[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
  0.00 0.0% 1.00 0.95 1.05 1.00 0.95 0.98 1,358,574 09:43:13
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Oil & Gas Producers 0.1 -2.5 -0.4 - 10

Angus Energy Share Discussion Threads

Showing 10676 to 10699 of 10700 messages
Chat Pages: 428  427  426  425  424  423  422  421  420  419  418  417  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
20/10/2021
09:52
JA - As I indicated to JT previously I have not listened to that conference call as listening to yet more waffle is pointless, I prefer to go on information published in formal RNS announcements where it was stated as long ago as 9th July 2020. JT - Yes I expect so, still if it floats me closer to that escape hatch it's fine with me. I'm fully aware of the 'AIM Game' now, despicable as it is, so will be watching for it. 4 p by Friday what, what?
1347
20/10/2021
09:42
1347: yes, I quite agree. The whole thing points to the fact that Anguish were over a barrel when they signed up to these terms with the lenders. Heads we win, tails your shareholders lose. Anguish now need too many things to go right. I suppose it’s possible that they’re saving up a whole lot of good news in order to have the maximum impact on the share price on a single day. Otherwise, it’s not looking good at all, is it? If your speculation on the source of the shares sold into this recent price is the same as mine, they should be just about out by now. Anguish looks like what Arthur Daley used to refer to as a nice little earner as far as they are concerned.
jtidsbadly
20/10/2021
09:23
the resident disingenuous grey old window lickers full of questions but all to afraid to ask the company directly via the angus website q&a ... why ? there really is only 1 answer to that .... dear oh dear...so transparent , so duplicitous ...
sincero1
20/10/2021
09:14
CEG shares jump soon
zxie
20/10/2021
09:12
1347 They have know since last September about the 24 week lead times (if there lucky I suspect in the current climate) as confirmed also in that September conference Call.
ja51oiler
20/10/2021
00:08
1347: the Interim MD referred to the royalty in answer to a question dated 9 June: “Making adjustment to the CPR figures for different capex was relatively easy as the capex figures involved no further variation or discounting for time. It would amount to a more substantial reworking of the CPR to estimate the hedged/unhedged production profile at 43p/xp (obviously positive) alongside the royalty payments (obviously negative), which themselves can vary in the event that production/unhedged pricing is at the top end and the loan repays earlier than term.” I wonder if he really understands hedges. His description of them changes from news release to Q&A. I’m not sure that “obviously positive” is quite appropriate, what? The dates on everything have continuously moved back all year, as they did last year and the year before. You have to be at the barmy end of optimistic to believe this won’t continue. They don’t seem to have finished the detailed design work, the July date for groundworks etc. has slipped apparently sine die, the EA permission is still not granted. One month they say the sidetrack will be drilled before the gas plant is built and connected, the next month this is reversed. That’s on top of how long the sidetrack will take (sorry CQ).
jtidsbadly
19/10/2021
23:09
European natural gas prices have recently increased by about 400% after a five-year period of relative stability. There are several factors cited: a rapid rebound in gas demand in an improving post-Covid European economy, a sharp rise in carbon taxes in Europe, and uncertainty of supply. Regardless of the cause, a sudden spike in energy prices of this magnitude presents an immediate burden for consumers and an issue for politicians. Across Europe, the range of political responses has varied from a proposed profit clawback in Spain, price caps in the UK, and outright payments to offset energy bills to low-income households in France. Italy and Greece are also considering proposals for consumer energy “relief”. Looking specifically at the UK, when Thatcherite “deregulators” redesigned energy markets in the 1990s they made two key assumptions. 1) That energy markets would operate as supposedly free markets. And 2) that political or regulatory interference would be minimal. The latter was key if the forces of supply and demand were supposed to work. In other words, even though it is politically unpopular, allowing extremely high prices during periods of relative shortage compensates investors for bringing new supply to markets and also compensates suppliers for unattractively low prices at other times in the energy cycle. But there are two factors British “deregulators” failed to take into account: human nature in the sense of the political opportunism of future politicians in dealing with their respective energy crises and the simple fact of the consumer's short term inelastic demand for energy. First, it is very difficult for politicians not to intervene in a crisis or at least appear to