Angus Energy Share Discussion Threads

[jtidsbadly] 22/5/2022 23:34

1347: do you recall their referring last year to Aleph’s partner company in alternative energy, Albanwise Synergy? I’ve just had a look at that. Their accounts were filed on about 13 May 2022 as well. They seem to have grown their balance sheet a fair bit in the past 12 months! I’ve had a look at what I can find re companies in their group, including the ultimate owner, which is based in Gibraltar and in respect of which one finds directions to the Panama Papers. It’s enough to make one feel a bit uncomfortable.

Also, as you know, the £12mm. loan is with Mercuria and Aleph Saltfleetby, the latter a company registered in March 2021, with £10,000 capital, owned by Aleph Energy and which has not yet lodged any accounts at Companies House. How much of the loan do you suppose this company will have provided? It seems to me the Interim MD’s description of the Lenders in his announcement of the signing of the loan agreement was, in the light of this, somewhat extravagant.

[chickbait] 22/5/2022 23:20

Adrian. did you get a nudge, nudge, wink, wink prior to the UKOG RNS selling your ANGS shares. If not I would say impeccable timing?

[chickbait] 22/5/2022 23:16

GIDIONS. This is my conclusion. You played the game by selling prior to the UKOG RNS and the ANGS share price dropped when you announced that you had sold your ANGS shares. You was looking for a lower re-entry price into ANGS but the share price bounced back and you bought back around the same price as you had sold and since the tweet from ANGS last Friday saying that they had only then started Hydrotesting and not wet commissioning you have got your trading strategy all wrong.

All IMHO

[3put] 22/5/2022 23:11

George Lucan, CEO, commented:

"The focus is now away from skid delivery to installation with the aim of having the site ready for commissioning during April and producing during May. The present gas price forward curve shows very high average prices of over 400 pence per therm for 2022.

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] 22/5/2022 23:11

Formal Sale Process ("FSP")

Any interested party will be required to enter into a non-disclosure agreement with the Company on terms satisfactory to the Board. The Company then intends to provide such interested parties with certain information on the business, following which interested parties will be invited to submit their proposals to Beaumont Cornish Limited.

Further announcements regarding timings and procedures for the FSP will be made as appropriate.

The Board reserves the right to alter any aspect of the process or to terminate it at any time and will make further announcements as appropriate.

The Board also reserves the right to reject any approach or terminate discussions with any interested party or participant at any time.

The Takeover Panel has granted a dispensation from the requirements of Rules 2.4(a), 2.4(b) and 2.6(a) of the Takeover Code such that any interested party participating in the formal sale process will not be required to be publicly identified as a result of this announcement (subject to Note 3 to Rule 2.2 of the Takeover Code) and will not be subject to the 28 day deadline referred to in Rule 2.6(a), for so long as it is participating in the formal sale process. Interested parties should note Rule 21.2 of the Takeover Code, which will prohibit any form of inducement fee or other offer-related arrangement, and that the Company, although it may do so in the future, has not at this stage requested any dispensation from this prohibition under Note 2 of Rule 21.2. Following this announcement, the Company is now considered to be in an "offer period" as defined in the Takeover Code, and the dealing disclosure requirements summarised below will apply.

This announcement is not an announcement of a firm intention by any party to make an offer under Rule 2.7 of the Takeover Code and there can be no certainty that an offer will be made, nor as to the terms on which any offer will be made.

[3put] 22/5/2022 23:10

Once the loan is clear,what would be the penalty costs to break the hedge as a rule of thumb. Thanks. Asked on 2 May 2022
There are not necessarily any significant penalty costs involved however the commercial cost is the difference between the forward curve prices for the period from the date at which the hedge is broken to the date of the scheduled maturity of the hedge versus the fixed hedge contract prices over that same period.

Thus the cost can only be known at the time the hedge counterparties determine to break or “counter hedge” it. In effect we would be taking out a new hedge for the residual period and amount but in the opposite direction – i.e. currently we are promising to supply Y therms for X pence/therm and to break the hedge we would be promising to buy Y therms for Z pence/therm. Z being the new forward curve prices and X being the original hedge contract prices.

