Angus Energy Share Discussion Threads

[davemarn] 29/12/2021 10:43

No problem with raises I'll probably keep buying CHEAPER ANGUS SHARES

[jtidsbadly] 29/12/2021 10:43

1347: if they can’t get this and/or another later share issue away successfully, I think they may need to take professional advice.

This was an answer to an investor question in September:

“When is the variation to the existing Saltfleetby Environment Agency permit expected to be approved? What are the steps in this process? Asked on 21 September 2021

The Company has already engaged in a detailed submission and has received back formal questions in the form of Schedule 5 Notices requesting further detailed information. This is a normal procedure. We understand that our application and responses to the Sch 5 have been passed to the relevant national teams looking variously at noise, groundwater and air pollution and following that process will be passed to the local officers for final approval. Grant of permit may be subject certain pre-operational conditions. We cannot however assume a timeline. There may be further enquiries but, to date, the application is following a normal course.”

It looks as if there will need to be further schedule 5 Notices at the very least, what? It seems that cudswallop was prescient in predicting EA approval not before February..

If they got a letter from AECOM on 2 November, one can be pretty sure it will have been preceded by a phone call. Does this explain the 26 October publication of the revised (and totally superseded by events) CPR?

[ja51oiler] 29/12/2021 10:39

1347

The Aecom document is obviously the provable point of them knowing. However, they would have known this for months. (The plans were in the CPR after all dated October 1st)

If they didn't realise the PP wasn't valid then they are incompetent, and if they did they have again deliberately misled the market.

I would suggest to the multi-id spamming "MORON" that its efforts may be better spent chasing the company and the nomad rather than bombarding BB with its dozens of multi-ID's

[davemarn] 29/12/2021 10:20

Awesome 3put(Bloomberg) --For a glimpse of how much longer this year’s energy crunch is going to last, look no further than the European natural gas market.Forward prices have more than doubled over the past month, with traders betting the unprecedented squeeze will last into early 2023. Gas will be expensive even when the weather is hot. Prices for the summer exceeded 100 euros ($113) a megawatt-hour this week, the highest on record.Europe is facing an energy crisis, with Russia curbing supplies and nuclear outages in France straining power grids in the coldest months of the year. And there’s no relief in sight. Germany said Russia’s controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline won’t be approved in the first half of 2022, a move that will probably keep supplies capped in the summer, when Europe need gas to fill storage sites.“Help does not appear to be on the way,â€? said Kaushal Ramesh, a senior analyst at consultants Rystad Energy in Norway. The increase in forward prices is “suggesting another year of volatility and a continued high price environment.â€?Geopolitical tensions between Russia and Ukraine are also keeping traders on edge, with heightened concerns about a possible invasion. At his annual press conference on Thursday, President Vladimir Putin didn’t directly mention the threat of military action, but said an expansion of North Atlantic Treaty Organization expansion up to Russia’s borders was unacceptable.While a flotilla of liquefied natural gas tankers is currently heading to Europe, the region will remain at the mercy of global markets to ensure it continues to get cargoes throughout next year.

[3put] 29/12/2021 10:19

(Bloomberg) --For a glimpse of how much longer this year’s energy crunch is going to last, look no further than the European natural gas market.

Forward prices have more than doubled over the past month, with traders betting the unprecedented squeeze will last into early 2023. Gas will be expensive even when the weather is hot. Prices for the summer exceeded 100 euros ($113) a megawatt-hour this week, the highest on record.

Europe is facing an energy crisis, with Russia curbing supplies and nuclear outages in France straining power grids in the coldest months of the year. And there’s no relief in sight. Germany said Russia’s controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline won’t be approved in the first half of 2022, a move that will probably keep supplies capped in the summer, when Europe need gas to fill storage sites.

“Help does not appear to be on the way,” said Kaushal Ramesh, a senior analyst at consultants Rystad Energy in Norway. The increase in forward prices is “suggesting another year of volatility and a continued high price environment.”

Geopolitical tensions between Russia and Ukraine are also keeping traders on edge, with heightened concerns about a possible invasion. At his annual press conference on Thursday, President Vladimir Putin didn’t directly mention the threat of military action, but said an expansion of North Atlantic Treaty Organization expansion up to Russia’s borders was unacceptable.

While a flotilla of liquefied natural gas tankers is currently heading to Europe, the region will remain at the mercy of global markets to ensure it continues to get cargoes throughout next year.

