[ADVERT]
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Angus Energy Plc LSE:ANGS London Ordinary Share GB00BYWKC989 ORD GBP0.002
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.0% 0.90 0.85 0.95 0.90 0.888 0.90 1,576,658 08:00:03
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Oil & Gas Producers 0.1 -2.5 -0.4 - 9

Angus Energy Share Discussion Threads

Showing 10476 to 10498 of 10500 messages
Chat Pages: 420  419  418  417  416  415  414  413  412  411  410  409  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
15/10/2021
19:43
Should see a steady rise as first gas gets closer. Tick tock
3put
15/10/2021
18:25
Loving the NEW "considerate" tone of EchDelta (WhoCares aka CouldA aka Foth) over on the B Channel... obviously hoping not to get rumbled too quickly - before his post tally gets into the hundreds (AGAIN!) No problem... as he'll lose his head (like he always does) and then everybody will recognise his all too familiar manic ramblings again... don't worry. Let's see how long it takes... I give him a week! He might even beat the next placing? CQ ;-)
clottedq
15/10/2021
15:22
HITS: I’ve said on a few occasions that this will prove a successful investment if they can supply gas to Shell next February or even March, at the rates forecast in the CPR and within budget. If they can also drill a successful sidetrack promptly, and if gas prices remain high, they may do very well. The timescale is already dragging out. They were supposed to be doing the Poundland groundworks two months ago. We’ve heard nothing about this. Equipment is supposed to be delivered this month. Nothing so far. EA and HSE permissions are still outstanding. There’s been no news on a sidetrack and they’ve changed the plans for this, including the abandonment of their plan, as committed to in their planning application, for a well test. They’ve softened up the market already with statements to the effect that demand for gas well equipment has picked up strongly with the huge rise in gas prices. Deliveries will not be helped by the current supply chain difficulties They will owe lenders about £5.9mm. by next June. Their assets are in the hands of a third party, against their meeting the terms of their loans. In July, the hedges take effect. This is a management which has never met a single one of its own deadlines or budgets and which has given its shareholders a number of unpleasant surprises on both fronts. These are not disingenuous, or even negative, comments. They are statements of fact. I’ll be happy to debate them with anyone. I don’t want the share price to go down. I don’t, however, share the view of bulls of the company that this management will have achieved enough cash flow at Poundland to pay the company’s debts by the time the money has to be paid to the Lenders. Whether the Lenders will then enforce their rights or give this lot more time to get to real profitability is a moot point.
jtidsbadly
15/10/2021
14:50
Isn't it more like this? While {drawing salary} Then kick can Loop
1347
15/10/2021
14:31
hits - i'm always fair .... but we all know what disingenuous jtisdaly meant..he just can't help himself .... the negativity is consuming him . i wish you a good weekend, i'm off to enjoy mine. remember old grey window lickers ... truth is the best defence...
sincero1
15/10/2021
14:14
To be fair, Sincero, the whole point about any conditional is that it must by default have at least two states, or in simplest terms a yes and a no (if it's a binary option). This means that for every "if", there must be at least one related "if not". That's not just linguistics,it's just basic logic. Even Excel understands this - see below:- IF conditional =IF(Something is True, Value if True, Value if False) ...or to put it otherwise, if something is true, then do something, OTHERWISE do something else) And then you've got other options:- IF with NOT conditional NOT =IF(NOT(Something is True), Value if True, Value if False) IF with AND conditional AND =IF(AND(Something is True, Something else is True), Value if True, Value if False) IF with OR conditional OR =IF(OR(Something is True, Something else is True), Value if True, Value if False)
headinthesand
15/10/2021
13:10
predictably the disingenuous jtisadly is not satisfied with "if " he needs to add "nots" to really drive home the negativity ...... totally mendacious and ignorant ....
sincero1
15/10/2021
11:57
He’s right about that, though. It’s not all about “ifs”. There’s quite a few “if nots”.
jtidsbadly
15/10/2021
11:51
hits "FFS " - now now, from a linguist too... i would expect better ...swearing is language poverty isn't it ? i agree there are some ifs ...but its not all ifs ... it is all ifs if you listen to resident grey window lickers that clearly are disingenuous ..
