[ADVERT]
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Angus Energy Plc LSE:ANGS London Ordinary Share GB00BYWKC989 ORD GBP0.002
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -0.175 -14.58% 1.025 0.95 1.10 1.20 1.00 1.20 15,145,865 15:59:29
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Oil & Gas Producers 0.1 -2.5 -0.4 - 11

Angus Energy Share Discussion Threads

Showing 12926 to 12950 of 19325 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  521  520  519  518  517  516  515  514  513  512  511  510  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
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.
ja51oiler
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.
3put
02/11/2021
12:51
Please could you give a clearer timescale when the Lidsey remapping results will be available to shareholders. Asked on 15 October 2021 These will be reviewed by partners in the Field during November and we would hope to release more generally shortly thereafter.
3put
02/11/2021
12:51
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.
3put
02/11/2021
12:51
Has there been any feedback from the EA regarding injecting produced water at Brockham? Asked on 27 October 2021 We have responded to all questions from the Agency. We are advised of the likelihood of further consultation once a preliminary decision has been arrived at but are still aiming for a final determination in Q4.
3put
02/11/2021
12:51
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
02/11/2021
12:51
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
02/11/2021
12:51
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.
3put
02/11/2021
12:37
JA51 - Thanks. That one I already had, it states Site B but not clear that it's specific to a well other than that is was issued as part of drilling operation for 7y. Seems site specific (B) to me rather than well specific. Anyway if that is the constraint then as the permit was issued in October 2016 it would have been known about well before the original CPR was published and SF05 was the plan. Par for the course I guess.
1347
02/11/2021
12:09
Sorry, might have put one too many T's in it! HTTPS://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/557642/Decision_Document.pdf What should be of interest to investors is the scope and the timescale that the permission took. The current application is far more complex than this one!
ja51oiler
02/11/2021
11:57
@JA51 - That link doesn't work for me. I have some copies of EA permots and decisions but I can't find the one that specifically restricts flaring to SF07. Do you have a workimng link and/or the EA reference for the document?
1347
02/11/2021
11:07
uclot - i see you still haven't had any therapy ...... your posts are just incoherent ramblings ... the resident old grey window lickers have really damaged you ... shame on them ..
sincero1
02/11/2021
10:59
Here's a suggestion: Anguish continually claim to be "experts in the field" and yet, LTH's have seen zero signs of any expertise whatsoever by this company. Yes, plenty of - regular as clockwork - FAILURE... but no expertise - to date!?! As if to prove my point, Lucan has now appointed a team of additional experts (presumably to oversee his own?) and an additional team of "overseeing" experts (presumably to oversee those overseeing his own?) Skip to the end: Why don't we cut out the middlemen and as shareholders just employ the overseeing experts. We can clearly do without Lucan's own experts(?) and those he's appointed to hand hold them... and save money into the bargain! You know it makes sense? CQ :-)
clottedq
02/11/2021
10:57
1347 Here is a link to the permission. Seems specific to SF7 to me! HTTPS://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/557642/Decision_Document.pdf
ja51oiler
02/11/2021
10:40
Poundland has been, basically, a can-kick ever since the financially astute Interim MD discovered the £12mm shortfall in March last year. Thats the shortfall he didn’t inform the market about for six months. They’re very clearly months behind the revised revised schedule of February/March fo first gas. The groundworks scheduled for July/Ausgsut don’t appear to have been begun and we’re in the wet season now, during which last year the 3-week schedule for the pipeline stretched to 16 weeks (and it’s still not finished). Similarly, the pipe works on site scheduled for September haven’t been done. Kit delivery, the sidetrack issue, regulatory permissions, changes to planning applications (including the well test) and the financial burden - any one of these could be enough to bring Anguish down. They’ll be in the hands of the Lenders in May, I think. What?
jtidsbadly
02/11/2021
10:35
JA - I note the point about the flare but SF01 is located at Site A isn't it, so it means they can't flare that, even for testing after they resume production? SF05 is at Site B anyway, just in the other part of Site B so I suppose it would have been easier to drill from there.
1347
02/11/2021
10:10
Yes. I did do a double-take at the response to the 16-week sidetrack on the Q&A stating that 10 mins on the internet would have told us that was wrong. Perhaps he should have done the same when he told the market that fairytale! I did over on the other side and came up with £4m for the plant and £3m for the pipeline in around that timescale!..... Incidentally, the timeline on both Lidsey and Brockham works would have made 16 weeks seem reasonable!
ja51oiler
02/11/2021
10:01
1347 In my view, it was changed to SF7 as it was the only well with EA permission to flare from. That took over a year to get, as I previously mentioned. Originally it was safe SF5 they were telling us!.
ja51oiler
02/11/2021
09:55
JA51 - The decision notices are clear, it must all be in conformance with the final documents and drawings submitted as part of the various planning applications. This latest CPR again tends to expose the fact that getting to first gas by May to August 2020 for circa £2.5 million was never on was it? Yet they played that narrative to market from the time of the acquistion up to the eventual disclosure of the need for significant funding and completely revised timecales (which they've still missed). In my view they were misleading market during that period. Given the trajectory of the new well (which seems to almost do a 360) alongside 1u do we know why they didn't drill from the A site, thus avoiding the SIMOPS issue? Is it the geology or the permissions that doesn't work for that do you know? I note they still haven't updated market about the appeal (or not as the case may be) at Balcombe, again this could be viewed as witholding price sensitive information.
1347
02/11/2021
09:54
ja51contractvoidoiler - you have been consistently discredited and proven to be wrong ... your posts are becoming more manic & extreme .... the worry and sleepless nights must be awful .....must be only a matter of time before your find yourself in a very serious situation ... good luck ...
sincero1
02/11/2021
09:40
A deep thinking answer to all those tricky questions to which you so desperately avoid responding. What a "moron" you are. Back of the class boy!..... filter for you again!
ja51oiler
02/11/2021
09:24
nurse more meds for ja51contractvoidoiler... i think he is having an episode...
sincero1
Chat Pages: Latest  521  520  519  518  517  516  515  514  513  512  511  510  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
ANGS
Angus Ener..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20220124 20:25:31