Angus Energy Share Discussion Threads

[1347] 22/9/2021 18:41

HITS You're not a cunning linguist are you?

[1347] 22/9/2021 18:40

Yes took a look at the Kansas site. The fact that reinforcements have been bought in ought to indicate something's afoot, what happened to the ocebot?

Blaming 'old guard' investors for the share price is just dull. It's as dull as blaming the people sitting at the back of the bus for pointing out that the bus driver can't drive properly and has side swiped several cars on the journey, rather than blaming the bus driver himself.

[headinthesand] 22/9/2021 18:39

Maybe I'm lucky, because I used to be a linguist, - but it staggers me that so many people cannot (or possibly refuse to) understand the import of the wording in the ANGS RNS providing admittedly scant detail on the hedge arrangement committed to?

Here's the relevant snippet again from June 3rd.

"Simultaneous with drawdown, the Company has hedged (the "Hedge") approximately 70% of the Company's and its partners' share of future gas sales, estimated under a conservative projection, for three years beginning in July 2022."

Let me try to make this simple for the intellectually benighted. If one has a commitment that is purely percentage based, then the total amount of the commodity being produced is utterly irrelevant to what's been committed to.

Let's sit down for analogy time. Commit to selling 70% of your beer production at 10p per pint, brew 10 pints and you'll sell 7 of them under said commitment. Brew 10,000 pints and you'll sell 7,000 under said commitment. It's the quantity that gets sold which is the variable. Simple, right?

So, why, if this is the hedge arrangement that ANGS has (and frankly I've never even heard of a hedge arrangement that isn't volume/quantity dependent, but still), WHY does it specifically describe the commitment as representing "approximately 70%" of a forecast "estimated under a conservative projection"?

Answer: it simply has to be a volumetric/quantity commitment which ANGS hopes equates to approx. 70% of its "conservatively projected" production volumes. There is no other possible explanation.

Therefore, if ANGS's "conservative projection" of Poundland production turns out to be too conservative, it'll end up selling less than 70% of production under the hedge commitment. And exactly similarly, if ANGS's "conservative projection" of Poundland production turns out to be over-optimistically estimated, it'll end up selling more than 70% of production under the hedge commitment.

The problem arises if the amount of gas it has committed to selling under the hedge exceeds the amount it can produce from Poundland. (Did anyone say "burning need for sidetrack"?)

This really isn't difficult stuff to understand...

[jtidsbadly] 22/9/2021 18:29

These two on the other site, JD-Nau and NeoGeo, sound as if they could be quite close to the management, don’t they? I wish they’d come onto this site, we could have some fun with them here.

Their comments on the sidetrack are misleading.

The argument re the hedges needs to be put to bed. Someone needs to ask the questions.

1. Is either/any of the Lenders a counterparty in the hedges?
2. Are they futures, forwards or options?
3. In the event that gas prices remain where they are today and Poundland production is below 5mmcfd on 1 July and thereafter, what are the implications for Anguish's cash flow?

I can’t see why the answers to all of these questions should not be in the public domain. Yes, they’re price-sensitive but they don’t affect the company’s competitive position or its position vis a vis its customers or suppliers.

[clottedq] 22/9/2021 17:38

(IN)Sincerio: "i might just get an account over there..."

It's a wonder you can find time - since you already have so many here and over there... including the ones that have been closed down already... LOL.

We're not that stupid... they don't call any of "US" Jonathan Tidswell!

CQ ;-)

[sincero1] 22/9/2021 16:35

jtisadly "Odd that no investor in this is asking the right question about the hedges." Perhaps it's that everyone understands , you just don't get it because it doesn't align with your negative agenda. what a clown... for fun lets see some of this imbeciles 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" 17+ weeks ago.
" share price into the sixties shortly " 18+ 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.

What a complete and utter.....

[jtidsbadly] 22/9/2021 16:15

UJ9: I have no doubt that the Lenders have protected their investment and no doubt that Anguish had to accept the terms they were offered. And it’s a while since we had an update on Poundland, isn’t it? Just a compressor waiting on a dock somewhere in America. And merely a presentation on their geothermal ambitions to look forward to next week.

Odd that no investor in this is asking the right question about the hedges.

