Angus Energy Share Discussion Threads

[jtidsbadly] 09/6/2022 09:58

.. though Angus could have monthly placings to meet their “temporaryR21; losses. In view of the reluctance of these mug punters to realise a loss, the terms “average down” ‘top up”, “George hasn't put a foot wrong” etc. might take on a whole new significance. Worth a try, what? I mean to say. Quaff quaff [thank you, chickndinner].

[jtidsbadly] 09/6/2022 09:49

Absolutely right, HITS. Why can’t people understand this?

[jtidsbadly] 09/6/2022 09:47

Yes, Tidy2. If they can’t produce enough gas to meet the hedge contracts in full, this is going to cost them a lot of money. They may need next Monday’s further placing of £3mm. to meet the loss.

[headinthesand] 09/6/2022 09:44

3Put, if things do not go along a best case route, there is a very fair chance that ANGS will not be able to meet its cast-iron and contractually guaranteed loan and/or hedge obligations over the next three years.

If that situation does transpire, the ongoing viability of ANGS will be a matter entirely and exclusively for Mercuria and the lenders to decide upon.

They might be willing to renegotiate - though it would hardly be any sort of negotiation, given that Mercuria and the other lenders would be in a "holding literally all the cards" position of absolute power and could impose any terms they wanted.

Or they might just decide to realise their guaranteed rewards by taking title to the field and selling it.

Either way, in an admittedly worst case scenario, the choice would be entirely theirs. ANGS wouldn't have even the smallest say in things.

And for the love of God, higher gas pricing over the next three years is ONLY good for ANGS if it is producing MORE THAN the hedged quantities per month.

If it is producing LESS THAN than the hedged quantities per month, a higher gas price is distinctly BAD for ANGS - because they'll simply end up owing Mercuria more each month.

As a clear example of this, yesterday's July gas price was £1.39 per therm, so yesterday ANGS owed Mercuria £1.1 million for July. Today's July gas price is £1.68, so today ANGS owes Mercuria £1.42 million for July... AND the amount due to Mercuria still needs paying, regardless of how much or how little gas ANGS manages to produce in July.

[jtidsbadly] 09/6/2022 09:43

Oh dear. I give up then.

[3put] 09/6/2022 09:41

JT: That is not true. Clearly a higher price for Gas is beneficial for us.

[1347] 09/6/2022 09:33

Here's Jonny...

[jtidsbadly] 09/6/2022 09:31

3Put: a higher gas price is not good for Angus while there’s any doubt as to their ability to meet the hedge contract requirements.

[3put] 09/6/2022 08:50

JT: Who cares about our Bozos, if I was out for a drink with George I would pour a pint over his head for the way this project has been managed. BUT look at gas prices and mcap , there is an opportunity.

[3put] 09/6/2022 08:48

3Put: well, if you believe this, it’s not surprising you’re invested in this. Mercuria negotiated a very sweet deal with these bozos

JT: I have said already, a decent ceo would have taken the bank loan and raised at the start for rather than placing after placing. We could have had our 10 bags by now rather than the 1.

[3put] 09/6/2022 08:46

JT: Current gas prices - 🇬🇧 🇺🇸 *UK NATGAS FUTURES JUMP 25% TO 163 P/THERM ON US LNG OUTAGE - BBG

[3put] 09/6/2022 08:46

HITS: That is not what I am saying. There will be a number of penalties before that road is even considered. The risk of Angs going bust in the next 6 months is zero

[jtidsbadly] 09/6/2022 08:41

3Put: well, if you believe this, it’s not surprising you’re invested in this. Mercuria negotiated a very sweet deal with these bozos. With current gas prices, they’re going to make a huge return on their investment. They may be able in due course to acquire Poundland gratis, in which case they may make even more money out of it, if they can be bothered to manage the asset themselves.

Of course, there could be a really bullish RNS tomorrow with an update on imminent first gas (whatever that may mean). In time for the EGM next Monday.

[headinthesand] 09/6/2022 08:39

3Put, you seriously think that lenders don't foreclose? Perhaps you also think that bookies return the value of losing bets?

Mercuria will want its money - and over the next three years it is contractually due whatever percentage of the c. £14.5 million loan plus interest and much more significantly, the c. £70 million it's guaranteed on the hedge. It ponied on up with the loan and took the risk on the three year hedge, so it'll want paying on both for doing so.

Now sure, if ANGS gets enough gas out - and in time - everything will be just peachy for all parties (we've already discussed the c. £100 million of revenue post-hedge that ANGS would get over the next three years if a production-doubling sidetrack is achieved - that as you know is best case).

But in any red/black digital situation, it is only sensible (if not vital) to consider worst case scenarios alongside best case ones, if one is to be able to form any sort of balanced risk assessment.

[3put] 09/6/2022 08:30

Anguish are not Mercuria’s partner

JT: When you hand over a 12m , you become a partner. It's in Mercuria's interest to have a successful Angs. Remember, nobody forced them to hand over the cash, they could pick any project they want.

[jtidsbadly] 09/6/2022 08:23

Well, Jonny, at least you seem to be on top of the Tourette’s this morning. That’s about all that can be said for your contributions so far. What was it they're liable for?

[jtidsbadly] 09/6/2022 08:21

3Put: Anguish are not Mercuria’s partner, they’re a party to whom Mercuria has extended a loan on terms that reflect what they see as the risks associated with Anguish. For protection of their capital, Mercuria has imposed a Charge which entitles them to take over Anguish’s assets if Anguish fail to meet the terms of the loan. It’s as simple as that. If Anguish can’t meet the first interest payment and capital repayment as they fall due, and if they can’t make a due payment on the hedge contracts, Anguish’s future will be in Mercuria’s hands.

[3put] 09/6/2022 08:12

HITS: basic stuff?? You are trying to tell us that a lender would try to bankrupt their partner at the very first opportunity. Do you understand how ridiculous you sound?

[jtidsbadly] 09/6/2022 08:10

“Sharks” and “hyenas” are complimentary terms Jonny! Try to keep up. This is business, not the Eton Wall Game. If I were a shareholder in this, I’d wish that the wolfish expression normally exhibited on the Interim MD’s boat race evidenced a greater propensity for hard bargaining etc, what?