The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Given that the placing wasn't underwritten and wasn't going to be offered to 'the public' it seemed pretty clear that they must already have had a large tranche of firm commitments to the book build. Excellent news i) that it's been confirmed as filled already and ii) that they've closed the book at £3m rather than the 'up to £5m' in the first RNS. Assuming the £500k open offer is taken up that means the dilution will be around 15% and SP is currently down 16%. Unusually for me I'm quite happy with this deal. With so many people asking 'Why now?' I have to say that since, of course, the BoD didn't have to make this move (as it's unrelated operationally to their current activities) then they must have perceived a real and realistic financial opportunity and moved accordingly. Do people seriously think rhat these guys are motivated to act to spite their shareholders rather than benefit them? I do credit them with basic nous and morality even if they are not error free when it comes to drilling. As I've said earlier- this placing wouldn't have been so rapidly subscribed if the placees hadn't been utterly convinced that their investment was going to pay off. I think the BoD must be very confident that the SP is going to be in excess of 4.25p when the time comes for us PIs to make our decisions on whether or not to take up our open offer allocations. Please credit the board with some sense?
North man - Maybe what you 'missed' is that the amount of cash they are exoecting to inject into the project is £1.7m (ie only a small %age of the total raise .... And that this sum will cover either the abandonment costs OR the grid connection costs.
Yet more thoughts (sorry).... This offer is a book build and isn't being made a public offer, nor is IT underwritten. My guess is that the broker already has the subscription chickens lined up in a row with commitments totalling the sums mentioned in the RNS. They've probably been made privy to progress and likely outcomes at Brockham and are happy that the SP is going to be or will remain in excess of 4.25p in a few weeks time. I say again - SP will drop of course but will bobble along at around the offer price.
Further thoughts .... My quick fag packet calculator tells me that if they raise £4m that's about a 17% dilution and the placement discount from last night's close is about 18%. Neither of these are what I'd call 'massive'. The proposed new asset might well be tired but I have more faith in the BoD than to think that they'd take on all the likely flak and aggro if they hadn't genuinely seen a lateral thinking opportunity here to generate some cash flow. Acquisition price £1!
Whilst the SP might well eventually head towards the 4.25 placement and open offer price I see no reason at all that it would drop as low as 3.5p as suggested. From a personal viewpoint I like the idea of the proposed diversification if it's going to be cash flow positive within twelve months. It remains to be seen what the open offer allocation is going to be as they're only looking to £500,000 from that source. Overall positive on this.
GKB - Not if you don't have the ready cash to make up the loss on settlement day! That's the risk with T20s after all. Buying on credit lets you increase your exposure to an uptrend, but you might have to realise assets if your 'bet' goes wrong.
E-AL - There is a further explanation for people selling. Anyone with a T20 due to settle about now would have initiated the contract at around 10p twenty working days ago. I use T20s myself to increase leverage in a share I am confident is going to rise in the short term from its current position. If there is a small drop in the SP over the contract period I would normally 'close and roll' on another T20 and make up the (smallish) loss with cash input. But when you get hit with an unexpected 50% or so loss, as here, it's sometimes necessary to sell settled shares along with closing the T20 in order to meet the settlement cost. It doesn't mean, necessarily, loss of confidence in the future of the company. I hope this further explanation of possible reasons for selling is less conspiratorial?
Waist - No way would I say you are sensitive. Your recent one word response to rxdav was exactly what was required, but all it provoked was another unbelievable rant about how you were beaten and lost for words. I have never EVER got involved in a personal run in between two third parties on a BB before but I find the attacks from your protagonist almost unbelievable. If that represents the mindset and thinking of a full colonel then God help this country. And it all started over a forty minute time window between it being a sign of madness to post on a Friday evening and the coolest most logical thing ever. Keep up your measured responses - absolutely the right way to handle this. Another first time ever for me .... I've reported 3-4 posts - not yours I hasten to add!
