunk of the electorate.

I still can't help smiling when RobBot throws his favourite accusation around that people "don't understand the difference between gross and nett revenue", given his own repeatedly evidenced total lack of comprehension of the effects of monthly derivative contract settlement on revenues and thus free cash/cash flow.

More than slightly ironic.

I've read that not only is the mining of raw materials for electric car batteries literally appalling from an environmental point of view, but electric cars are so much heavier than regular cars that they a) cause far more wear and damage to road surfaces and b) there are genuinely major concerns about the structural integrity of multistorey carparks if too many electric cars park on the same level.

The green agenda... so well thought through, eh?

360Phil, just for clarification, I'm sure that would never happen... I mean there's rules, right? And we all know how keen-eyed and savagely efficient the FCA is when it comes to policing AIM...