Angus Energy Share Discussion Threads

[jtidsbadly] 01/2/2021 10:02

JA51: I wrote that post before I saw your second, with which I agree!

It seems to me there’s no progress to report. On the other site they’re assuming the warrants will be converted soon and that this will give Anguish a total equity raise of over £3mm. Even if the Q&A answers are to be relied on (and they’re normally just optimistic spin) it looks likely that they’ll be needing further placings by the Spring, by which time the share price may be nearer 0.5p. As to the vaunted geothermal prospects - for which they were looking to the new boys to raise a further £8mm.- these appear to be minimal at best. Thankfully.

I've looked back at the (permanent?) MD’s interviews over the spring and summer last year with Malcy and others, and he’s simply misled investors. Estimates of £1.75mm. more to complete the Poundland project. It’s wrong, isn’t it? He’d been negotiating on a £12mm loan since March. They must have realised they needed the money some time before they entered negotiations. There’s no excuse for the CPR, the authors of which have unwittingly attached their reputation to a misleading document (if it wasn’t misleading at the time it was published, it very soon was and an announcement to this effect should have been RNS’d.) I’d be cross if I were them. If there’s such a thing as an AAAG, it might be an idea to drop these experts a card.

Re the abandonment reserve requirement: judging by the document that I copied here yesterday, it appears that the county council has taken on responsibility for some outstanding issues, and abandonment provisioning is listed as one of these issues (if I’m reading the document right). Not just the OGA then. And there's the EA and the HSE too..

The 2 industry partners: Doriemus? UKOG? Perm any 2 from 100.

[ja51oiler] 01/2/2021 09:33

I suspect the author may have been on the Sauce last night.


"The potential debt participants"......(Potential!!!???)

"We don’t like to count chickens"......(Says it all)



"Nonetheless our advisers at Aleph are exploring dynamic hedging strategies which would also allow some opportunistic fixing of future prices during the sorts of tight price environments which we have recently witnessed."

(it seems unlikely a finance deal is ready to be signed if this hasn't been decided)



.........." What we can say is that, of the great number of counterparties we spoke to, two potential industry partners, and four experienced debt investors have crawled over the field (and Angus) and none have had any problem with the technical or financial proposition other than the relatively small size of the deal and their readiness to do anything last year"

(You told us 10 had compiled their own CPR's previously, you didn't mention the 2 Industry partners either?

[jtidsbadly] 01/2/2021 09:00

JA51: risible. Talking to debt investors since March. So £12mm in additional costs should really have featured in the CPR. And please don’t let this MD sign up to options on gas prices. They’ll offer hostages to fortune which could result in tremendous losses. The suggestions as to price indicate some scepticism on future prices by potential lenders, too. Still, the new boys on the block have got to earn their keep so they’ll carry on working on this. As to the rest, it’s all evasion. The answer to the first question would have been better answered with the word “No”.

[ja51oiler] 01/2/2021 08:43

The answer to the first question should be worrying to all those who are spouting the finance is in place!

"We don’t like to count chickens before they have hatched but we would say that the environment for debt finance of development opportunities is vastly better now than it was even in September 2020!

Doesn't sound like Aleph have convinced their "Funding Partners to me"

--------------------

Question 2. So no large placings but lots of small ones then?

--------------------

Question 3 doesn't answer the question really does it!

--------------------

Question 4 is the killer.

"The potential debt participants in the facility have indicated a strong preference for a buying a “floor” (a seasonally adjusted option over a minimum price) at or around 30 p/therm"

@ 30p per therm, you are way below the CPR figures even the lowest projection. All the money is also made in the first 4 years. Mostly due to the Tax reclaimable.
Hard to see any profit for mug PI,s there!

If the funding comes watch out for the De-comm costs being removed. If Angus is liable for the pipeline De-comm this is going to set another set of alarms going off at the OGA!

[ja51oiler] 01/2/2021 08:26

Recently answered questions

1: Does Angus have a Plan B in case the SFB loan financing does not close as anticipated? Asked on 27 January 2021

We started looking for debt finance or leasing solutions in March 2020 – not the most auspicious time – and whilst equity markets picked up in the summer, debt folk tend to be much more circumspect. We don’t like to count chickens before they have hatched but we would say that the environment for debt finance of development opportunities is vastly better now than it was even in September 2020. Funds and individuals can sit on their hands for so long before they start losing feeling in them. What we can say is that, of the great number of counterparties we spoke to, two potential industry partners, and four experienced debt investors have crawled over the field (and Angus) and none have had any problem with the technical or financial proposition other than the relatively small size of the deal and their readiness to do anything last year.



