BV, sure the hedge was insisted upon as a form of insurance by the lenders... but a hedge is a hedge.
It's a hard commitment to provide a pre-defined amount of a commodity at a pre-agreed pricing on pre-agreed dates. Where is it stated that already signed-up to hedge commitments will reduce as the loan is being paid off?
BV you do realise tha ANGS has 36 months of hedge commitments, right? Including 10 of those at well over 5 mmscfd?
How the Hell would a mere 3 months of production (a thing which would require full production starting in April, which isn't gonna happen, but never mind) "wipe out most of" a 36 month hedge obligation?
Sure it could wipe out a goodly chunk of the debt (which is what I suspect you mean)... but ANGS's 36 months obligations under the hedge remain, regardless of whether the debt's been fully paid back or not.
BV, you say "Once there is no debt you get the full gas price on the futures chart." Huh?
How do you propose ANGS gets out of the 36 month hedge commitment? Although it was insisted upon by the lenders, ANGS's obligations under the hedge are completely separate to the debt.
ANGS isn't going to get "full gas price on the futures chart" for 36 months (from July).
Presumably an upcoming (and I'd suspect w/c 17th Jan) placing is already being worked?
If so, we'll get a fairly reasonable indication from SP movement over the next two or so weeks as to the pricing of any imminent placing.
IMV they'd be doing pretty well (in as much as the word "well" can be used in any way to describe another rushed placing so soon after the last) if they managed to get it away at 0.5.
Interesting... on the ANGBS website, they're now calling this an AGM... it says "Notice of AGM".
Except it very clearly isn't an Annual General Meeting, as the subsequent text makes very clear. Last FY results aren't going to be announced and accepted and no other resolutions are going to be tabled. It's a General Meeting with one purpose - in fact if anything, it would be better termed an EGM.
I suspect this is another crashingly inept example of ANGS's attention to detail...
There's going to be absolutely nothing quick at all about commercialising any alleged geothermal "opportunity". This takes many years and many millions of pounds.
Given the ever-nearing start of debt repayments and obligations to deliver under the hedge, ANGS will cease to exist if it does not get Saltfleetby producing sufficient volumes of gas by that point, why oh why is ANGS bothering to chase other rainbows?
If it screws up Saltfleetby from either a timing or volume point of view, it simply won't be around to mount any more can-kicking unicorn hunts.
Therefore it should and must be only and exclusively about Saltfleetby. Literally nothing else at all should be occupying the company... how much gas and by when?
ED's latest (surprising) Tweet from this morning:-
Replying to @angusenergyplc
Your board are WITHHOLDING INFORMATION
WHY SEEK TO RAISE MORE DILUTIVE FUNDS when you claim that First Gas is coming in H1 2022?
You have just raised £750K
George Lucan of #Angs must come clean as to why he supports short sellers and placementees who want to erode us"
Well, apart from the fact that George's latest on public record projection is that he expects first gas by mid Feb (I know, don't all laugh at once), I don't find much to disagree with in the above.
...I thought I'd politely ask you.
1. Further to this morning's RNS, are you now expecting a Q1 placing?
2. Are you surprised at the apparent hastiness of ANGS's need to have the authority to issue more shares right now, literally just after they'd raised £750k?
3. Are you surprised that ANGS seemingly cannot wait till end March and the AGM to seek such authority?
4. Are you expecting Saltfleetby to generate any revenue at all, prior to end March?
BV, when it comes to genuine long-term ANGS shareholders, they have my sincere sympathy. I call them "long-suffering".
As for the ramptastic squad, whether short-term swing traders or boiler room shills, I am more forthright.
You could also have asked why they didn't wait till the AGM to seek new confetti authority.
And given that HSE approval was promised by early December (and it is another crucial barrier to be cleared before first gas, even if people seem to have forgotten about it amid the existing chaos), a re-re-revised schedule for that would also have been helpfully informative.
Crocqman, correct... but you entirely miss the point.
Why go to the expense (i.e. waste the time and money) of getting a new confetti authority by calling an (E)GM now? Why not wait just 10 weeks until end March and the AGM and include the resolution then, as would be relatively normal?
In my book, the only possible explanation is that ANGS must know it needs more cash in Q1 - and it must know that the cash it needs in that period is not going to be generated by gas sales.
Ocelot, utter rubbish - or why wouldn't they have included a resolution to gain authority to issue more confetti at the AGM (which will be held by end March, so only 10 weeks later than this GM)? That would have at least been more normal.
This is categorically not "prudent management"... - why go to the time and more importantly expense of holding a rushed GM just 10 weeks before an AGM?
Sorry, but this is a very clear sign of needing more cash. Yet again. And also an equally clear indication that George expects no gas revenues to start coming in before Q2 (even though his most recent public assurance of "first gas by mid Feb" contradicts that).
With this shower, you simply could not make it up...
...is a Q1 placement, after this morning's RNS, in my very firm opinion.
How likely is it that any sums that George is obviously needing to raise in Q1 have anything to do with getting Saltfleetby to first gas? Not at all, in my book.
George has already got the costs of getting Saltfleetby back in production by £12 million. Surely he cannot have been further wrong at this late and supposedly very advanced stage.
George has literally only just raised £750k (allegedly for Saltfleetby inter alia, but almost certainly to cover G&A costs, i.e. salaries).
To our knowledge, the company's not drawn down the entirety of the £12 million "we didn't know we were gonna need it" Saltfleetby facility yet.
So God alone knows why the company seemingly needs yet more cash - and urgently.
The cheerleaders would have the gormless believe that ANGS is a "nailed on and imminent multi-bagger"... but that's clearly not true. That all depends on (guess what?) "how much gas and by when?".
What seemingly *is* nailed on now is a further placing and so further dilution in Q1. Although we should all be long-used to it by now I suppose, it's still eye-poppingly staggering that this company burns through so much cash, while delivering precisely nothing.
Yanks as I've just posted e.sewhere, the only rational explanation for this rush job seeking of authority to issue more confetti is that ANGS already knows it's going to need yet more cash in Q1.
It's not only about the company clearly not expecting any gas revenues in Q1 (even though it's still claiming first gas by Feb... not that anyone believes this). What's also significant is that the company knows it needs this confetti authority NOW... it can't wait till the March AGM and pass the resolution then.
Oh well, the sharply increased levels of sanity and politeness were nice while they lasted, however briefly.
I see George has realised he's now used up pretty much all ANGS's existing authority to raise cash by issuing new shares, and so is now having to rush through a GM in order to get the right to issue more confetti. Two things instantly come to mind:-
1. This is obviously urgently required (which very strongly suggests that more cash is also urgently needed). Otherwise why not wait till the AGM (scheduled for March, so only 10 weeks later) and seek the authority then?
2. George isn't actually expecting Saltfleetby to generate any meaningful cash for the company any time soon, no matter what he may have publicly assured.
An RNS should be a good place to start... however, demonstrably not in ANGS's case.
Just go through any of its previous RNSes and check out how well any predictions and assurances made therein have ever turned out to be true or accurate. They've all tended to be wildly out, notably on cost and timescale.
ANGS's standard modus operandi seems to be to issue an RNS with a prediction or assurance, to say nothing as that slides by unmet, then at some later date issue another RNS with revised prediction and assurance. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.
Okay they may get it right one day. But their track record so far is 100% miss - and that explains the by now near total lack of confidence in the company and anything it says..