Angus Energy Share Discussion Threads

[jtidsbadly] 21/6/2022 14:42

JA51: yes, I agree, it was a very sweet deal for him.

[ja51oiler] 21/6/2022 14:30

JT
Mr Forrest has made out like a bandit here!!
Absolutely no surprise that he wanted shot of that £12.8 Million De-Comm liability.

[jtidsbadly] 21/6/2022 14:30

JA51: re the licence transfer, Wingas left enough money to deal with abandonment commitments. There’s doesn’t appear to have been any other interest in Poundland. Perhaps the OGA saw it as the only way Poundland would be reopened, the gas sold and the sites finally cleared. And they might have been criticised if they’d failed to permit the transfer. Who knows, though? You’re not suggesting OGA was part of a conspiracy?

[jtidsbadly] 21/6/2022 14:13

Jonny: my answer now is the same as it was last week. What is first gas? Define the term for me and I’ll happily answer the question.

Now, I’ve defined sales gas for you. When do you think Angus will achieve that? 28 June? How much later? It’s sales gas that matters to Anguish shareholders.

[jtidsbadly] 21/6/2022 14:04

JA51: I perceive that the term “conspiracy221; in the Anguish context can be interpreted a number of ways. I think Forum will have been consulted throughout but I don’t think it was a conspiracy to allow the thing to fail. I think they’re clueless and got their sums wrong and didn’t understand the volume of work involved, how long it would take or how many detailed submissions to regulatory bodies would be required. The belated realisation that they needed at least six times as much money as they’d said they’d need came at a bad time as far as gas investment was concerned and they got nailed to the wall by the only people who’d lend them the money. Since then they’ve been trying, but it just wasn’t nearly enough money to enable them to build it in time to meet the loan terms. I think Mercuria is going to make most of the money from Poundland - and possibly all of it - other than what is going to Forum. I think Mr. Forrest has done a sweet deal for himself and won’t much worry about Anguish. His presence on the Board (if he bothers to take up a Directorship - I wouldn’t) is probably a smokescreen. If it should turn out that there’s a quid pro quo in favour of the Anguish Board resulting from the favourable terms they agreed with him, well, that’s another matter. You could, probably justifiably, call such a thing, if it happened, a conspiracy but it wouldn’t necessarily follow that it was planned that way from the start in 2019. Yes, they could all be just hapless amateurs, with the possible exception of Mr. Forrest.

[ja51oiler] 21/6/2022 13:51

JT
Ask yourself why did the then OGA sign the license over from the Russian federation to a one-man band with only £89k showing in the accounts........... Doesn't add up, does it?

[1347] 21/6/2022 13:39

JT As discussed before, the two things are not mutually exclusive.

JA Yes in one sense they are but they've been well paid relative to performance so there's one thing they're good at aren't they?

[jtidsbadly] 21/6/2022 13:37

Jonny: I see you’ve put yourself down for “first gas” a week today. When do you expect sales gas? By that, I mean gas flowing through the meter into Shell’s storage/transmission facility for which Shell pays Anguish?

[ja51oiler] 21/6/2022 13:29

JT
If your theory is correct then Mr. Forrest will want them all out as soon as possible won't he? After all, it's 2 years and now £20 million over what they told him it would cost!.... As GL would say "10 minutes on Google" would have told him the £2.5 he handed over was just a fantasy figure......or are they all just amateurs?

[ja51oiler] 21/6/2022 13:06

I was of course being tongue in cheek!! Anyone who has followed this doesn't have to scratch far below the surface before having to ask themselves how much of this was planned all along?.... Shared directorships....same addresses....nod nod wink wink!!

Gas prices beyond their wildest dreams just muddied the waters!

[3put] 21/6/2022 12:49

Over 3.5m bought in 40 mins

[3put] 21/6/2022 12:46

Can we please have an update on all the relevant permissions needed for current and near future work. Asked on 14 June 2022
We will answer this question in the ordinary course of our Q&A, but as regards our recommissioning project at Saltfleetby we note that on 22 March 2022 we have already answered this question as follows:

“Angus Energy plc (AIM: ANGS) is pleased to announce that the Environment Agency has issued its Variation Notice for the existing Saltfleetby gas field permit. The site permit now encompasses the new activities of processing and compressing of gas for direct export to National Grid. No further regulatory or planning permissions are required before First Gas.”

[3put] 21/6/2022 12:46

Time to get the gas going

[3put] 21/6/2022 12:45

ocelot

Posts: 18,533

Price: 1.175

Strong Buy

RE: European gas rises furtherToday 11:17
European natural gas prices rose further as Moscow’s supply cuts reverberate across the region with governments turning to alternate power sources and urging consumers to lower use.

