Angus Energy Share Discussion Threads

[jtidsbadly] 26/10/2021 18:06

Chicknait: I think the updated estimate for the sidetrack is £2.8mm and they’ve added a contingency of 20%. If they end up needing to spend the 20%, that takes it to £3.36mm vs. their earlier estimate of £2.4mm. That’s a big rise, £0.96mm. is a lot of money in the context of a strapped company. The CP points out that these figures may prove an under- or over-estimate.

1347: I’m afraid I was so surprised by the time I got to that, that I didn’t pay it much attention. I’ll have a closer look. Though I would be surprised now if it gets anywhere near that far. It seems to me that, if they really have committed to keeping a £3.35mm. cash reserve from the proceeds of the loan, they’re miles from having enough money to finish the project. In the event that they were to hit the buffers in the new year, would they fight to protect the shareholders’ interests or would they accept personal terms to continue in some capacity for a term with new owners? Answers on saucy postcards, please..

[1347] 26/10/2021 17:52

PS (take 2): What's this Minimum distribution to licensees if profit > £600k pcm? Is that on top of the royalty payments and something else they conveniently ommitted to mention?

[1347] 26/10/2021 17:49

JT I agree - in my opinion those covenants now in the revised CPR (which I seem to recall they previously indicated they weren't going to update didn't they?) should have been disclosed to market as I regard them as material. It's not the first time they've been selective in what they've conveyed to market though is it.

I doubt they care though, the FCA are about as much use as the modern day Laurel and Hardy currently residing in Downing Street, no I expect they are more concerned about whether they'll have sufficient funds to settle the bills for Justerini & Brooks.

[chickbait] 26/10/2021 17:46

£2.84 million plus 16% = £3.06 if not included in the CPR.

[chickbait] 26/10/2021 17:43

Do you think the 16% anticipated overrun cost for the side-track is included in the CPR figures or will this need to be added?

[clottedq] 26/10/2021 17:28

JT,

I expect quite a few made the most and got out as near to 1p as was possible... but I bet it wasn't easy - as demand for the exit would have been very high!

Too many "if's" "but's" and "maybe's" here as usual and in my honest opinion, ordinary shareholders will be the losers here - when the full story unfolds.

CQ ;-)

[jtidsbadly] 26/10/2021 17:13

CQ: a placing won’t scratch the surface. They’ll need a full re-capitalisation, which is highly unlikely to attract much support.

It seems to me there’s important information in this CPR which should have been divulged to the market in a timely manner. As I said earlier, this is not the first time. How much more is there in the loan terms that we don’t know about? What are the latest cost estimates for the plant and its installation? Why have they not dug the trenches etc. for the remaining 100 metres of pipeline while the weather was fine? These are all sensible questions, the probable answers to which would fill me with trepidation if I held a lot of these. I wonder what Jamesll and Cusdswallop are going to do with theirs? A rush to the exit appears logical, what?

[jtidsbadly] 26/10/2021 17:06

... and after this news, what’s Knowe going to do with its new 11mm shares when they get them in a week or two’s time? No wonder the price reaction hasn’t been very positive. The fundamentals look awful and the share demand/supply equation doesn’t look too good.

[clottedq] 26/10/2021 17:00

Easy to see why Anguish are "conservative" with information released... as soon as it is, The Market and savvy investors can quickly cut to the chase and see that - yet again - costs have been underestimated and time-lines toward delivery have been stretched.

Yawn Yawn Yawn...

"Will Anguish EVER deliver on ANYTHING?" is the only question The Market need to ask... and the reason a +1p share price is "always" a bridge too far!

IMHO: Discount placing... or even more onerous new loan terms (if the lenders are happy to loan Anguish even more) take your pick?

CQ ;-)

[jtidsbadly] 26/10/2021 16:52

I think the market reaction to this report may easily be explained by the huge disparity between the report’s description of the price Anguish may be getting for combined hedged and unhedged production, based on their own forecasts, and the current and futures market prices for natural gas. The other site has been busy with people extrapolating current prices into returns to shareholders. 68p may have come as a bit of a blow.

It looks increasingly as if the thing will get completed at some stage and may even produce some gas, but by then it will be under different ownership.