be sympathetic to the public’s distress. But we believe misunderstanding the nature of inelastic demand was the bigger policy oversight of the UK’s architects of deregulation. Stated simply, the consumers’ inelastic demand for gas or electricity means that we need a vital commodity almost instantaneously and more importantly there is no readily available substitute. This means the commodity provider, especially a large corporate monopoly, has enormous leverage versus the typical consumer. For example, do we really have a choice whether or not to heat our homes in winter because gas prices are high? The consumer’s “choice” during periods of high energy prices is either to sit in a cold, dark place or pay whatever seemingly extortionate prices the markets demand or regulators unwittingly permit. In contrast with the UK, US regulators were somewhat less ideologically blinkered and realized power “markets”; were not really markets at all. Yes, commodities were bought and sold in bulk, but this involved captive customers with no real alternatives or viable substitutes and with inelastic demands. That means insanely high prices could and would occur during periods of commodity scarcity for whatever reason. As a result, US regulators adopted the expedient of putting price caps on those peak power prices— which also capped producer profits. What this did in the least onerous way was acknowledge the potential for extreme volatility of certain commodity prices against the backdrop of inelastic consumer demand and literal monopoly suppliers. The basic issue which each political system decides for itself is how to provide a basic service such as gas or electricity at reasonable prices to as many of its citizens as possible. Unless the entire energy supply chain is domestically produced and price controlled, the government and regulators cannot control commodity or input prices. Effectively they impose crude price caps when prices rise too sharply. What this does in effect is simply bankrupt energy retailers whose revenues are capped and whose expenses rise dramatically with the underlying commodity. These energy markets as presently designed do not compensate investors in a timely manner for building and maintaining ample gas storage capacity. But with artificially restrictive price caps, governments in the UK (and perhaps Spain) won’t permit businesses full price recovery either. What results is the least attractive attributes of both markets and regulation— all the volatility of commodities and temporary scarcity and the government’s blindness to monopoly providers of an essential consumer commodity with inelastic demand characteristics. What we get as a result are crude temporary “fixes”. But they are both crude and reactive. A temporary political patch with superficial popular appeal and little real understanding. One of many famous Warren Buffett-isms is that you really only know who’s swimming naked (i.e. financially exposed inappropriately) when the tide goes out. A rapid rise in European gas prices has “exposed”; a number of under-dressed swimmers so to speak in the energy retail business. But there is one aspect of the short term inelastic demand concept of consumer behavior that bears additional scrutiny. Short-term consumption choices with respect to commodities are driven by various types of competing technologies or even more specifically individual appliances. Over the long term, governments have the wherewithal to encourage, tax, or subsidize technologies, like heat pumps and EVs which will increase electrification and displace fossil fuel usage. But this exacerbates the issue of our demand inelasticity, making customers even more reliant on their utility for vital services like heating in winter. Dramatic price spikes or shortages in key commodities like natural gas or petrol tend to stir up the public and often engender financially crude responses from politicians. Price caps and profit clawbacks may provide some satisfaction to the public which is eager for remedies. But it is no substitute for an energy policy based around economy wide electrification. Given its centrality to the economy, energy policy in our view should command as much government planning attention as monetary policy. Price spikes and other recent energy unpleasantness (queueing at gas stations in the UK) ultimately reflect policy failure. The good news is that policies, especially poor or ill-conceived ones, can be modified and improved. But what we really need to do is change the concept of energy “markets”;. The typical energy consumer purchasing gas or electricity is about as captive a customer as we can envision. They have inelastic demand and purchase a commodity product from monopoly suppliers. Feeble government efforts that effectively clawback some utility profits in an effort to protect consumers are no substitute for national energy planning with an eye to genuine reliability and resilience. Yes, this would probably be more expensive. However, we believe it would be far preferable to the current policymaking-in-a-crisis we have witnessed recently.
