Angus Energy Share Discussion Threads

[terminator101] 07/11/2021 22:07

WARNING ACTIVE PUMP AND DUMP OPERATION ON ANGUS IN PROGRESS.

[terminator101] 07/11/2021 22:07

WARNING ACTIVE PUMP AND DUMP OPERATION ON ANGUS IN PROGRESS.

[terminator101] 07/11/2021 22:07

WARNING ACTIVE PUMP AND DUMP OPERATION ON ANGUS IN PROGRESS.

[terminator101] 07/11/2021 22:06

WARNING ACTIVE PUMP AND DUMP OPERATION ON ANGUS IN PROGRESS.

[terminator101] 07/11/2021 22:06

WARNING ACTIVE PUMP AND DUMP OPERATION ON ANGUS IN PROGRESS.

[terminator101] 07/11/2021 22:06

WARNING ACTIVE PUMP AND DUMP OPERATION ON ANGUS IN PROGRESS.

[3put] 07/11/2021 21:58

What?

There is no hedge on production until July 2022. What is the value of all production from March 2022 to July 2022 at the prices on the present NBP Heren forward curve for these months with and without the side track? Asked on 21 September 2021

The short answer is the field ,on the original CPR plateau volumes but at the latest forward curve prices, might generate £17 mllion over those four months with the side track and about £8.5m without it. Angus share is 51%. Ordinary opex might be about £0.6m excluding debt service.

The forward prices from are given below in $/MMBTU (approx pence/therm equivalent in brackets). Prices from ICE for contracts for Q2 in pence/therm in particular seem to be a penny or two better which is probably the £/$ exchange rate (see

Heren March $28.583 (213p); April $16.679 (119p); May $14.260 (102p); June $13.774 (98p), given a conservative conversion rate of volume (mmscf) to heat value (therms) – i.e. multiply mmscf by 10500 to get therms – the field would generate in total over those four months gross revenues for all partners of £17.1 million at 10mmscf/d (i.e. CPR plateau production with side track) or £8.6 million at 5 mmscf/d (i.e. CPR lower plateau production with no sidetrack). Operating expenses for full year 2022 according to CPR might be of the order of £2.3m and therefore for this period would be c. £0.6m.

All of this information is already publicly available, and we stress these are presently notional numbers arrived at approxmately and that these prices are not hedged in any way and therefore might not be available come production in March etc. However whilst the final outcome may vary considerably, we and our partners do anticipate strong demand for gas in the coming years regardless of short term price effects.

[3put] 07/11/2021 21:57

Another four energy suppliers have gone bust in a single day as historic gas market highs continue to rip through the UK’s energy market amid fresh fears that Russia may curb gas supplies to Europe.

The energy regulator, Ofgem, said the collapse of four small energy suppliers on Tuesday would leave about 24,000 households in need of a new supplier, and bring the total number of bust energy companies to 17 since the start of September, affecting more than 2 million households.

The flurry of failures follows rocketing global energy market prices due to a sudden surge in demand for gas as economies began to shrug off restrictions related to the Covid-19 pandemic. Gas markets have reached record highs in recent weeks, leading to one of the sharpest increases in home energy bills and fears of a cost-of-living crisis this winter.

Out of the four UK casualties Zebra Power had the largest customer base, and supplied 14,800 households with energy. Omni Energy supplied about 6,000 domestic pre-payment customers, while AmpowerUK had about 600 UK customers and supplied a further 2,000 overseas households. MA Energy had about 300 overseas customers.

Scores more energy suppliers are expected to collapse in the months ahead as gas markets remain at near-record highs, and suppliers are forced to shoulder the higher costs without raising their tariffs above the regulator’s energy price cap.

Consumer charity Citizens Advice said struggling households would ultimately pay the price “with uncertainty, inconvenience and ultimately higher bills” as suppliers continue “to fall like dominoes”.

