Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Robday... here are some cast-iron facts for you.

a) I have not been posting on ANGS for 7 years

b) I do not currently hold ANGS shares

c) I have held ANGS shares in the past

d) I may hold ANGS shares again

e) If you honestly believe that yesterday's production of 101k therms grossed the company £100k revenue after taking this month's hedge into account as you have stated, then you are making investment decisions based on complete BS info. Yesterday's post-hedge gross revenue was £59k. Fact.

(You should actually be grateful that you're being given the correct information. Operating from a standpoint of complete ignorance is never a happy place to be... that is, unless you're actively trying to fool others by knowingly wildly exaggerating daily revenues?)

Ducking again, Rob? Disappointing - as are the attempted distraction efforts.

Yesterday's gas revenue delivered by the 101,947 therms post hedge... was it "£100k" as you have glibly claimed? Or £59k as those who bother to work it out have stated?

Why is it the cheerleaders are so allergic to oh so easily verifiable facts?

Robday, check Gallder's daily numbers.

Yesterday's gross revenue figures from sales of produced gas (once the applicable hedge was settled) total £59k, not the £100k you claim.

Any condensate produced would add to that a little.

Singhie...

"...and in truth for those who are able to this is a wonderful buy point to reduce the average holding price, thus allowing all the opportunity of an acceptable exit point, or an acceptable selling price based on a buyout per share".

You were saying the exact same thing at 1.575p back in early May. It seems like your recommended ANGS investment strategy requires investors to have infinite funds, in order to keep averaging down while they wait for the promised land, no?

To that end, only 11 days ago on Jun 30th, your much repeated future share price predictor showed an "expected" SP of 1.71p for November this year... and on that basis I would suggest that your carefully crafted spreadsheet has definitively not accounted for all factors and variables that are now becoming apparent.

What a difference a month makes (and no, I don't blame Cynderlad in the least... nobody was expecting yet another cash hole to the tune of £6 million getting suddenly revealed at the end of June).

Cynderlad

Background buyer is savvy

ANGS 6 Jun 2023 10:04

"Time will tell. I have a feeling that we have someone building a stake, and they are gonna take this past the 10% level in due course.

3p nailed on later this year, question is whether they want ANGS outright or whether they want a multi-bagger."

Rob, I don't disagree from what we had been told right up until the HY figures that ANGS looked like a good bet, once we were given news on what the sidetrack was producing.

I'm on record as saying that I was genuinely tempted to get back in around the middle of May - all the available evidence suggested I should, but I went with the (unjustified at the time) wariness my gut was counselling me and decided not to (thank God, as it's turned out).

The problem that's becoming more and more apparent (despite ANGS not once being open about this at all) is cash vs debt. We largely know what the former is (cf Gallder's excellent daily figures showing income levels), but we clearly had been entirely kept in the dark like mushrooms by ANGS as to the extent of the latter.

It's loads bigger than a) anyone expected and b) the company let on. Hence the market voting with its feet and the SP trajectory.

Rob, facts, not narratives, remember?

I have never seen WG state that he doesn't own ANGS shares. Quite the reverse in fact - he's often said that he does (but wishes he hadn't bought in whenever he did).

If you've seen him post something contradicting that, perhaps best to quote it? I've checked his posts from the last couple of days and from what I saw, he never once said he owned no shares.

Happy to be proved wrong... but I think you'll have your work cut out to do that.

Rob, I agree that we don't know the exact terms relating to the newly urgently required £6 million. We do however know this, because the company has stated it (from the Jun 30th RNS):

"Additionally the Directors have entered into heads of terms for a further 6 month bridge facility of £6m which, whilst the final terms are to be agreed, they expect will be on substantially the same terms as those announced on 28 March for the £3m bridge facility, which has itself been rolled according to its terms by a further three months. The £6m facility is expected to be agreed next week and further details will be announced at that time."

(Side note - one of the reasons for the SP's further fall is that there may be some delay/difficulty in getting this loan agreed?)

As to your hoped-for value that the Saltfleetby asset gives the company? Again, sadly, the ANGS board would seem to disagree with you. Here's what it very recently said:

"With production up at Saltfleetby, the Board’s priority now is to identify inorganic opportunities for growth which would provide the route to a £100m valuation."

