Member Info for HeadInTheSand

OP, agreed.

PF being an ANGS non-exec, must have a very good inside track on company info. So, although it was seemingly perverse at the time for him to sell over 145 million shares at an average of 1.789p in the first three weeks of April this year, given that this was less than a month away from sidetrack news, in hindsight he did exactly the right thing, getting out at pretty much this calendar year's high point.

One does wonder what information he was party to that led him to that decision? I'd bet it was debt/cashflow shortfall related.

Correction to the below.

The 322 million shares that PF has sold to date i.e. since he first got his hands on any back in May 22) were sold at an average price of 1.711p (not 1.1711p)

Going by RNSes and TR-1s, PF would seem to have 375.6 million shares left.

As to 1.65? That's the price used when he was given the 60.6 million shares in lieu of a £1 million staged payment for the acquisition back in Jan this year.

The far greater number (637 million) of the previous shares which he got at the time of acquisition back in May 22 were valued at 1.098p.

To date (and only going by RNSes and TR-1s), one way or another, PF has received a total of 697.6 million ANGS shares as per above. Of those, he has sold 9 swathes totalling 322 million shares at an average price of 1.1711p, with his last transaction being in late April this year (107.75 million sold at 1.8p).

I've no idea if Amit has been selling shares since the last claimed pre-IPO or or not - I'd be surprised because who would buy them?

However, if the company website is to be believed (and sure, that's an ask in itself), he's certainly been creating and issuing new shares since that time.

So... presuming ANGS produces 3 million therms in July, which it looks set to, sales of that will deliver it c. £1.5 million of cash, after the July derivatives contract has been settled.

But just for Robday, who doesn't understand the difference between turnover and cashflow, yes, the turnover for July will be higher than that figure... but the actual cash generated and made available to ANGS by the sale of those 3 million therms won't be.

BV, please feel free quote any post I've made from from 6.5 years ago that has been about ANGS... as you say, the history is all there for anyone to see.

You of course won't be able to, but hey, why let the truth obstruct a smear attempt. Truly pathetic... no answer to any fact-based points raised, so sling made-up mud. How very BV...

Rob, there is no discrepancy in what I have been saying. For the last time, my point is that there's a massive difference between gross revenue and the free revenue (and NB pre any cost of sale) that's available to cover any and all costs and debt liabilities. Those derivative contracts clearly make a huge difference (as they always have done) and are the reason why ANGS has had to keep borrowing more and more while the cheerleaders here were trying to assure everyone that psot sidetrack, the company was now awash with cash.

It's baffling that you cannot grasp this, but hey, so be it. However from the SP trend, the market clearly has grasped this.

Cynderlad, as I've said, of course the $25m/£20m refinancing package would be a very good thing for ANGS (and I think a highly necessary thing too).

Although still expensive at 15%, it's cheaper than both the senior loan and the two junior bridging loans. But that's not the key point... if ANGS secures this refinancing, it buys them the time to be able to service that new/replacement debt with revenues arising from field production over a much longer period (18 months, extendable to 36 months). So I hope this gets agreed.

The current issue - even with the very recent incoming £6m of cash from the 2nd short-term bridging loan - remains having sufficient cashflow to cover existing payable liabilities between now and end Sept.

...and that's even taking into account the cash input from the second £6m loan coming in this month.

Okay, so since you quote them, let's look at those half year accounts, in terms of short-term (6 month) liabilities, shall we?

As of Mar 31st, ANGS had £3.17 million in the bank (having just received the first £3 million bridging loan).

That £3m loan is payable back in full by end Sept... so that's £3.23m with interest.

Then they borrowed a further £6m at end June, also payable back at the end of Sept (but maybe extendable by 3 months)... so that's £6.45m with interest.

The HY accounts (see Note 10) reveal a current period £4.2m payment due by end Sept on the senior loan (originally £12m)... so that's £4.2m not counting any interest.

The HY accounts also mention the £3.5m hedge shortfall payable by July 20th (see Note 11)... so add that £4.2m in as well.

Short-term debt total? c £17.4 million. And that's without any allowance for opex/G&A costs.

