Angus Energy Share Discussion Threads

[1347] 14/3/2022 14:02

gaffer - If you think those results are good you are delusional beyond help..

[1347] 14/3/2022 14:00

"As noted above, in the event that the Group is not successful in meeting its timeline for first gas, there would exist a material uncertainty that may cast doubt regarding the Group’s ability to continue as a going concern."

Laughable, they've already missed several timelines for first gas and are very likely to miss the next one.

[3put] 14/3/2022 14:00

Deramp team on full throttle today I see.

The results must have been good!

- they are all over it today!!

[1347] 14/3/2022 13:55

If you want another example of just how clueless and lacking in any diligence this lot are, then add up the total renumeration on the right on page 28, what does it come to? I notice they all got increases, what the hell for I have no idea.

[gaffer73] 14/3/2022 13:49

Deramp team on full throttle today I see. The results must have been good!

[ja51oiler] 14/3/2022 13:22

Interesting. The full £12 million was drawn down on the 3rd of June. So the interest built on the full amount from then presumably.

[1347] 14/3/2022 13:13

First page has already had me in stiches.

"Angus continues to make good progress towards reaching its short term production
targets whilst simultaneously addressing the urgent need for transition energy projects."

The project has taken several times longer and cost many times more than they said it would and that's 'good progress'. I'd hate to think what this bunch of shysters would categorise as bad progress.

[weebun] 14/3/2022 12:33

Just a thought seem to have put cards on table at a strange time also says possibly looking for further addition to the company.Do you think a bid is in the process for the gas.

[3put] 14/3/2022 12:18

1.4 was turned down. They need to double that before I would consider it

[jtidsbadly] 14/3/2022 11:41

The Sound ‘bid” is now worth 0.95p. Don’t expect a rush from the other five to buy this. They will by now know the full debt terms, covenants etc. though.

[jtidsbadly] 14/3/2022 11:19

P.52 of the CPR says the loan expires in December 2024. The Accounts now say it’s March 2025. The loan payments in the CPR don’t seem to tie in with the table in the Accounts. I suppose the £9mm. repayment which appears to be indicated in 2022 in the CPR takes into account the accelerated debt repayment terms. That assumes cash flows will be as forecast in the CPR. So what does the Accounts forecast of repayment of just £1.5mm in September 2022 imply for cash flow? It’s an odd kind of amortising loan, isn’t it? Are they making it up as they go along as well?

“Table 6-3 Licensees’ Loan Terms
Item Description
Units
Value
Debt Terms
Loan amount agreed May 2021
GB£ m
12.00
Expiry of Loan
31/12/2024
Interest rate over "Sonia"
%
12%
Sonia (Sterling Overnight Index Average)
%
0.05%
Overriding Royalty Interest (after repayment of >85% of loan until end of production)
%
8%
Minimum distribution to licensees if profit > £600k pcm
GB£ m pcm
£0.20
[1] Minimum bank balance to exceed rolling three months of interest payment plus minimum loan repayment
[2] Proceeds over minimum bank balance distributed 60% to accelerated loan repayment and 40% to licensees

[jtidsbadly] 14/3/2022 10:54

HITS: I've just re-read the next two notes after this one in the results. The loss is just the theoretical loss on the hedges, it ignores the fact that they’ll be getting the market price for the gas they sell to Shell (i.e. all of it). In other words, they’ll get 41p for the hedged gas and the market price for any excess.

[3put] 14/3/2022 10:52

Hemo getting pumped next , Doc all over it on telegram

[headinthesand] 14/3/2022 10:45

JTids, I read it as ANGS stating a loss on the hedge of £25.77 million with end Sep 2021 gas futures pricing being applied. That would be the field operators' loss on the hedge I believe, if they produced no gas at all during the hedge period.

Of course, ANGS hopes to fulfil the hedge and more, which would then obviate the putative loss. As ever, the date of full production start and the actual produceable volumes remain absolutely critical in a literally life or death manner. Even moreso, since the putative loss per therm is now much higher.

Or to put it another way... "HOW MUCH GAS AND BY WHEN?"

[shareprofessor] 14/3/2022 10:31

Ja51oiler doltish and unintelligent as he is repulsive and deceitful.

[jtidsbadly] 14/3/2022 10:28

...and how do they arrive at a loss over the period when the hedges apply? If they produce enough gas, as they’ve constantly said they will, to meet the hedges, they’ll be in profit. Are they suggesting that they’re not going to meet the required volumes? What am I missing?

[jtidsbadly] 14/3/2022 10:23

And what does this means?

“As of reporting date, the expected cash flow on the sale of natural gas amounted to £48.117m resulting in a loss of £25.770m of which the Groups effective share is at £13.142m on its 51% participating interest. The resulting loss on the Swap contract was a result of the steep rise in the prices of natural gas affecting the Group as the floating price payer as of reporting date.”

I’ve looked for a definition of “reporting date” and can’t find one as used in a report and accounts. Any ideas? As of 30 September 2021 or as of March 2022? Obfuscation, in my view, one of the few areas in which they have genuine expertise, sadly. It’s quite important in view of the further rise since September in gas prices. The share split between Anguish’s and SEL respective shares in the losses is academic, since all the cash flows are to be used to finance the loan terms, of which the hedges are a part.

[jtidsbadly] 14/3/2022 10:13

Can someone explain to me the column entitled “loan drawdown and repayment” on p. 53 of the CPR, please? What’s the £9mm? I’d read this to suggest that they had to repay considerably more than £1.5mm. this year. 1347 and I have discussed it before, the report is baffling in places.

[sincero1] 14/3/2022 10:12

see, what a complete bellend. soooo embarrassing
..

[ja51oiler] 14/3/2022 09:39

Sorry, ignore that I was thinking months again!

[shareprofessor] 14/3/2022 09:37

It never ceases to astound me how those with a derogatory standpoint lose the ability to understand written English in a RNS. Instantly interpreting it in a completely different way just to force it in a negative direction. The increase in filtered posts this morning is surely evidence of that . The market reaction is the reliable indicator not the " thoughts" of some repulsive , deceptive anonymous agitators.

[3put] 14/3/2022 09:29

JT will be asking for a placing, he does it every day.