3put
19/10/2021
23:07
MOSCOW (Bloomberg) --Russia is keeping a tight grip on Europe’s energy market, opting against sending more natural gas to the continent even after President Vladimir Putin said he was prepared to boost supplies. Gazprom PJSC’s exports to its main markets fell in the first two weeks of October to the lowest since at least 2014 for the time of year, as domestic demand absorbed most of the production gains. The results of auctions for pipeline capacity in November gave no indication that Russia is planning to boost shipments to Europe. The cap on supplies remains in place despite Putin’s insistence last week that the country is “prepared to discuss any additional steps” to stabilize energy markets. Soaring energy costs are already prompting companies from chemicals giant BASF SE to fertilizer producers Yara International ASA and CF Industries Holdings Inc. to cut output. Extra Russian gas is seen as the only way to avoid an even deeper supply crunch in the middle of the winter. Europe isn’t the only region suffering from the energy crunch. China’s commodities output plunged in September as power rationing and carbon controls reduced operations from metals smelters to oil refiners. In a series of auctions on Monday, Gazprom opted not to reserve space extra gas on key transit routes through Ukraine next month. It didn’t book any of the 9.8 million cubic meters a day of pipeline capacity offered at Sudzha, and none of the 5.2 million cubic meters a day available at Sokhranovka -- both points on the border between Russia and Ukraine. It will continue to send only limited volumes via Poland to Germany. Traders booked only 35% of the gas capacity offered for November at the Mallnow compressor station, where Russia’s Yamal-Europe pipeline ends. That’s similar to levels this month. While Gazprom still has the option to book capacity on a daily basis in November, it hasn’t yet done so this month. Russia has repeatedly stated it needs to fill domestic storage sites before boosting exports. Separately, the company published preliminary operational data showing it exported an average of 427 million cubic meters of gas a day so far this month to its key markets, which include Europe, Turkey and China. The daily volumes were some 12% lower that last month’s average, according to Bloomberg calculations based on the figures. Gazprom continues to boost its total gas production to feed higher domestic demand, with output averaging 1.42 billion cubic meters a day so far in October. That’s up nearly 5% compared to the same period last year, and 4% higher than average for September, according to Bloomberg calculations. European gas futures on the Dutch Title Transfer Facility hub jumped as much as 15%, after dropping 8.3% on Friday. Europe is starting the heating season with the lowest gas inventories in more than a decade, stoking concerns about the reliability of winter supplies. Storage sites switched to net withdrawals last week, but mild temperatures this week are giving some respite, with stockpiles edging higher again. Disappointing results from the Yamal pipeline auction would likely require European gas prices to rise high enough “to generate enough demand destruction to compensate for lower Russian pipeline flows,” Goldman Sachs Group Inc. analysts said in a report before the event.
3put
19/10/2021
23:07
WASHINGTON - In its October Short-Term Energy Outlook, the U.S. Energy Information Administration forecasts that natural gas spot prices at the U.S. benchmark Henry Hub will average $5.67 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) between October and March, the highest winter price since 2007–2008. The increase in Henry Hub prices in recent months and in the forecast reflect below-average storage levels heading into the winter heating season and strong demand for U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG), even after relatively slow growth in U.S. natural gas production. EIA expects Henry Hub prices will decrease after the first quarter of 2022, as production growth outpaces growth in LNG exports, and will average $4.01/MMBtu for the year. U.S. exports of LNG are establishing a record high this year, a new record high anticipated for next year. EIA epects LNG exports to average 9.7 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) this year (3.2 Bcf/d more than the 2020 record high of 6.5 Bcf/d) and to exceed annual pipeline exports of natural gas for the first time. The year-on-year increase in LNG exports coincides with slight growth in U.S. natural gas production. U.S. dry natural gas production is expected to average 92.6 Bcf/d this year, which is 1.1 Bcf/d more than in 2020 but 0.3 Bcf/d less than in 2019. Because U.S. LNG exports have grown faster than domestic natural gas production, inventories are lower than average. As of the end of September, EIA estimates that total U.S. natural gas inventories are 5.5% below the five-year (2016–2020) average. EIA forecasts that U.S. inventories of natural gas will begin the winter heating season on November 1 at 3,572 Bcf, or 4.8% below the five-year average. Lower U.S. inventories could contribute to more natural gas price volatility, particularly if any area in the United States experiences a severe cold snap, which makes the price outlook for this winter very uncertain. In the second quarter of 2022, EIA forecasts decreasing Henry Hub natural gas prices as anticipated growth in domestic natural gas production begins to outpace growth in U.S. LNG exports. U.S. production is expected to average 96.4 Bcf/d in 2022, or 3.9 Bcf/d more than in 2021, and U.S. LNG exports to rise by a smaller amount, 1.4 Bcf/d, during this time period. This faster growth in forecast production will put downward pressure on natural gas prices.
