Angus Energy Share Discussion Threads

[ja51oiler] 17/3/2022 10:31

Gaffer....If you can show a post that says anyone didn't expect it to be passed in the end please do!

It's a discussion BB and funnily enough, the questions raised regarding PP all turned out to be correct!

Another PP WAS required and applied for (and luckily fast-tracked ) (it could have taken up to 13 weeks if not)

The noise issue was discussed and again was proven correct and a 37DB limit was placed in the PP.

Far from dismissing those who have done a bit of research, don't you think you should possibly actually take a bit more notice of the information we provide?

[gaffer73] 17/3/2022 10:20

They are persistent. They are also quickly running out of arguments to make. I see they are all over the EA permission now. Funny.

[gaffer73] 17/3/2022 10:18

Basically, don't listen to the scaremongering.

[jtidsbadly] 17/3/2022 10:18

JA51: the letter from the EA to LCC on 28 February recommends the details in the LCC’s condition re noise contained in yesterday’s planning permission. So I don’t think the EA will do any more than LCC re this, will they? And doesn’t EA approval come once the plant has been completed?

Who monitors the noise levels? Is it the MPA (county council), or EA? Someone has already installed noise monitors on all the neighbouring residences, presumably, but who goes and checks them?

I’m surprised that Anguish didn’t RNS this yesterday. If they told cuds it would be before 17th, you’d think they’d have been equally candid with Anguish. I expected a stronger share price reaction, as you know. It may not be much, and we all expected it to go through ages ago, but it’s good news and the shares generally respond more strongly than this to good news. It won’t last, of course. There could be a placing as early as tomorrow (where’s CQ when we need him?). And that pipework needs completing.

[shareprofessor] 17/3/2022 10:14

Gaffer73 I admire your persistence in trying to educate and correct the oddities but with people of such low intelligence and high deception you are facing an uphill battle . Of course they were pouring scorn on the permissions . It is staggering how they completely deny this and continue to claim to be correct. Their level of determination to be derogatory is very high. The company moves positively onwards and ultimately will decide the future.

[sincero1] 17/3/2022 09:59

gaffer you are right , all the resident grey old disingenuous nimby activist crayon eaters were doubting permission would be granted... company slaps them in the mutton chops, ridicules and embarrasses them again .... happens every single time....

poor old hits has been brainwashed ........

[ja51oiler] 17/3/2022 09:58

gaffer

Yes, there was a discussion last week. As usual, it was proven to be correct and a separate application was submitted as disscused. It was fast-tracked and approved yesterday also....What's your point?

The most important part is the 37DB limit placed on nighttime noise. We are still to get the EA "DRAFT" statement regarding this and the noise modeling. (See the Q&A page from last month)

From my research DRAFT means it's very likely to have to go back out to public consultation although it's very difficult to get a definitive answer to this.

[3put] 17/3/2022 09:44

They are desperate for you to sell, ask yourself why?

[3put] 17/3/2022 09:43

Remember HITS would tell you the moon is made out of cheese

[3put] 17/3/2022 09:42

Excitement building

[jtidsbadly] 17/3/2022 09:41

HITS: you’ve forgotten the wildlife requirements. Get Captain America up there quickly, shake the bushes.

[3put] 17/3/2022 09:41

There was plenty of talk on here about planning being denied or delayed. Even last week there were posts about it. So no everyone wasn't expecting it to be approved.
For shareholders, another step closer to first gas

That was jut our resident trolls

[gaffer73] 17/3/2022 09:32

There was plenty of talk on here about planning being denied or delayed. Even last week there were posts about it. So no everyone wasn't expecting it to be approved.For shareholders, another step closer to first gas

[headinthesand] 17/3/2022 09:24

Erm...

Firstly, nobody expected revised planning approval to be refused.

Second, this was known and discussed yesterday. ANGS is playing catch-up with today's RNS.

Third, next steps actually need to be:-

i. getting all the required equipment onsite

ii. commissioning the entire site, including all the pipework

iii. getting EA approval, then H&S and NG sign-off

iv. then getting to first gas

v. then getting to full production

vi. then seeing what volume that full production delivers (hopefully sufficient to meet the Jul-Sep hedge commitments)

...all within the next 15 weeks max.

[shareprofessor] 17/3/2022 09:14

The RNS confirms what was already known by shareholders yesterday. More importantly it notifies the wider market. Another positive step. Anticipation builds.

[sincero1] 17/3/2022 09:06

old grey disingenuous crayon eaters will not be happy today...

