Member Info for HeadInTheSand

To me, it reads like Aleph (and chums) have (finally) taken up £2 million of the remaining £3 million and that the other £1 million is being placed elsewhere later in the month.

It's a fair, but slightly nitpicky point IMV Howey.

I was merely reacting to SL's comment that the SP not rising after ANGS having bought the other half of the asset was - and I quote - "insane".

As I'm sure you'll understand, I suimply pointed out that the ANGS MCap has pretty much doubled since Forum's 49% was purchased.

Howey, to be fair, I did say "nearly doubled"...

And as I did state, it depends on what number of shares in issue you go with.

As of early May, the company had 1,368 million shares in issue. That's not in doubt (9th May RNS).

Immediately after the acquisition, this number had risen to 2,283 million (according to the ANGS website). That is a 67% increase.

However, if the RNS of 24th May stating that Aleph will also be taking (why haven't they yet?) the second tranche of 273 million shares of the £6 million placing is to be believed, then that puts the shares in issue up to 2,556 million. Aleph taking those additional shares is also stated in the interim accounts.

That would then be an 87% increase in the number of shares in issue, compared to early May. I think it's reasonable to call this "nearly doubling".

Well if by "sentiment", you mean that by now - and quite understandably, given his track record - the market takes any claim, promise, projection or assurance spouted by George with a wheelbarrowful of salt, I'll agree with you.

At this stage, only hard and verifiable numbers will do. How much gas and by when?

SL, again you forget something rather important.

It's the market (not the company) that gets to decide the value of an asset (and in tandem, the value of a company). It doesn't pay much attention to company claims of value.

When ANGS owned 51% of Saltfleetby, the market rightly or wrongly felt the company was worth c. £16 million. Now it owns 100% of the field, the market rightly or wrongly feels ANGS is worth c. £30-33 million.

Now that really is "simple maths".

Silverlight you say "so the fact we dropped on it (i. e. acquiring the other half of the asset) is insane."

You have forgotten that ANGS simultaneously near on doubled the number of shares in issue while near on doubling their ownership of the asset. There used to be around 1.35 billion shares in issue prior to ANGS buying Forum's 49%. Now there are 2.28 billion shares in issue (or 2.56 billion, if Aleph decides to take up the strangely delayed 2nd half of the RNSed £6 million placing).

So... ANGS's MCap has also nearly doubled as a result of the acquisition. From £16 million to approx £30 million (or £33 million, if you include the extra 273 million shares Aleph is meant to have taken by now).

What's "insane" about that? The company's doubled the value of its primary asset through a purchase... and its MCap has pretty much doubled as a result. Looks perfectly normal to me.

Silverlight, I'd entirely agree with you...

...except for the fact that ANGS and George are still doing the same thing. It is categorically not "the past".

"The market has zero confidence in the bod. The SP is where it is 100% due to the lack of trust in the bod and their ability to deliver and be honest with the market and their shareholders."

This is just totally true.

In case anyone hadn't worked it out, I'm not exactly the biggest fan of ANGS and its current executive dream team.

Howeever, even I strongly suspect that, if the market in general actually believed George's latest and much-revised production prediction from this week of 5 million therms per quarter in the slightest, the SP would be notably higher than it currently is, just on the basis of simple maths.

And that's entirely ignoring the sidetrack and what that may or may not end up delivering.

SB made a (to me) very pertinent comment a day or so ago - he/she re-iterated that ANGS has a continual and compulsive habit of coming up with over-egged PR spin, making promises and issuing estimates that it very shortly afterwards has to completely row back on. Basically eternally over-promising and eternally under-delivering - and it continues to this day. And still repeatedly doing that is the single most damaging thing to shareholder value that George can do... perhaps he should radically change tactics?.

I must admit, I'm surprised at the SP reaction to the interim accounts, since there's nothing in there that is particularly unexpected. Maybe those less well-researched are hastily reacting to seeing things in black and white?

I use the ICE gas futures pricing, which is what ANGS also claims to use. If I were to speculate, I'd say that (Putin dependant) future gas pricing is indeed liable to remain higher for longer than ICE currently shows... but might as well use a third party accredited number.

But the real questions are (as I am sure you'd agree):-

Will the two existing wells consistently produce 1.65 million therms a month (= 5 million therms a quarter)?

Will the as yet to be attempted sidetrack be successful and if so, what consistent increase in production will it cause?

That's it in a nutshell. And anyone's opinion on the answers to those two questions will be driven by the amount of confidence they're prepared to place in George and his various statements, promises, predictions and assurances.

It is literally no more complicated than that.

