Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Interesting, Doug - and as usual, thanks for the info. I might disagree with your statement that Amit is "a fairly accomplished fraudster" because several have always found him definitively less than credible, but that would just be mean-spirited.

Separately, I have long said that CTAG's erstwhile Nomad Cairns were at best negligent in their statutory duties of making reasonable efforts to ensure that the contents of CTAG RNSes were at least somewhere close to the truth. As a UK company, it would be easier to go after Cairns to seek financial redress, if such negligence were provable.

I understand that Cairns gets very upset whenever such a thing is postulated and starts rattling sabres in an attempt to dissuade - which makes me think it may well have concerns about its culpability in this.

It could be argued either way, Beretta, and indeed, simultaneous criminal and civil actions could both be pursued simultaneously but separately (if the authorities felt this was a matter worthy of their attention, which is sadly a very large "if").

On that basis and given the relatively small scale of the fraud (though it's absolutely not small scale in relation to many private investors), it's probably going to be more appropriately pursuable as a civil action.

Well, they could hardly be looking to build something more flimsy than ANGS, could they?

Regardless. the question still remains - what in the world does ANGS bring to the table that is in any way going to get recognised as valuable by the other party?

I'd love to think you're right Beretta... but sadly I suspect you're wrong.

This ludicrous farce has been going on for over 12 years - or over 8, if you only start counting from the date of suspension. Throughout that entire period, Amit has spouted lie after lie, with no downside consequences to himself in any way... except reputationally amongst those who are aware of the CTSAG saga, of course.

I think it less and less likely that he's going to receive any sort of come-uppance at this very late stage, unless an agency such as the SFO can be persuaded to finally show an interest and take up the cudgels.

Someone else realising that Ocelot doesn't hold shares in ANGS, but still tries to pump the living daylights out of it because that's what he/she/it is paid to do?

Could I ask - what has the management (past and present) of ANGS EVER said that has turned out to be accurate and thus confidence-inspiring?

Again, what does ANGS bring to the party in this alleged transaction?

One one side you've got an allegedly positively cash generative asset with "stable and reliable production and low decline"... and on the other, a company saddled with huge debts, that has been unable to make principal payments on the largest of those at the contractually agreed time, and whose sole producing asset is steadily declining in output. Does anyone honestly think that sounds in any way like a marriage of equals?

So if some sort of merger or RTO does go ahead, logic literally dictates that ANGS as we know it today, together with its existing shares, would become an almost irrelevantly small part of any new whole, with the resulting dilution brought about by such being extremely painful for existing holders,

Indeed, Oofy. Anyone with more than a passing experience of AIM will be well aware that the so-called "safeguards" offered by such mandated parties as Nomads are about as robust as wet tissue paper.

There are countless examples of RNSes issued by AIM-listed companies that were meant to have been thoroughly checked for veracity by the obligatory Nomad (who is specifically there to look after shareholders' interests - I know I know, don't all laugh at once) that have turned out to be utter nonsense. And FCA oversight is as big a joke.

Want to know how to get a Nomad to sign off on an AIM RNS? Assure him you're telling the truth, buy him lunch at tThe Ivy and send him a box of claret every Christmas. AIM's not called the Wild West for nothing.

A more pertinent question might be "Does anyone seriously believe that a company drowning in debt - which by its own forced admission has stated its inability to pay the very first two of sixteen quarterly instalments of £1.25m each time - could possibly acquire an allegedly generously cash generative asset without ending up as an extremely minor partner in the resultant combined enterprise?"

If this goes ahead (and that's a simply massive "if"), existing PIs will be diluted to even closer than today's next to nothing.

Three things.

Anyone is free to express their opinions - though it'd be more sane if those opinions were based on cold, hard reality.

Anyone is free to act as they see fit - provided they're prepared to bear the consequences of doing so.

It is not a requirement of posting on this BB that one has to explain either one's position or views to the satisfaction or comprehension of Ocelot or anyone else..

So, Ocelot is now apparently a fan of shining a light into dark corners by asking nosey parker questions...

Okay Ocelot, which PR company is it that pays your salary? Or are you freelance?

So, Ocelot is now apparently a fan of shining a light into dark corners by asking nosey parker questions...

Okay Ocelot, are you freelance, or which PR company is it that pays your salary?

Amusingly (but utterly unsurprisingly) the Ocebot has been forced to backtrack by multiple posters pointing out the (not very difficult) facts.