2: Why did you not offer this placing offer to all shareholders? Asked on 27 January 2021

The placing involved a warrant structure – priced at 1.2p, 1.35p and 1.5p and designed to reward placees but only when all shareholders had enjoyed benefit – which would have been administratively impossible to manage in an open offer environment involving thousands of shareholders.



3: Does Angus anticipate further placings before First Gas, permit for reservoir support at Brockham and the well test at Balcombe? What kind of monthly income are we looking at if all these go to plan?

Asked on 27 January 2021



We have planned in the weeks ahead a full presentation of Angus’ strategy going forward as a Transition Energy company and this will involve new projects. However we don’t right now see these projects as involving signficant (>£0.5m) spend, and so large placings, before First Gas. As to monthly income projections, we are not allowed to announce these outside of RNS and the number of variables across three oil fields and one gas field is in any case considerable. The result would be very good indeed.



4: Given the Staltfleetby reserves valuation report is based on pence/th prices of between 32 and 42 pence, whereas the Feb 21 Nat Gas futures contract has just hit 82 pence/th, presumably this will have a significant impact on SFB profitability assuming prices continue to trade in a similar range. Given this development, is there anything Angus can do in order to lock in forward sales at these prices using futures or the like? Asked on 27 January 2021

Near contracts for gas at National Balancng point have indeed spiked in recent weeks to close to 80 p/therm (according to my Bloomberg) and the day ahead contract is currently around 55 p/therm – although bear in mind that this is peak season and in summer months the price is likely to be significantly lower. The present price also reflects the impact of a very cold northern hemisphere winter as well as structural demand/supply issues driven by rising demand for global LNG from the Far East. About 20% of UK supply is now LNG.

The valuation of the field is highly sensitive to headline gas prices. In our Reserves Report the exchange’s forward curve prices were used resulting in an average gross price of 38 pence per therm. At target peak production rate of 10 million standard cubic feet a day an extra 1 pence/therm is equal to about £350,000 per annum of additional revenue from the gas field, of which 51% goes to Angus. Given Angus’ tax shield there is very little incremental cost associated with this improved revenue – essentially frictional supply discount, shipping and grid entry charges etc.

The potential debt participants in the facility have indicated a strong preference for a buyng a “floor” (a seasonally adjusted option over a minimum price) at or around 30 p/therm over at least a majority of the production albeit on a declining balance related to expected outstandings on the loans. The final hedging won’t be put in place until we are closer to precise supply dates, given it will be much easier (and cheaper from a credit perspective) to hedge against known production.

Outside of that likely requirement, generally speaking, companies who have tried to speculate outside of hedging defined production have tended to go spectacularly wrong more often than right in much the same way that in gambling, on average, the punter loses and the House wins. Nonetheless our advisers at Aleph are exploring dynamic hedging strategies which would also allow some opportunistic fixing of future prices during the sorts of tight price environments which we have recently witnessd.

[jtidsbadly] 31/1/2021 10:54

It appears, judging from the data attached by gkb47 on the other site, that planning approval is not finalised for the well site after all. It appears that it’s not going to be serious, but possibly more work for their consultants designing the plant and its environmental impact mitigation.

[jtidsbadly] 29/1/2021 21:29

Me too. I haven’t seen this form of words before. They can’t have placed the shares, or the vast bulk of them, with a single investor, can they? It must be, surely, that the placing shares remain on the broker’s account until 2 February?

[ja51oiler] 29/1/2021 21:04

Not a clue!! I'm just a mug punter as you know.

[jtidsbadly] 29/1/2021 20:52

Odious: if you’re still tuning in, you’re also wrong about the cause of the suspension of posters. It was “disruptive posts while not holding or intending to hold shares in the company”. In other words, only cheerleaders need post.

In addition, the funny exchanges to which you appear to object were only peripherally to do with the Tids3some. They concerned the aftermath: the meeting between the two male members of the 3some on the banks of the silvery Tay, from which, having tangled with a disenchanted polo proficient (aka “the Pele of elephant polo”) with muscles like iron bands, Mr. Tidswell emerged with sore ribs and a bump on his head. Was it his complaint to the boys in blue that occasioned his and his antagonist’s subsequent appearance at the Perth Sheriff’s Court? I can’t remember. Perhaps you can remind me? In any case it was rollicking good stuff and given an excellent and highly amusing airing on the other site.

You brought this up...

[jtidsbadly] 29/1/2021 19:27

JA51: none of them seems to have participated, do they?

