Member Info for SillyButtons

BV,
"show any weakness and the trolls will be all over you shortly using the usual scare tactics"
with the utmost respect, this is the nonsense gideons used to post and can we please leave this in the bin with gideons..
there is no dark side and light side here.. just because some of us dont have your level of belief and postivity for this share, doesnt make us trolls..
Regards
SB

Yanis,

I certainly have found it so recently.. like you im just over 40% down, but I only have a small % of the value you have invested here.. i am guessing from your posts about gardening your a a good few years ahead of me in life, im only starting out and while my investement is only loose change compared to your investment, im only starting out.. newborn child, mortgage etc so it matters to me..

A few weeks ago, i was thinking the side track was the decision point for me.. i think a successful sidetrack is the catalyst for the big rerate.. i was expercting to be back in the black and deciding how brave & greedy to be.. Now im thinking if i am in the black by a penny just jump ship..

I dont think GL really has the interest of the long term shareholders in mind, this road has been very very long for us, we have been told nearly there to many times and behinf every hill we climb seems to be another hill.. We need to start seeing progress and a higher SP.. It is completly different scenario for those who have joined recently and are in below 1p
we need the headlines to be results and positive growth, not ridiculously inflated monthly revenue figures and the other media spin GL seems to love..

Yanis,
i am int he same boat as you only i started at around 10.. even averaged down recently to get just below 2 and then we get yesterday and it is a disproportionate % of my portfolio..
I am guessing like me, you are frustrated that GL and the board seem to be holding the SP back.. getting so close to a reason for the SP to push on and rise , we get placings, dillution and now this. The day seemed so close to open my portfolio and not see angus in Red..

Bottomfeeder, i agree with yoiu that i dont think that this was neccessary or beneficial at this time. i also dont see why SEL would sell if it such a good deal for angus..
it does offer anothert possibly explanation why GP sold out though.. maybe they were interested in buying out SEL's 49% and were not let/ refused and then left..
Do not know why we were not informed of angus intention to buy out the 49% previously via RNS as this deal has to be weeks if not months in the making..

To think they were talking of paying down the debt by xmas and yet had to have 3 placings this year so far and dillute the company by half and they still havent produced anything..
I note as well the shareholder approval for addtional shares is not for the deal, but to keep the show on the road.. Does anyone know what the consequencs of not maintaining the require bank balances is?
because to me it looks like they decided to give the shares to the lads for this deal and push shareholders in a position why they have to approve the additonal shares and dilution or risk their investment in whatever the consequences of not maintaining our bank balance..

Baits,

Completely Agree. Also you would guess it would be more attractive to potetial buyers to deal with one owner than two.

I wonder did GP try to buy out SEL share and were refused and hence sell out.
Do not know why were werent infomed of these discussions prior to the deal being done either..

Caravanboy,
My understanding is they have undertaken not to sell the first 91million in the first 3 months and to dispose of no more than 25% of the 546 million in each 3 month period after.. so eariest they can sell out is 15 months after completion of SFB and aquasition ofthe shares.. is that correct?

No sure if this a good deal..
Also they seem to be reliant on shareholder approval to for the second subscription to "satisfy lenders and regulators".. which does make it seem that, given we will be in production, we still wont be able to keep enough cash in the bank to meet the requirements of the loan..
Even though we have had 2 placings since february issing an additional 236million shares to raise over just over 2 million for working capital and general costs..
I think George and co need to create some cash returns for Long term investors rather asset acquisition and subsequent dillution to fund it..

Sorry baits,
i wasnt implying i would not flow.. do not know how you thought i meant that..
if they thought it was a complete failure they would have looked for all cash.. i think they took the shares because they benifit from share price increase in successful, but can sell up & walkway if there is problem or they dont think it will be the cash cow down the road that is envisaged..
I am wondering do they see value in the oil side of things or are they just derisking.

Ocelot,
if it is a substanial discount, why did SEL agree to sell?
I would imagine if would not be finanicically wise to sell your share for a large discount to its percieved value.
I know they get cash, liabiltiies transfered to Angus, paid directorship on the board, and will end up owning 25% of angus shares, so have really traded theirt 49% of SFB & associated Liabilities for 25% of Angus and no liabiltiies.

Just wondering do they see significant potential in the Oil side of things or did they just do it so they get the benefit of any success & easily walk away if it isnt the success envisaged by many here..

BV,
"TYgra, wake up, GL wanted the deal sorted on the cheap before the price went up after production starts, i've mentioned the same to bobrad"

Why would SEL sell on the cheap? they should know more about the ecconomic success SFB is going to be than us mere mortals on this board. they are getting paid to give up their 49% of SFB in exchange for cash, having their liabilities transfered to angus, getting a paid directorship and will recieve 25% of Angus Shares?

