Member Info for HeadInTheSand

This is not difficult for anyone to work out.

Gallder very helpfully and accurately posts gross revenue figures (NB POST-DERIVATIVE settlement) every single day. Currently, ANGS is generating around £56k per day of post-derivative revenue from the sale of around 100,000 therms a day.

Clearly one or two posting here seriously need to grasp that the ONLY monthly revenue figures worth looking at over the next two years are those that are after applicable derivatives have been settled.

The company's various debts and liabilities are also known (together with the timelines as to when those need to be settled), as is ANGS's cash position at end March.

I'd say that extended $25m/£20m facility would be extremely useful for ANGS if it can secure it.

Turkeys voting for Christmas, I see. The guy literally NEVER told the truth about anything at all.

You think it's the news of the £6 million bridging loan and/or the possible £20 million new facility that's got the SP up?

Hardly. It's because another old Etonian with zero regard for the truth has been forcibly removed from play.

Rob, seriously? Again? It's not 6.5 years on ANGS, nor is it 6000 posts on ANGS. You already admitted being a muppet in making this mistake a few days ago. And my last post was hardly negative anyway.

BTW posts supported by factual evidence aren't "narratives".

..

Rob, not that anyone should believe a single word that anyone else says on a BB about their holdings or lack of them in any company, but no I didn't.

Reason? For me, trust needs to be earned - and again for me, it was never going to be earnable for as long as Hans Christian Lucan was anywhere near the BOD. RT's got a clean slate now, so let's see how he does.

BTW and as previously stated, I was tempted in mid-May when the SP was around the 1.5p level, so I'd still be unhealthily down if I had gone back in then.

Also with respect, acting on someone's advice on a BB to buy in because in their opinion a stock has reached its low point??? A) How many hundreds of times has that been assured in the past by numerous cheerleaders in the past? And more importantly B) You'd have to be a real mug to act on BB advice.

GL had to go. The amount of porkies he told over his tenure at the helm has been shocking - six weeks max for the sidetrack... the £7 million Xmas 22 megaplacing being enough to cover all hedge shortfalls... the list is literally endless.

Presuming that we've had all the short-term nasties confirmed in this latest RNS, getting hold of that $25 million/£20 million facility at 15% seemingly wouldn't be a bad idea. It's at a cheaper rate than both the senior facility (£7.35m left to pay) and the two junior facilities just taken out (£3m plus £6m). After covering those off, It'd also give ANGS access to around £3.5m of working capital.

(Presumably the 8% revenue override attached to the senior loan still applies, kicking in once that loan is paid off?)

Separately I haven't yet quite got my head around what the "unwinding" of 50% of the hedges in the last year they apply (Jul 24 to Jun 25) actually entails.

Ding dong, the fibber's gone. And the debt's just got a bit cheaper. There've been way too many false dawns with ANGS... maybe just maybe this might be an actual one.

That's a nice end of the week for long-suffering shareholders.

Not sure about the $25 million...

...but Pinocchio Lucan exiting stage left is an excellent thing and probably half the reason for the uptick.

(And Ocelot comments thus... "George is leaving on a high note. Thank you and all the best for the future"(!!!) I didn't know whether to laugh or cry...)

I do wonder at what point in time (if ever) the remaining faithful will give up on their remaining expectations, presuming that no concrete result is forthcoming?

I vaguely remember Hubbabubbas announcing that he'd set himself a personal backstop of June last year, but clearly that's been extended.

(Not of course it makes the slightest difference to the outcome whether one maintains one's expectations or not... well, not from a financial POV anyhow. But from a personal mental wellbeing POV?)

...and your reply on my second cause for puzzlement suggests that in your opinion, ANGS is telling pretty much blatant fibs, no?

Gallder, I know how Mercuria was able to do it... I don't know why they'd do it.

There are two things I just don't get, one older and one newer.

First, I have never understood get the reason for Mercuria's agreeing to the secondary hedge (now over, but running from Jan to Jun this year). To all intents and purposes, this appears to have "given" ANGS about an extra £4 million (c £2.5m between Jan-Mar and c. £1.5m between Apr-Jun). Now Mercuria to my knowledge is not a charity, so this remains hard to fathom. OofyProsser mentions this below and reckons there must have been a hefty quid pro quo attached... quite possibly, but we've certainly not been informed what that might have been. Baffling...

Secondly, there's this phrase from an answer this month answer to an investor question:-

"You are right that cashflow from the field is obviously very strong but our repayment schedule on the senior debt also accelerates with that higher cashflow and this final rolled hedge payment (arising from late production in 2022), when netted with other rolled hedges, TURNED OUT TO BE LARGER THAN EXPECTED." (CAPS are mine).

That's equally baffling. I mean, all the conditions of both the primary and secondary hedges have been known for months, and production volumes are known on a daily basis...

...so how can any historical rolled hedge payments/misses possibly produce a liability that "turns out to be larger than expected"???