[3put] 17/3/2022 09:00

No comments on the granting of Saltfleetby planning? - No chance , it does not suit their agenda. Surely now, nobody believes a word they say!!


I've said all along this approval was straight forward - Next step ,



FIRST GAS BABY

[3put] 17/3/2022 08:55

17 March 2022

Angus Energy Plc

("Angus Energy", "Angus" or the "Company")

Saltfleetby Planning Permission

Angus Energy plc (AIM: ANGS) is pleased to announce that Lincolnshire County Council has granted permission for its application to reconfigure the layout of the Saltfleetby B Site originally envisaged and permitted by the extant planning permission N/158/00804/20 which was announced by RNS on 12 June 2020 and thereby completing the local authority permissions required for Saltfleetby to achieve first gas.



END.

[jtidsbadly] 17/3/2022 08:52

I expect they’ll send the Business Development (non-Board)) Director to Poundland soon, to shake the trees and bushes to ensure that there will be no birds contemplating building a nest in them. He’ll want to look at the fences too, while he’s at it. A real job at last. I hope he’ll be comfortable in one of those comfort cabins.

[headinthesand] 17/3/2022 08:43

How is a company that the market values at an MCap of £22 million going to raise the £39 million that a claimed ANGS valuation of 3p per share would require?

The SOU "possible offer" and George's decision to launch an FSP are both charades.

Gaffer, nobody expected revised Poundland planning to fail, so the granting of approval is hardly news (if it had, that would have been instant curtains).

Nothing has changed. ANGS needs to get to a sufficient level of full production by July 1st. Better get on with ensuring all equipment is on site, the entire site including all pipework fully commissioned, all required sign-offs (EA, H&S, NG) obtained, first gas achieved and full production started, all within the next 15 weeks. If they screw anything up again or experience any further delays, they're finished.

How much gas and by when?

[gaffer73] 17/3/2022 08:42

No comments on the granting of Saltfleetby planning?

[1347] 17/3/2022 08:31

Jt Yes indeed, just another twist and turn as we meander along Snake Pass with a dodgy bus driver.

[3put] 17/3/2022 07:36

Hello, Are you able to share with shareholders the impact the current very high! gas price has on the economics of the Saltfleetby field? To that end, will these vastly improved numbers be taken into consideration when discussing a possible sale with interested parties? Thank you. Asked on 28 February 2022
The economics of the field looking great – principally because the forward curve is so greatly improved. See



(to get pence/therm from $/mmbtu divide by 1.35 for the exchange rate and multiply by ten). Current prices are high at 225p/therm but they are even higher in March 2023! Even as far out as March 2024 they are 130p/therm or over two and half times the 10 year average of 50 p/therm we made our initial projections on in 2020.



Hi, If the best offer on the table as a result of the FSP is not considered fair value and acceptable by the Board, is walking away from the FSP and moving full steam ahead with Saltfleetby as 51 owners still an option for the company? Thanks. Asked on 24 February 2022
We are not bound to pursue the FSP until we have found a buyer. We entered into it to see what the market was for Angus and its assets as we review all possibilities for our future direction whether in hydrocarbons and/or alternative energies.

With production at Saltfleetby tantalisingly close and gas prices at an all time high, can you expand on the decision to launch the FSP? Shareholders are concerned that suitors may be able to secure Saltfleetby and/or the company on the cheap – particularly given the volatile international markets caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. What can the Board do to prevent this? Asked on 24 February 2022
Interest had already been expressed in Saltfleetby over the previous two years. Continued interest and a formal approach for Angus shares encouraged the Board to open the doors to further buyers so as secure the best price for shareholders and to draw attention to our undervalued shares. After all we had a market capitalisation of £6 million at one point last year, with an interest in Saltfleetby conservatively valued at £24 million.

hi, what is the current state of play regarding the permissions for Saltfleetby, Brockham, Lidsey, Balcombe? Asked on 15 February 2022
Re Environment Agency. We believe that we can expect EA permission for Brockham in the near future. Saltfleetby we reasonably believe should be available in draft form within a month. Our Balcombe site is also under review by EA and we hope to obtain that permit in H1.

Re Local Authorities: we are seeking permission to abandon the Kimmeridge and perforate the Portland at Brockham, but do not require permission to reinject water produced at Brockham. Our appeal at Balcombe is likely to be heard before the end of Q3. Our variations of existing planning permissions for Saltfleetby are very minor and are expected to be approved in March.