Angus Energy Share Discussion Threads

[jtidsbadly] 15/3/2022 08:46

...and the interest. Mercuria may well have had an expectation of a sharp rise in the gas price. The loan stipulation re advance repayments from cash flows would rapidly accelerate the application of the 8% (of revenue) royalty, which will be another money-spinner for them, far more lucrative than LIBOR+12%.

[jtidsbadly] 15/3/2022 08:41

1347: the King of Siam is in trouble too.

That’s what happens if you turn down a $20mm. bank loan and bend over a barrel nine months later while hard faced types with tall curved dorsal fins (though with genuine expertise in their area of business) do unpleasant things to you and your shareholders, what?

[1347] 15/3/2022 08:41

"AWB3 will pay METS the floating price while METS will pay AWB3 the fixed price on the sale of gas from the field".

With the futures price of NBP gas you'd have to be very, very sure that you could meet the contracted volumes before buying a field or company with that commitment, or bonkers. METS will be making the most out of Poundland even if it flows. Then there's the £13.4 million loan repayment commitments.

[1347] 15/3/2022 08:28

"As at 30 September 2021, the Group’s derivative liabilities amounted to £25.770 million as a result of the hedging agreement entered into with Mercuria Energy Trading SA under a Swap Contract (see Note 24)"

So landed the company with £25m liability they may not be able to meet if first gas is further delayed (which it has been several times already)? If that's a Corporate Financing Expert I'm the King of Siam.

[3put] 14/3/2022 22:30

So why post here 24/7 if you are not impressed?or are you telling us porkies and loading on the quiet?

What ?

[jtidsbadly] 14/3/2022 20:22

JA51: you know more about these people than I do, but I’m not impressed with any of them from what I’ve seen in the past two years. They seem to me to be chancers and I don’t know where they’ll get the money from to make a difference to the outcome here.

I’d like to hear more though, if you’ve got the time.

[3put] 14/3/2022 19:53

Could the 63k buy be them ?

[ja51oiler] 14/3/2022 19:28

JTThe pipeline de-comm costs have always interested me. It could be very interesting if AAOG get involved as expected!

[3put] 14/3/2022 19:21

Is thag Hits getting back in ?

[3put] 14/3/2022 19:21

63k buy , looks like it was worked most of the day

[jtidsbadly] 14/3/2022 17:42

This large late-reported trade should not be used for the last traded price, should it? There’s no limit to the nonsense on AIM.

[jtidsbadly] 14/3/2022 17:34

JA51: don’t you think that to be concerned about de-commissioning costs at this stage is to put the cart before the horse? They’re unlikely to need to worry about that, surely?

[sincero1] 14/3/2022 17:27

huge amount of posts today from the old grey disingenuous crayon eaters who are not even shareholders.......all negative supposition of course....they are so worried about all this positive progress...activists and nimbys ...so obvious you can smell the lentils , cardigans and stale urine....

[ja51oiler] 14/3/2022 16:57

They seem to have changed the way they give for de-commission costs? They do now mention the pipeline costs. They still haven't answered the question as to whether they are liable for the other half of the SFB 8 mile £10 million odd costs now. Can anyone tell if they have squeezed them into the accounts?

[jtidsbadly] 14/3/2022 16:30

1347: shocking, I agree. This is the nub:

“the company continued to work with suppliers and contractors to maintain its procurement and build schedule targeting First Gas at the Saltfleetby Gas Field before the end of May 2022.”

Ridiculous.

[1347] 14/3/2022 16:15

Like the ATEX Directives, JTPs share dealing and other things, being the arrogant twerps they are I think they believe the rules don't apply to them. Apalling set of accounts really.

[jtidsbadly] 14/3/2022 15:49

Yes, HITS, and end-May is a “target”. How often have they met one of those?

Re planning permission, if you build a house extension before getting it, and the planning committee/officer doesn’t like it, they can tell you to pull it down. How far can Anguish commit themselves in building the plant before this becomes a real issue? The changes they're proposing are, as JA51 has consistently pointed out, major ones. They must have done virtually all the work to which the earlier, granted, permission applied. When do they have to choose between taking a punt on getting retrospective permission, and stopping work? Either choice is fraught with potential delays.

[jtidsbadly] 14/3/2022 15:30

jA51: they had payments due on kit they’d ordered by 30 September of nearly £3mm too.

Re the staffing costs in admin. expenses, they’ve only got 13 staff. That doesn’t sound like enough to man the Saltfleetby site and cover the usual office work. Are they hiring multiple local contractors to supervise the gas plant, once it's up and running? That wasn’t the plan, was it? What happened to all those people they were busy training in the running of gas plants?

Did anyone else notice that they’re now saying 50% of production, under a conservative estimate, is hedged? What happened to 70%? 50% sounds a fair bit better. Sadly, it will depend on a highly successful sidetrack enabling them to run the plant at 100% of its designed capacity from 1 October. Even then, 54% is hedged, what? Anyone else sniff another ripe porky?

That DrillorDrop article is interesting. If I were the planning officer, I’d be referring Poundland back to the Committee. It’s now a hot potato, surely? There’s a reference in the article to the Egdon plan being bigger than their original submission. And very different. It all looks rather familiar.

[1347] 14/3/2022 15:19

I see the company had a value as at 30th September 2021 of -£2,019,000, so it was technically insolvent and probably still is. That's what happens when you put an amatuer in charge. Maybe that was the point?

[gaffer73] 14/3/2022 15:14

"GBP5.84 million has currently been drawn down with the balance to be drawn over the coming weeks against invoices in line with the Field Development Plan" From 3rd June.

[3put] 14/3/2022 14:32

In fact, gross production, of which we have a 51% share, solely from the existing wells and which is wholly unhedged for the month of June, is expected to yield 1.5 million therms or gross revenue of £7.2 million at today's forward price for that month alone.

Gross production solely from the side-track, should it be successful, is again wholly unhedged for the remainder of the year and is expected to yield a further 1.5 million therms each month of which Angus share is 51%.

The forward curve remains very high and seems likely to remain high this year and the company is more than anyone else acutely conscious of the need to preserve our timeline in order to provide value to shareholders whether through revenue sales or corporate action

[3put] 14/3/2022 14:31

Approximately , as I write, 3 buys for every 1 sell today. My page is a multitude of filtered posts . I envisage they are all derogatory remarks, all from non shareholders , how odd. Deceptive oddities. The market, which is the ultimate barometer, suggests a more positive outlook.

- huge effort from the deramp team

[ja51oiler] 14/3/2022 14:30

A Typo?????

It's got its own line entry!

How would they manage to have £6.1 Million in cash on September 31st if not"

[ja51oiler] 14/3/2022 14:26

1347

They did manage to get the admin costs down to only £165k a month though. So another £800k to deduct from that £6.1m left in as of September 31st!