I wouldn't begrudge FOTH his little hot air joke. It's all in good fun and, goodness knows, we ANGS holders were full of digs at UKOG for not having a production licence a couple of months or so back. As long as he's prepared to take time out to cover our road traffic and scenic views I'm happy to study his output regardless of his motives. Incidentally when the heat haze pic was published for the second time my immediate take out was that it was a repost just to confirm that there HAD been a haze. Very surprised later that others had taken it as taken that day.
Interesting with regard to Knowe Properties .... Their companies house category listings all relate to real estate and management, yet at today's SP their holding is around £3.2m. Surely that warrants a listing under investment management or something of that ilk? Not that I know the first thing about limited company registration etc. So that's another area of ignorance Doose could have levelled at me!
I went to check the company website to see if I could glean any more insight into the 'disappearing' PV shareholding. The website also confirms what the RNS said - no shares held in Treasury. Easier to look that up than type an e-mail question to IR! Anyway .. Regarding major shareholdings .... The full text says: "SHARES NOT IN PUBLIC HANDS The total percentage of shares not in public hands is 15.0% defined as being beneficial holdings of shares held by shareholders holding above 10% and the directors holdings." So, the reason The PV holding was shown there before and is no longer shown is that i) he doesn't hold more than 10% - and never did ii) he is no longer a director. Ergo his holding wouldn't be shown on the list of 'shares not in public hands. Simples? Why does everyone have to make their first explanation of summat as being down to 'shenanigans'? This is a separate issue from any tr1 reporting being necessitated - and we have no evidence that PV has disposed of any shares. I happen to share the view that, even if he could, why would he?
RNS of 21 November clearly states that no shares are held in treasury. So the only way they could now have any is if they have repurchased some. Now why on earth would they choose to repurchase Vonk's shares, which would cost them money and just mean they had whatever capital they expended tied up in those bits of paper doing nothing. This whole business of PV's shares and has he or hasn't he is total speculation. How on earth anyone can look at a series of trades and reach the conclusion that the seller was Mr X is totally beyond me
Renegade Sorry, but no surprise at all. Planning officers are reasonable people by and large. If the change in the condition was to a quieter less intrusive piece of equipment then OK it and move on.
Renegade - Did your research, research, research not uncover amongst the documentation in the link that you sent that all SCC were asking Mole Valley District Council to do was to 'register' the ANGS application. They weren't asked to comment on it because, as has been pointed out by myself and others, SCC had indicated that the decision would be made under delegated powers - by planning officers alone. Hence no need to go to committee and no need to seek views of lower authorities. Did you not notice in your research that the consultees box was empty? Technically the case officer did indeed have until the Fevruary date indicated to make his decision, but for a 'non material amendment' such as this there was no need to prolong the agony. Research; research; research! :-)
Whilst strictly speaking the buck for everything stopped at Vonk's desk you would expect a CEO to have better things to do with his time than check every small detail of equipment used on site and its having been approved or not. I notice that the e-mail answering the planning officer's question about the linear pump came from ANGS's agent - can't be bothered right now to check the name or company. That's right, the same agent who didn't even take the time to check his response and as a consequence told SCC it was noisier than a donkey, not quieter. Luckily Steve in the planning office knew better and has nodded it through in far less time than local government guidelines allow. In my view what ANGS need to do now is urgently review the performance of their planning agent and look to replace them. I also find it a most unlikely scenario that SCC would take ant line, formal or informal, regarding replacing the ANGS CEO. If they did, who would they tip the wink to .... err the CEO maybe? I think not. Anyway all done and dusted now and let's hope they do look rather carefully at the performance of their agent in this regard.
Baits - As I recall, at the time the 'money was raised for Balconbe' there was mention that this was because, although ANGS is the nominated operator there, they are not the major beneficiary interest. Other major partners, eg Quadrilla, were/are eager to get on with the job there ASAP and no doubt would be pressuring ANGS to show signs of being willing and financially able to move forward on that specific project. Diverting funds raised for one publicly stated specific purpose into another would be appalling governance and would have consequences from our JV partners at Balcombe. So please put that idea back in your hip slung pistol holster?