Member Info for OofyProsser

Shouldn’t that be “doff”, Boff?

A number of highly dodgy assumptions there. Ocelot - even for you. Yes, I do realise that does not constitute a proper sentence, thanks.

MoneyRaiser: if things are looking so much better, there can be no reason or excuse for the shares to continue to be suspended. It’s becoming an outrage.

The only chance for Anguish’s small shareholders to salvage something from the coming wreckage appears to be a large, sustained rise in the gas price. Which is entirely possible. The trouble is that Trafigura is in a position to declare a default at any time and it would be surprising if they failed to do so.

Nevertheless, the prospect of a much improved profit outlook would cause a rise in the share price - if the shares were not suspended. It seems quite unfair to small shareholders that the suspension is allowed to continue.

Onetomany: “.. it is feasible to think that ANGS will become a very attractive takeover target.”.

Did they not say in their recent RNS that they were looking to acquire a company with profitable Golf of Mexico production in order to pass on to that company some of the costs of operating Poundland?

“So if you want to know where more than half Angus' money has gone ask George Lucan” …and while you’re at it, ask him why he paid that ridiculous price for Mr. Forrest’s share of Poundland, shortly before he resigned from Anguish.

Thank you, Dr. Pangloss. Can you suggest an oil/gas company operating profitably in the Mexican Gulf that would want to lumber itself with Angus and its depleting asset?? Prof. Zielicki can’t.

This doesn’t seem to brighten the outlook for shareholders. Gas production was up but about half the gain in turnover was represented by hedge profits. There’s nothing on costs and workovers are not free. The best outcome wouid be a lifting of the share suspension and a share issue but that would merely delay the inevitable. In any case, I doubt the large shareholders would want to invest further sums in Anguish shares. It’s hard to see a way out - unless there’s a massive rise in the gas price.

Well, the number of AIM-quoted shares has fallen a fair bit and quite a few are suspended. Plenty of mugs must have lost heir shirts. Is there a survivorship bias?

With UK gas now above 97, Anguish will be keen to meet the hedge requirement. It would be a pity if there were a repetition of the earlier episode.

HITS: I agree with every point you make - including your remarks about Crocqman, whose posts were once well argued and thoughtful.

Crocqman: you’ve been wrong on this company for years. The people whose posts you don’t seem to read have been right. If sufficient shareholders were to complain to the Stock Exchange and the FCA, there’s a chance they would take action to get the shares un-suspended. I haven’t heard of the Sock Exchange and doubt they would help.

Crocqman: why don’t you address the issue of the quite unnecessary suspension instead of rabbiting on about other people’s motives for posting? If you’re a shareholder here, you’ve (presumably?) raised the issue with the Stock Exchange and the FCA?

Yes, HITS! And why do they presume that any fresh, re-negotiated financing terms will be more favourable to Angus than the existing terms? It seems a bit unlikely, doesn’t it? There would have to be a quid pro quo at the expense of Angus shareholders.

Macbookpro: re your post:

1. The share suspension is irrelevant to the operating status of Angus. except that they can’t have share offers to finance themselves.

2. How does it help Angus if royalties are no longer paid in shares? It merely results in bigger cash losses.

3. Production volumes were higher in the second quarter than in the first. Turnover was significantly lower.

4. Workovers are capex.

5. Yes, debt servicing depends on positive cash flow. Cash flow doesn’t appear to be improving.

I can’t see anything in your post that suggests things are improving. Trafigura has its own reasons for keeping this going but, as others have pointed out, there appears to be nothing in this for small shareholders.

What difference does a share suspension make to a company’s cash flow?

Onetomany: “Angus” now means a combination of Trafigura, Kemexon and Aleph, plus, possibly, Mr. Forrest. Other shareholders are not represented. That means you. The Board is speaking for its members’ sponsors. Not you.

I should think the likelihood of a de-listing is a fair bit more likely than the scenario which you predict.

Onetomany: Bubblepoint’s reply to your earlier post appears to cover all the points you raise. What is it that you don’t understand?

It’s kind of Trafigura to be subsidising Anguish by means of hedge contracts priced at a large premium to the current gas price, what?

Nonsense, Ocelot. Please stop it.