[3put] 29/12/2021 10:19

Gas flying

[1347] 29/12/2021 10:17

As highlighted in Kansas, taken from the latest AECOM Planning statement:

"Angus Energy received informal pre-application written advice from a planning officer at LCC on 2nd November 2021. This has informed the scope and detail of the planning application and supporting documentation; it confirmed that the proposed revisions are capable of being dealt with by way of applications made under the provisions of Section 73 of the TCPA 1990 (as amended)."

So I read this as they knew on 2nd November 2021 that they would need to submit a further planning application, something, yet again, that was not conveyed to market. Instead leaving the impression that the last thing needed was the EA permit decision, at the latest by 17th December 2021, which did not happen, well at least as far as we know.

Now they want authority to allot more shares because they can't meet their revised, revised, revised costs and timescales, well I for one will vote against that.

[jtidsbadly] 29/12/2021 10:17

...still, I think I’ve got the answer to my often-asked question as to whether that Aberdeen firm has finished the detailed plan! It seems a shame that was outstanding for so long, what? Anyway, now it’s just the Joule-Thomson valve.

[bionicdog] 29/12/2021 10:17

Same as the words that you use in an attempt to sucker people in. It stops that happening.

[davemarn] 29/12/2021 10:16

Matters not,. Now I know who the derampers are, they couldn't hide in a formal document it's an easy response. Being funded too means they are able to buy shares and sell at losses, as their donations supports the narratives to ensure pressure remains from a non investor perspective. So no, no longer shorters thesis I am retracting that more or less. These 3 groups are probably targeting angs and others to economically damage them IMO via forums.

[davemarn] 29/12/2021 10:14

Bionic what can you actually do to me?Really?Nothing just words on a screen!

[davemarn] 29/12/2021 10:14

Thanks Bionicdog

[davemarn] 29/12/2021 10:13

Latest CPR overridden with the £750K recent raise.You either support ANGUS ENERGY or don't.I fully support my investment choice here.

[davemarn] 29/12/2021 10:13

As for additional employees at the lowest end an additional person or two. Wow huge traffic increase if they are locals who liftshare or cycle it!

[bionicdog] 29/12/2021 10:12

That's because you're thick.

[davemarn] 29/12/2021 10:12

No problem with raises I'll probably keep buying CHEAPER ANGUS SHARES

[davemarn] 29/12/2021 10:11

Cheers bionic

[davemarn] 29/12/2021 10:10

Neighbour has already given a positive response

[bionicdog] 29/12/2021 10:10

WELCOME TO THE SPAM THREAD
DaveMarn
3Put
Solo4Yous
ALL THE SAME IDIOT

[davemarn] 29/12/2021 10:10

Ok mateI'll put something else in the header then.

[jtidsbadly] 29/12/2021 10:09

JA51: I’m not very familiar with county council planning procedure. If they leave a revised application to the planning officers to decide, does this not tend to foreshorten the process?

If I were Saltfleetby council or a neighbour of this project, I’d be seriously worried. The roads leading up to and beyond the site are, I’m told, very narrow and uneven. The new plans will mean more traffic. There will be more cars going to and fro with the the increase in the numbers of permanent staff as well. Yes, the noise from a much bigger flare will be an issue, as will its output of pollutants. Is that twitter picture of the new flare type really what they will be putting up?

If they want to raise a decent amount of money next month, they’ll need to do something to get the price up. Even then, there will have to be at least one more raise six or eight weeks later, surely? They must be eating through their loan money and they had next to no cash at the end of March this year. The latest CPR seemed to predict a £750,000 shortfall in the next quarter, even on the old schedule. It’s a proper horlicks, what?

[bionicdog] 29/12/2021 10:02

I'll put something else in the header then.

