Member Info for OofyProsser

It’s taking a fatuously long time to fulfil the terms of whatever “protocols” apply, isn’t it? This is one of the worlds most corrupt countries, Vast has little or no leverage over the government. According to my version, the diamonds appear to be absent or unavailable at an affordable price. According to yours, the negotiations over their release could carry on into the indefinite future. Vast need them now. If they’ve got them, even on the terms you’re describing, Mr. Prelea wold have said so. The diamonds’ absence matters to Vast shareholders and under both our scenarios, it doesn’t appear likely they’ll be in Vast’s possession and sellable in the near term. That’s what matters. The rest of this discussion is just noise.

I really can’t agree with any of this. The RBZ Governor has been retired three months early, after nearly ten years in the job and is supposed to be replaced by the President’s nephew. It’s nothing to do with Vast’s diamonds.

If it were the case that Vast have the diamonds already, the CEO would have said so. It’s price sensitive and a false market would now prevail if he were failing to disclose it. And the diamonds are extremely important to Vast. The most recent debt rollover expires at the end of this month. Vast have consistently said that the proceeds of their sale will be used to satisfy their creditors.

The visit of the deputy high sheriff with Angus legal counsel to the RBZ to get the diamonds took place in late June/early July. Quite a long tim before the Governor was retired early. In fact he’s retired on time - he’s working his notice or taking holiday in lieu.

The timing of the release of the diamonds, whether they’re there or not, matters fundamentally to Vast.

Aimgambler123: so what is your explanation for the refusal of the RBZ to comply with a court order and hand over the diamonds to their owner? What’s in it for them?

Asimpleinvestor: just to clarify: the diamonds are probably not there. But if they are, I’m not equating the term “royalty” with bribery. I’m equating the term “protocol “ with bribery. There has to be a reason why the RBZ Governor is blocking the enforcement of a high court order by the deputy sheriff. In more reliable jurisdictions, he’d either have been sacked by now or prosecuted. They’re using the term “protocol” to explain the delays. This is nonsense. All it should need is for Mr. Prelea to turn up with a court order and for him to be taken down to the vault and given the diamonds. Well, he’s turned up with a court order and with the deputy high sheriff and he’s been given the bum’s rush. That was nine months ago. If I’m correct, either the diamonds are not there or the protocol applies and he can’t afford the sum required, or he’s refusing to pay up. In which case, he’s to be applauded. But he now appears to me to be merely playing for time. Shareholders shouldn’t complain about this: the share price is falling but at least there is still a market for their shares, for now. If he were to say what’s really going on, the share price would be below the nominal price and things would be very complicated. And something may come up, who knows?

Gizabigrise: no, it’s a bribe.

WG818: there’s also a number of applications to the EA written by AECOM on Angus’s behalf for permit variations, including one dated 15 April 2021, which stated that the condensate would be transported by tanker from the B site up to four times pre week. I don’t know what was agreed in the final permission, these things are not as easy to find as they might be.

DrMicho: yes, you have to ask yourself in whose interest it is that these diamonds were not handed over a long time ago. The only conclusion I can come to is either 1. They’re not there but went to Hong Kong many years ago, or 2. The “protocol” under which they’re negotiating the diamonds’ release concerns merely the size of the bribe demanded from Vast. Either way, Vast are screwed, aren’t they?

WG818: this is from an Environment Agency report on Saltfleetby, some time in 2022.

“From storage of production condensate to the dispatch of condensate and waste.

Annual throughput shall not exceed 5,000 m3/year (Refinery BAT Conclusion 52).”

WG818: re the water produced from SF04, they have limited storage on site, as I understand it, and limited permitted weekly tanker movements to take it to where it’s processed. And processing it is expensive.

Patrick7: what debt? What terms?

Firwood: while there are technical differences between “funding” and “financing”, the terms are generally interchangeable, as I understand them. I can’t see Vast getting funding, if you want to differentiate the terms and use “funding” in its technical sense.

Something had better happen here soon. At the current rate or attrition in the share price, it won’t be possible to issue new shares, will it? The par value is 0.1p.

Does anyone really think that Vast are going to see these diamonds? Really? This is Zimbabwe. Mrs. Mugabe loved diamonds and owned a diamond cutting business in Hong Kong. If you were the Governor of the Reserve Bank and one of the Mugabe retainers appeared in your office asking politely for the key to the vault, what would you have done?

Just asking. For a friend. Good luck with the negotiations over the rest of this month with the lenders.

HITS: yes, but the number of shares issued in the event that they convert the £6mm. bridging loan to shares is not necessarily going to be at the rate set out in the RNS, is it? The management have just shown that they’re willing to drop the conversion price when push come to shove. There’s no telling now whether the conversion price would be 0.66p, 0.40p, or 0.20p. Even if this were not the prelude to a mandatory bid, or even if the gas price really took off, the resulting number of shares in issue would be so large as to reduce the dividend-paying potential to a negligible figure, per share.