Benchmark futures gained as much as 5.2%. Germany, Austria and the Netherlands are going against previous policy by banking on dirtier coal to ensure the lights stay on. Major German industries are ready to lower consumption to allow gas to go into storage so there’s enough stockpiles for heating in the winter, a minister said.

The deep Russian cuts are threatening the European economy at a time of already high inflation and feeble growth. Uniper SE, Germany’s biggest buyer of Russian gas, said it may find it difficult to supply its own clients if the situation persists. The impact is also spreading, with Denmark declaring an “early warning” on shortages ... (from Bloomberg)

[jtidsbadly] 21/6/2022 12:27

JA51: I tend to agree with 1347 about this. I think they’ll all be wanting to keep things sweet between them. It seems quite likely to me that the current Interim MD will be the last MD, Interim or not, appointed at Anguish. Unless in the near future there’s one of those US MD’s, whose status is roughly equivalent elsewhere to senior manager.

[1347] 21/6/2022 12:05

JA I doubt Forrest is fed up when you consider what he's made out of this venture, one of the few that has. Got the money from Gazprom, assumed to be circa £12 million, less £2.5 million paid to Anguish Energy, Seems then used some of it to loan to his other company, which was then used to purchase shares in AAOG and Anguish then rather kindly wrote the loan off. Then his company gets paid a decent whack for his interest in Poundland, gets some cash plus a lot of shares, some of which seem to have been sold even before they were admitted to AIM. Plus the restoration and loan liabilities, which have gone now haven't they? Am I missing or misunderstanding something here?

[ja51oiler] 21/6/2022 11:57

Does anyone care to speculate about GL's future after the BOD restructure?

It's a pretty awful record by anyone's standard .... especially you would have thought in Mr. Forrest's eyes if we are to believe all we have been told!

I mean he was told £2.5 million and it would be producing......Then we need to Borrow £12 million at outrageous terms.....then Angus needs more funding ...then again....then those new partners!!!

You would have thought he would be pretty fed up, wouldn't you????????????????

[jtidsbadly] 21/6/2022 11:55

Yes, HITS, and there’s more reasonably chunky late sale reports on the other site. They may still be reducing their original stake. Who knows? One always suspected that mug punters would be left holding the bomb here, what?

[headinthesand] 21/6/2022 11:49

JTids as has been asked, Aleph according to the ANGS website already has a 7.19% holding (and that's prior to the as yet mysteriously unannounced second tranche).

So where's the entirely obligatory and announceable TR-1 to go along with this?

(3Put clearly doesn't like this question being raised - hence the reprise of his copy n paste spamfest tactics).

[3put] 21/6/2022 11:47

During GLs recent interview with the LSE, it was noted the company would like to diversify and explore new sources of alternative energy.

Can you please confirm if you have identified any new potential locations that could be of interest, what you look for when scouting for new locations, plus what other sources of energy the company would be interested in moving into, given the opportunity. Asked on 6 May 2022
As regards deep geothermal we look for sources of heat and fracturing and these are mostly but not all in the southwest. Shallower reservoirs of heat exist, even in Lincolnshire, but these don’t lend themselves to heat for electricity generation but offer opportunities for local heating or assisted agriculture.

Many of the other energy initiatives looked at by ourselves and colleagues arise because the best sources of energy (whether gas, wind or geothermal) are often furthest from off-take infrastructure (pipelines or grid networks). Where grid and pipeline access is most abundant, problems of population density make local planning permissions very difficult. This stimulates research variously into gas to wire, hydrolysis of water for H2, waste to energy and storage.

Access to off-take, especially the electrical grid, is probably the biggest single hindrance to the development of alternative energy in the UK.

[3put] 21/6/2022 11:47

Can you briefly explain the current tax losses situation for Angus and what impact acquiring 100 of the Saltfleetby field will have on this? Asked on 26 May 2022
It is relatively simple. Angus has ring-fence (i.e. usable against hydrocarbon profits) tax losses of around £21m and these were factored into the P90 valuation. Saltfleetby Energy Limited has about £26 million of ring-fence, so a valuation with this included would yield some extra benefits.

[3put] 21/6/2022 11:47

Most Popular Questions
No questions are currently available to vote on.
Recently answered questions
Can we please have an update on all the relevant permissions needed for current and near future work. Asked on 14 June 2022
We will answer this question in the ordinary course of our Q&A, but as regards our recommissioning project at Saltfleetby we note that on 22 March 2022 we have already answered this question as follows:

“Angus Energy plc (AIM: ANGS) is pleased to announce that the Environment Agency has issued its Variation Notice for the existing Saltfleetby gas field permit. The site permit now encompasses the new activities of processing and compressing of gas for direct export to National Grid. No further regulatory or planning permissions are required before First Gas.”

