Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Chesh, you may appreciate this.

That quoted phrase of yours - which has been much bandied about over the years - sounds like marketing speak to me.

A well-known former boss of mine once told me that the most accurate definition of marketing he'd ever heard was "lying, but with style"...

Bubble/P2, agreed, it's a much better prospect now even with the debt and dilution (because it's actually got a serious monetisable asset)...

...but also particularly because GL is no longer at the helm. That is an equally significant plus point in my book.

@Bubble/P2, although I largely agree (unsurprisingly). I suspect there may be a potential short-term cashflow issue between now and Sept, revolving around the £4.175m catch-up payment - which is probably the reason that ANGS took out that 3 month (extendable to 6 months) £3m bridging facility at an eyebrow-raising 19.5%.

However, taking a 2 or 3 year view, things look far rosier.

BV seriously? What are you talking about?

Yesterday (and to the amusement of many) you posted thus:-

"Lol point out where Angus give away 8% gross of " ALL THE SBY FIELD PRODUCTION" at the end of the loan."

So, since you were bizarrely ignorant of the terms surrounding the loan, I helpfully pasted directly from last year's FY report giving those terms and confirming the 8% of gross revenue override you knew nothing about.

Here's the phrase again, just for you:-

"...and an override of 8% of gross revenue following the repayment of the facility."

Separately, of course the 30m shares granted at the time the £12 million loan was taken is a complete irrelevance. No-one has ever claimed otherwise.

And of course finex is tax deductible, just like any other valid business expense. That's very basic stuff and taken for granted, so why state the obvious?

And finally, whyever would I not state how positive the 2nd swap has been for ANGS over the last 6 months? Of course it has... that's a fact and I at least consider facts to be important.

Sadly, you really are becoming more clownish every day that passes.

Actually no it doesn't at all. Instead, Gallder's posted info shows the extra revenue that ANGS has benefitted from, solely because of the second hedge (which ends this month). It's got precisely nothing at all to do with the sidetrack.

(I don't understand why people find this so hard to grasp?)

There you go Maddog.... ty Gallder.

As I said, swap 2 will have been wildly profitable for ANGS over the Jan-Jun 23 6 months it was put in palce.

I'm sure you can do the simple maths, Maddog? Or use Gallder's figures?

I'm failing to see the point you're obviously keen to make?

Let's be courteous to the clearly very poorly informed. This from page 69 of the last FY report (and this had been announced several times before that):-

"24. Loan Payable

On 17 May 2021, the Group signed a Loan Facility, conditional on the setting of the hedge (see Note 25) and regulatory approval of the royalty from the Oil and Gas Authority, between Angus Energy and Saltfleetby Energy Limited and Mercuria Energy Trading Limited and Aleph Saltfleetby Limited as the co-Lender. The term of the Loan Facility provides for a four year amortisation loan facility of up to £12 million with a 12% margin over LIBOR, a 3% commitment fee payable out of the facility, a share granted of 30 million shares in Angus, issued over the life of the facility and an override of 8% of gross revenue following the repayment of the facility."

The last sentence is the one that those having done a bare modicum of research are referring to here.

CITM, I would agree with you... except in all its borrowing to date, ANGS has only managed to negotiate eye-watering Wonga-esque rates (LIBOR + 12% on the main £12 million loan signed on 13th May 2021 and then SONIA + 15% on the £3 million bridging facility signed on 28th March 2023). That first rate seems to be around 13% and the second seems to be around 19.5% (!!!)

Perhaps now that consistently achievable production rates are becoming known, any refinancing needed by ANGS (if available) could be secured on less loan-sharky terms?

Don't treat me as any sort of guru on derivative contracts, CITM, but my understanding is that those hedge contracts are purely financial instruments (or literally, swap contracts) where only money and not gas changes hands. Therefore the amount owed by either side of any hedge gets paid out anyway, regardless of how much or how little gas has been produced. I therefore don't believe that part of WG's post is correct in terms of "missing the hedge", because the exchange on the swap contracts will be due anyway.