A £100m valuation would equal roughly 2.9p per share (with current shares in issue)... but the board has stated that it needs new "inorganic opportunities" in hand to justify such a valuation.

Look, don't listen to me or anyone else with a more wary opinion if you don't want. But I would strongly recommend listening to the market - it clearly knows the difference between facts and narratives.

Good luck to you (genuinely).

"...working to maintain their financial options open..."

More accurately known as "...trying to get hold of enough cash to meet their already incurred liabilities and stay afloat."

What's deeply wrong here is that ANGS has never once come clean about its cash vs debt position, hence the repeated nasty surprises.

The issue is not that ANGS can't find buyers for all the gas it can produce.

I must admit that I have a little sympathy for robday, who's doing the best he can to create and fit a positive narrative onto unfortunately very easily verifiable facts which aren't positive at all.

Is ANGS in a different position to a year ago? Sure - it's now got a gas field that if there are no more continuing problems should produce at least 3 million therms a month, if it can be run at full pelt. OKay, such maximum output figures will be subject to pressure drop as time goes by, but still, this is a good thing.

Is all debt bad for companies? No of course it's not. Managed debt used to either leverage existing opportunities upwards or investigate the potential of realistic new opportunities is of course a completely normal source of funding for any company. However, having to take on emergency debt at predatory rates is equally obviously a bad thing.

The point here is what ANGS has said about the last three shedloads of cash it has needed to get hold of (totalling £16 million) over the last three months.

Last Xmas's £7 million raise... when announcing the placing, GL stated that only £3.3 million of that £7 million was needed to cover off missed hedge payments. Here's what the RNS said:

"As such these funds are expected to satisfy the majority (if not all) of the earlier closed hedges."

So although not great, at least that placing put to bed the missed hedge liabilities.

But then just 3 months later at end March, the company finds itself needing more emergency short-term funding, so it takes on a £3 million bridging loan at c. 20%. However, it assures the market again via RNS that it can happily afford to pay this "junior facility" back alongside paying back the original £12 million "senior facility" loan:

"Revenues from the existing operations and the sidetrack are expected to repay both the senior and junior facilities."

A nasty and sudden unexpected surprise, but hey, at least the company stated it could afford the extra borrowing. Again not great, but okay...

And then, just 3 months later again at end June, the company suddenly announces it desperately needs a further £6 million to cover off hedge shortfalls again... you know, the ones it had already said it had got covered by the Xmas placing last year. This is what ANGS said, when asked about why it suddenly needed the extra £6m:

"... this final rolled hedge payment (arising from late production in 2022), when netted with other rolled hedges, turned out to be larger than expected. Angus is taking on additional short-term debt to manage the settlement of that hedge as well as to provide working capital for Saltfleetby and evaluation of acquisition opportunities."

HUH???

Plus the company is not replacing eyepoppingly expensive debt with cheaper borrowing - it has already stated via RNS that the terms for this extra £6m it shouldn't have needed are very much the same as the previous £3m it shouldn't have needed.

Facts, not narrative.

Oops... my bad. It is of course £16 mi,lion ANGS has needed to scrape together since Xmas, not £13 million. Good thing that the cheerleaders have been doing all they can to assure anyone unwise enough to listen that the company's positively awash with cash, courtesy of production.

...except, looking at both the SP and its trend line, the market as a whole is clearly showing that it's really not that naive.

So, what has ANGS said re the £13 million it has needed to get its hands on in the last six months?

Re the Dec 18th £7 million megaplacing, it said this at the time:-

"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."

Re the Mar 28th £3 million Wonga loan, it said this at the time:-

"... a GBP 3 million junior debt facility (the "Bridge Facility") to manage costs arising from the extended drilling operations as well as initial studies around the development of natural gas and hydrogen storage at Saltfleetby.... Revenues from the existing operations and the sidetrack are expected to repay both the senior and junior facilities."

Re the latest Jun 30th £6 million return to Wonga loan, it said this at the time:-

"... this final rolled hedge payment (arising from late production in 2022), when netted with other rolled hedges, turned out to be larger than expected. Angus is taking on additional short-term debt to manage the settlement of that hedge as well as to provide working capital for Saltfleetby and evaluation of acquisition opportunities."

Every time it raises funds whether via placing or eyewateringly expensive borrowing, ANGS assures everyone it won't need any more... but then it does. Worse, it seems to give the same reasons every single time for needing to get cash at exorbitant rates. And surely nobody believes for one second that the liabilities on missed hedges were in any way "larger than expected"?

