Member Info for YorkshireLife

Anyone care to explain how Tidswell is still called a director and yet had "apparently" also been kicked off the board earlier this year?

Yanis,

I think the answer could be that Lidsey production barely covers running costs which will escalate as quickly as the oil depletes, and they already know that Brockham has a only a slim chance of success - hence they need to plan ahead for abandonment for both in 2020.
There could be other reasons... and it would be good to hear from the BOD. It's a good question to ask!

Hmmmm,

I've traded a percentage here in the past, but right now I'm sticking. Problem here is that the driver for an SP spike is in Newcrest's control... not GGP's. And if Newcrest suddenly make a "game changing" announcement which could land at any time... then I would rather be IN than OUT! I've waited this long already!!!!!

They seem to be moving pretty fast and committing far too many resources to me, for Havieron to "still" have a question mark hanging over it. If they make an offer, outright bid or confirm this is a commercial mine, it's game on... and the price will move upward VERY sharply IMHO.

Charlie,

If it happens we should all rejoice - as it will be "THE FIRST" self-imposed deadline ANGS ever met! ;-)

By the way... I doubt the Market will price in Saltfleetby until a lot nearer the time. If the SP crept up anywhere near Lucan's estimated value, there would simply be a mass sell off (myself included)

I'm not knocking Hollis. To be fair - a dose of realism is what we all need here right now. It would be good to be given the truth for once. His figures explain why it has taken the joint partners so long to get around to testing Balcombe. If the guesstimated flow rates are only 300BPD or thereabouts, then this answers: "why their lack of urgency?"

Hi Ocelot,

I agree. Looks like Saltfleetby is the only savior on the distant horizon. If this were a well managed operation with a strong track record... I think the market might react well (as you say) on projections for Saltfleetby, but with the record "we have" I doubt anything will be priced in until re-connection to grid at the earliest.

I agree Balcombe is an unknown, but it was Hollis that said he would be happy with 300BPD and we don't get to keep the lion's share of this.

My gut instinct is that Lucan reacted quickly to the situation he found and immediately looked for another asset to keep the company afloat. He bought Saltfleetby (deliberately avoiding another oil asset) and drew up a new road map for ANGS future. I think we are in a critical position right now and - if Saltfleetby is delayed or fails - I honestly believe ANGS will be finished too.

Dual listing in Oz required. AIM "evidently" doesn't currently - nor ever looks like it is going to - get excited about gold exploration in Australia.
In the meantime we either need A) A buy-out of the whole company B) A part buy-out of one or more prospects C) Published Newcrest Resource estimate on Havieron D) Second and third JV's on additional prospects - if we want AIM to play ball and lift the SP IMHO!

Been looking back through the RNS's and reading up on our current folio for perspective and to understand the "likely" plans of this BOD going forward:

Of our current assets, we have:

1 Lidesy - very low producing probably looking to abandon (hence notification of set-aside costs)
2 Brockham - not producing and management appear to want to abandon / sell (if poss)
3) Balcombe - water issue and no urgency from joint owner leads me to assume that it will be a similar low producer (if successful + 300BPD has been mentioned and we only see a low percentage of this)
4) Saltfleetby - planning, testing and site work to complete over a long period before any chance of seeing revenue.

So, given that we have 4 assets - of which only Saltfleetby "might" potentially provide meaningful income by end of 2020 (subject to all planning regs / tests and reconnection works completed) it stands to reason that ANGS BOD have only two options going forward:

A) Yet more placings.
B) Purchase of another asset to excite potential new investors.

Even if Balcombe produces... unless the figures are far higher than anticipated, then the revenue from this will barely cover costs (like Lidsey). Salfleetby appears to be the only asset that has "some" potential but has risk attached and is a long long long way off production... so I fail to see how we can continue without the need to raise further early next year - especially if Lucan has his eye on other potential purchases with genuine short-term payback potential?

Trying to be fair and realistic in my appraisal here... If I've missed anything, feel free to let me know?

Dual listing in OZ would be a good move IMHO. We appear to be the most undervalued gold explorer based primarily upon the fact that we are listed on AIM in the UK! :-(

"The loan to JT-P is an asset in ANGS's books, not a liability."

