Angus Energy Share Discussion Threads

[sincero1] 03/11/2021 13:52

hits "The thing that causes my eyebrows to raise most recently .." why ? you don't hold anymore.... just relax ....

"Sure, ANGS may get the flows it needs " - yes i share your optimism....

" .. I strongly suspect it'll need a successfully drilled sidetrack ..." you know what i think .. it is undeniable that the company has improved confidence in the sidetrack ..

[sincero1] 03/11/2021 12:45

uclot - still struggling mentally i see ... just like the other resident grey old window lickers you claim to have me filtered but then reply to my posts ... .. try to remember truth is the best defence ...... ignorance is no defence ...

[headinthesand] 03/11/2021 12:39

The thing that causes my eyebrows to raise most recently is this:-

Before the actual volumes hedged were made clear in the recently revealed revamped CPR, George/ANGS are on public record as repeatedly assuring one and all that the volumes hedged were "approximately 70% of the Company’s future gas sales under a CONSERVATIVE projection". They added that this projection was based on "estimates of achievable flow from the existing wells and excluding the contribution from the side track. Otherwise it would obviously not be a conservative projection."

But now we've actually seen the volumes hedged, which three months into said hedge, rise to over 5 mmscfd from Oct 22 for a 10 month period. the above commentary from ANGS looks anything but conservative. Having paid attention to George's previous claims of conservatism, I'd honestly assumed that ANGS had hedged somewhere between 2.1 and 2.8 mmscfd... but nope.

The company has most recently said this:-

"The lenders' technical advisers and Angus evaluated the deliverability of the existing two wells as being likely to be greater than 5 mmscfd... So it is our view that the hedged production should be able to be covered by these two wells in the event of failure of the sidetrack."

So, they're NOW banking on being able to benefit from an ongoing pressure increase, given that the field has not now produced for 4+ years. They're hoping this willo take produceable volumes up to 5 mmscfd from October next year - and of course that's considerably higher than the average c. 4.2 mmscfd that Poundland produced during its last 12 months of FULL production.

So... the company basically hopes that Poundland will produce consistently at 5 mmscfd without a sidetrack... but where's the 30% of safety margin leeway gone, then? What's happened to the "70% of a conservative projection"?

Sure, ANGS may get the flows it needs, but I strongly suspect it'll need a successfully drilled sidetrack to guarantee fulfilling hedge commitments. Hoping that Poundland will deliver the hedged volumes without a sidetrack is categorically not a conservative projection, let alone 70% of a conservative projection.

[clottedq] 03/11/2021 12:18

Put...put...put... Sincerio(Cheerio)...Pause for "Healthy realistic debate"...put...put...put... Sincerio(Cheerio)... Pause for "Healthy realistic Debate"...put...put...put...

I do love the filter don't you?

Only wish I'd used it earlier!

CQ ;-)

[sincero1] 03/11/2021 10:51

jtisadly - another negative post full of complete supposition ... as every single post is from this disingenuous, duplicitous , mendacious old grey fool ...

[jtidsbadly] 03/11/2021 10:23

The only value for the Lenders in keeping Angus as a quoted company is its ability to raise further equity capital. The Lenders are already apparently making the decisions on the best way to address the gas, presumably because they want their loan money spent in the most productive way. Unless the next scheduling updates contain very good news, it’s hard to see how the share price will do anything but fall - it’s going to be clear even to Cudswallop that first gas by March is a pipe dream. Next May, when the first instalments of capital repayment and interest will be due, the Lenders will have the option of taking the thing over, saving the corporate expenses involved in retaining Angus as a separate entity. What would you do if you were they? I know what I’d do.

[ja51oiler] 03/11/2021 09:38

Whilst I agree with your summation, your post puts you into the same category...Your mums must be very proud of both of you!

[sincero1] 02/11/2021 18:50

ja51"contractvoid"oiler "I honestly don't think they knew/know what they are talking about or doing sometimes." ditto this cretin ...best you look up the definition of irony as well......

[sincero1] 02/11/2021 18:48

13reallneedsahobby47cptmainwaring "Yes JA51 they just make stuff up it seems. "....did this grey old duffer really just post that ?...best he looks up the definition of irony....what an idiot...

[3put] 02/11/2021 16:51

Turkey raised the price of natural gas used by power plants and industry, while consumer gas prices remained unchanged, the state energy company announced Monday, as a global price spike drove up import bills.

The country’s natural gas distributor BOTAŞ said the price of gas used by power plants was increased by 47% and the price of gas used by industry by over 48%.