In practice it would only make sense if we were interested in engaging in dynamic hedging – i.e. we felt we could do better trading in and out of positions over short contract months than the market. Generally speaking this is best described as gambling unless you have a large book of varied supply and distribution obligations and wish to balance it out in aggregate. At present we do not.

Hi, can I ask if the company is still in discussions with 2 interested parties for the sale of Saltfleetby, and if so, is the outcome of these discussions likely to be known and reported soon? Thank you. Asked on 2 May 2022
Discussions are continuing. Given the materiality of the disposal we are advised not to give further detail outside of RNS announcements.





Environmental impact appears to be one of the main concerns for individuals, who may have reservations on Angus expanding business operations, whilst satisfying the requisites of the Environment Act 2021 and associated legislation. Can you please provide an overview on what measures Angus have already taken and intend to develop upon, to ensure statutory compliance, corporate governance and innovative working practices, in regards to environmental sustainability. Asked on 2 May 2022
Thanks. Our principal regulators are OGA (NTSA), HSE and EA, and statutory bodies such as planning authorities. There is some overlap but less than might be helpful. Our compliance team now exceeds in number our technical team (excluding field operators), with two dedicated HSE liaisons, one EA liaison, one OGA liaison, one general planning and permitting lead.

We are a small company and the breadth of legislation, regulation, standards and so forth is daunting. Nonetheless our management systems have developed beyond recognition in the last two years and this is necessary when dealing with high pressure gas which is, after nuclear, one of the most hazardous businesses in the UK.

In terms of environmental compliance, the actual Saltfleetby Field presents fewer environmental hazards than a traditional oil field, as there is much less risk of fluid contamination to ground and water. Additionally electronic monitoring of flow has (for human safety) to be much more precise and involved than in traditional oil field practice. So on the whole we would regard the Saltfleetby Field as representing a much higher human safety risk but a much lower environmental risk than an oil field.

The exception is emissions to air. We require a flare at startup and some (but not all) maintenance events to acheive national grid specification gas, but otherwise we should not need to use the flare at all during the life of the field, although a tiny pilot flare is kept alight at all times to meet statutory requirements for emergency blowdown. Blowdown (i.e. flaring) for us means loss of principal inventory and commercial return – this is not an oilfield with associated gas as a headache. Gas is our reason for being here.

We have two scheduled group Zoom calls a day and, without any doubt, every day an issue of environmental compliance arises and is dealt with. At one level it is simply compliance (“what will EA think of this”) but at another level it is purposive (“what should we be doing or how could we do this better”). This is a sea change from the Angus of old.

We are committed to improving our carbon footprint – but we are led by an unforgiving Technical Director who rightly has regard to the “through-the-cycle” carbon cost of new equipment. Two innovations are planned – (a) a closed loop geothermal system for on site power generation up to 1MW and potentially retiring one gas fired generator and (b) a tie-up with a vertical farming operation which would take both heat, power for lighting and potentially CO2 emissions from the site for assisted agriculture.

We do, as a small company, adhere to the QCA. Up until December, on the strong encouragement of the Board, and whilst we awaited procurement and delivery of equipment to Saltfleetby, almost 50% of management time during 2021 was spent in developing our deep geothermal programme in southwest England. We are sincere in our desire to be an innovative part of Transition, but bear in mind that we are a small company at present focused on acting as a safe and responsible Operator in the immediate term and delivering good returns to those who have funded these operations..

Has a rig been ordered to drill the sidetrack yet?

Which month in 2022 do you expect the rig to arrive if so. Thank you. Asked on 2 May 2022
Yes. A rig was ordered in June 2021, considerable replacement parts for which were sourced from overseas. Although it was scheduled to be ready in October, none of the parts actually landed in the UK until December and as a consequence the rig itself would not have been ready until around now. This underlines the very real supply chain problems which we faced in H2 2021, and which continue to cause problems for many other Operators. If anything we think that the supply chain issues have gotten worse not better since then, and we are relieved to have our kit onshore.