Perhaps best to put forward a hypothetical example (and feel free to correct this if necessary, anyone):-

Say for the month of June the spot price for gas is £0.80p a therm.

Say a company has hedged 1 million therms at £0.50p a therm in that month.

Say that same company has also hedged 100,000 therms at £1.50p per therm in that month.

Resolve those swap contracts. The company owes £300k on the first hedge, come what may (1 million x £0.50p-£0.80p), but is due £70k on the second hedge (100k x £1.50p-£0.80p). Net balance owed by the company once those monthly hedges are resolved? £230k... and that's owed, regardless of any amount of gas production.

Now say the company actually produces 500,000 therms that month. It sells those on the open market at £0.80p per therm and generates £400k of revenue...

The company then ends up with nett revenues of £170k for that month after all production and all hedges have been taken into account. This nett revenue position is what Gallder's frequent summary posts show.

Where WG is right however is mentioning that £4.1 million "catch-up" payment. This was mentioned for the first and only time in the Full Year report (released on Mar 7th) which states this:-

"It is also noted there is a catch-up derivative payment of £4,175k due in June 2023 which the group is forecast to meet however should therebe a timing difference between cash inflows and outflows then Further funding may be required. The Directors have therefore identified a material uncertainty which may cast doubt over the Group’s ability to

continue as a going concern." (page 50 in the last FY report).

Given the decidedly odd performance of the ANGS SP over the last month, as I've mentioned before, I'm now wondering if the market is jittery about a potential short-term cashflow issue for ANGS? That £4.1 million mentioned above seems due, and then there's the £3 million bridging loan also falling due at the same time (unless extended by 3 months).

Seen over a 2 year view, ANGS repaying its current levels of debt and liabilities should not prove any issue at all. However the timing of required repayments may be the current spanner in the works of the SP.

AIMO.

No Maddog, not in the least? No clue where you got that idea from? Hedge 2 in particular is wildly profitable for ANGS, albeit for a relatively small number of therms.

If you want to see the effect of both hedges on daily/monthly revenues, just check out Gallder's regulat updates showing this.

The two hedges concurrently running from Jan-Jun this year, that's what.

U still don't understand quite why Mercuria agreed to that second hedge, but the fact as stated is that it did.

The hedges are a little confusing right at the moment, because as mentioned by others, between Jan to Jun this year, two sets of hedges apply. The second set that was negotiated in Sep 22 concludes at the end of this month. This was revealed in the Annual Report released on 7th March. It looks like this:-

Jan-Mar 23 Hedge 1 5,250,000 therms @ £0.5205 per therm

Jan-Mar 23 Hedge 2 843,750 therms @ £4.38 per therm (yes, really)

Apr-Jun 23 Hedge 1 5,250,000 therms @ £0.3755 per therm

Apr-Jun 23 Hedge 2 843,750 therms @ £3.15 per therm (yes, really)

Jul-Sep 23 Hedge 1 4,500,000 therms @ £0.3755 per therm

Oct-Mar 24 Hedge 1 9,000,000 therms @ £0.4655 per therm

Apr-Jun 24 Hedge 1 4,500,000 therms @ £0.3560 per therm

Jul-Sep 24 Hedge 1 3,750,000 therms @ £0.3560 per therm

Oct-Mar 25 Hedge 1 7,500,000 therms @ £0.4500 per therm

Apr-Jun 25 Hedge 1 3,750,000 therms @ £0.3525 per therm

I agree that's what all available info is strongly indicating , CITM, including the "almost completely derisked" comment - after all, over the next three years even including the remaining hedges, the company's set to generate comfortably in excess of £70m of disposable revenue out of Sfby alone, presuming average gas pricing over that period of 80p per therm (and probably closer to £80m if one includes condensate sales).

It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to work those figures out - it's the work of 30 seconds. But again, why is the MCap remaining at £41 million? Is the general market really that unaware?

