Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Singhie, I of course agree that when audited figures on consistent incremental sidetrack production are made available, if these are as expected/hoped for, then the SP is due a re-rate... after all it's always and only been about "how much gas and by when?"

The reason for my May 1st SP prediction being at the level I guessed is because ANGS invariably takes far longer than it says it will in all things. Remember GL's furious denial that a sidetrack would take 16 weeks from start to finish (even though that's what ANGS's own planning submission into Lincs CC stated?) In fact, George vehemently insisted that the sidetrack would only take 7 weeks max:-

"We would be surprised and disappointed if the drilling part of the programme exceeded 28 days and the entire programme involved more than 7-10 days either side. On behalf of the Board, we have never heard or seen of any internal document which suggested we were planning for a 16 week side-track at Saltfleetby and we would challenge the poster to produce it. For that matter I haven’t heard of a drilling programme anywhere to these depths which could conceivably take 16 weeks – except perhaps on Mars, which is possibly where your poster hails from."
(Angus website IQ answer - 23rd Sep '21)

As I type, we're in week 29 of that max 7 week process...

Of course, ANGS's habitual historic over-optimism will not change the eventual end result in any way at all, but it's worth bearing in mind as a primary cause of PI impatience and disquiet.

Re sweepstake guesses, I'm feeling relatively confident...

HeadInTheSand
Posted in: ANGS
Posts: 5,455
Price: 1.425
No Opinion
RE: Take your marks
22 Mar 2023 17:27

1.6p, on the basis that the actual additional production achievable courtesy of the sidetrack won't yet be known by that May 1st date.

Courtesy of last week's clear as mud RNS, I don't think that anyone outside of ANGS currently has the slightest clue of whether production from the sidetrack is in process of being connected into the grid right now through a "temporary" connection, or whether this is going to need to wait until more "permanent" pipework is provisioned this summer. One would obviously hope for the former.

Entirely separately and only of very mild interest will be the results of Singhie's sweepstake (from memory, entries made in late March, I believe?) regarding predictions for the ANGS SP level on the first trading day of May.

Slight correction - the 60.6 million shares PF got in Jan this year were valued at 1.65p each, not 1.6p.

Paul Forrest's selling activities are obviously a drag on any potential SP rises, so it's worth checking out a) what he has already done and b) what it's possible for him to do in the future. As to why he's done what he's already done, that's a matter for conjecture. Anyhow...

PF has since day one (end May 22) been given a total of 697.6 million ANGS shares.

(These are split down as follows - 91 million shares unrestricted plus 546 million shares subject to lock-in on the initial 49% acquisition and then 60.6 million shares at end Jan 23 in lieu of the £1 million of staged payment FESL was then owed as part of the acquisition. It is worth noting that he may get given more shares in lieu of future staged payments for the acquisition, if ANGS does not have free cash available at the time any staged payment falls due.

PF has since day one (end May 22) sold 322 million ANGS shares for a total value of c. £5.5 million.

Of the 546 million tranche of shares subject to lock-in, he's allowed to sell a maximum of 136.5 million per quarter - and so far, he seems to have disposed of 231 million of these. The 91 million and the 60.6 million tranches he is at liberty to sell whenever he likes (and he did sell that 91 million tranche immediately at point of acquisition).

As of right now, he has 375.6 million shares left - but as per above, he may get given more. That 375.6 million shares would seem to consist of 315 million out of the initial 1.098p valued 546 million tranche, plus the 60.6 million given over in Jan 23 and valued at 1.6p.

Aah yes, the old "bit of oil in a bottle" routine.

Mind you, the exact self-same schtick has proven very popular with other AIM smallcap O&G companies in the past.

https://twitter.com/JonathanTidswe1/status/1092353619209478144

I don't think BV has any clue about playing the long and short term games simultaneously.

I don't know what an "A.A.T. Certificate" is, except to know that I am delighted I don't have one, if it results in BV's thinking. Ever heard of the concept of incremental profits, BV? No? Thought not.

Hats off to Wasred15 - I just love a one line zinger and this genuinely made me laugh:

"Don't knock Mr008, he advised Corach Ranger in the National.

Yesterday."

As even those in comas would realise, Mr008 is ridiculously obvious, with his opinion on ANGS moving up and down faster and more often than a lady of negotiable affection's lingerie. Priceless.

I agree it's a very unclear RNS, but I don't read it the same way as Howey does (though I fully acknowledge that the language used is so woolly that it could legitimately be read that way).

To me the issues are firstly the usage of "...is capable of...", which doesn't mean very much in real-world hard cash terms. And secondly, there's no clarity at all given on WHEN meaningful volumes of gas from the sidetrack will start adding to existing 5.4mmscfd production rates.

Confirmation of how much extra gas the sidetrack is actually going to produce and when it's going to be produced.

Indeed, read the RNS again.

It does not say that the sidetrack is currently flowing at 4-5 mmscfd. Instead it states that 4-5 mmscfd is the rate that, following testing, ANGS has concluded that SF07 is capable of flowing at. It also does not reveal when production volumes from the sidetrack will start to hit the grid - so we'll need to wait for NSTA daily figures to see the actual effect of extra production.

Needless to say, if all that capability is achieved, that would be a very good thing, taking overall field production up to between 9.4 and 10.4 mmscfd.

PS looking back at the company quote you pasted from last year, we now know that the actual consistent production from the two existing wells actually totals 5.4mmscfd.

@Starbright, I already have. And of course if overall production soon reaches 9.5 mmscfd, everything is just great.

However I am not sure that this morning's vey carefully worded RNS gives a clear answer to the only question that has ever mattered, namely "How much gas and by when?"

That's a surprisingly short and very carefully worded RNS, stating what ANGS believes the sidetrack is capable of. Figures on the actual production volumes of gas pumped into the National Grid out of Sfby over the next couple of months will make for more interesting reading.

Too true. By all means research and consider others' opinions, but at the end of the day you must only rely on your own judgement.

Every share discussion board is infested with pied pipers.

I wonder who's going to win Singhie's sweepstake?

SP on the 1st of May, wasn't it?

No 'apparently" about it.

Fortunately, those who are less fat-fingered with calculators have worked out the correct revenue increase and that, even at initially announced flowrates from the sidetrack, provided those stay consistently at at least those levels, ANGS no longer has any issues meeting its already incurred term debts.

...and for the second time in less than a week, I find myself in agreement with Push. Whoda thunk?

Re Gavin, this BB's answer to Mystic Meg, broken watches etc etc.

The expected shenanigans seems to be in full flow, with the short-term crowd selling into any micro-rise and holding things back. It'll take a while for the kerfuffle to die down, leaving those with more of a mid-term view in the majority.

Of course another RNS confirming latest info on sidetrack flow rates would be more than interesting too.

I thought the SP would be markedly higher too. I suspect you're right re wariness, 360Phil - small AIM O&G companies have had a historical tendency to report initial flows as gospel, only for them to quickly subside.

NB I do NOT expect that this will be the case with the SFBY sidetrack - but yes, it would be very sensible for ANGS to issue further RNSes announcing increasing flowrates from the sidetrack if/when this occurs. That would help increase faith.