There are alternative onshore rigs which we could have used for this side-track had we felt it necessary. The rig is undergoing testing and we do inspection reports and visits every three or four weeks. We are confident that it will be ready for moblisation at site at the end of June.

[chickbait] 22/5/2022 23:08

Look at the document. Commissioning starts after hydrotesting and they only started this last Friday. Wet commissioning is separate to hydrotesting.

DYOR.

[3put] 22/5/2022 23:06

Once the loan is clear,what would be the penalty costs to break the hedge as a rule of thumb. Thanks. Asked on 2 May 2022
There are not necessarily any significant penalty costs involved however the commercial cost is the difference between the forward curve prices for the period from the date at which the hedge is broken to the date of the scheduled maturity of the hedge versus the fixed hedge contract prices over that same period.

Thus the cost can only be known at the time the hedge counterparties determine to break or “counter hedge” it. In effect we would be taking out a new hedge for the residual period and amount but in the opposite direction – i.e. currently we are promising to supply Y therms for X pence/therm and to break the hedge we would be promising to buy Y therms for Z pence/therm. Z being the new forward curve prices and X being the original hedge contract prices.

In practice it would only make sense if we were interested in engaging in dynamic hedging – i.e. we felt we could do better trading in and out of positions over short contract months than the market. Generally speaking this is best described as gambling unless you have a large book of varied supply and distribution obligations and wish to balance it out in aggregate. At present we do not.

Hi, can I ask if the company is still in discussions with 2 interested parties for the sale of Saltfleetby, and if so, is the outcome of these discussions likely to be known and reported soon? Thank you. Asked on 2 May 2022
Discussions are continuing. Given the materiality of the disposal we are advised not to give further detail outside of RNS announcements.





Environmental impact appears to be one of the main concerns for individuals, who may have reservations on Angus expanding business operations, whilst satisfying the requisites of the Environment Act 2021 and associated legislation. Can you please provide an overview on what measures Angus have already taken and intend to develop upon, to ensure statutory compliance, corporate governance and innovative working practices, in regards to environmental sustainability. Asked on 2 May 2022
Thanks. Our principal regulators are OGA (NTSA), HSE and EA, and statutory bodies such as planning authorities. There is some overlap but less than might be helpful. Our compliance team now exceeds in number our technical team (excluding field operators), with two dedicated HSE liaisons, one EA liaison, one OGA liaison, one general planning and permitting lead.

We are a small company and the breadth of legislation, regulation, standards and so forth is daunting. Nonetheless our management systems have developed beyond recognition in the last two years and this is necessary when dealing with high pressure gas which is, after nuclear, one of the most hazardous businesses in the UK.

In terms of environmental compliance, the actual Saltfleetby Field presents fewer environmental hazards than a traditional oil field, as there is much less risk of fluid contamination to ground and water. Additionally electronic monitoring of flow has (for human safety) to be much more precise and involved than in traditional oil field practice. So on the whole we would regard the Saltfleetby Field as representing a much higher human safety risk but a much lower environmental risk than an oil field.

The exception is emissions to air. We require a flare at startup and some (but not all) maintenance events to acheive national grid specification gas, but otherwise we should not need to use the flare at all during the life of the field, although a tiny pilot flare is kept alight at all times to meet statutory requirements for emergency blowdown. Blowdown (i.e. flaring) for us means loss of principal inventory and commercial return – this is not an oilfield with associated gas as a headache. Gas is our reason for being here.

We have two scheduled group Zoom calls a day and, without any doubt, every day an issue of environmental compliance arises and is dealt with. At one level it is simply compliance (“what will EA think of this”) but at another level it is purposive (“what should we be doing or how could we do this better”). This is a sea change from the Angus of old.

We are committed to improving our carbon footprint – but we are led by an unforgiving Technical Director who rightly has regard to the “through-the-cycle” carbon cost of new equipment. Two innovations are planned – (a) a closed loop geothermal system for on site power generation up to 1MW and potentially retiring one gas fired generator and (b) a tie-up with a vertical farming operation which would take both heat, power for lighting and potentially CO2 emissions from the site for assisted agriculture.