3put
19/10/2021
22:22
1347... AIM CEO's always become more animated when the salary pot's running empty... or when there are free share options or bonuses to be had. Their activity otherwise is "admittedly" less hamster... more snail! I think in answer to your other questions... it's likely, although not certain, that George Lucan forgot what was written / said previously. We're only human after all... But don't - whatever you do - pull him up on it, as he clearly doesn't like to be proved wrong! (Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... don't mention 16 weeks ANYBODY!) CQ :-)
clottedq
19/10/2021
22:05
ROYALTIES? Sorry. Only skim read. I must have missed the royalties RNS? Are there royalties available for any of us shareholders???
chickbait
19/10/2021
21:00
Another question for CHCQ: Why do they state on 11th August 2021 that ‘…should Angus and the partners decide to advance the side-track prior to First Gas’, when they previously stated on 13th May 2021, when the facility was signed off, that ‘ …have decided, with the support of Aleph and Mercuria, to drill the third production well at Saltfleetby before reconnecting the two existing gas wells.’ [Ref RNS 13th May 2021; RNS 11th August 2021]. I've got one or two other trivial questions which I'll hold back for now but I just want CHCQ to know what he's letting himself in for before cud* calls another EGM. *other names are available
1347
19/10/2021
20:52
Another question for CHCQ: How is it that after all this time, that they only now become aware of a lead time of 24 weeks for two highly bespoke elements when they’d previously advised on 9th July 2020 that ‘Long lead items have been ordered and construction remains in line with our project schedule’? [Ref RNS 9th July 2020; RNS 11th August 2021].
1347
19/10/2021
19:17
CQ: I'd not noticed 2), frenetic hyping from time to time maybe. JT: You may be right but I've not seen them refer to the override as royalties previously, at least in an RNS. Question. How is the recent statement that ‘The process facility detailed design has resumed and is at an advanced stage.‘ compatible with the statement on 22nd January 2020 that ‘Furthermore, the design of on-site processing facilities has been completed’? [Ref RNS 2nd August 2021. RNS 22nd January 2020]. CQ Does GHCQ know?
1347
19/10/2021
19:04
JT, He's gone to sleep again... but I'll ask him if he's still "up for it" when he wakes up. On reflection, it seems to me that a hamster would probably be a good fit for a CEO of an AIM listed company: 1) They seem to do very little for most of the time. 2) Are prone to short bursts of frenetic activity in return for bonus treats. 3) Appear to have ZERO comprehension of deadlines or delivery. p.s: My daughter informs me that George Horatio thinks guinea pigs are kind of cute... CQ ;-)
clottedq
19/10/2021
18:58
1347: they've referred to the Lenders’ revenue override as a royalty, so I imagine it’s the same thing.
jtidsbadly
19/10/2021
18:56
CQ: I think George Horatio 1 is definitely worth a try in the role. A guinea pig, if he’ll excuse the term.
jtidsbadly
19/10/2021
18:46
CQ He likes water, just like Anguish Energy do. Brockham Spring anyone?
1347
19/10/2021
18:42
JT, My children were growing concerned on their return from school. My daughter insisted on re-classifying - so that our hamster might have a drink - as she felt he was looking dehydrated. My son & daughter then allocated Poundland to his water trough... Geothermal to toys... and Oil assets / liabilities to his food bowl... WELL... As soon as this was agreed, George Horatio started lapping at the water trough like a thing possessed. The children have had to re-fill it three times already! All I can say: is that our new "potential" CEO is clearly very focused on PoundLand. The rest appear to be an unwanted distraction... I wonder why? CQ ;-)
clottedq
19/10/2021
18:11
Question: What is the royalty agreement that needs to be agreed with the OGA? What are the terms? Who are Angus Energy paying royalties to? Is this on top of the 8% override on revenue mentioned previously on 30th November 2020? [Ref RNS 13th May 2021].
1347
19/10/2021
17:13
...and thanks very much for the interesting update on George Horatio 1. Perhaps he’s avoiding the water in sympathy with the Balcombe residents. Once Anguish’s hash has been settled, you might think about calling your next hamster Nimby. Quite a pretty name. Short for Georgiana.
jtidsbadly
19/10/2021
17:05
CQ: these types have succeeded in their aim of making the other site unusable. A total waste of time writing or reading anything on there now. This site has retained its informed posters and it’s easy to filter the ignorant spoilers/shills. Still no news from Anguish. What’s (not) going on?
jtidsbadly
19/10/2021
16:45
Noted your frequent use of the term: "Window Lickers" "Window Lickers" appears to be an offensive term referring to disabled children on school buses - according to the internet. Not very PC (IN)Sincerio !?!?! Are you showing your age / lack of intellectual ability or both? CQ :-(
clottedq
19/10/2021
16:28
hits " 3Put is also UJ9 is also WhoCares is also EchDelta is also CantRememberThis is also Cuddo." No sh*t Sherlock..... :) i agree with consistency of presence ... our resident disingenuous window lickers are always present and very consistent.....
sincero1
Chat Pages: 428  427  426  425  424  423  422  421  420  419  418  417  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:20211020 09:10:54