Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Baits, that's a politely asked question, so I'm happy to answer.

Here's the condition. IF the sidetrack DOUBLES current production, that would add around £22 million of additional annual and all unhedged revenue at current gas prices. As to current debt, ANGS has say £11.5 million of the loan left, say £5 million owing to Paul Forrest and £3 million on this new short-term loan. Taking into account interest due on the first of those two, it looks like it'd take ANGS roughly 12 months to clear all of that. Happy days (obviously).

Which is why I've always maintained that IMO the SP would hit 3p pretty much immediately on confirmed news of a fully successful and consistently production-doubling sidetrack (I would have said - and was saying - 3p+, but that was before the last December megaraise, which significantly increased shares in issue).

Then on a like for like basis, that SP should gradually increase further as FY results show expensive debt being paid off and the hedge draws to a close. Top level for the SP once all that's happened? Real finger in the air stuff - at today's gas pricing, in just over two years' time, you'd have a debt-free company generating say £45 to £50 million in revenue out of SFBY for a fair few years. Take off the opex and G&A costs and apply your own multiplier.

That IMV is the best case picture.

There's such a stark and obvious difference here between those who understand the big picture with all its ramifications and possible outcomes and those who just blindly cheer.

Push, I note you're conveniently trying to forget about your factually false claim that "ANGS is paying down debt daily" after you were pulled up on this. Still sticking with that, are we, after this week's news of a further £3 million of debt being taken on by the company?

StarBright clearly understands a number of things...

The difference between projections and facts, for one. And he also understands the crucial importance of adequate cashflow to service incurred liabilities. If only more of those putting such a shift in to wave the pompoms on this BB could do the same.

He also makes a salient (and justifiably positive) point about the beneficial effect that falling gas prices have for ANGS (courtesy of the hedge) in terms of reducing overall liability. A bit of a two-edged sword, sure, if the sidetrack is helping the company produce meaningfully more than the quantities hedged, but still positive from both a balance sheet and P&L point of view.

Again, if the projection that the sidetrack will come good and double current production turns out to be factually accurate once known, ANGS has got it made. That's a very obvious given - but those confident in that prediction really shouldn't make additional claims that are entirely factually false.

Push, stop switching horses. I'm not talking about the putative overall value of the asset or the potential monthly revenues it may deliver.

I'm pointing out the incontrovertible fact that, rather than overall debt being paid down at the moment, the entire opposite has just happened. ANGS's debts have instead just been increased by £3 million.

It'd help if you stopped trying to claim that black is white...

The debt's being paid down daily, is it?

Well, it's true they paid off the first £450k of the £12 million loan in the last FY... but hang on a sec. They've literally just increased their debt by a further £3 million. At an even higher interest rate. Not the actions of a company that's happily able to pay off debt.

I know you're not good with numbers, Push, but seriously?

Of course even the increased debt won't be an issue if the sidetrack does all that it's hoped to. But claiming that ANGS is "already paying off debt" is just plain false and blatantly ignorant at best.

Nice to see someone with a perfectly reasoned opinion for a change.

Push, not only have I responded clearly to you point, but more to the point, the market has responded (and is responding) as well.

Sure, let's ignore the past, we are where we are, ANGS has spent/borrowed/raised whatever it's raised (regardless of whether it's done that over 3+ years or whether it did it yesterday) and SFBY is at the point it's now at. The current position is identical in both cases, irrelevant of the time it's taken to reach it.

Oh and by the way, incurring interest-bearing debt has a markedly different effect on future outcomes, compared to raising cash via placings. Liabilities need servicing.

But let's leave that entirely to one side. The fact that the SP isn't double its current level is the most brutally obvious pointer to the fact that, rightly or wrongly, the market both wants and needs to be shown the money.

It's all about the sidetrack. The market demonstrably needs to know how much gas and by when.

Push says:

"Hits, you keep barking on about the finance, this n that, but you don't care to look at it from the other side.

If Angus did not have anything to do with SLBY, and announced a cash raise for 20-30m to purchase a field with 2 flowing wells, new production facilities, 2 new compressors, a new pipeline direct to the grid, and a newly drilled side track into the MOST PRODUCTIVE area of this field, with reserves of between 300-500m..............

we would ALL be shouting no brainer, it's nailed on"

Erm, but according to you, that is exactly where ANGS is?