BV you clearly need to look up the meaning of "courtesy".

I have indeed commented before a fair while back on the other site (which is of course completely publicly viewable and where I post under the cunningly disguised ID of HeadInTheSand) that in the past this ANGS LSE bulletin board was riddled with ramptastic short-term trading cheerleaders looking to sucker in any mug punters. I'm happy to stand by that comment.

I have also been completely open both there and here with my wariness on ANGS. It's served me in good stead and even now, when all logic strongly points towards a notably higher SP than the current counter-intuitively low level, I'm glad I stuck to my decision.

A point of correction to one of the several myths you like to throw out there. I've not been commenting on ANGS for six years at all. That's you just making stuff up as usual in a tired and banal effort to smear anyone daring to hold a different opinion from your own - much like your "anyone less than glowing about ANGS must be a multi-ID that's paid to post" nonsense or even more farcically "anyone refusing to tell you their average when you demand to know is obviously dishonest" routine.

Finally, I've actually got no real interest in "dressing you down" as you put it. I'm a firm believer in people having to own their own words - and your words do a far FAR better job of revealing what you're like than I ever could.

CITM well yes, but only in the short term. PF accepting shares in lieu of cash for that first staged payments will have helped out ANGS with easing cashflow drain at the time - but it's not really helped the SP at all.

If ANGS is generating enough cash now through gas production to pay PF his instalments in cash rather than shares (given the company's various other cash-requiring liabilities), I totally agree - that would be much more preferable.

Mwshep, PF/FESL is still owed up to £5.25 million in staged payments for the acquisition of the 49%, as per the purchase RNS.

It was £6.25 million, but PF accepted 60.6 million ANGS shares in lieu of £1 million in Q3 last year.

I'll give you the courtesy of a reply, BV. Note that word... courtesy.

Pretty much none of it. I've even re-stated the reasons why the deal to acquire the other half of Saltfleetby now looks very good indeed.

But as I just said, even though I agree with ab76's post and have given the reasons why (see first post in this thread as well), I simply cannot make that square up with the current ANGS SP, the resulting ANGS MCap and the insider PF's apparent continuing determination to sell. I don't think anyone can.

As I said, entirely counter-intuitive.

I largely agree with ab's post too - after all, it is entirely factual. As it has turned out, picking up the other half of Saltfleetby for £14 million would now seem to have been an extremely good deal. An asset that was apparently valued by FESL just over a year ago at a total of £28 million that should deliver annual revenues around the £22m mark over the next 24 months and then around £28m for a fair few subsequent years? Hard to see why that isn't an excellent deal, no matter which way you cut it.

But then the question still remains. Why is the ANGS MCap only £41m? And why is PF apparently sticking to his belief that the £14m he's due for his half of Saltfleetby is still fair value? (He must think that, because even with the benefit f an inside track, he's been continuing to sell as fast as he can).

It continues to make no sense at all and "counter-intuitive" remains the word of the day. Maybe PF will now hang onto his remaining 376 million shares, plus any more he may get in lieu of further staged payments against the acquisition... that'd certainly help considerably.

I'd have thought that even for someone as dense as BV, my choice of ID name might just have given a clue regarding irony, but apparently not. It seems to be too sophisticated a concept for him.

Yes it's true that GL and RH have committed on video to buying shares at some stage. I would however point out that PF has to date actually sold 322 million shares in the last 12 months since he first got his hands on some (that's a fact, not a commitment - as is his having around 376 million shares left at the moment).

It's also worth noting that GL has had countless opportunities to buy shares, but just hasn't done so over the last almost four years. The total value of his share purchases ever made (acquired in Sep 2019) amount to just £25k total - there'll be a fair few PIs with larger holdings than that. Presumably GL has chosen not to buy any more up until this point, because he never believed the over-enthusiastic fairytales he was continuously spinning?

Be that as it may and as I have said, I still believe the ANGS SP to be counter-intuitively low at the present time.