We do, as a small company, adhere to the QCA. Up until December, on the strong encouragement of the Board, and whilst we awaited procurement and delivery of equipment to Saltfleetby, almost 50% of management time during 2021 was spent in developing our deep geothermal programme in southwest England. We are sincere in our desire to be an innovative part of Transition, but bear in mind that we are a small company at present focused on acting as a safe and responsible Operator in the immediate term and delivering good returns to those who have funded these operations..

Has a rig been ordered to drill the sidetrack yet?

Which month in 2022 do you expect the rig to arrive if so. Thank you. Asked on 2 May 2022
Yes. A rig was ordered in June 2021, considerable replacement parts for which were sourced from overseas. Although it was scheduled to be ready in October, none of the parts actually landed in the UK until December and as a consequence the rig itself would not have been ready until around now. This underlines the very real supply chain problems which we faced in H2 2021, and which continue to cause problems for many other Operators. If anything we think that the supply chain issues have gotten worse not better since then, and we are relieved to have our kit onshore.

There are alternative onshore rigs which we could have used for this side-track had we felt it necessary. The rig is undergoing testing and we do inspection reports and visits every three or four weeks. We are confident that it will be ready for moblisation at site at the end of June.

[3put] 22/5/2022 23:04

Environmental impact appears to be one of the main concerns for individuals, who may have reservations on Angus expanding business operations, whilst satisfying the requisites of the Environment Act 2021 and associated legislation. Can you please provide an overview on what measures Angus have already taken and intend to develop upon, to ensure statutory compliance, corporate governance and innovative working practices, in regards to environmental sustainability. Asked on 2 May 2022
Thanks. Our principal regulators are OGA (NTSA), HSE and EA, and statutory bodies such as planning authorities. There is some overlap but less than might be helpful. Our compliance team now exceeds in number our technical team (excluding field operators), with two dedicated HSE liaisons, one EA liaison, one OGA liaison, one general planning and permitting lead.

We are a small company and the breadth of legislation, regulation, standards and so forth is daunting. Nonetheless our management systems have developed beyond recognition in the last two years and this is necessary when dealing with high pressure gas which is, after nuclear, one of the most hazardous businesses in the UK.

In terms of environmental compliance, the actual Saltfleetby Field presents fewer environmental hazards than a traditional oil field, as there is much less risk of fluid contamination to ground and water. Additionally electronic monitoring of flow has (for human safety) to be much more precise and involved than in traditional oil field practice. So on the whole we would regard the Saltfleetby Field as representing a much higher human safety risk but a much lower environmental risk than an oil field.

The exception is emissions to air. We require a flare at startup and some (but not all) maintenance events to acheive national grid specification gas, but otherwise we should not need to use the flare at all during the life of the field, although a tiny pilot flare is kept alight at all times to meet statutory requirements for emergency blowdown. Blowdown (i.e. flaring) for us means loss of principal inventory and commercial return – this is not an oilfield with associated gas as a headache. Gas is our reason for being here.

We have two scheduled group Zoom calls a day and, without any doubt, every day an issue of environmental compliance arises and is dealt with. At one level it is simply compliance (“what will EA think of this”) but at another level it is purposive (“what should we be doing or how could we do this better”). This is a sea change from the Angus of old.

We are committed to improving our carbon footprint – but we are led by an unforgiving Technical Director who rightly has regard to the “through-the-cycle” carbon cost of new equipment. Two innovations are planned – (a) a closed loop geothermal system for on site power generation up to 1MW and potentially retiring one gas fired generator and (b) a tie-up with a vertical farming operation which would take both heat, power for lighting and potentially CO2 emissions from the site for assisted agriculture.

We do, as a small company, adhere to the QCA. Up until December, on the strong encouragement of the Board, and whilst we awaited procurement and delivery of equipment to Saltfleetby, almost 50% of management time during 2021 was spent in developing our deep geothermal programme in southwest England. We are sincere in our desire to be an innovative part of Transition, but bear in mind that we are a small company at present focused on acting as a safe and responsible Operator in the immediate term and delivering good returns to those who have funded these operations..