Correct: Its JT-P who is the only "liability!" ;-)

Charlie: Lucan was appointed by Tidswell in the coup against Vonk... I think his offer of resignation at that time should be taken with the contempt it deserves!

Ocelot: If Tidswell leaves the employment of ANGS - whatever or however he continues to exert influence "as a shareholder" is not my concern and I will be content that we have a fair chance of turning a corner. It is the signal it sends to The Market that concerns me... and I have every reason to anticipate that it would be welcomed with open arms!

You cannot continue to employ a serial failure like Tidswell and expect The Market to have any faith here.

Ocelot,

I have no issue with Tidswell as "a shareholder"... he has every right to invest where he wants and - as a main shareholder - to still exert "some" influence too.

It is his continued employment that I object to. It sends out the wrong message to The Market that an individual who has broken trading rules and has a hopelessly poor record of success is still welcome to draw a large salary at ANGS.

He needs to "man up" and realise that he is doing the company (and his own shareholding) more damage by refusing to do the decent thing: acknowledge his failure and leave!

I disagree Charlie.

If the board do not concede to common sense, then they need to be "encouraged" to do so - for the benefit of those shareholders who now find themselves so deep underwater that they cannot afford to sell!
The only way ANGS will be taken seriously again by investors and The Market is if and when Tidswell leaves. The longer he clings on... the more reputational damage will be done... and the less likely any of us will ever see a return on our investment.

I'm simply arguing for change - no disrespect intended to yourself or anyone else with an alternative opinion to mine. Only I think we are just kidding ourselves if we seriously think ANGS will come good with Tidswell still on board.

My help won't change anything Charlie... we need an act of God to alter our prospects here - unless management finally decide to listen to common sense!

And what I have repeatedly explained is that "15% of future revenues" is a worthless statement until we have some hard factual evidence that we are making revenue via anything other than placement and SP dilution.

Balcombe MIGHT generate income... Saltfleetby MIGHT generate income... but even planning is proving to be a long drawn out affair so far - and that's before our Illustrious team (with a 0% success rate to date!!!!) start work on them.....

God Help All ANGS Investors (we'll certainly need it!)

By the way, just so "everyone" is clear, here is your quote:

"My presentation notes and the interview are consistent. They haven’t been asked to ring fence and don’t expect to, yet they haven’t had discussions yet. GL’s point was that there is no precedent in industry for OGA to request ring fencing and he said if they did, ANGS would push back hard. "

Nothing problematic about that - oh... except hang on a minute... you said they HAVEN"T been asked to ringfence and would PUSH BACK HARD if asked to do so...

Look like they've caved into OGA pressure to me - as "some of us" told you they would have to!

Dear oh dear oh dear...

Bravo Charlie ;-)

Keep on cheerleading for ANGS! Not that it will make a scrap of difference...

Nothing will improve sentiment here until management "genuinely" change for the better... and whilst ever Tidswell is pulling Lucan's strings... I don't see that happening :-(

Ocelot: "Think a lot of the posts on this board say far more about the posters than they do about ANGS."

Fair point. Given the negativity from a majority of LTH's here, I would suggest it says that we have finally all woken up and can smell the coffee! It also says that we are livid about the past, frustrated by the present, and pessimistic about the future...... UNLESS!!!!! The BOD finally show some "genuine" signs of contrition. Long overdue to kick Toxic Tideswell into touch after forcing him to repay his loan.

Then (and ONLY then) will folk like me think ANGS has any chance whatsoever of being taken seriously and allowed yet another opportunity to prove they can succeed at something!

Charlie: "YL what do you mean by “imaginary revenue stream”"

I mean it's an unproven assertion... a bit like the promise of oil at Brockham... remember that?
The "Pound Land" Gas Field and it's revenue stream is merely management guesswork - and based on their 100% record of failure thus far... it would be best to swallow it with a large glass of water!

Ocelot: "YL, I don't want to be unpleasant, but you're the one who has got ANGS wrong in the past!"

The only thing I got wrong about ANGS was my decision to invest here in the first place... then maintaining my trust in management to actually deliver on SOMETHING... ANYTHING! eventually. More fool me!