He/she/it has now switched to (correctly) stating that only the injured party can file a motion DECLARING default. And, given that ANGS has by its own admission defaulted on the loan terms and thus is without any shred of doubt in default, this is exactly what Trafigura can do if it wishes.

The Ocebot continues desperately to attempt to smokescreen and polish the unpolishable... are the few pence he/she/it presumably gets per PR fluff post made really worth making him-/her-/itself look that totally ludicrous?

Thank you, Oofy. The Ocebot's (presumably deliberate) spreading of confusion about ANGS not having defaulted (of course it has - it's owned up to doing so - and now on two quarterly payments) was getting ridiculous.

A default is purely and simply a breach of contract. It's a term most usually (but not always) used with regard to failures to make payments by contractually enshrined dates. This is quite categorically what ANGS has failed to do... it's now failed to make 2 payments of £1.25m , as it itself has had to state via RNS.

Again as you quite correctly point out, defaulting on a contract does not automatically and immediately result in a negative outcome. It's entirely up to the "injured" party - i.e. Trafigura, which sits on the other side of the contract - as to what action it decides to take. But having suffered a breach/default, the injured party is given all the power, as it can enforce pretty much whatever steps of redress that it likes, including foreclosing on the loan and demanding immediate repayment of the entire sum, plus interest, if that is what it wants to do.

Not that I think it's at all likely that Trafigura will do this, but as ANGS has defaulted (twice), Trafigura would be entirely within its rights to demand the above, in so doing promptly sending the company bust and getting first dibs on any assets.

Unless they do something radical/intelligent, I reckon this is going to settle around the 4 mmscfd daily average mark, which would give a monthly total around 1.2m therms.

That is, if it does in fact settle. BP's entirely convinced (and pretty convincing) that matter are inevitably bound to slowly get worse, unless and until the ever more problematic liquids issue is addressed.

Honestly, the increasingly desperate semantic gyrations that the poor Ocebot has to go through in its ever more frantic attempts to polish the unpolishable... I don't know whether to laugh at or pity it.

This latest is an absolute gem:

"No default on the debt because only the lender is in a position to determine a default, not a bulletin board poster. The conditions of the facility have been breached."

That is pure BS from the Ocebot - because a contractual default EXACTLY IS "a breach of the conditions of the facility".

Legally, a default is a failure to fulfil a contractual obligation, often involving a failure to make a contractually enshrined payment by a contractually enshrined date. ANGS via multiple RNSes has stated that it was unable to pay the very first £1.25m quarterly principal repayment originally due by end Mar 25. As the HY results make plain, the reason it could not meet that date was simply because it did not have enough cash (only £785k at the end of Mar 25, according to the HY accounts).

Since then, ANGS has also stated that it has further failed to make payment of this initial instalment within the ever shorter three extensions granted by Trafigura, the lender. ANGS has further had to inform that it has also - to date at least - failed to pay the second £1.25m quarterly instalment, falling due over a month ago at the end of June.

So yes, it is a cold, hard, cast iron and confirmed fact that ANGS is in default - and it is truly laughable that a company PR minion frantically tries to pretend otherwise.

This being the case, it is now entirely up to Trafigura as to what actions and/or remedies it will choose to take. It will have plenty to select from, now that ANGS has "breached the terms of the facility"... as anyone with a grain of realism has pointed out, it's Trafigura that now literally holds every single one of the cards.

Of course you need to look at a longer period to have any realistic grasp on what average production levels are going to be.

It's also eminently sensible to look at the trend (which is undeniably downward since the recent high of Aug 1st). It's not clear as of yet where this is going to settle at, but I'd reckon at around March 2025 levels - which to be fair, would be an improvement on Apr - Jul, but not as good as Jan or Feb 2025.

Geesh... enough with the completely accurate portrayal of NEDs and their role, Crocqman.

Spare a thought for the poor Ocebot, who's had precisely nothing from ANGS to try to spin positively over very many months now.

Ocelot (unsurprisingly) treats every bland puff PR statement issued by ANGS as if they're the word of the Lord and utterly accurate.

However else did you think ANGS or indeed any company would spin this?

Trafigura is already the most significant lender with £20m, none of which has been repaid as of yet - so of course it's calling all the shots.

Especially given that, if ANGS is to stay in business and to be able to meet its already incurred obligations, Trafigura (or someone else) is going to need to lend them a further £10m or thereabouts.