Gillian Cooper, the head of energy at Citizens Advice, said: “Last week, Ofgem set out how it intends to ‘raise the bar’ for supplier standards and improve their resilience in the short term. This is a positive step, but it’s clear that existing rules and their enforcement, has not been enough.”

Cooper added: “Longer-term, Ofgem will need to do more to make sure companies are financially sound and provide good customer service. This should include protecting people from the loyalty penalty, which prior to the cap allowed companies to profit from those who didn’t or couldn’t switch.”

The energy regulator set out plans for “bold action” last week to fasttrack changes to its price cap, which protects around 15 million households from unfair energy bills, following growing calls from suppliers to make the cap more flexible so that market increases can be passed on to households sooner.

The price cap overhaul has emerged amid deepening concerns that gas prices, which are more than three times higher than this time last year, may resume their upward climb as temperatures plunge across Europe and Russia squeezes gas exports to Europe.

Gas flows from Russia’s state-owned gas giant Gazprom, which supplies about a third of Europe’s gas, dropped significantly over the weekend and on Tuesday the company declined to offer extra gas supplies to Europe from January, when demand is often at its highest for the winter.

The slowdown in gas exports has reignited fears over the winter’s energy suppliers despite a direct order from the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, for Gazprom to focus on filling its European gas storage facilities from 8 November, when Russian domestic storage should be filled.

[3put] 07/11/2021 21:55

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.

[chickbait] 07/11/2021 21:33

Everything is all totally above board though what?

[jtidsbadly] 07/11/2021 20:29

1347: it’s certainly a shame that piece of kit for the top of the rig is absent, isn’t it? Fortunately, we’re getting lots of updates this month, what? Won’t be in the dark about it all much longer.

The Interim MD’s answer to the sidetrack question in September seems to contradict what he said in the LSE interview in May about safety issues re simultaneous sidetrack drilling and gas production, doesn’t it? Does he make it up as he goes along (rhetorical question, Your Lordship)?

[3put] 07/11/2021 19:50

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] 07/11/2021 19:47

Recently answered investor questions

[3put] 07/11/2021 19:47

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] 07/11/2021 19:46

Have angus got any interested or potential partners for the Lidsey oil well if the remapping is favourable. Asked on 27 October 2021

We have had discussions in outline with one potential set of partners – but we don’t expect to get partners to the table before getting a) seismic re-interpreted and evaluated and b) all planning and permitting consents for a side-track

[3put] 07/11/2021 19:46

When do you think you might be able to pay dividends to shareholders? Asked on 27 October 2021

With a successful side track we would hope to be debt free and dividend paying during the financial year beginning September 2023.

[3put] 07/11/2021 19:46

Since the publication of the CPR yesterday there has been much discussion on the forums about the amount of gas that has been hedged each month. This figures show that the hedged sum is up to almost 5.4mmscfd in November 2022 and because the Jan 2015 July 2017 production averaged 4.7mmscfd it has been claimed that Angus has to drill the sidetrack just to cover the volumes required for the hedge. However, further details in the CPR show that 2022 production is predicted to be 2.8 BCF 7.7mmscfd in 2022 and 3.6 BCF 9.8mmscfd in 2023.

So my questions are:

A What is the predicted output of Saltfleetby without the sidetrack being drilled? Will it be enough to cover the 5.4mmscfd of the hedge in November 2022?

B If the sidetrack is successfully drilled, what would you hope would be the total gas output of Saltfleetby mmscfd in a worst, probable and best case scenario?