As usual, there's far too much that we're not being told, because from all the information we have been given, the unexpected size of any hedge liability makes no sense at all.

PS re interest rates applying to the senior loan, as Gallder has quite correctly said, it was struck at 12% over LIBOR. Now although 1 and 6 month GBP LIBOR rates were discontinued as of end March this year, the 3 month rate is still quoted and it's currently 5.435%.

A_D, apart from what I and others have already mentioned, the only other thing to take into account is that, as a condition of the original £12m senior loan, ANGS is obliged to maintain a positive bank balance at all times that (from memory) amounts to 3 months' worth of interest payments due on that senior loan.

That's well worked out, A_D. The only comments I'd make are:-

I personally work things out on an average gas price of 80p per therm, but your £1 might be more accurate.

Not sure you can base either the senior loan repayments (capital plus interest) or the amount due to PF re deferred acquisition costs on extrapolating from the recent H1 figures. Both items need to be completely cleared by Jun 2025.

Have you factored in the announced hedge shortfall catch-up payment (that was originally £3+ million but which now seems to be "larger than expected") due this summer?

Apart from the above, good stuff.

As I've said, the devil is in the detail...

Some may wish to make themselves aware of how ANGS managed to report £15.7 million of gas sales in H1, given that during the Sep-Mar period, it only just managed to exceed the primary hedge's production levels - and the average primary hedge price was 50p per therm.

Some may also wish to ask why, given an overall reported turnover of £16.46 million (inc condy)... and raising £7 million in Dec... and borrowing a further £3 million in March... ANGS needs a further £6 million right now.

PS Rob, I shouldn't have to explain to you again that I have not posted 6,000 times over 6.5 years on ANGS. You made that embarrassing mistake yesterday, remember?

PPS the natural monthly revenue levels from gas sales, presuming average gas pricing at 80p per therm, monthly production levels of 3 million therms and taking into account the continuing primary hedge are around £1.75 million a month until Jun 24, when the primary hedge reduces a little.

Correction to my post below

"...at 3m therms per MONTH output..."

(obviously).

Also re surprise at the need for a further £6m, the RNS announcing the £7m Xmas megaplacing actually said that less than half of that £7m (in fact only only £3.3m of that) was needed to cover off "the majority if not all of" the missed hedges.

I remain at a loss as to why this extra £6m is needed now, in the light of all previously issued company info related to cash flow requirements. And the SP reaction over the last 12 days would suggest that the market in general was also taken aback.

As ever, ANGS would solve all of its credibility problems if it adopted and stuck to being candid and transparent as a policy.

CITM I actually didn't know that re the extra £6m - and here's why.

The Dec 18th megaplacing stated that "the majority if not all of the missed hedge payments" would be covered by that placing.

They then got the £3m bridging loan at end March to cover off cost overruns and to provide working capital.

At 3m therms per day output, even with the remaining hedges and a reduced price of gas, that should be providing post-hedge revenues of around £22m per annum, or £1.8m per month.

That should have been more than enough to cover off paying off the £3m bridging loan in the short term and the c. £11m left on the original loan that's due to terminate in 2 years' time and PF's c. £5.5m owed for the acquisition, again terminating in 2 years' time.

So yes, I was surprised.

Has anyone else noticed that a fair few of the most vocal "here for the long term guaranteed goldmine... honest!" cheerleaders have strangely gone missing? One cannot help but wonder why - one of three reasons, I reckon.

a) they've slunk off in embarrassment at reality being so jarringly different with what they were assuring everyone.

b) they've decided to sell out, despite their incessant posts about committed to being long and strong.

c) there's no realistic chance for them to do their jobs any more now that the dramatically increased increased cash hole cat is out of the bag.

AIM BBs, eh? Gotta love 'em.

...and Aleph is due to be given a further 30+ million shares as a fee for "arranging" the latest £6 million bridging loan, presuming the terms on that are much the same as with the previous £3 million one, so it's holding is set to increase further (albeit probably temporarily).

PS believe it or not, I don't like unfounded negativity either.

OK so I've been proven right (to date) with my wariness about ANGS - but that doesn't make me any sort of gifted analyst or anything. All I hopefully ever do or have ever done is base my opinion on a) what the company has stated at various times and b) how those statements have ended up meshing (or not) with the actual reality of things as it has turned out.

I've been wary of ANGS since the Brockham bombshell - and as it turns out, nothing since that point has done anything to change that wariness (quite the reverse, in fact). As I've said, I got pretty close to buying back in a couple of months back when the news on what the sidetrack was delivering was announced and everything that the company handpicked to share was rosy - so I can clearly still be fooled too.

Rob, you really need to be more careful and pay attention to detail.

Yes I have been a memeber of the LSE BB for 6.5 years... yes I have made 5,686 posts in that time...

...BUT the 100% you mention only refers to the 60 posts I've made during the last 30 days (which yes, have all been on ANGS).

No wonder you get your revenue estimates so badly wrong. The devil is in the detail.