[jtidsbadly] 26/10/2021 16:47

JA51: this, below, is from p.8 of the new CPR, detailing some of the risks the CP has identified. The increase from £2.4mm. (the figure quoted in the pie chart in the September 2020 Presentation, as you said) appears to have been slipped in, and seems now to be subject to a probable further 20% overrun. It doesn’t seem a lot put this way, but it’s the best part of £1mm. extra.

“4. The project costs may be higher (or lower) than forecast. In particular, the operator is currently completing its tendering for drilling and completion services for the SF7V sidetrack and the accuracy of its £2.8m + 20% contingency cost estimate will not be known until the process is concluded.”

[ja51oiler] 26/10/2021 16:35

As you point out though, those limits on the Angus Bank account are going to be a problem in the not too distant future!... They burn through £2.5 million a year just standing still.... without Saltfleetby costs, and then you have the loan and interest payments due on top!

[ja51oiler] 26/10/2021 16:31

JT
The original CPR said £2.4 million for the sidetrack. I think the £2.84 Million is actually the revised cost.

[jtidsbadly] 26/10/2021 16:25

Two things about the gas: first, isn’t it possible that for a month or two after they first get it re-connected, it will flow at a somewhat stronger rate than when it was disconnected, owing to a temporary build-up of well pressure? Second, if the gas price retraces its recent rise and falls back below the hedge prices, they’ll make a turn on the volume by which the hedges exceed production!

Chickbait: it’s £2.8mm. now for the sidetrack, isn’t it? That’s before the extra 20%.

If one takes the detail in this report at face value, and they have to maintain from the £12mm a minimum of £3mm + £350,000, in cash, they won’t get anywhere near having enough money to finish the plant and do the sidetrack. I’m concerned that the drip-feeding of unpleasant surprises from Anguish shows no sign of abating. What will be next?

[ja51oiler] 26/10/2021 16:06

mmmmmmm.......

No income.
Skint in May according to the Half-yearly
£5.74 million paid to September.
and another £6.93 Million by March!

They are going to run out of money, aren't they!

[ja51oiler] 26/10/2021 15:54

Just an example of why believing a word Angus tells us gets you, and why the price is static!

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


From the Original funding RNS.

o £1.8 million toward pipeline installation and connection to the National Transmission System of which £1.1 million has been spent to date;

o £5.7 million toward processing facilities;

o £1.6 million toward site preparation, planning, and contingencies;

o £2.4 million toward a reserve for drilling the planned 2021 sidetrack of an existing well on the Field; and

o £1.5 million toward an abandonment reserve for the Field.

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

From an RNS 1 month Ago

Progress continues with Saltfleetby procurement with no significant deviations from timing or budget but with a significantly improved gas price environment. Additionally the Company looks forward to updating shareholders on its geothermal projects at the end of the month."

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

From today's CPR

Cost Centre P90 P50
GB£ m GB£ m

AFE Process Plant £6.57 £6.57
AFE Pipeline Spur £0.86 £0.86
AFE National Grid Connection £0.99 £0.99
AFE Well SF07V Side-track £2.84 £2.84
Contingency (facilities and well) £1.41 £1.41
Total Capex to First Gas £12.67 £12.67
Paid to 30 Sept 2021 -£5.74 -£5.74

Remaining Capex to First Gas, of which: £6.93 £6.93
Oct -Dec 21 £3.47 £3.47
Jan-Mar 22 £3.47 £3.47


SO they are over a million over budget on the Process Plant, Hardly insignificant! 20% out on the sidetrack and have spent the £1.5 million they said they listed for abandonment. Incidentally, abandonment costs are not included in the CPR so allow that on top of any calculations and possibly the 51% of Saltfleetby energies £10.8 million pipeline De-comm costs. (Why do they keep refusing to answer the question if not)?

[headinthesand] 26/10/2021 15:42

Sincero, it may be undeniable what the company has said... but that's hardly the point, surely? ANGS has equally undeniably said plenty in the past that turned out to be utterly untrue.

How about "Getting Poundland to first gas can be done with the cash we have on hand, following the field's acquisition." Wrong to the tune of £12 million.

Or not too long afterwards "We're expecting to get to first gas by Q3 2020." Wrong already by 13 months and looking like it'll be wrong by 18 months, and that's only if things go to current latest estimates.