C Will it be possible to continue producing gas at Saltfleetby while the sidetrack is being drilled or does all production have to stop during this time period? Asked on 27 October 2021

A.The lenders technical advisers and Angus evaluated the deliverability of the existing two wells as being likely to be greater than 5 mmscfd. The reasoning was twofold. In the last years of delivery to the old Conoco refinery, average production was constrained by persistent issues with the main compressor at Theddlethorpe. Secondly it was the view of technical experts that, following a prolonged shut-in, the two wells should have improved deliverability in the first 18 months or so of operations. This is because prior to shut in there was an area of reduced pressure around the producing wells. Since then the pressure has equilibrated across the field resulting in significantly higher pressure around the producers. 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

B. Finger in the air: Worst 7mmscfd, Probable 10mmscfd, Best 10mmscfd (but extended for a longer period of time) Note, the combined deliverability of the three wells will exceed the production rate during the plateau period which is limited to 10mmscfd by virtue of the process equipment.

C. We believe that simultaneous operations are feasible on this site but we do need to do much more work on how such operations would be conducted.

[jtidsbadly] 07/11/2021 19:01

1347: Morbius is even worse. A criminal Time Lord. Other unpleasant versions exist.

[jtidsbadly] 07/11/2021 18:53

1347: and, by the way, I was having a look at the information we have on the sidetrack. The Interim MD said this in an LSE puff piece last May:

“When we first spoke to our lenders [Aleph and Mercuria] about financing another well they were a little bit hesitant. Now we have just signed a debt facility with them which will cover all the process kit and a new side-track well. That being the case it is safer to drill the side-track without the obvious safety complications of working alongside two flowing gas wells. Better to get the drilling done before gas starts flowing" explained Angus Energy MD George Lucan.

That seems pretty categorical, then, what? It’s a safety issue. Sidetrack first. Hmmm.

[1347] 07/11/2021 18:52

Could be but I got that a bit wrong, now corrected. PS: Probably a freudian slip, asleep on the job, like the FCA.

[jtidsbadly] 07/11/2021 18:40

1347: the ‘West Morpheus” could be the room at the Club where the members go to sleep off a particularly good lunch or an over-indulgence in the Dow ‘63, what? Anyone approaching from there would presumably appear somewhat wasted.

[1347] 07/11/2021 18:24

Ah Hollis, yes the chap that was so skilled at geology he failed to notice that what Anguish had been saying about Brockham for 2 years, even with all the logging data they had acquired, including some from that fancy new tool that they used (for the first time in the UK (allegedly)) was in fact completely incorrect and it was in fact never sufficiently mature to flow from the Kimmeridge there.

Also strangely, they said similar things about the Kimmeridge at Lidsey following the drill there, but have now gone strangely radio silent on that topic there now despite it being 'back in the frame'. It's now 'Morbius, something is approaching from the southwest'.

As for the 'sweet spot' of the Weald at Balcombe, well we're still waiting for them to inform market about that appeal they intended to submit, or otherwise, that needed to be submitted by September 2021.

Still I'm sure everything they say about Poundland is spot on what, what?

[jtidsbadly] 07/11/2021 17:57

I’m not even sure that’s fair. The Interim MD has many years’ experience in finance. His expertise in the field is evidenced by his apparently turning down a £16mm. loan that Anguish didn’t need for Poundland from a major bank eighteen months ago, preferring instead to give it another year while he negotiated usurious terms for £12mm. with some commodity firms. Anguish couldn’t progress the work at Poundland during this short hiatus and has thus unfortunately missed the current big spike in gas prices, but he wasn’t to know that, was he? Meanwhile, we assume in the absence of a statement to the contrary that Anguish are still searching for a qualified permanent MD with some oil or gas experience.

The Chairman is no neophyte either. He has extensive experience in oil and gas with one or two UK-listed Russian companies in the sector. Not only that but NEC, the late FTSE100 healthcare company based in the Gulf, thought him sufficiently qualified to chair their Board’s audit committee. They went bust nearly two years ago with quite a lot of money missing from their accounts. Among the first actions of the Receiver was to sack him.

And don’t let Mr. Hollis’s somewhat worn out appearance deceive you. He’s a man with very extensive experience in the sector, as the Company’s occasional references to their oil and gas prospects (I was going to write “activities221; but have realised in time that that would be a misnomer) emphasise.