LETDOWN: I think the lesson from investing in AIM companies is that many of them are managed by people who are looking after their own interests, not their shareholders’. And some of them are very good at that. So it’s not their competence that’s in question so much as their honesty. Sadly, Angus is one of those companies whose management has straddled the incompetence/mendacity space.

Bridgedogg1: I doubt the lenders will place much confidence in the new CPR. The previous two proved to be unreliable as to timelines and costs, didn’t they? The data underlying their assumptions are supplied by Angus. Why do you think the re-financing is taking so long?

Re conversion, as I’ve discussed earlier, every statement since last March, when Mr. Herbert started getting involved, has said that they’re listening to shareholders, who clearly don’t want more dilution. The terms of the £3mm bridging loan were extremely expensive and have turned out to be merely an extremely expensive, large, deferred placing. The money raised is not being used for expansion, as they’ve promised, but for paying down debt, which has tended to keep rising.

The good news, when it comes, will doubtless be the completion and commissioning of the permanent pipeline. But it’s two months or more overdue, isn’t it? They’ve got a new well to drill in the new year, among other things.

The authority to issue new shares is bad news, not good. The prospect of further massive dilution here is high. The form of dilution is conversion of loans. Which means that related parties are getting large percentages of the issued shares every time a loan converts and a warrant series is exercised. The LSE has rules about takeovers, including related parties using these methods to exercise control. If the £6mm loan is converted, these rules will apply. The lenders will want the share price as low as possible.

With any luck there will be a sensible question or two tomorrow, to which truthful answers will be given.

WG818: I think the loan conversion and warrant exercise prices set out in earlier company releases have been invalidated by what has happened re the conversion price of the £3mm. bridging loan. It seems these things depend on the goodwill of the lender and if the latter play hard ball with Angus, the terms will be adjusted. Angus seems to be in a difficult negotiating position. If the Global Re-financing were going well, it wouldn’t be taking six months, would it? Look what happened last time with the £12mm. loan they didn’t need. That took about six months and the resulting terms involved an usurious rate of interest, onerous hedges, an 8% royalty and restrictive covenants. I dare say that, as someone elsewhere puts it, the terms of “the new loan which will make them debt-free” may turn out to be deliberately prohibitive. I don’t think it’s going to take place: I expect a conversion to equity.

Has the new permanent pipeline been installed yet? Presumably there will be an interesting Q&A tomorrow..

HITS: by my calculation, assuming the £6mm. Aleph bridging facility is converted to shares at the nominal price of 0.20p, the existing authority to issue new shares may just cover it. The share price now is .58p. That’s really the point I’m making. It’s not going to be 0.66p. It’s going to be much closer to the nominal value. There’s a lot of downside remaining.

And I suppose one shouldn’t forget Mercuria. I think they’d like early repayment of their loan, and early payment of their royalty. They would have to approve any new loans, under the terms of the covenants on the senior loan. So if Aleph wants to convert, Angus (and the FCA) may have no option but to allow it. The key issue then would be the price at which the minorities were taken out.

WG818: Kemexon appears to have about 23% now. I don’t know what Aleph companies have got in addition.

I’m not expecting a Global Re-financing. I’m expecting the £6mm. bridging loan to convert into new shares. For the purposes of getting this done, another EGM will be required. The conversion price will be the issue, and the recent reduction in the conversion price of the £3mm. loan gives an indication as to what’s likely to happen re this: not 0.66p, but some price a good deal lower. A big deterioration in the financial situation will be the precursor to the announcement of the conversion of the loan and the much lower conversion price.

Control seems already to be in the hands of the Aleph/Kemexon group. Another huge share acquisition by them will need to be accompanied, or followed, by a bid. It’s not in the interests of the controlling interests in Angus for the price to go up in advance of all this, unless they need to get Mr. Forrest a higher price for whatever shares remain to him. He’s already made a fortune by selling in the market many of the shares he acquired in selling his 49% of the Saltfleetby project to Angus. In the circumstances, if I’m correct, he may well feel it advisable to get out of his remaining holding in fairly short order. I don’t see where the demand is going to come from to meet the resulting supply of shares in the market. The lower resulting price will facilitate a very low conversion price and a very cheap offer for the minority of Anguish shares in the possession of small shareholders.

I think it’s getting a bit late here.

Bubblepoint: surely, if the £6mm bridging if loan is converted, a bid for the company by the Aleph group recipients of the new shares will be required? It’s therefore not in the interests of the Aleph/Kemexon people to get the share price up in advance.

Bridgedogg1: I hesitate to opine on this again but surely the reduction of the conversion price on the £3mm. bridging loan from 1.0 to 0.66p suggests that the outstanding warrants /loan conversion prices will be similarly re-negotiated?