More costly gas could keep upward pressure on Turkey’s inflation, which rose to 19.58% in September, the highest since March 2019.

Natural gas prices have soared by around 280% in Europe this year and by more than 100% in the United States, pushing up winter fuel bills.

Low storage inventories, high demand for gas in Asia, less Russian and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supply to Europe than usual, high carbon prices and outages have led to the spike.

In a statement after announcing the increase, BOTAŞ suggested that the high prices seen around the world were not reflected in the same proportion on the consumers in Turkey.

“The high energy prices experienced all over the world to date have not been reflected on our consumers at the same rate. All subscriber groups have been maximally protected,” the company said.

Yet, it said within the framework of the possibilities amid increasing costs, “it has become necessary to make an arrangement in a way that will affect our consumers at the minimum level” as of Nov. 1.

BOTAŞ in September raised the prices for industrial use and for electricity production by 15%.

One of the largest gas importers in Europe, Turkey depends on pipeline gas from Russia, Azerbaijan and Iran as well as liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from Nigeria, Algeria and spot markets.

Local consumption is expected to hit 60 billion cubic meters (bcm) this year, almost a fifth higher than earlier estimates as vacant gas plants kicked in to cover shortfalls in hydropower production.

Unusually dry conditions since last year decreased the share of hydro in Turkey to its lowest level in at least a decade.

The share of dams and rivers in electricity generation, which usually offset spikes in power prices, fell below 20% in the first eight months of this year.

Increasing gas and imported coal prices pushed local wholesale power prices up nearly 44% since the beginning of the year

Turkey regulates gas prices and charges a higher rate for big consumers like power plants. Bills for households that use gas for heating rose nearly 19% this year, compared to 69% for power plants.

[3put] 02/11/2021 16:50

If the sidetrack produces the extra gas, will it reduce the hedge percentage of the gas produced. Asked on 1 October 2021 Yes. The hedged amount is fixed so incremental gas is unhedged. I have just checked your planning statement on slide 13, It states the sidetrack duration will take up to 16 weeks as mentioned from another poster. Please could you clear this query up once and for all. Asked on 1 October 2021 As now already noted, all applicants for permits and permissions in any walk of life give themselves much more time to complete a task than is necessary. This is because of the length of time and the cost incurred in obtaining the permission in the first place. They will then advise to market, at commencement of operations, a shorter period and expect to come in on the short end of that. Reabold for instance advised six to ten weeks for drilling the West Newton WNB1 and completed in 6 weeks before moving onto the sidetrack. This was drilled to 2250 m. We are side-tracking from about 1150m to a Measured Depth (including horizontal sections) of about 3000m or 1850 metres of drilling. Nor are we doing a well test which might extend the programme, because we are moving straight from drilling into production here, so there is no need for a well test. The hardest rock in Europe gives a rate of penetration of about 3m/hour (see page 6 of hxxps://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/pdf/IGAstandard/SGW/2017/Baujard.pdf). That would imply 600 hours here or 25 days/3-4 weeks of continuous drilling. Even assuming the drilling was no more than half of the time advised, then to drill through this much granite would be only be 7 or 8 weeks. Granite of course wears drill bits faster and there is much changing of drilling equipment when addressing such hard rock. We are not drilling through granite in Cornwall or Scotland but through sandstones, clays, coals and limestones in Lincolnshire. We anticipate 20 odd days of 24/7 drilling – so a rate of penetration of over 12m/hour (verify by page 29 of Halco’s helpful graphs on rates of penetration hxxps://www.halco.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/A-Z-Drilling.pdf). Of course drilling is not the only workstream here, and even if we were to more than double the time, to suggest five to six weeks of work, we would actually expect the rig to be down inside that envelope. Things can go wrong and extend the timetable – we have always been frank about that – but this is a reasonable verifiable estimate. What disturbs me about assertions by this poster (and concert parties) – and they are hardly the first instances of obvious falsheoods deliberately spread – is that he holds himself out to be a knowledgeable investor and could have fact checked any of this with online sources in a matter of minutes. Worse still by claiming to have discovered an “internal̶;1; company document he implies some great conspiracy by the Company and its Board, rather than sharing his source from the outset and pointing to the very obvious conclusion here: that people give themselves ample leeway in any official permission!

[1347] 02/11/2021 15:22

Yes JA51 they just make stuff up it seems. Talking of Q/A this is one I like:

Is the timescale for reconnection of the Saltfleetby Gas Field between May and August 2020 still realistic? [Investor Presentation 30 Sept 2019]

Asked on 3 October 2019

This is still the target we are working towards. We have very recently had confirmation that the NTS will endeavour to meet this deadline and we are sourcing other equipment for the new production facilities also to meet this target. It is true that the work is considerable: involving:
1) The construction of a small gas treatment facility at Saltfleetby.
2) The laying of up to one kilometre of pipeline to the new connection point.
3) The construction of a new pipeline connection unit to the national grid.

