Member Info for HeadInTheSand

BV to date the predictions of those of a more wary view have invariably turned out to be vastly more accurate than anything ANGS has ever said. Sill, even a broken watch, as they say...

I'm also again reminded that anyone including the acronyms "LOL", "LMAO" or "PMSL" in any post literally never has any sort of logically justifiable point of view...

George's latest Malcy interview gave details on when he hoped wet commissioning to start (and it hasn't started yet). It's just after the part where he inadvertently shoots down the heavenly choir's previous claim that "hydrotesting means wet commissioning!" (it absolutely doesn't).

Whether wet commissioning starts according to George's latest and much-revised hope still remains to be seen - as does the accuracy of his latest and equally much-revised projection of "first gas by the third week of June". Interesting that he's gone back to the "first gas" terminology, rather than the "full production" he was using a couple of months back...

We'll see. The hedge starts in just 24 days' time, which even George in the same interview called a "drop-dead date" - so not long to wait to see which way this cookie crumbles.

I see BV is occupying the intellectual high ground again with his insightful, dispassionate, purely objective and above all fully evidenced arguments...

Seriously?

It sure is... for Mercuria.

At current gas prices, they're guaranteed/owed well over £14.5 million by ANGS between now and Dec 31st.

Tygra, yes but I think you're definitely being optimistic if you're expecting much gas revenue from sales in the month of June. Remember George's most recent words to Malcy on the subject... he switched from his previous "full production by June 1st" to "first gas by the third week of June".

And (as I'm sure you haven't), don't forget how crucial that sidetrack is. Without it and taking into account the hedge, ANGS is set to be left with around £22 million of gross revenue out of Saltfleetby over the next three years... and almost all of that is already spoken for by existing debts and obligations, before we even start considering anything like three years of field opex costs.

Tygra, yes. For whatever reason (and more than possibly because nobody was inspired to make firm bid for either the company or the asset) ANGS is set to go it alone on a doubled-down risk/reward basis.

It should come as no surprise to anybody at all that this all hinges on the production volume coming out of Saltfleetby and the timing thereof. Mercuria is owed around £1.7 million on the differential on the July swap contract alone, utterly regardless of how much or how little gas ANGS produces.

Having effectively hedged 1.5 million monthly therms over the next three years (ok so it's 52.375 million over the 36 months, but that's as near as dammit), given the known liabilities already incurred by ANGS within that three year period (£14 million loan + interest repayment, £6.25 million to Forum for the acquisition, £1.4 million to Knowe on the CLN), it is categorically going to need that successful sidetrack or it'll barely have any gross sales revenue remaining out of the field over the next three years, let alone profit.

Well it could be worked back, if one's managed to decipher what George actually means by "we should note that over 70% of overall ?eld revenues are unhedged." (I can't). Anyhow, here's the detail on what's been hedged.

ANGS has hedged a total of 52.375 million therms over the 36 months from July.

The total revenue from that three years' worth of production (at today's monthly futures gas pricing) would total just over £93 million up until end Jun 2025.

(And of that £93 million, of gross revenue, Mercuria would get £70.7 million and ANGS £22.5 million over the next three years).

I have no idea how much (if any) extra production ANGS will manage to deliver over and above those 52.375 million therms, nor is it desperately clear how much production ANGS will achieve after the three year hedge ends.

It's always been digital.

Gas must flow at 1.125 million therms minimum from July 1st, then at 1.75 million therms minimum from Oct 1st to avoid ANGS suffering painful cash drains on making up the swap contract shortfalls.

The recent acquisition didn't derisk ANGS - it just doubled the risk/reward invaolved.

The party that did get 100% derisked in the acquisition is Paul Forrest/Forum. As well as no revenues, FESL now also has no liabilities or obligations arising from Saltfleetby at all. Sure, Forum sold its 49% share, but in exchange, it's getting £6.5 million of cash, plus what'll end up being around 20% of the entirety of ANGS. So if Saltfleetby works out briliantly, Forum's share is now 20% of that benefit, rather than its previous 49%.

A grudge? Not per se, no.

Do I have a problem with their so far undeviating record of missed schedules, cost estimates, deadlines, projections, promises and assurances? Yes.

Do I believe that they've continually been significantly misleading )and one would hope, accidentally) in the information that they have communicated out via all vehicles? Yes.

Do I believe that they've shown an endless lack of transparency? Yes.

I'm pretty certain that the above constitutes more than reasonable grounds for wariness, rather than evidence of a grudge.

I guessed as much, looking at your choice of BB moniker. "BalancedViewer"... there's unwitting irony for you.

Anyhow, back to the issue at hand... now just 30 days before the hedge starts and what George has now also started calling a "drop dead date". So... how much gas, George? And by when?

Just like Ocelot, BV clearly believes that "irony" means "a bit like iron".

Ocelot clearly believes that "irony" means "a bit like iron".

BV I think you'll find I started posting after the Brockham bombshell... so not even 3 years ago.

But hey, it's good to see you're the typical ANGS afficionado and helplessly prone to flights of wild exaggeration. That probably qualifies you for a seat on the board.

George has moved from his "full production by June 1st" of a month or so ago to "first gas by third week June". Forget the dates - the interesting thing is in the change of description, because first gas is not the same as full production.

The very recent Malcy interview also clarified to some degree the remaining work needing to be done at Saltfleetby, and in particular debunked the myth being put forward by some recently that "hydrotesting means wet testing, because hydro means water!" (sorry, but hydrotesting isn't part of wet testing, as George made clear).

In the very short term, it's all about the drop dead date (and that was the expression that George decided to use this time in the Malcy love-in interview) of July 1st for full production, because with July gas pricing at around the 191p per therm level, Mercuria's due around £1.68 million on the July hedge alone. Not long to wait to see how ANGS gets on.

Peter, you are almost entirely correct, except that the 2nd half of the Aleph placing does require shareholder approval to grant an increased authority for ANGS to issue the extra shares to cover the 2nd 273 million share swathe, plus all 173 million attached warrants. However, this is bound to be no more than a formality.

I'd be interested in your opinion, given that Aleph has already got 273 million shares for its first £3 million, as to why the very recently updated 'Major Investor' section of the ANGS website shows Aleph apparently having disposed of 40% of those initial shares? George in his very recent interview with Malcy stated that he knew that Paul Forrest/FESL had already sold all the 91 million shares that they were immediately allowed to, but the impression he gave was that Aleph was a long-term strategic investor?

BV not that it's any of your business but unlike many here I have absolutely no issue with candour.

I exited last summer at 1.0p and at a loss, but nowhere near £5k.

It is of course a statutory requirement that any information released by any company via RNS is Nomad-vetted before release. That's a given - but unfortunately it is not in any way a mark of the reliability of the information being issued.

To evidence this, one cannot help noting that the information contained in numerous ANGS RNSes to date has not turned out to reflect the transpiring reality of things.

To correct Ocelot's claim, one of the parties involved in providing the debt has so far acquired 273 million shares in exchange for £3 million.

Interestingly, it seems to have already sold 40% of the shares it has just acquired.

All well and good, except as several have pointed out, George has utterly failed to honour the content he's volunteered in many interviews, including the LSE one just a month or so ago.

But you never know. Maybe this time and for once what he assures one and all will turn out to be accurate?

BV is as usual confusing the raw asset value with what that asset is actually worth to ANGS, given the obligations and liabilities already committed to by ANGS in direct relation to the asset.