So it's simply not about what the company has "undeniably" said, but whether it has any justification for what it's saying. Let's face it, the track record of what it has previously said it's confident in being able to achieve leaves a lot to be desired.

Re 1347's kindly supplied production figures, no you're wrong again. Given that production fields inevitably deplete over time, any reasonable person would see later/more recent production figures from 5 years ago as far more relevant than those from 21 years ago.

"More relevant" is therefore precisely the correct expression here. It seems your own bias is causing you to lose perspective and objectivity?

[sincero1] 26/10/2021 14:54

cpt13reallyneedsahobby47mainwaring" Back in it's heydey Poundland produced ~40 MMSCFD per day average but that was way back in 2000, more relevant was 2016 when it dropped to ~5 MMSCFD" what this old duffer really means is " more NEGATIVELY was 2016.... "

[1347] 26/10/2021 14:41

HITS Back in it's heydey Poundland produced ~40 MMSCFD per day average but that was way back in 2000, more relevant was 2016 when it dropped to ~5 MMSCFD, in the last year of production it was ~2.4 MMSCFD, althought it's claimed the average was lower than it should have been due to the plant being off-line for part of the time. The charts of the production and the decline are in the CPR.

[sincero1] 26/10/2021 14:16

hits - it is undeniable that the company has improved confidence in the sidetrack ...that's what i said ... what you chose to believe i said is what is clouding your judgement ... so you will agree ... i'm not being disingenuous at all...just speaking the truth as always ...its the best defence as you can clearly now see...

[headinthesand] 26/10/2021 13:59

With respect, Sincero, "undeniable" is a ludicrous word to use - and ironically, more than a little disingenuous (to use your favourite word).

Nothing is "nailed on" re the sidetrack being successful. The only thing we now know, following today's RNS, is that a successful and production-doubling sidetrack seems to be literally essential to make the hedge volume numbers work - how the Hell else is Poundland going to produce sustained volumes in excess of 5mmscfd by Q3 next year? And that doesn't show the slightest element of cautious or "conservative" estimation in my view.

As to the sidetrack, the only item that ANGS has mentioned to support the hope that this latest try (number five attempt from this particular well, isn't it?) will be successful is that they have re-evaluated existing seismic data. Oh and that they also hope to avoid the screw-ups made with previous attempts (answer to investor question 29/07/21)

[sincero1] 26/10/2021 13:46

hits - they have stated the reasons for improved confidence on the success of the sidetrack and everything they are doing only points that way also ..... i appreciate that with a negative disingenuous agenda it is difficult to swallow but its undeniable ... ultimately time will tell of course but i am happy to be holding ...

[headinthesand] 26/10/2021 13:28

Sincero, ANGS has to my knowledge never been clear at all on whether a successful sidetrack is essential to meeting the hedge (and also its other already incurred financial obligations).

I have long suspected that this is the case, but it's never been confirmed one way or the other by the company.

It's now clear from the hedged volumes being finally revealed that the numbers are only going to work if said sidetrack is a success - and I remember a recently piece of ANGS-released info stating that they hoped that a successful sidetrack would double produceable volumes.

It's very much looking like this has to prove to be the case, because without a successful sidetrack, those hedged volumes ain't conservative. Furthermore, assuming any sidetrack is going to be successful - let alone having a production-doubling effect - is definitively NOT conservative.

No wonder they're rushing to drill the sidetrack as early as possible then - but it's a digital punt, especially given the history of failed sidetracks from that particular well. And on that basis I really can't how anyone can have "ever growing confidence" about the results of any sidetrack drilling before the latest attempt has been made.

Someone remind me... what was Poundland's best ever average production volumes back in its heyday? I seem to remember approx 5 mmscfd max.

[ja51oiler] 26/10/2021 13:09

Hits

Production for 2022 shows 2.8 BCF
Production for 2023 & 2024 shows 3.6 BCF

That seems a bit odd as they say the sidetrack is to be started in January. Seems a big difference.

[sincero1] 26/10/2021 12:54

hits " Damn but ANGS is going to need that sidetrack to a) be successful and b) deliver...." errrr that is what they have been saying for a while now with ever growing confidence... but the resident loons still keep trying to spin a negative ... all very disingenuous ...