George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
Go on BV... average down yet again. I'm sure you think it'd make sense...
Given that the SP is at a new all-time low, the whole market in general seems decidedly underwhelmed by these alleged "major partners that will be investing in the next stage of expansion to be announced shortly".
It certainly hasn't put any sort of premium on the ANGS SP, has it? It seem that you're the only person who finds this "very strange indeed", BV.
For once I'll agree with BV.
When Singhie reports on things that have actually happened, i.e. The FACTUAL elements in his daily output data reports (actual daily and cumulative monthly production and the revenues associated with those), that is IMHO useful (though it's questionable whether this needs to be listed every day). Gallder does the same on a monthly basis.
Where Singhie keeps falling provably flat on his face is when he starts making his eternally wildly inaccurate future share price predictions. He's never got anywhere close, so he might as well forget doing that and cut his daily posts to half their current length.
BV I have zero stress and zero misery.
Primarily because I have done my research and - allegedly entirely unlike yourself - I have not been forced into averaging down constantly as the SP reaches (and stays at) 52 week lows.
I could (obviously) acquire myself a holding today at a significantly better average than yours, should I so choose - but because I've bothered looking closely at ANGS's position and all the factors that appertain to that, I choose not to.
A 4% saving on £20m would indeed equate to £800k per annum.
But offset that against Mercuria's being due an 8% royalty on all Sfby gross revenues ad infinitum, once the £12 million senior loan gets 85% paid off.
Sfby is producing in the region of 2.5 million therms a month.
That's 30 million therms a year.
Let's suppose an average gas price of £0.75p a therm.
That'd be a gross annual revenue of £22.5 million.
8% of £22.5 million is £1.8 million per annum.
(Of course, ANGS won't bank that £22.5 million from gas sales, because the "fixed offtake price" imposed by Trafigura as part of the replacement financing will of course be lower than the market price for some or all of the field's production).
What is evidentially getting harder is to continue to ignore that the ANGS SP sits stubbornly at a 52 week low.
There seems to be two ways to handle this cold, hard, indisputable fact.
Either:-
a) work out why the market only values ANGS at this level and what would need to change in order for the SP to have a chance of climbing
or:-
b) pretend that this fact doesn't exist, keep (allegedly) averaging down and banging on without any evidence about what a fantastic prospect ANGS is.
People can decide for themselves which one of the above approaches is likely to be more rational.
Re this "good revenue"...
So in addition to that generated "good revenue", how come ANGS has had to raise £7 million and borrow £9 million between Dec 22 and now - and how come ANGS has clearly not been able to use this generated "good revenue" to pay any of that borrowing back?
Instead it's paid £3m plus interest back in confetti and has had to further extend the £6m, awaiting the replacement financing.... so where's all this generated "good revenue" gone then?
I'm asking a purely fact-based question.
BV you do make me laugh. Your attempts to misrepresent grow increasingly desperate.
This £70k has nothing to do with the alleged £20m replacement financing package. It's an additional cost that has had to be incurred on the 2nd £6m junior loan taken out on 21st July last year at a rate of SONIA + 15% (over 20% in total).
We don't yet know exactly what the alleged £20m replacement financing package will cost. We've been told that this 5 year facility will be at an improved interest rate of SONIA + 8% (so over 13% in total) and that it will include a fixed offtake price for some or all of ANGS's gas production that will necessarily depress earnable revenues for ANGS..
It seems that it will also trigger the 8% royalty on all gross gas revenues that is due to Mercuria as per the terms of the original £12 million loan that will be paid off. If so, that'd cost an additional c. £200k per month ad infinitum, on top of whatever becomes owed to Trafigura under this new deal.
As to what ANGS has made? Not enough - or why would it be forced into borrowing again?
To remind you, in Dec 22, ANGS raised £7m via placing under the commitment to pay off the c. £3.5m hedge shortfall. By late Mar 23, it had just £250k in cash... AND hadn't paid off any of that hedge shortfall debt.
Cue the first three month £3m junior loan (taken out at credit card rates on Mar 28th 2023). Due to lack of funds ANGS had to extend that loan by three months up until end Sep 23... and then again due to lack of cash, had to pay it back in dilutative confetti.
And then there was the second three month £6m junior loan (again taken out at credit card rates on Jul 21st 2023). Due to lack of generated cash to pay this back, ANGS had to extend this by three months as informed on Sep 21st... and have just had to extend it by a further month as announced today.
So... what is ANGS making in terms of nett cash? Evidentially, nowhere near enough, which is why it has to keep borrowing.
Taken to the wire again by ANGS - delays again and at a high cost. Looks like this replacement financing hasn't become "easier" following the dilution of the confetti pay-off of the first junior loan, despite RH saying that it had.
Still, what difference does being obliged to take on a further £70k of debt really make in the light of all ANGS's other already incurred liabilities?
Amit did indeed bizarrely allege that every single CTAG shareholder had to be contacted simultaneously by the supposed agent...
...but there's no logical reason or legal necessity as to why that has to be the case.
As I posted when Amit made this unfathomable statement, all this does is neatly pave the way for more delays and excuses. Same old, same old.
Nobody knows the detailed terms of the yet to be finalised replacement global financing, so nobody can say it's either positive or negative in terms of what it'll mean for the company.
(Though to be fair, it'll be positive in the fact that it would stop the company having to find £7m to pay off the 2nd short-term junior loan within the next 14 days).
We do know that it'll have a "fixed offtake rate" enshrined for produced gas, but we don't know for how much monthly gas, nor what that fixed offtake pricing will be.