This is a lot of work, but we are going flat out to achieve it. We have engaged process engineers, planning consultants, and a specialist contractor who deals specifically with connections to the National Grid.

Over one year later and counting.....

CQ - Stop asking silly questions...

[clottedq] 02/11/2021 14:55

Another helpful suggestion to management:

Dear George, why don't you & your chums put your OWN money where your mouth is and BUY some shares in this company?

Better still, why don't shareholders pay you in shares from now on - until PoundLand is PROVEN to be a resounding success?

The Market currently give ZERO credibility to anything you say - hence the current share price

You can hardly blame them - given:

A) This company's truly horrific past record of missed deadlines, underestimated costs and utter and complete failure!

B) Despite all your rhetoric... directors seem religiously averse to aligning themselves with their shareholders by risking THEIR OWN MONEY!

How can shareholders or new investors have any faith in your company cheerleader's mantra of "dead cert" "Diamond Hands" "Multibagger" "Undervalued" - when you & your fellow directors - by their lack of investment - evidently DO NOT?

CQ ;-)

[clottedq] 02/11/2021 14:07

1347...

I think 'as per usual" Anguish are taking liberties with the English language. Last time I checked: "EXPERT" meant:

"Having or involving a great deal of knowledge or skill in a particular area."

If this holds true, then why does George need so many additional so-called "EXPERTS" to hand-hold his own team of "EXPERTS" and another set of "EXPERTS" to hand-hold them?

Clearly I'm missing something here?

CQ ;-)

[ja51oiler] 02/11/2021 14:05

1347

I honestly don't think they knew/know what they are talking about or doing sometimes.
We can only comment on the information available and that is very often at odds with what the company tells us.

The Q&A answer about the 2-year problem with the compressor at Saltfleetby answered this month is completely different from a previous one on the same subject over a year ago for example. Ditto, the newly discovered pressure build-up around the existing wells!

Why didn't they answer the question regarding the newly identified limited block come to that!....... The answer doesn't answer the question does it?!?!



"Hi, regarding the recent Saltfleetby RNS, can you elaborate further on the limited block around the target well path and the proposed works / solutions to solve this? Thank you. Asked on 27 October 2021

Whilst we have had the entire seismic package reprocessed, solely for the purposes of the sidetrack we have focused our re-interpretation on a narrower block. This is merely to expedite the analysis. A full field remapping will be done in due course."

[1347] 02/11/2021 13:35

JA51 So ignoring the wierdo's that seem to have re-appeared, you're suggesting they changed tack because they didn't understand until late in the day that the existing permit could not be used for SF05?

But they keep telling us they are experts don't they? I agree that, to a degree, it is irrelevant now, but as they intended to drill SF05 because it was lower risk then does that makes SF07 a higher risk and hence why it needs 3 layers of 'experts' now. Maybe that almost 360 loop is technically difficult? Where's Alan2017 when you need him?

[ja51oiler] 02/11/2021 13:02

1347
I read the following as it being for SF7. A bit irrelevant anyway now but it would explain the change of plan if like a lot of things Angus related they didn't realise/understand it at the time. There is also a question that points to it being the case on the Q&A page.

4.2 What the regulated facility does

As part of the efforts to increase productivity at the site, the operator will drill a
sidetrack borehole from an existing well, Saltfleetby 7Y. A separate permit, permit
number EPR/DB3406CS, was issued for the management of extractive waste
associated with this drilling process. Before connecting the new sidetrack
borehole to the pipeline that links the wells to the refinery nearby, the borehole
will need to be cleaned so as to ensure that the gas produced is of acceptable
quality. The cleaning process will generate some extractive mining wastes that
include waste gas which will need to be managed. The gas will be flared and the
extractive mining waste generated will be disposed.

The operation involves two classes of “regulated facility” as defined in the
Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (EPR),
namely a mining waste operation and an installation.

[3put] 02/11/2021 12:53

Lots of questions raised here, keep up the good work

[3put] 02/11/2021 12:52

There has been much recent comment on the investment forums about how long the sidetrack would take to drill at Saltfleetby. Certain posters have claimed that they have internal company documents that say this will take 16 weeks. Please can you let me know if this is correct or if you expect it to take a different amount of time?