Silverlight, you say:-

"we will make a fortune off the sidetrack owning 100%, (even hits admits/knows it) millions p/a more more than we paid for the asset in comparison"

I don't "admit" it... it doesn't need admitting. If George achieves a production-doubling sidetrack kicking by say Oct 1st, of course ANGS will benefit from many, many £ millions of revenue more than it has ended up paying for Saltfleetby. That's just a matter of the most simple maths and has always been glaringly obvious and never in dispute.

Back of a fag packet... Saltfleetby has roughly cost ANGS £14 million (loan plus interest) and a further £14 million (acquiring Forum's 49%). Call that £30 million. With a successful sidetrack as described above and even after paying off the hedge differentials over the next three years, ANGS would benefit from well over £100 million of gross revenue during that 36 month period alone.

The result of that particular "what if?" is not in any doubt, if it is achieved - but that's never been the question, though.

The issue with basing production forecasts on wellhead pressure is how long any pressure build-up may last.

There are facts and figures downloadable from the NSTA website specifically on Safltfleetby's history (right from first being tapped in Dec 1999) and showing audited production in mmscf/day by month. For example, in its first 5 years of production, the yield dropped by 64%.

As to George's latest prediction of 5 million therms per quarter not being enough to cover quantities hedged between Oct 22 and Jun 23, that remains true. However, sure, any successful sidetrack should mean that those increased hedged quantities should easily get covered and then some.

Actually, although a production-doubling sidetrack would be a total and utter game-changer as I have always said, even if ANGS can only consistently get 5 million therms out of Saltfleetby per quarter AND can actually prove that to the market's satisfaction, that alone should cause a meaningful rise in the SP.

I'm afraid the market perhaps unsurprisingly seems to have adopted a Jerry Maguire type attitude to ANGS along the lines of "Show us the volumes of gas, George". If he can, and in the volumes he has already promised, then it should be happy days. If not, not so much.

PR puff, eh? It's always about what fails to get mentioned.

The hedged volumes for the next three quarters, from Oct 1st 2022 to Jun 30th 2023, are in excess of George's hoped-for 5 million therms a quarter production.

BV to correct you, I would always call anyone buying into any share on the basis of utterly ludicrous, fact-free and wildly exaggerated misinformation spewed out by the ramp squad (and even you will have to allow that plenty of those exist on this particular BB) a "mug punter" - and I would absolutely stand by that

Howey, fair enough. As ever, I still think it more than a tad assumptive (and in fact entirely irrelevant) to presume to know any poster's motive (and sure,I agree, Mirasol made that exact same error in the post you quote).

There are issues that deserve discussion regarding ANGS - but any poster's motivation isn't one of those, providing their content stacks up (regardless of what conclusion they then come to).

Silverlight, again this fixation on the poster, rather than considering the content of the post. Sure, you're not alone - but that's the oddest thing.

I would differ - I don't "rubbish" ANGS at every available opportunity. I raise quite possibly inconvenient questions, begged by various company statements and I believe that is a more than justifiable (and frankly, useful) thing to do.

As I posted yesterday. if George's latest prediction of 1.65 million therms of production a month is accurate, that's (obviously) a positive thing - it would deliver £10 million of additional gross revenue to ANGS over the next three years (taking that up from c £22 million to c. £33 million over those three years and that would swing Saltfleetby from nett loss into nett profit over that period).

I'm happy to have stated the above - but this being ANGS, I personally remain wary of yesterday's RNSed statement that ANGS "expects" and "is targeting" 5 million therms of gas per quarter. From the lack of action re the SP level, I would suggest that I am not alone in such caution.

BV, no, it went to 0.65p. Mind you, I've been a whole lot closer than the "10p next week brigade"...

Anyhow, back to the oddity in hand... why hasn't Aleph taken up the second half of the placing? That's an eminently reasonable question to ask.

Howey, with respect, you seem to be losing your typical objectivity.

The first part of your post to Mirasol was nothing more than an unsupported assumption/value judgement presented as fact (i.e. that Mirasol "wants ANGS to fail so he can gloat". Little wonder that it was ignored then.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why people don't stick to facts (both positive and negative ones) and rationally discuss those and any issues they may raise, instead of spiralling into trite insult.

"...as to why Aleph and chums..."

...as to ehy Aleph and cuts obviously* haven't taken up the 2nd half of the £6 million placing at 1.09p odd per share yet?

* I say obviously because ANGS has not announced a further increase in shares in issue to 2,556 million, which they would categorically be obliged to do, if this 2nd half of the placing had taken place.

It's looking increasingly odd...