I’m missing something: “shares held by shareholders holding above 10% and the Directors’ holdings”. Does someone now own close to 15% of the shares?

[ja51oiler] 29/1/2021 19:12

JT: The guy is a child. Good riddance.......

Now this is interesting though! Looks like the mysterious big holder didn't partake....or wasn't asked?


Share Structure & Significant Shareholders

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.

Shareholdings in Angus Energy of greater than 3% are as follows:
Name Percentage of Enlarged Share Capital
G.P (Jersey) Limited 8.43%
Knowe Properties Limited 6.60%
JDA Consulting Limited 3.27%
Jonathan Tidswell-Pretorius 2.96%

[jtidsbadly] 29/1/2021 15:41

Odious: Before you go, and on the subject of Jonathan’s sharedealing indiscretion, would you tell us what it was against which he posted a % of his holding in Angus as collateral? I think he said it was something he was contemplating. Not quite what you said, is it?

[jtidsbadly] 29/1/2021 14:18

Odious: dissemination of information, is it? In that case why are you and all those Chiswick types on the other site getting people suspended for informing investors of what the company should have told them? They’ve constantly misinformed the market about their need for cash and the measures they’ve been taking to address it. You need to get your theory straight. I’d be delighted to respond to an investigation of this company and the activities of people posting on that site and this. It would, obviously, encompass the successive statements of the (permanent?) MD on the matter of the cash requirement. All I’ve done is look at the last published accounts and extrapolated. Rather accurately. as it’s turned out, as to timing and size. It’s not difficult, you need a pencil, the back of an envelope and a calculator. I dare say you could manage it. It would take less of your valuable business development time than you’re spending on here.

I may be asking for an inquiry shortly, as I said earlier. The activities of people who appear to be working on the company's behalf on these sites, and the policies of the other site in acquiescing in their censorship of informed comment, need to be exposed. If you’d like to commence action in this regard, please bring it on.

[an ode to aaag] 29/1/2021 13:31

That wasn't shorting, it was selling of shares posted as collateral as I recall.

I have never said a placing wasn't coming, rather one shouldn't be posting comments speculating on placings. It's tiresome and potential market manipulation (dissemination of information).

I have stated on many occasions I have nothing to do with Angus or anyone connected with it.

Do you have past associations with Angus? I recall someone on lse suggesting you did?

[ja51oiler] 29/1/2021 13:00

"Notwithstanding" would that be the placing you so desperately tried to deny was coming........again!As for your last statement about not being able to short Angus, I think The founder of the company would disagree, as illustrated in his dealings with America2030!Are you sure you're not on the BOD? You seem to get everything you post wrong much the same as they do!

[an ode to aaag] 29/1/2021 12:42

I hadn't noticed the 10m sell, but I think the share price has held up very well not withstanding.

You can't short ANGS.

[jtidsbadly] 29/1/2021 10:40

Have you seen the 10mm shares sale an hour or so ago at 1.05p?

[ja51oiler] 29/1/2021 09:18

JT
Actually, if you watch any of the interviews GL or Vonk made, it's almost impossible to find anything said that has actually come true!
Worse though are the blatant "Untruths" told to mug PI's who fall for them time and again.

You have to ask yourself about the impartiality over on the other side. After all its been interviews carried out by them (presumably for a fee) that contain some of the deceptions.

Stranger still is the lack of likes for positive posts now the pump and dump are over. 7 or 8 were commonplace after only a couple of minutes after posting for nothing of substance in the days leading to the placing. The same posts would struggle to receive a single vote now?............ I wonder why they suspend those who know the facts and post reason?

[jtidsbadly] 28/1/2021 15:53

He also said in a May 2019 interview on YouTube that he planned to hold open offers in future equity capital raisings. He said he’d only have placings from which existing shareholders are excluded in exceptional circumstances. He’s a finance expert, he knows what it means to have an open offer/rights issue in terms of time and money. He said it’s all about corporate governance!

[jtidsbadly] 28/1/2021 14:06

Sorry about repetition, Ive tried to delete the second one but can't.

[jtidsbadly] 28/1/2021 14:04

JA51: I’ve watched the 2 April 2020 one again. Just after the 8 minute mark is worth a listen. The reason Saltfleetby works for Angus and not for Gazprom is that Gazprom would do a Rolls Royce job, Halliburton etc, possibly costing as much as £15mm., and with that kind of capital spend they couldn’t make the numbers work!! He said they’d budgeted another £1.75mm. to complete the project, that they had £2.75mm in cash and their cash burn was £100-150,000 per month. All seems a bit naughty really, doesn’t it?