If (as the company has said) the terms for this latest £6m are the same, then the interest rate will again be a squeak under 20%, but Aleph will this time get given around 30 million shares, looking at the current 30 day VWAP (though this is heading south, which would mean even more shares for Aleph - and that's on top of any more warrants issued to Kemexon as funds provider).

Robday, with the ANGS SP now just 1/3rd of its 12 month high (2.7p in early Sep 22) and in fact only 50% of its 6 month high (1.82p in mid Apr 23)...

...have you ever thought of wondering why the market very obviously and very provably does not share such a positive outlook on ANGS?

It's a question that I'd say definitely needs asking - even if only of yourself.

If you really feel the need, you can insult those expressing a more wary opinion on ANGS all you like, but even though you'd probably love to, you cannot deny the current SP trajectory and levels, post successful sidetrack.

BP, re "asset value is real for SFBY"...

I was of similar thinking around the first half of May (even with the debts/liabilities that were visible at the time. However what first put the mockers on that for me was the end Jun news of the extra £6m bridging loan @ c.20% that the company needed to secure. Short-term cash flow issues must have been worse than had so far been revealed.

Then to add insult to injury, a week later we got this decidedly odd answer to an IQ...

"With production up at Saltfleetby, the Board’s priority now is to identify inorganic opportunities for growth which would provide the route to a £100m valuation."

To me, what that seems to make clear is that the ANGS board does not think Saltfleetby as it exists now (i.e. inc sidetrack and presumably producing c. 3 million therms a month when running at full chat) makes the company worth 3p a share. They'll apparently need to be exploiting other "inorganic opportunities" before they can get to that sort of SP level, apparently.

Didn't that also strike you as odd?

BP, to clear up some sort of misapprehension...

You wrote:

"Hits,

It's a little low level for you to try and make more out of the end of Push 2, to the newer BP, in some lame support towards Wg."

I actually wasn't criticising you in the least there. You've been completely candid about the fact that you were Push2 and you are now BP (and never simultaneously). That's totally fine with me.

Instead I was pointing out to the sadly dim Milender that, just because you've had two separate (but never simultaneous) IDs, it does not follow that I and WG are one and the same. Anyhow...

I suspect that you currently share my caution on ANGS, though you may decide to short-term trade it if it seems appropriate to do so (and nothing wrong with that). I won't - I'm not pne for short-term trading.

Someone's not au fait with wokespeak, clearly. Much as I personally find it ridiculous and annoying, "themself" is apparently allowable as a singular pronoun in this day and age.

Separately milender, trying to prove one's intellectual superiority by carping over a point of grammar (which amusingly is beyond your limits of understanding - see above) is just a tad pathetic, no?

And in an effort to help you avoid looking even more benighted, although Bubblepoint/Push2 are indeed one and the same, as he/she (happier now?) has openly stated, I just have the single ID.

Robday, I'l give you the courtesy of a reply.

1. (and this is hardly news, because I've stated this repeatedly), no I am not at present an ANGS shareholder, though I have been in the past.

2a. I don't "constantly slate" ANGS. I pose questions based on auditable facts, statements made by the company and the frequent disparities betweeb the two.

2b. I post here because I believe I am relatively well-researched on ANGS and the share interests me.

Any risk of a reply to my question? Why do you think the ANGS SP is so stubbornly low, given the successful sidetrack in May? I understand this must be frustrating for you, given that you were posting about having to average down by buying more at 1.4133p in March this year... but that doesn't make it a question worth ignoring. Quite the reverse, I'd have thought.

Speaking of replying to posts, Robday... do you have an opinion on why the ANGS SP remains as low as it is? Or is that just an inconvenient truth to be ignored?

The ANGS board itself has seemingly just announced that it doesn't consider the asset of Saltfleetby as it is today to be worth 3p a share.

"With production up at Saltfleetby, the Board’s priority now is to identify inorganic opportunities for growth which would provide the route to a £100m valuation."

I'm just asking questions based solely and entirely upon either a) the actual reality of things or b) what the company itself has stated. The cheerleaders seem to have no answer to either, instead just going for playground insult, in the hope that nobody notices they're ducking questions they can't come up with an answer for.