Having said that, market gas futures pricing are moving markedly lower, as has been commented. What effect that has on ANGS obviously depends on how much of its future monthly production will be subject to a sales price cap under the new financing.
All of a sudden, the buyer (!!!) - who let's not forget has already (according to Amit Christian Andersen anyways) had his $50 million for the licensing sale tied up in escrow since July 7th last year - is now agreeing to pay out additional interest on this sum???
How can anyone possibly think that this has any ring of truth?
I seem to have been asked another question by BV, namely "WHY WOULD A MULTI BILLION POUND MAJOR WANT TO BE A PARTNER OF A SO CALLED INCOMPETENT OUTFIT AS YOU CLAIM!"
I suspect the use of CAPS means that to him, this question is quite important, so I'll give him the courtesy of my opinion, since he's directly asked for it... though I should state that I personally think the answer is crushingly obvious.
Why would Trafigura wish to lend ANGS money (presuming the refinancing deal goes ahead)? Because in doing so, Trafigura will do its clearly capable best to ensure that it makes a healthy return for itself on the deal.
What form (or forms) that healthy return is likely to take won't be clear until the details behind the putative refinancing are made known.
You do make me laugh, BV.
Anyone with even the most basic knowledge of English will know that the expression "to pose a question" is entirely correct.
Honestly, is that all you've got? Making farcically ignorant claims about allegedly incorrect phraseology that only serve to make you look stupid? Do carry on.
First time I've seen you pose this question, BV. And it's a surprise that you do, since it's already been much discussed, but I'll give you an answer.
Why does ANGS want to enter into a new loan agreement? Because it desperately needs to buy itself time.
Otherwise amongst several other things, it's going to have to come up with c. £7m of cash (or possibly more confetti, if the lender agrees) by the end of this month to pay off the 2nd junior loan.
Au contraire, BV. I'm sure that all genuine posters are very keen to see the detailed terms within the global refinancing package that Trafigura will impose. Those will be crucial.
As discussed last week, the production figures RNSed today are hardly new news. They're within 2% of the figures already posted by Gallder and Singhie - as taken from the daily NSTA production reports.
The estimated revenues (£7.2m) that ANGS has RNSed for Oct-Dec are the gross revenues from gas sales, i.e. before the hedges for those 3 months have been settled. Once settlement of those hedge contracts is taken into account, that revenue figure drops to just over £4.5 million for the quarter.
But again... this is not new news. And the market will have already been aware of it - so today's RNS is neutral.
As has been mentioned, one of the several things that OneToMany has decided to utterly ignore when making his bold "the SP will treble by the end of March" prediction is the "fixed price offtake agreement" that Trafigura will impose as part of the global replacement finance arrangement - and said fixed price offtake afreement will last "at least until the scheduled maturity date of the Refinance Facility", according to the Dec 20th RNS.
That of course will put an artificially low ceiling on the amount that ANGS will be able to sell a large portion of its produced gas at - so at this stage, before any such crucial details within that refinancing agreement have been made known, it makes the possible market pricing of future gas very largely irrelevant.
Plus (as ANGS confirmed in its answer to an IQ on Sep 1st), paying off the original senior loan will indeed trigger the 8% royalty to Mercuria on the GROSS value of all gas sales...
Pish, eh?
When it comes to predictions and assurances, the obvious way to establish whether someone has been talking "pish" is to compare those against the reality of things as it emerges.
Om that basis, it's immediately obvious that the single biggest "pish" talker in ANGS recent history has been GL (plus of course, anyone choosing to treat whatever he said as gospel and to regurgitate it). The examples showing that GL had a personal "pish talk" rating of nigh on 100% are both well-known and legion, so not worth relisting in their entirety, but to choose just a couple:-
"There's no ANGS internal document stating that the sidetrack would take up to 16 weeks!" (GL in IQs).
Yes there was - this was the timescale given in ANGS's own planning application as submitted into Lincolnshire County Council.
"The sidetrack will take a maximum of 6 to 7 weeks and anyone stating otherwise must be living on Mars!" (GL in IQs).
The sidetrack ended up taking 25+ weeks.
"The £7m Xmas 22 megaplacing will be used in part to pay off the majority if not all of the hedge shortfall!" (GL in Dec 22 RNS).
None of the funds raised were used to pay off any of the hedge shortfall, meaning that ANGS was instead forced into taking out the first credit-card rate junior loan in 2023 to cover this liability off.
Okay so RH has been at the helm for 9 months now (since 19th April 2023)... how's he looking?
Signed off on 21st July on the 2nd double-sized £6m junior loan, stating in IQs that "the alternative to this debt, which is necessarily subordinated to the senior debt, is equity – and that would be an expensive solution for what is only a short term cashflow issue".
Unfortunately, despite the above statement, the first £3m loan was paid off entirely in equity at the end of Sept - and at a share value of 0.66p, instead of the "contractually guaranteed" 1p minimum enshrined in this loan's terms when signed up to. This made the repayment in confetti especially painful and expensive for holders.
Promised that the replacement global refinancing package "could well be concluded before the end of 2023, but in all events would be finalised and in place by end Jan 2024."
Nope... it's now slipped into February (and hopefully no later).
So... RH isn't (yet, anyways) at GL's level of consistent blatant porky pie telling... but it's not the most auspicious start.
Triple the currentcSP by the end of March, eh? A bold prediction... I guess we'll see.
Yes, a good evening to all genuine posters... and to BV as well.