sincero1
15/10/2021
11:17
Sincero... "hits "if they miss out on the volumes committed to under the hedge," If if if ..... you keep falling into the trap of negativity" Oh come on now. You must know that ANGS remains all about if's... FFS, they've been literally zero revenue for 18 months and counting now. You must also know that this is by no means a nailed-on opportunity and it's only the ramptastic idiots that would ever claim it is. Yes, ANGS may succeed and it may even do quite nicely... ...BUT that is ENTIRELY CONDITIONAL UPON (there's a overweeningly justifiable "if" for you) it managing to produce enough out of Poundland to meet its already incurred obligations, both running cost, debt financing and hedge related. To pretend any different is to be spouting utter BS. And to avoid mentioning the glaring conditionals is to be disingenuous.
headinthesand
15/10/2021
11:11
JA51: well, there is no reason why the company shouldn’t answer simple questions on the matter of the hedges. How much gas is covered by the hedges, in therms per month, please? It’s simple enough. And there’s no commercial confidentiality issue to justify their refusal to do so.
jtidsbadly
15/10/2021
11:09
ja51"contractvoid"oiler "What it does is give an explanation as to how they think the lenders came to their figures" well done you finally got something right ... Hallelujah, gold star for you ... keep it up, keep reaching for that rainbow . jtisadly - still can't find the "ignorant " or " mendacious " comments in my post i see ... as they weren't there were they ....you just made it up ... you were being mendacious ... and ignorant ... fool.
sincero1
15/10/2021
10:57
JT I can see it can be read like that yes. It's a get-out-of-jail-free card, isn't it? Quite easy to just say the hedge only applies to the Existing wells. End of conversation but they didn't. What happens if they turn them back on and only one produces for example? I read it as its future gas sales. It doesn't actually say the sidetrack is unhedged. What it does is give an explanation as to how they think the lenders came to their figures! It says “approximately 70% of the Company’s future gas sales …. under a conservative projection” and this was prudently set by the lenders, based, as we understand it, on their own estimates of achievable flow from the existing wells and excluding the contribution from the sidetrack. "
ja51oiler
15/10/2021
10:54
JA51: I’ve done the same thing. It’s not edifying, is it? All I’ll say in response is that I stand by every item he has quoted, other than the share price ones! I failed to make allowance for manipulation of share prices in AIM companies and for the dogged determination of many AIM investors not to realise a loss. And in some cases, for their bravado and enthusiasm for “averaging down”. They’ll have even more scope for this soon, I expect. Who knows, though?
jtidsbadly
15/10/2021
10:53
jtisadly " assuming" "probably" "if anguish fail" - "It’s highly misleading to characterise my entirely genuine concerns as part of a “negative agenda” it’s nothing of the sort." ja51"contractvoid"oiler -"replying to my question with a counterpoint" I did , you are just to stupid to understand because of your ignorant negative agenda . i will however agree with you on one point "A proper explanation properly worded on all details of the hedge " this would slap jtisadly in the old grey mutton chops again no doubt ...
sincero1
15/10/2021
10:37
JA51: I read the answer you’ve quoted to the sidetrack question as saying specifically that any production from a sidetrack is unhedged. So, assuming they meet the required volume from the existing wells by the required date, anything they were to get from a sidetrack could be sold at the prevailing market price. However, it seems equally clear that the Lenders have made an assumption, probably based on Anguish’s own figures as used in the CPR, of gas production by end-June and applied that to the hedge contracts. If Anguish fail to produce enough gas (from both existing wells and sidetrack, if any) to meet the terms of the contracts, those contracts cease to be hedges and become uncovered financial speculations in the commodity markets.