[davemarn] 29/12/2021 10:01

Brockham Snippets: 4Brief summary of issues raised Summary of actions taken or show how this has been coveredGas flaringConcerns raised about gas flaring This concern is not relevant to the application as no changes are proposed to the existing permitted drilling activity and flare.Sampling and monitoringConcern about how the Environment Agency will ensure the produced water samples are genuine and whether they will be collected by an independent agency. The Water Acceptance and Unloading Procedure (BRO-ANGPR-O0004-3) referenced as an operating technique in the permit (Table S1.2) confirms that produced water to be imported onto site as well as produced water from Brockham will be sampled and salinity measured with a conductivity monitor at an independent laboratory. The produced water sample will also be mixed with produced water from Brockham to assess for any visual precipitation. It should also be noted the operator is not able to accept produced water from other sites until a bespoke RSR permit has been issued.Environmental impactConcern about the impact on nearby watercourses. Produced water is derived from the extraction of oil from oil-bearing strata and as such would be expected to contain hazardous substances in the form of naturally formed dissolved hydrocarbons. The principle of re-injecting produced water for support of oil production activities is acceptable under the current regulatory regimes in the UK.Additive chemicals intrinsic to the extraction of oil will also be present in any re-injected produced water.We have reviewed the Supplementary HRA and are satisfied that the return of this produced water into oil-bearing strata will not result in any unpermitted discharges to other water-bearing strata. As such we are satisfied there will be no significant impact on nearby surface watercourses.Concern that the associated risks are too great to justify a declining production from an already depleted reservoir. We have assessed the risk associated with the groundwater activity as described in more detail in the key issues section of this decision document. We are satisfied that the purpose of injection is to support production. The amount of oil produced from the reservoir is not relevant to our decision.Concern about flooding from increased groundwater. Re-injection takes place into a deep formation sealed by faults and a low permeability cap overlying the formation. There is no plausible pathway for the produced water to enter a shallower formation and exit at the surface.Concern about local air quality given that many parts of Surrey are already breaching air quality targets. There are no changes proposed that will have an impact on air emissions from the site. We consider this concern is not relevant to the application.Concern about the presence of Red Kites in Surrey and the need to update the environmental impact assessment for the site. There are no changes to point source emissions to air, sewer or surface water as a result of the variation. We consider that the application will not affect any site of nature conservation, landscape and heritage, and/or protected species or habitats identified. We therefore consider this concern is not relevant to the application.Concern about the safe storage of fluids. We have accepted the operator’s assessment of risk and are satisfied that appropriate measures and procedures are in place to ensure that all liquids, including produced water and chemicals, will be stored in accordance with the necessary containment measures to ensure there is no risk to the environment.Regulation and complianceConcern about the failure of regulation of the geological aspects of unconventional oil and gas sites with severe implications for environmental safety. Unconventional oil and gas sites are those involving hydraulic fracturing of shale which is not occurring under this permit. This is therefore not relevant to this determination.Concern about who would be responsible for remediating any contamination to groundwater. Our approach to any environmental pollution incident involves investigation into the significance of the incident, identification of the source and consideration of the pathway. Any action taken depends on the outcome of such an investigationConcern about the impact on biodiversity, including the food chain. We are satisfied that groundwater monitoring is not required at the site because there is no significant risk to any known shallow groundwater receptors and sufficient mitigation measures and procedures are in place to prevent any impact on groundwater. See the key issues section of this decision document for more information.Concern over the Environment Agency’s finances and resources not being sufficient to effectively regulate the site. Compliance activities will be undertaken by the Environment Agency area enforcement teams after the issue of the permit to ensuring compliance with the permit condition. Sufficient resources will be made available by the Environment Agency to comply with our regulatory requirements.AmenityConcern about increased road traffic, especially as tankers having been seen arriving at the site yet the site is apparently not producing oil at the current time. The planning authority determines whether the activity is an acceptable use of the land. It considers matters such as visual impact, traffic and access issues, which do not form part of our Environmental Permit decision making process. We consider the concern about increased traffic is outside of the remit of the Environment Agency.Regarding the presence of tankers at the site, this information has been passed to the relevant member of the regulated industry team.Concern about increased noise pollution. There is no increased risk of noise as a result of this variation. We consider this issue not relevant to the application.The determination processQuestions relating to whether this application has been assessed in detail, specifically has a “2018 reportâ€? been updated in 2021. We assessed all documents submitted as part of the application and various requests for information. We are satisfied that the operator provided all required documentation for this type of application and that it was up to date.No consultation documents have been supplied to those impacted, for example, a leaflet through the door. The consultation section of this decision document sets out how we publicised the application. All application documents, including the non-technical summary, were available to view as part of that consultation. We are satisfied we have fulfilled our obligations in this regard.See the consultation section of this decision document for more information.There was no cement bond log available for the re-injection activity, The supplementary HRA confirms well construction for the BRX3 re-injection well and an evaluation of the Cement Bond Log results for the surface and intermediate sections of the re-injection well. We have reviewed the well construction and the evaluation of the Cement Bond Logs results and we are satisfied that the re-injection of produced water poses a negligible risk to groundwater in the Upper Tunbridge Wells Sand and the Ashdown Formation. In addition we are satisfied that the operating procedures set out in the HRA are sufficient to mitigate the risk to groundwater.