Member Info for HeadInTheSand

BV, the asset itself is worth plenty. It's generally accepted that there is a substantial amount of gas in Saltfleetby, which is worth a whole lot more than it used to be (and certainly many many times more than £12 million). This was put up as surety against the £12 million loan, so there's no risk there to the lenders.

Mercuria as you know are both the senior lending partner and the party exclusively on the other side of the hedge. So I'd say what they're owed on both elements is easily covered by the raw value of the field.

The issue has never been about the raw value of Saltfleetby as an asset - it's solely been about whether that asset will deliver sufficiently and in time for ANGS to cover off the liabilities it has taken out against the field.

But he no longer has any risk, so wouldn't go pop along with ANGS. He seems to have so far got £250k for derisking all liabilities, plus around £1 million, because FESL seems to have sold all the 91 million shares they were immediately allowed to.

It'll be interesting to see what FESL does with 25% of its ANGS shares in three months' time.

BV, you say " I think Paul Forrest and all the new big hitters now investing would rather deal with GL ...".

Looking at the no lose deals cut by Paul Forrest on the SEL sale, Mercuria on the hedge and the lenders on the loan, I am absolutely sure you are bang on correct.

Of course Forum is derisked. They carry zero liabilities (no loan, no opex costs, no provision for abandonment etc etc) on Saltfleetby any more - in exchange for £6.5 million of cold hard cash that they're due (and also the forgiving of a £1 million+ debt).

Sure, rather than getting 49% of any reward out of Saltfleetby, as a 20-25% ANGS shareholder they now instead would effectively get 20-25% of any benefit emerging from Saltfleetby, and 20-25% benefit of any other net profits generated by ANGS out of any of its other assets (presuming Forum holds onto its shares).

I would say that is a total derisking from Forum's point of view. Zero liabilities, a big chunk of cash, let off a £1 million+ debt and a 20-25% stake in the entirety of ANGS... what's not to like for Paul Forrest?

As I said just above... a DEFINITIVE yes/no. They must surely know by now...

...but you would want to sell it.

Forum/Paul Forrest seem to have cut a very sweet and utterly derisking deal.

As I said, a definitive answer is needed on whether a sidetrack can be attempted without suspending production.

Not one caveated with the usual ANGS wiggle room of "subject to...", "is planned..." and "...is common in..."

This is such an important question that a simple and categoric yes/no answer should be obligatory.

Well, hitting July 1st really does make a difference.

At latest July gas prices, they owe Mercuria £34,000 every single day of July from the 1st onwards, whether they're producing gas or not.

Crocqman's usual bang on the money appraisal.

Tygra, I agree that getting to production from the two existing wells is a far simpler "Lego type" project. But the even more necessary subsequent project of making the sidetrack attempt is much more complex.

We still have no definitive answer if the sidetrack attempt can be made without suspending production - and of course it is a complete unknown as to whether that sidetrack will be successful or not.

Bottom line? Given the liabilities already incurred by ANGS on the field, if the sidetrack is unsuccessful, ANGS is pretty much guaranteed to make a cash-consumptive net loss on Saltfleetby over the next three years. But get a production-doubling sidetrack kicking in from say Oct 1st (which is when it really needs to) and ANGS is then pretty much guaranteed to make many tens of millions of net profit out of Saltfleetby over that same three year period.

It's easy to work out - and it's very digital. The sole question is... can ANGS do it?

Silverlight, my opinion has never changed. Perhaps now that we're getting towards the crunch points (after all, even George has now named July 1st as a "drop-dead date"), people are starting to see things more clearly?

For all the many months of puff, spin, delays, misinformation and blown deadlines/cost estimates, It's always been a pretty simple two-step equation.

The 20th June is a bit irrelevant as a date. A few extra days is neither here nor there in the grander scheme of things. Here's what has to happen.

Providing ANGS gets to full production (NB NOT JUST first gas) in 22 days' time, that's the first (and lesser) crucial milestone achieved. (And of course the consistent volume produced had better be 1.5 million monthly therms as assured by George).

That would then buy ANGS another 90 days in which to achieve the far more important milestone of a drilling a successful and production-doubling sidetrack to kick in by Oct 1st latest.

It's roughly £33 million owed to Mercuria on the hedge in year one.

If you look at Oct 22 onwards, that's when the monthly quantity hedged rises to 1.75 million therms for nine months and the differential on the swap contracts is in the region of £1.75 per therm. That gives a differential in excess of £3 million per month at current gas futures pricing. Hence £33 million owed for the 12 months.

At current gas futures pricing, Mercuria is contractually guaranteed around £33 million in the first 12 months of the hedge. Obviously they're owed that amount, regardless of how little or how much gas is extracted over that period.

Actually BV, all you do is fawn over anyone promoting a positive view on ANGS (whether they're invested or not) and work yourself into a playground style hissy fit with anyone putting forward a more wary view on ANGS (whether they're invested or not).

To you, it's not about "genuine investors" at all - it's solely about ramptastic content. That's all you will accept without devolving into pre-teen tirades of insult.

But hey, it's an allegedly free world, so go to it.

Howey, nice to see you back from sunny Qatar.

Indeed you're right - except those 'clever' investors always seem to have a very defined inside track and be privy to far more information than typical PIs.

Speaking of other O&G companies, there's been some very iffy goings-on at CLON over the last month or so.

A big raise at the very end of April...

... allowing a cash plus shares buy-in to a licence in early May...

...a drill start at that licence...

...five very upbeat and positive drill progress RNSes throughout May

... and then the duster bombshell RNS of yesterday.

An all too familiar pattern... you have to love AIM, or at least grudgingly admire the breath-takingly bare-faced shenanigans it invariably turns an utterly blind eye to.

As I am no longer invested in ANGS, stress is really not a problem for me.

Speaking of which, just 23 calendar days to what George is himself now describing as the drop-dead date.

However BV, in answer to your question...

I have posted on exactly the same number of AIM companies as you have over the last thirty days - and I've made 33% less posts than you.

What was your point again?

BV as per usual employing the only tactic he can - avoiding the issue raised and instead trying desperately to undermine the credibility of the person raising the issue.

Issues are issues and facts are facts, utterly regardless of who raises them - or why, for that matter.

So, the advice is to completely ignore all George's previous promises and predictions and just buy into whatever his most recent assurances happen to say? Interesting strategy...

Sadly and is abundantly clear from too many examples to count, information given by ANGS, whether via paid-for interview, investor presentation or even RNS, simply cannot be relied upon as in any way being close to cold, hard reality as it turns out to be.