[3put] 22/5/2022 23:03

Formal Sale Process ("FSP")

Any interested party will be required to enter into a non-disclosure agreement with the Company on terms satisfactory to the Board. The Company then intends to provide such interested parties with certain information on the business, following which interested parties will be invited to submit their proposals to Beaumont Cornish Limited.

Further announcements regarding timings and procedures for the FSP will be made as appropriate.

The Board reserves the right to alter any aspect of the process or to terminate it at any time and will make further announcements as appropriate.

The Board also reserves the right to reject any approach or terminate discussions with any interested party or participant at any time.

The Takeover Panel has granted a dispensation from the requirements of Rules 2.4(a), 2.4(b) and 2.6(a) of the Takeover Code such that any interested party participating in the formal sale process will not be required to be publicly identified as a result of this announcement (subject to Note 3 to Rule 2.2 of the Takeover Code) and will not be subject to the 28 day deadline referred to in Rule 2.6(a), for so long as it is participating in the formal sale process. Interested parties should note Rule 21.2 of the Takeover Code, which will prohibit any form of inducement fee or other offer-related arrangement, and that the Company, although it may do so in the future, has not at this stage requested any dispensation from this prohibition under Note 2 of Rule 21.2. Following this announcement, the Company is now considered to be in an "offer period" as defined in the Takeover Code, and the dealing disclosure requirements summarised below will apply.

This announcement is not an announcement of a firm intention by any party to make an offer under Rule 2.7 of the Takeover Code and there can be no certainty that an offer will be made, nor as to the terms on which any offer will be made.

[chickbait] 22/5/2022 23:02

George knows that there will be no first gas by the 1st of June because they have not even started wet commissioning.

Read the planning document and work it out for yourselves.

They can't really upload pictures to their Twitter account if they are not precise now can they?

[chickbait] 22/5/2022 22:59

Apparently we were supposed to start wet commissioning and have first gas by the 1st of June?

Not happening as they only started hydrotesting last Friday.

Minimum 1st gas 4 weeks if lucky going by planned dates.

DYOR!

[chickbait] 22/5/2022 22:56

Follow what money?

[chickbait] 22/5/2022 22:07

Adrian. Are you still selling curtains?

[1347] 22/5/2022 22:05

Brockham Results

Further to our announcement of 3 June 2019, Angus hereby updates Shareholders on the results of the work programme which began at Brockham on 12 April 2019. Further works on the BR-X4Z borehole have been completed and, following analysis of the results, it is the view of the Company that, on any conventional approach, it is extremely unlikely that commercial hydrocarbon flow can be established from the Kimmeridge layer at Brockham. Supplementary stimulation techniques including hydraulic fracturing have been ruled out by the present Operator. The Company, in its role as Operator, has already made clear that it is not a proponent of the use of such unconventional production techniques in the Weald and this position remains unchanged.

In the interim, whilst the Company evaluate options for the site and the Licence, including addressing the Portland reservoir, the Company announces that it has entered into preliminary discussions with a third party regarding a sale of the Company’s own 65% interest in the Licence. These negotiations are at a very early stage and there can be no certainty as to the outcome including the terms on which any such sale can be made. In the light of this, the Company will be considering whether any impairment will be required in the carrying cost of the Brockham licence, currently representing 26% of the Company’s gross asset value as at 31st March 2019. The Company will update Shareholders as soon as any material development takes place.

[1347] 22/5/2022 22:02

Brockham BRX4Z Well test update

Angus Energy Plc (AIM:ANGS), a leading UK conventional oil and gas production and development company, announces that the Brockham X4Z well has been perforated from 960 metres to 1155 metres (an interval of 195 metres) measured depth.
The average Tmax for this interval was 424.5 C with an average HI of 537. Taking this data in combination with the natural fracturing observed on the image log, this interval was identified as the best prospective interval to perforate.
The objective was to initiate instant flow by perforating with a maximum underbalance of pressure between the reservoir and the well. During operations several key completion components failed for a variety of reasons beyond the Company's control. This also led to delays over the December and early January periods. These long-lead items have not been re-installed but rather engineering work-arounds have been implemented, including a resort to lifting by injection of N2.