Also being speculated about is the volume of gas that has been hedged. It has been claimed that you have hedged 70% of 10mmscf/d and therefore the sidetrack has to be completed and everything has to run well for the project to be viable. Please could you confirm if this is correct or if the hedge is for different figures? Asked on 23 September 2021
We would be surprised and disappointed if the drilling part of the programme exceeded 28 days and the entire programme involved more than 7-10 days either side. On behalf of the Board, we have never heard or seen of any internal document which suggested we were planning for a 16 week side-track at Saltfleetby and we would challenge the poster to produce it. For that matter I haven’t heard of a drilling programme anywhere to these depths which could conceivably take 16 weeks – except perhaps on Mars, which is possibly where your poster hails from.

Supplementally, one poster has pointed out that the Planning Application allowed for 16 weeks time. This is not some “internal document” which the poster only had access to, but part of an application that is publicly available. Every company puts in their application for more time than is absolutely necessary in every sphere of life. This is hardly news. We reiterate drilling to these depths does not take 16 weeks as every reasoning investor in this industry knows.

The other assertion is equally bizarre and must be challenged. We have already clearly stated that the hedge was for “approximately 70% of the Company’s future gas sales …. under a conservative projection” and this was prudently set by the lenders, based, as we understand it, on their own estmates of achievable flow from the existing wells and excluding the contribution from the side track. Otherwise it would obviously not be a conservative projection.

[3put] 02/11/2021 12:52

If the sidetrack produces the extra gas, will it reduce the hedge percentage of the gas produced. Asked on 1 October 2021
Yes. The hedged amount is fixed so incremental gas is unhedged.

I have just checked your planning statement on slide 13, It states the sidetrack duration will take up to 16 weeks as mentioned from another poster. Please could you clear this query up once and for all. Asked on 1 October 2021
As now already noted, all applicants for permits and permissions in any walk of life give themselves much more time to complete a task than is necessary. This is because of the length of time and the cost incurred in obtaining the permission in the first place. They will then advise to market, at commencement of operations, a shorter period and expect to come in on the short end of that.

Reabold for instance advised six to ten weeks for drilling the West Newton WNB1 and completed in 6 weeks before moving onto the sidetrack. This was drilled to 2250 m. We are side-tracking from about 1150m to a Measured Depth (including horizontal sections) of about 3000m or 1850 metres of drilling. Nor are we doing a well test which might extend the programme, because we are moving straight from drilling into production here, so there is no need for a well test.

The hardest rock in Europe gives a rate of penetration of about 3m/hour (see page 6 of hxxps://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/pdf/IGAstandard/SGW/2017/Baujard.pdf). That would imply 600 hours here or 25 days/3-4 weeks of continuous drilling. Even assuming the drilling was no more than half of the time advised, then to drill through this much granite would be only be 7 or 8 weeks.

Granite of course wears drill bits faster and there is much changing of drilling equipment when addressing such hard rock. We are not drilling through granite in Cornwall or Scotland but through sandstones, clays, coals and limestones in Lincolnshire. We anticipate 20 odd days of 24/7 drilling – so a rate of penetration of over 12m/hour (verify by page 29 of Halco’s helpful graphs on rates of penetration hxxps://www.halco.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/A-Z-Drilling.pdf). Of course drilling is not the only workstream here, and even if we were to more than double the time, to suggest five to six weeks of work, we would actually expect the rig to be down inside that envelope. Things can go wrong and extend the timetable – we have always been frank about that – but this is a reasonable verifiable estimate.

What disturbs me about assertions by this poster (and concert parties) – and they are hardly the first instances of obvious falsheoods deliberately spread – is that he holds himself out to be a knowledgeable investor and could have fact checked any of this with online sources in a matter of minutes. Worse still by claiming to have discovered an “internal̶1; company document he implies some great conspiracy by the Company and its Board, rather than sharing his source from the outset and pointing to the very obvious conclusion here: that people give themselves ample leeway in any official permission!

[3put] 02/11/2021 12:52

The market appears to be extremely cautious on Saltfleetby reconnection plan, hence the undervaluation of the current Share Price.

Can we please have a detailed and transparent plan with dates to First Gas ?

Where is equipment being built and approximately when is each skid coming onto site and what is the remaining work needed to tie in each skid on the site?

Is it true that EA approval is not required until the gas actually flows?

Thank you. Asked on 15 October 2021
Yes. We have in mind a further presentation this month on precisely this level of detail with a list of all suppliers and their best estmates of timelines etc. EA approval is required for commissioning operations, or any operations involving flowing of gas or running of combustion equipment, not construction per se.