jtidsbadly
15/10/2021
10:33
jtisadly " It’s highly misleading to characterise my entirely genuine concerns as part of a “negative agenda” it’s nothing of the sort" What ??!?!?! Here are some of your recent posts .... 5.7.21 "placing this week or next" 8.7.21"another placing or two in the next few months" 9.7.21 "" placing is in the queue and will come once the latest UKOG issue has been digested" 14.7.21 ""I'm expecting two placings this year" 21.5.21 "poor angus 0.20 soon" 21+ weeks ago. " share price into the sixties shortly " 21+ weeks ago. "oga approval doubt" . " financing doubt" . " running out of money " weekly prediction for last 9 months. " 0.15 by end of year". " placing soon " daily prediction for last 9 months. "its a pump & dump" - it wasn't. "gas to Shell at current prices from New Year until July in decent volumes. I' put the chances of that at about 1%" "you should be pleased - that 0.70p re-entry level of yours is just round the corner. They did run out of money towards the end of March, as we predicted" - And from the interim : As at 31 March 2021 the Group had cash of £591,000. As at 31 March 2021 the Group had net current assets of £1,351,000"."If Mercuria has written the hedge contracts, Anguish may fall into their hands" "it's going to cost Mercuria lots of money" "Maybe they can use Anguish's tax losses" "I expect Mercuria to want Anguish to have more placings" "I dare say Mercuria will be getting all its original demands met" "I expect the loan terms to stipulate release of funds as and when needed and subject to Mercuria's specific approval" "Id be surprised if we don't see the appointment of a Mercuria person as a Director there very shortly." "The proposed loan terms are unaffordable. Mercuria must have something else in mind" "For someone like Mercuria, this is a no-brainer. Tax losses that make pulling the plug on Anguish pretty well risk-free if they can't make money on the gas" "If Mercuria finds itself strapped for cash, it's going to be a problem." "...and Mercuria are in trouble, things could get awkward quite quickly, what?" "Sharks" "Hyenas"
sincero1
15/10/2021
10:30
hits "if they miss out on the volumes committed to under the hedge, " If if if ..... you keep falling into the trap of negativity .... ja51"contractvoid"oiler " I think the wording here is deliberately confusing." deliberately ? only if you have a negative slant .... jtisdaly - clearly couldn't find any ignorant or mendacious comments in my post as there weren't any , although that didn't stop him accusing me of them ...he just doesn't like the truth ... tries to defend himself against his supposition and constant negative posts.. do i really need to post his recent comments again .....
sincero1
15/10/2021
10:24
It’s highly misleading to characterise my entirely genuine concerns as part of a “negative agenda” it’s nothing of the sort. It’s a question that should be at the front of the mind of any investor or of anyone thinking of investing in Anguish. It’s not “negative supposition”. I don’t think you understand the nature of futures and forward contracts and what they commit their counterparties to. If you think it’s mere supposition, please give us the real facts of the case. I’d like to hear them.
jtidsbadly
15/10/2021
10:17
I think the wording here is deliberately confusing. “approximately 70% of the Company’s future gas sales …. under a conservative projection” and this was prudently set by the lenders, based, as we understand it, on their own estimates of achievable flow from the existing wells and excluding the contribution from the sidetrack. " I read it as that it's 70% of ALL future sales irrespective. They arrived at this figure by foreseeing the sidetrack may fail hence the "Conservative" The first line does say "ALL FUTURE SALES" But the follow-up question does seem to muddy the waters somewhat. Q. If the sidetrack produces the extra gas, will it reduce the hedge percentage of the gas produced. Asked on 1 October 2021 A. Yes. The hedged amount is fixed so incremental gas is unhedged. Doesn't really answer the question, does it? Seems strange we got a chapter on the 16-week document that didn't exist,...then "o you mean that one" and barely a sentence on this! It still doesn't answer the question properly to me. Is the Hedged amount approx 70%? Seems to me if the sidetrack wasn't hedged they would be shouting this from the rooftops not replying with that poor answer. I'm sure others have read it differently. Am I missing something here? A proper explanation properly worded on all details of the hedge and pros and cons seems in order here.
ja51oiler
15/10/2021
10:13
Sincero, if they miss out on the volumes committed to under the hedge, nobody will need to shoot the company down. Should this occur, at that point the company's entire continuing existence would be severely in doubt. So this isn't about looking for some trite future stick with which to give ANGS a thrashing at all. This is about being able to make a properly informed decision on the company's future prospects, rather than being left to grope in the dark, having quite deliberately only been given inexact and nebulous figures.
headinthesand
15/10/2021
10:11
I’ve just added “on the shortfall” to the penultimate sentence of my most recent post, in the interest of clarity.
jtidsbadly
15/10/2021
10:10
jtisadly - the disingenuous troll non shareholder with a negative agenda who closely guards his anonymity ,always quick to embarrass himself . "ignorant " & " mendacious" please point out in my post what comment is ignorant and mendacious ....
sincero1
Chat Pages: 420  419  418  417  416  415  414  413  412  411  410  409  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
ANGS
Angus Ener..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20211016 13:27:53