[ultimatejustice9] 22/9/2021 16:02

How can you read the company’s statement as saying that they cover 70% of whatever is produced? ---- Benefits to doing it both ways. The fact they have stumped up 12m I would think they want a large slice of the profits?

[ultimatejustice9] 22/9/2021 15:59

misleading? Only George knows so it's your opinion v other opinion.

[jtidsbadly] 22/9/2021 15:37

ClottedQ: this poster JD-Nau on the other site has posted what appears to me to be misleading comment on the hedges. How can you read the company’s statement as saying that they cover 70% of whatever is produced? Who would offer them such a hedge? It certainly wouldn’t be in the form of put options, would it? No, it’s 70% of what they expect to produce, on a conservative assumption. And it’s probably futures/forwards.

The data in the 2020 Q&A answer posted by Donek answer the discrepancies between the OGA and Anguish output figures for Poundland. However, there’s no mention of the issue of why NG had such trouble with its new compressor etc., which was off-line for three months after installation and then self-regulated at a reduced volume. It hadn’t occurred to me that there could be such problems with new equipment. If NG can’t get it right, one has to wonder what will happen with Angus’s recently deployed chaps, running more complex equipment, at a cost to Anguish of half of what Wingas paid their staff.

[whocares765] 22/9/2021 14:48

#ANGSFully #funded £12m to reconnect old onshore #Gas #Field in #UKGas Prices through roof#Angus #Energy not moving upwards as market is still asleep ??????#Multibagger #Tiny #Market #Cap#Pennystock #AIM #FTSE #UJO #UKOG #EDRRe-rate like #COPL #FAR #EUA #HZM to 4p! IMO

[clottedq] 22/9/2021 14:38

JD-Nau: "Your post contributes to this forum what the output of the entire weald does to the UK’s energy needs – absolutely nothing!"

I had to laugh out loud at this throw away comment on the "other" channel!!!

So are the cheerleaders really "finally" agreeing with us (so-called) Stale Bulls & admitting that Anguish have wasted millions of shareholder's money on the non-performing Weald Fairytale?!?!?

It certainly sounds like it to me!

Given that we were right about The Weald... I would suggest the rampers pay heed to our concerns about PoundLand too. Clearly we've already proven our credentials.

CQ ;-)

[whocares765] 22/9/2021 13:34

#ANGSFully #funded £12m to reconnect old onshore #Gas #Field in #UKGas Prices through roof#Angus #Energy not moving upwards as market is still asleep ??????#Multibagger #Tiny #Market #Cap#Pennystock #AIM #FTSE #UJO #UKOG #EDRRe-rate like #COPL #FAR #EUA #HZM to 4p! IMO

[ultimatejustice9] 22/9/2021 10:26

If I was going to cross ramp I would say have a look at SAV :0)

[ultimatejustice9] 22/9/2021 10:09

No cross ramp, posted here in error. It was a cracking RNS :)

[clickbait] 22/9/2021 09:42

UJ. Not condoning your cross ramping but I did have a nice smile on my face this morning when I read the ARCM RNS 😀👍

[whocares765] 22/9/2021 09:42

And we thought

[ultimatejustice9] 22/9/2021 09:13

Congrats to the exploration team at ARCM, they always believed in the geology of these licences and have been patiently drilling. With this 1st hole at CE it’s looking like the first significant indication of a big copper discovery.Fwiji is looking like a conundrum,it was touted as possible multi-mineral and I wonder what else is hosted in the quartz
.hxxp://s2.q4cdn.com/256050873/files/doc_downloads/2021/09/Figure-3.jpg
hxxp://s2.q4cdn.com/256050873/files/doc_downloads/2021/09/Figure-4.jpg
We have one under the belt now so can expand that and develop any of the 12 others

[clottedq] 22/9/2021 08:56

One would think that given the complexity of their Pound Land project, and the impact it's delay or eventual failure would have on shareholder value, that the BOD would now be 100% focused upon delivery here?

But NO... as usual they are still rainbow chasing & can kicking on Geothermal!!!

Even toddlers know to learn to walk before they can run!

CQ ;-)

[whocares765] 22/9/2021 08:46

All in the game!