As Gallder has very helpfully worked out (see his post of July 1st), after settling both the primary and secondary hedges in Apr-Jun, ANGS was left with c. £4.9 million of revenue from gas for that period. Add that to the £3.17 million it had at half-year end and you get to £8.1 million.

How much free revenue do you think ANGS is going to make over Jul-Sep? Here's a helpful hint... it's looking to generate around £1.5 million of post-derivative revenue for the current month of July.

This is basic cashflow stuff. And it shows anyone with half a clue about such things that ANGS is going to need that replacement $25m/£20m facility.

Rob, of course I know what ANGS reported and it will be accurate. That is not my point.

However, given the clear need for short-term cash, the only relevant figure is... of the c. £15.7 million of revenue arising from sales of produced gas to Shell in the HY, how much was left after all derivatives for that period were settled? How much free revenue was available to cover opex/G&A costs, debt and other liabilities?

Answer... somewhere between £8.5 million and £9.1 million.

If it had been £15.7 million, ANGS wouldn't have needed to borrow the additional £6 million it's just signed up to.

BV, how utterly unsurprising to find that you're still spinning lies. As ever, the only resort of those confronted with the factual...

PS if you don't believe me, take a look at Gallder's figures.

I came up with £9.13 million as a rough estimate of ANGS's revenue from sales of produced gas between Oct 22 and Mar 23, once the derivative contracts had been settled.

Gallder, who's a fair bit more au fait with derivative contracts that I and who's been (quite correctly) running his figures on a daily basis for a while now (so his numbers will be more accurate), came up with a figure of £8.51 million as a post-derivative revenue for the same period.

Not quite the £16 million you've been banging on and on about, eh?

Robday are you a multi-ID, or do you suffer from amnesia or are you just a helpless liar?

As you have openly admitted just a week ago that you got entirely wrong, you already know that I've not been posting on ANGS for 6.5 years, nor have I made 6,000 posts on ANGS. You know this already... but you still choose to spin that myth in a trite attempt to discredit. Is that really all you've got?

More to the point, there is no negative slant to my last post. It simply corrects the ignorant (or deceptive) statements you were making about ANGS's revenues. Like a few here, I've bothered to look at the verifiable facts... you clearly haven't. And for the record, facts are neither positive nor negative... they're just facts and as such, cannot be discredited.

I've given you a detailed and ABC simple explanation of how ANGS did not generate the £16 million of post derivative revenue you insist on claiming it did in the first half. It's not my fault if you're incapable of getting your head around this, but most rational people are unlikely to believe that ignorance is bliss...

Robday, I'm not trying to warn, advise or counsel anyone about anything. People can (of course) do whatever they like to their heart's desire.

However, if someone spouts utter nonsense about easily auditable and verifiable figures (either because they just don't understand what they mean or because they're being deliberately deceptive), one would think it 'd be useful to have that utter nonsense corrected with the actual reality of things.

Oops, slight correction to the below as follows:-

"So, for July, the first 1.5 million therms produced will effectively deliver ANGS £563k of revenue (and the same for August and again for September).

Now in July, the floating spot price is around £0.60p per therm, so the extra unhedged July production of 1.5 million therms will generate an additional £900k of revenue, giving a July revenue total of £1.463k."

Robday, you keep having a pop at people for not knowing the difference between gross revenue and nett revenue. I suggest to you that you just don't get that there's a difference between gross revenue and revenue post derivative settlement. Which is a pity, because it's a significant difference.

The production figures are available for all to see on the NSTA website and we all know what the hedges were (both primary and secondary) which applied between Oct and Mar (ANGS's first half of the new FY - see Note 25 of the full year report for details).

ANGS's total production during those six months was just over 11 million therms (see the NSTA figures or indeed Gallder's regularly produced figures).

The primary hedge during that period was for 10.5 million therms at the fixed price of £0.5205p, giving ANGS an effective post-derivative revenue on all but 500,000 of its produced therms of £5.46 million.

Let's assume it sold the remaining 500k therms for £1.85p a therm (roughly the average floating spot gas price during that 6 month period. That's an extra £0.93 million of post-derivative revenue.