Makes you wonder do they see significant value in the Oil side of angus or derisking?

BV, I would hope so.. Cant see them holding ther AGM without first gas, be too embarrassing and i think they will want & need postive sentiment..
Also i dont think the realists ever expected june 1st to be held anyway..
week or 2, while a nice bit of money lost, isnt the end of the world..

I more concerned with, from my understanding is a25% dillution..

HITS,
It is my understanding as well that he is refering to the expect volume of gas in the filed over its lifetime being unhedged..
another lovely headline that will nto doubt be repeated on here ad nauseam, but does not mean much..
Doesnt mean with that the hedge wont be almost 100% for production for the intial 3 months and may not be met without a successful sidetrack...
Just a nice attention grabbing headline..

Stockbob,
"the main problem is george keeps misleading about timelines, first gas we are now 2 weeks over until mid June and what are the chances that gets missed aswell"

you posted lovely promising extracts from GL over the weekend and gave out about the derampers on here who questioned deadlines and statements frtom the BOD..
I hope you starting to realise that you need to be cautious with comes form GL,, just because it glitters doesnt mean its gold...

I see stockbob has taken up the mantle in gideons absence and repeating verbatim GL statements as if they were gospel.. Go see January rns and gas by end of Q1. Then go look at the investors questions where they rowed back on the 7.2 million figure!
Garwool 1, in case you take that extract you posted earlier at face value, the hedge is based on volume not a % of production.. assuming production of 1.5m terms the the hedge will be 100% of production for the first 3 months of the hedge, rising to 140% of production for the following 3 months unless they get the sidetrack constructed successfully . That 50% is assuming full capacity production and are always accompanied by non committal words such as approximate, estimated etc..

Sentinel85uk,

The increase above the approx 1.5m figure will be from the new sidetrack if successful..
i cannot figure out how they can say the hedge is covered from exisitng wells and then use production expectation of 1.5m when hedge rises to 1.75m in october..
To me it is contradictory..

Tygra,

You state that production is 1.5m therms per month ( as per RNS).. do agree then the hedge is not covered without the side track?
I ask because, to me, the 1.5m production and hedge covered freom the existing wells are contradictory. if hedge is covered, the production should be 1.75m minimum, if 1.5m, that is consistently used ,then hedge is not covered.
I do not know why no one here seems concerned by this as there is a significant increase in risk if hedge not covered by existing wells or am i missing something? if so i would appreciate if some one could tell me..

Howey,
Firstly thank you for the reply..
Secondly i don't know why you are surprised, Sure i am a whingeing bedwetting greenie don't you know! :-)

That is a fair point ocelot, but it would clarify what expected profit is and remove the discussion. Gas moves up or downup x% we know profit move by same %age. Then No discussion needed..

Pboo,
Equally, Those who bought in at 35p have lost 95% of their investment and could easily reduce the loss to 90%.. Those who bought in at 1.35p are breakeven and could easily double their money..

Is their some point or usefulness to your post that I missed?

I would also like to add, it would be useful if they could provide an updated economic forecast for revenue and profit based the the futures prices on a particular day.. No Side track production and side track production less updated opex figures.. End that discussion as well..

Howey,
I have found you to be a polite and balanced poster and I am surprised by your complaints about Hits.. As you acknowledged, Hits counters ramptastic nonsense on this board and therefore posts would be less postive and looking at the alternative negative possibilities. I would say that these are just words on a screen and tone is generally interfered as much as implied..
I think motive is much less important than the content. Road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that..
I also think, no more than earlier this year and 1000's of posts generated over progress and Q1 gas, management communications are the core problem..
They have used 1.5m terms consistently for monthly production from existing Wells, stated hedge is covered and side track is unhedged and pressure tested the existing Wells. But we know hedge requires 1.75m terms monthly to be met in 3 months time..
If the existing Wells will cover hedge at 1. 75m terms why use 1.5m?
If 1.5m how can they say hedge is covered..
If, this all depends on well pressures, how can they state sidetrack is unhedged?
They tested the well pressures, why not give use the figures and end the debate?
Much like the delivery schedule and programme of works reduced the back and forth here re progress and first gas, clear concise information on production would do the same..
And I know it depends on drop off in pressure over time which is unknown but that can be stated.. They can tell us the pressure as it is now, they can tell use they expect that to result in x million terms a month and they expect that to drop to y million terms a month over the next 3/6/9 months..
I think this is part of the reason the sp is not increasing as expected.. Message is not clear and concise and GL seems to prefer the attention grabbing headline statements (debt free by year end, 7.2m month) without the caveats, to simple clear, realistic, consistent consistent communications..

Thanks for that post ocelot. Don't think I saw that CPR before