All kill fluids in the wellbore and lost to the reservoir have now been recovered. In total 280 barrels have been produced. The well flowed naturally to surface upon the removal of the completion and clean up fluids with flow rates rising steadily as the test continued.

It has become apparent that a part of the perforated interval is producing water, which is inhibiting significant oil flow and therefore has not allowed for sustainable flow rates of oil to be reported at this time.
Small quantities of oil of 40 plus API have now been returned to surface and sampled in the returns and has been confirmed through analysis as Kimmeridge oil.
Angus Energy is now putting together a further engineering program to isolate this water zone which will, subject to agreement from all regulators, include the return of a work over rig and the Company will update the market as soon as possible.

Extensive geochemical analysis and modelling of the Weald Basin conducted by and on behalf of Angus Energy, including innovative work on the effects of organic content on measurements of historical temperatures, indicates that the Kimmeridge is mature enough to produce oil over an area which includes Brockham.

[3put] 22/5/2022 22:01

Formal Sale Process ("FSP")

Any interested party will be required to enter into a non-disclosure agreement with the Company on terms satisfactory to the Board. The Company then intends to provide such interested parties with certain information on the business, following which interested parties will be invited to submit their proposals to Beaumont Cornish Limited.

Further announcements regarding timings and procedures for the FSP will be made as appropriate.

The Board reserves the right to alter any aspect of the process or to terminate it at any time and will make further announcements as appropriate.

The Board also reserves the right to reject any approach or terminate discussions with any interested party or participant at any time.

The Takeover Panel has granted a dispensation from the requirements of Rules 2.4(a), 2.4(b) and 2.6(a) of the Takeover Code such that any interested party participating in the formal sale process will not be required to be publicly identified as a result of this announcement (subject to Note 3 to Rule 2.2 of the Takeover Code) and will not be subject to the 28 day deadline referred to in Rule 2.6(a), for so long as it is participating in the formal sale process. Interested parties should note Rule 21.2 of the Takeover Code, which will prohibit any form of inducement fee or other offer-related arrangement, and that the Company, although it may do so in the future, has not at this stage requested any dispensation from this prohibition under Note 2 of Rule 21.2. Following this announcement, the Company is now considered to be in an "offer period" as defined in the Takeover Code, and the dealing disclosure requirements summarised below will apply.

This announcement is not an announcement of a firm intention by any party to make an offer under Rule 2.7 of the Takeover Code and there can be no certainty that an offer will be made, nor as to the terms on which any offer will be made.

[3put] 22/5/2022 22:01

George Lucan, CEO, commented:

"The focus is now away from skid delivery to installation with the aim of having the site ready for commissioning during April and producing during May. The present gas price forward curve shows very high average prices of over 400 pence per therm for 2022.

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."

[1347] 22/5/2022 22:01

Operations Update

Operationally, the Board have set out their plans to:

· deliver the well test on the Balcombe Field Discovery as was reported in RNS
dated 2 October 2018;

· continue with the Brockham well test that is currently ongoing - an update will be provided in due course;

· continue production at Lidsey at the currently achievable rates of 20-40 bopd whilst investigating feasible ways to improve well performance on this field.

As regards the Company's ongoing investigation into the events surrounding Jonathan Tidswell-Pretorius' share dealing and resignation from the Board as announced on 6 July 2018, the Board has been pursuing its investigation with the Company's legal advisers and expects to draw this to a conclusion shortly. In light of the significant board changes, however, it is appropriate for all members of the newly reconstituted board to have the opportunity to consider the relevant information. A further announcement will be made in the near future.

[chickbait] 22/5/2022 22:00

3put/Adrian/1347

There will be no gas on the 1st of June if we go by the published ANGS SFB Planning doc will there?