Listen to our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode 'Uncovering opportunities with investment trusts' with The AIC's Richard Stone here.
BP, I really hope - both for ANGS shareholders and the company itself - that the putative replacement global financing deal is in fact elusive, rather than illusive.
However, the ongoing radio silence on this facility (which to me seems absolutely crucial) suggests that both descriptions may be true.
Everything that continues to be said here - and by both sides - has all been said a million times before over the last 6 and a half years (yes, it's really been that long). So sadly, the repetitions are all entirely futile.
Okay so we have yet another line in the sand with a date attached from Amit. It's the 15th (again yes, really) update since the 23rd Sept 2021, when the existence of some sort of a deal was first claimed and the 14th since the original first date for conclusion of the alleged deal (that being "within Q1 2022") was given on 14th Dec 2021.
Presumably the only recourse available to holders of CTAG shares is (as ever) to wait and see if anything actually materialises.
Talking the company and its CEO up is an utter waste of time, not least because there is zero supporting evidence justifying doing so. Equally, slamming the company and its CEO is every bit as much an utter waste of time, even though there's a whole host of evidence to support holding a negative opinion.
So why not just wait until the latest deadline is reached? And if/when it's missed like all its predecessors, might as well just wait some more.... after all, what else is there to do?
Spot the bot-repeated post... *yawn*
...and that alleged conclusion is one of two possible outcomes. Posters may decide - based on the available evidence (of which there is hardly a dearth)- which of those two outcomes is more probable.
Not in the least. Many big pharma names (Merck, Moderna, Lilly to name just three) have indeed announced their participation in various of the fireside chats forming the MS Global Healthcare Conference this year - and as participants, each is presenting during one or more of said chats.
A few teensy things.
1. Relying on claims published on the CTAG website as being gospel truth has evidentially not proven to be a flawless strategy.
2. It of course remains more than a tad tricky to prove a negative.
3. I would suggest that, semantically speaking, there is a marked difference between a "participant" and a mere "attendee". It remains to be seen which category (if either) Amit falls into.
A teensy point.
What you say is so obviously true that it's not worth saying at all.
And it's not as if anyone would be brain-crushingly dumb enough to give Amit any (more) money now... so what's the point? CTAG is and always has been a 419 scam - but for years it's been an inactive one and it's never going to be re-activated.
Surely this just represents a return to expected production volumes (90 - 95,000 therms a day), following a period of maintenance?
We'll presumably see the same sort of thing (a decrease, then a return to typical output values) as and when the permanent pipework gets installed, which is now forecast to happen some time in October.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, the definition of "shortly" has constantly moved into the future.
It's simply not worth using the word - "maybe, just maybe some time" would be a whole lot more accurate, looking at the numerous past lines in the sand drawn by Amit, all of which have been entirely washed away by the passage of time.
PS that's a very smart question from Malvolio. There are probably numerous good reasons why this shouldn't be done... but still, it's well worth an ask.
Ocelot may not be the best share-promoting investment guru there's ever been. He/she has been singing the praises of UKOG for equally many years, if not longer - and things really aren't looking too clever over there.
No. It's running at least six weeks late. Perhaps you might try doing the barest minimum of research?
The following from IQs on the ANGS website/
Has the new permanent pipeline been installed at Saltfleetby now and what impact will this have on costs moving forward? Thank you Asked on 1 September 2023
The pipework for the permanent flowline is being fabricated for installation during September, with a goal of commissioning the new line in early October.
...hedge contracts, not hedge ostracised. Gotta hate spellcheck.
Oofy, you are quite correct, if one factors in the 8% "royalty" on gross revenues (as one should). That 8% levy to Mercuria kicks in as soon as ANGS has paid off 85% or 100% (it's unclear which... ANGS has said both) of the original £12 million loan.
Your £1.44m of extra outgoings is severely underestimated BTW. The 8% is on gross revenue, which means that the hedge ostracised have nothing to do with it. At 3 million therms a month of production, gross monthly revenues will probably average around the £2.5 million mark, so £30 million a year. 8% of that is £2.4 million, and as you know, that 8% is payable every year until the field breathes its last wisp of gas for ANGS.
"Better placed to refinance now than they were when George Lucan negotiated the original £12m facility."...
If true, that then begs the question as to why the two emergency short-term bridging loans were taken out at interest rates of 20%. in March and July this year. A 20% interest rate is hardly any mark of being "better placed".
And then the next question. We're told that the "global refinancing" is being negotiated at a potential 15% per annum. Although better, that rate is hardly a confirmation that ANGS is "better placed".
(Still, I hope ANGS gets it signed, because they really REALLY badly need it in the short term).
True BP, though I'm sure we'd both agree that such a high level of incredibly low-priced new shares would hardly be welcomed by existing PIs, if that option were taken.
However as is abundantly clear, something new needs to happen re debt... and fast.
As I've said more than once before, this is all about timing and ANGS (currently at least) not having enough time for production revenue to meet the schedule of its current already incurred liabilities. With regard to debt, something has to change and quickly.
A very simple, purely factual and immediately verifiable case in point - just look at the shortest term debt the company had to take on. As things stand right now, purely going by info the company has RNSed to the market, ANGS needs to repay c. £9.6 million within the next few weeks. That's made up of £3.3 million of capital plus interest against the first short-term bridging loan at 20%, taken out for 3 months at the end of March this year but then extended by a further 3 months, and then £6.3 million of capital plus interest against the second short-term bridging loan at 20%, taken out for 3 months in July this year.
Now ANGS hasn't got £9.6 million spare, so renegotiation and/or refinancing is urgently required. That's obvious.
Tony_Currie, you say "nonsense being spread".... then promptly agree with me.
You state "Our debt is large BUT the revenue generated can cover this in one single year"...
...and I previously stated "...it'd take ANGS a year to generate enough revenue to cover its existing major debts."
Make up your mind....
Well... ANGS does need to generate enough revenues to cover its monthly opex and G&A expenditure as well.
It's a timing question more than anything. Which is why the replacement financing deal would be a seriously good thing for the company, because it gives the company 18 months to generate revenue, unlike the existing £9m's worth of short-term bridging.
Hope I gave you the only possible answer to your question below, namely that at current production levels and presuming an average gas price of 90p per therm over the period and taking into account the existing derivatives, it'd take ANGS a year to generate enough revenue to cover its existing major debts.
It's not simply about the number of therms needing to be produced, because the existing derivative contracts make the timing of production important.