But despite that and looking at the SP, forget my view entirely for a moment. It is blatantly clear that the market for whatever reason very definitely wants ANGS to show them the money before revaluing the company in any meaningful way.

Now okay, maybe the market in general is full of blinkered morons and only the pompom-waving squad here are astute enough to see the real picture and have spotted this imminent goldmine? Or then again, maybe not... maybethe market is right and it is all and only about proving how much gas and by when after all.

Finally you've posted something I can agree with DoneK - wonders will never cease.

Given the various obligations, liabilities and debts taken on at different times by ANGS to get to this point (and add another £3 million to that, courtesy of today's news), it's always been all about the sidetrack, as anyone with the faintest grasp of finance and cashflows has always known.

Howey, comedy gold.

There are very few occasions where "LOL" should be used online, let alone this particular internet backwater, but your comment deserves one of those. Hats off.

I'm apparently now an alias of 360Phil as well? This just gets ever more bizarre...

360Phil is - as far as I can tell from (presumably) his posts - a reasoned and ACTUALLY balanced investor in ANGS (there are a few).

However one thing has become clear. I've never been sure whether BV's primarily a disingenuous self-serving cheerleader, but following his latest fit of inane, immature and lunatic burbling from this BB's version of Baldrick (he's set a cunning trap! A TRAP I tell you!! AND a cunning one!!!), it's become obvious that he's having some sort of long-term episode, presumably inspired by a combination of paranoia ("Enemies everywhere! EVERYWHERE, I tell you!! AND they're all the same person!!! I KNOW because I've cunningly TRAPPED them!!!") and Stockholm Syndrome.

The very definition of tragicomedy...

Seriously?

Looking at the posts above, I'd definitely recommend that the members of the primary school playground cheerleader squad never ever decide to take advantage of any open mike night at any comedy venue...

Do the opposite of what I say? Sure, if you want.

My opinion remains, wait and see what happens with the sidetrack.

Trite and dull as ever, BV.

Are you honestly claiming that ANGS is such an fabulous prospect and such a nailed-on banker that there can only possibly be just one person on this BB with less than glowing opinions on the company?

Farcical. And all too typical of a rabid cheerleader doing his paltry best to explain away the existence of any comment that isn't frantically pompom waving.

The claim that GL "hasn't f'd up anything" is demonstrably ludicrous. He's "f'ed up" plenty over the many months of his tenure, pretty much always as a result of his (at best) numerous wildly overoptimistic predictions on both costs and timescales.

HOWEVER...

Regardless of the past and regardless of the total lack of realism of the previous CEO, ANGS is now where it is. And hopefully that's on the point of finally proving what additional volumes of gas can be produced out of SFBY via the sidetrack.

It is almost pointless at this state highlighting GL's many ridiculous and seriously misleading historical projections (plus, it'd be like shooting fish in a barrel). ANGS should now be on the cusp of actually delivering an answer to the only question that matters (and that has ever mattered):-

How much gas and by when?

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.

You won't find me ever arguing against my much-repeated statement that this is only and all about...

"How much gas and by when?"

"...on the good guys side of the fence"? Hardly.

There's no question of any moral high ground here. It's merely a risk/reward judgement for any investor to make. You're just "on the optimistic guys side of the fence".

I actually pretty much entirely agree with Push's prediction on what would happen if the sidetrack doubles current production volumes. Hardly surprising, since It's no different to what I've been saying if this eventuality occurs. But it's just one side of the coin.

Because JohnHenry's point about debt also very much applies, should the sidetrack not perform as stated above. The degree to which ANGS's already incurred debt matters is of course directly related to the degree of success of the sidetrack.

To be totally fair, it's not a coin toss, because the sidetrack won't represent a digital outcome - it's definitely not a simplistic binary choice between complete success and complete failure. Instead, the sidetrack will cause an effect on the volume of gas production to a currently unknown degree.

There was never any real issue with being a member of the Common Market or EEC (as was) - that's the only thing the British electorate voted to join (admittedly 2 years post-event, but it still voted that way in 1975). That all made (and would still make, if only the option were available) sense.

No, it all went horribly wrong when in 1993 Major signed the country up to a far FAR closer union with Europe when he put the UK's name to the Maastricht Treaty, without giving the country any say in the matter at all. That was one of the most hideously undemocratic and utterly misguided decisions this country's made. Ever.