Then there's the secondary hedge during that period, set at 843,750 therms between Jan and Mar at a fixed price of £4.38p per therm. Average floating spot gas pricing during that period was roughly £1.13p, so that's a bonus extra revenue of £2.74 million to ANGS.

Total gas revenue during the Oct-Mar period then, once both the primary and secondary derivative contracts had been settled? £9.13 million, give or take.

All the info above is entirely in the public domain - you just need to have a grasp of what it means.

To look at the current quarter, things are even more simple (because there is no secondary hedge any more - see note 11 of the half year report for details).

In this quarter, ANGS has hedged 4.5 million therms at a fixed price of £0.3755p. Now we know it's liable to produce double that (3 million therms a month). That means that it'll effectively get £1.69 million for half of its production in this current quarter, but sell the other half (4.5 million therms) at the spot price.

So, for July, the first 1.5 million therms produced will effectively deliver ANGS £781k of revenue (and the same for August and again for September).

Now in July, the floating spot price is around £0.60p per therm, so the extra unhedged July production of 1.5 million therms will generate an additional £900k of revenue, giving a July revenue total of £1.681k.

You decide what the floating spot price will be in Aug and Sep, but remember that only half of ANGS's production will get sold at that floating price.

I cannot explain things more clearly than that.

A teeny point. Saltfleetby is not producing £100k a day.

Yesterday the gross revenue after derivative settlement was under £50k (and yes, that was for an average day's production of just over 100,000 therms).

Yet again, nobody is saying that debt is inevitably a bad thing. Manageable debt at manageable interest rates with manageable repayment periods is a perfectly sensible means of funding.

Where debt gets trickier is when it becomes harder to manage, i.e. too short-term. As posted earlier and only quoting known and easily verifiable facts, ANGS is going to be squeaky bum tight on cashflow, even with the latest £6m "bridging loan". It really badly needs that somewhat cheaper but far more importantly, much less short-term $25m/£20m replacement financing.

If it gets that, that should provide the breathing space to allow field revenues to catch up and cover incurred liabilities.

Let me lay it out simply.

At end March, ANGS had c. £3m cash as reported (pretty much entirely courtesy of the first £3m "bridging loan".

During APR-JUN, ANGS generated £4.9m of post-derivative revenue (see Gallder's summary post of 01/07/23 at 14:56). This figure was much helped to the tune of c. £1m by the secondary hedge (that ended at end Jun).

For JUL-SEP at realistic gas pricing and with the primary hedge still in place (until end Jun 2025), ANGS is tracking to generate around £4.8m of post-hedge revenue (the primary hedge quantities have dropped this month to 1.5m therms).

Add to that the £6m additional bridging loan that ANGS has just taken out.

Total available cash between Apr 1st and Sep 30th? £3m + £4.9m + £4.8m + £6m = £18.7m.

Now... what does ANGS need to pay out in terms of already incurred liabilities between now and end Sep?

Most urgently, there's the hedge shortfall, which is around £3.5m from memory?

Then obviously the two short-term bridging loans, so that's £9m plus say £0.9m in interest @ 20% = £9.9m.

Then there's the next senior loan repayment due at end Sep of £4.2m

Those three liabilities by themselves total £17.6m...

And that's without any allowance for field opex costs or any other G&A costs. And at some time relatively soon there's the next staged payment to PF for the acquisition.

So yes, ANGS could really do with that replacement $25m/£20m longer-term facility.

Hi again RKT. Hope you're keeping well.

Re my quite deliberately chosen BB ID, it remains a matter of slight amusement that posters such as Havegun clearly think that the word "irony" solely means "a bit like iron".

AJH, the short but accurate answer is of course "No"... and it has been ever thus with Amit and Cloudtag. He/it has never shown that he/it ever had anything of any value to monetise.

The sole rational position here (adopted by the more commonsensical) is to consider the value of any CTAG holdings to be zero. Then if the nigh on unbelievable eve happens, happy days.

As for Amit and the few remaining faithful? Amit has always leveraged and banked on the cold, hard fact that it is of course both literally and logically impossible to prove a negative.

Nevertheless, the best counterposition to that is to adopt a Jerry Maguire mindset, namely "Show me the money." IMO, a mindset that is liable to end up being eternal.