Angus Energy Share Discussion Threads

[fat frank] 23/10/2024 14:50

And there he is!!! Within minutes!!! A new personal record for bubonicdog!!

What a life you must lead. Well done.......

[bionicdog] 23/10/2024 14:40

Only one person embarrassing himself here Frank.

[jtidsbadly] 23/10/2024 11:26

If the UK gas price keeps rising, Brother ‘Erbert is going to have to think hard about installing a new compressor. Calibration took ages last time. Angus could end up unable to deliver the volume of gas specified in the new hedge contracts. It turned out quite expensive the last time that happened.

[goforgold1] 21/10/2024 12:54

This dog still trading warned you all about this . Total scam share like all other commodity stocks on AIM

[hopeful25] 12/10/2024 12:51

You do it all the time on Vast an Ukog and……230;… that’s all you ever do!!
A waste of space.

[bionicdog] 11/10/2024 15:27

Twice I've done that.

[jtidsbadly] 11/10/2024 12:17

1347: yes, I agree with your conclusion as you know.

I don’t believe Mercuria will have made a mistake with these hedges.

[1347] 11/10/2024 12:06

You picked up the wrong glasses today bionic?

[bionicdog] 11/10/2024 12:02

This was a good one from the ever reliable ZI.

[1347] 11/10/2024 11:56

JT It could be they did lose out on those hedged tranches, they simply called the futures market wrongly, offset of course by what they made on the other hedges. Maybe that's one reason they left it to Trafigura because then as part of the deal the prices could be adjusted, which they duly were.

"As part of closing of the Refinance Facility, Trafigura will work with the Company's existing hedge provider to organise an orderly transfer of the existing hedge obligations which run until June 2025. A dynamic rolling gas price protection programme has been agreed which will provide protection at least until the scheduled maturity date of the Refinance Facility."

Any which way the cake is sliced there's only crumbs left for non-preferential 'investors'.

[jtidsbadly] 11/10/2024 11:20

1347: it could even be that the current Pen Holder lent the pen to the Chairman to write these reports. But presumably Carlos is still about somewhere.

My money would be on Mercuria to be profiting from all this, they didn’t have to accept the new terms. Maybe there’s a side deal between them and Trafigura. It’s impossible to know. Deliberate opacity or incompetence. Who knows? As written none of it makes sense.

[1347] 11/10/2024 11:05

JT No I don't know the truth either but I remember commenting previously that Mercuria would have lost out on those extra hedges and the only reason they would do so is because the called the futures market badly wrong. The only other thing that would make sense is if they weren't the same type of hedges as the others, i.e. cash swaps, in which case I don't know what they are.

[1347] 11/10/2024 11:01

PS JT. If you go back to the Annual Report to 30th Sepember 2022 you will see they also wrote extra hedges at 438.0 p and 315.0 p, again if they were the prices that Anguish Energy got they would have been higher than the market prices over the periods to which they relate, apart from when, for a fairly short time the gas price spiked over 600p.

[jtidsbadly] 11/10/2024 10:49

1347: I can see that this looks like a correction but it’s not mentioned as such, is it? I can’t see why Mercuria would have accepted these terms, unless they represent part of a deal they’ve incorporated them in an deal elsewhere. I have no idea what the truth is. The price protection element makes no sense to me. Nor to the Chairman - even with benefit of crib sheets. Nor to the Executive Trappist ‘Erbert apparently.

[1347] 11/10/2024 10:37

JT Yes I noticed that but took them to be typos with the . in the wrong place and they should have been 122.6, 137.0 and 107.0 You know how sloppy their work is. It was the same with the typo in the existing hedge: 1-Apr-25 30-Jun-25 1,930,000 0.3525, which should have been 35.25p, in line with the prices in the CPR.

Anyway, if you look at the last Interim Accounts (11. DERIVATIVES LIABILITY) you will see that they show them as follows:

*new hedges to price protect the Mercuria hedges crystallized in July 2023
Crystallised hedges at fixed price as below:

1-Jul-24 30-Sep-24 1,840,000 122.60
1-Oct-24 31-Mar-25 3,640,000 137.00
1-Apr-25 31-Jun-25 1,820,000 107.00

Which for me confirms that those in the AR were typos and so, if they were cash swaps as before, the above prices are what Anguish Energy would get and Mercuria would get the market price, which is less, at least in July to September (~90p) and so far into October 2024 (~95p).

[jtidsbadly] 11/10/2024 08:58

1347: re the crystallised hedges, the decimal point in the 2023 Accounts comes after the 1. 1.226, not 1226. I find all these statements re the new hedges confusing but it seems to me that as reported in the note (is it 24?) this agreement gives Mercuria a large guaranteed payment.

[jtidsbadly] 09/10/2024 22:35

1347: the Mercuria hedges were at 35-45p per therm from April 2024 to June 2025, so the lenders were/are making money on those at Angus’s expense. I find Angus’s recent references to the new hedges, “dynamic price protection”, etc. unintelligible. Oddly, their expert Chairman doesn’t seem to have a clue about any aspect of them, in spite of appearing to read from crib sheets on the topic throughout interviews. What expertise the Executive Trappist has is only to be guessed at. At least it appears they may not be spending more borrowed money on further wells and that is a relief. It appears to be a utility company with a limited life, a rapidly depleting asset and no chance of a dividend.

[1347] 09/10/2024 12:39

How to make £10 k in Anguish Energy, it's easy, start with £50 k...

[bionicdog] 09/10/2024 12:17

You do need patience for your "investments" to fall to absolute zero.

[bionicdog] 09/10/2024 10:26

Great news for you Frank. You must be minted!

[fat frank] 09/10/2024 08:51

"The company submitted a planning application in July 2024 for the Saltfleetby field near Louth in Lincolnshire.

But the county council and Angus Energy confirmed today that the application had been withdrawn.

The council also confirmed that Angus had withdrawn a formal request to council planners for advice on what it should address in an environmental impact assessment (EIA).

The advice, known as a scoping opinion, sets out key issues that the company should include in an environmental statement – the outcome of an EIA that accompanies bigger planning application.

The application documents did not include an environmental statement, nor any discussion about whether an EIA was needed.

But Angus Energy hinted earlier this year, in an interview with DrillOrDrop, that the application might need to assess carbon emissions at Saltfleetby in an EIA.

This followed a landmark judgement on climate emissions by the Supreme Court. The court ruled that EIAs for hydrocarbon sites should account for greenhouse gases from the burning of oil and gas, known as indirect, downstream or scope 3 emissions.Angus Energy’s chief executive, Richard Herbert, told us [Drillordrop] in the interview:

“We have a planning application which has just been submitted to drill additional wells at the Saltfleetby gas field and that approval process could be affected by this. At this stage, we remain optimistic that we will get the right outcome and if this involves more work to be clear about the impact of what we’re trying to do then so be it. We can live with that.”

DrillOrDrop asked Angus Energy today why it had withdrawn the application. A company spokesperson said the application was being reformatted “with an intention to resubmit shortly”.




Nothing to see here, move along please.......