Given the amount of seismic performed over the last 25 years in the field and the number of bore-holes and side-tracks drilled, providing good offset data, presumably the company and its contractors must be wholly confident of hitting the target zone. Putting that aside, what operational risks exist and could the programme be more complicated or expensive than planned? What lessons have been learned from mistakes by previous drillers in this formation? Asked on 31 May 2022
Thanks. The level of confidence about the target zone is indeed very high. We are addressing an area of the reservoir which was being produced from by an existing well, which was shut in due to a well-bore related issue.

An non-exhaustive list of risks, ever present in all drilling programmes is given in hxxps://www.researchgate.net/publication/317248002_Downhole_Drilling_Problems

Pertinent here are 1) hole collapse – this occurred twice in the Saltfleetby field and both times in the same layer, so we have introduced mitigation measures and will approach this layer with appropriate caution and 2) differential sticking ; 3) loss of bottom hole assembly – this occurred twice at Saltfleetby and 4) lost circulation fluids with reservoir damage. Many of these issues can be managed by reducing mud weight which is easier to do when well control is not such an issue as in a depleted reservoir.

It is wrong to characterise the historical drilling programmes at Saltfleetby as being especially prone to failure. Drilling was conducted between 1984 and 2017 by a number of Operators of varying competence. This being the UK’s largest onshore gas field, a great number of the earlier side tracks were in fact wholly exploratory. Some of the later drilling programmes did encounter problems which (by the common agreement of many specialists present at the time) could have been avoided with a relatively small degree of caution by the then drilling manager.

As we have advised before, this sidetrack has been planned with the benefit of enhanced 3D seismic and the oversight of a great number of independent drilling engineers and specialists. Some of the later side-tracks did not benefit from such oversight.

Angus’ drilling programmes have generally been well executed – albeit with disappointment about the target zone at Brockham and Lidsey. Angus drilled Horse Hill-1 successfully before selling out to partners and drilling programmes at the other fields either did not encounter the sorts of issues listed above or Angus was able to rectify them swiftly.

Was the deal to acquire the remaining 49% of SFB dilutive or accretive for shareholders when you add in all the associated funding?

Thank you. Asked on 30 May 2022
It was massively accretive and not dilutive at all. We acquired the 49%, which by the October P90 valuation was worth c.£25 million, for £14 million. We won’t call it the deal of the century, but it is an outstandingly good deal, especially when you consider that the average forward gas price in that October 2021 CPR has almost doubled today.

It is difficult to do the sums easily, since our own market cap prior to the announcement was only £17.5m (at 1.28p) and barely reflected the October CPR valuation of our 51% interest let alone potential (and now at Brockham actual production) at the southern oil fields. A decent estimate of 100% of Saltfleetby (just on the lower October CPR) and, say, just £10m for the oil fields would yield a value around the £60m mark and give a price per fully diluted share of nearer 2.5p. With current prices, the sky is the limit.

Yes we nearly doubled the number of shares outstanding but, taking into account the price paid for the asset, we more than doubled the value of the company.

Also unlike past placings only a small fraction (4%) of this issuance wss to market participants who might trade out. The rest is either locked up or part of a strategic stake.

Finally the raising of the £6m cash – done to ensure the assent of regulators and lenders – puts the risk of further placings out of people’s minds. Retail should be able to work in this stock with confidence.

Can the company please confirm the sidetrack schedule please. Asked on 30 May 2022
The precise spud date has not been set but is expected to be in the first three weeks of July.

As referenced in a recent interview with George Lucan, if all goes to plan with Saltfleetby is the company still hoping to pay long term shareholders a special dividend? Thanks. Asked on 30 May 2022
Thank you. The new strategic investors are advocating a regular dividend payout policy of 50%. The BoD certainly believe that large reliable dividends are still the best corporate communications that a company can make with shareholders.

Does the company continue to be in discussions with the 2 interested parties in Saltfleetby? Asked on 30 May 2022
We have kept an open line to three participants. Non-binding offers have been tabled but they did not reflect the true value of the asset or were contingent on various milestones being met.

It is one thing to low-ball ahead of proof of success, but to low-ball and make a bid contingent on proof of success seems to be having one’s cake and eating it.

In short we were being faced with the same issue that the old Angus had with Horse Hill – sell out the asset at an undervalue ahead of final proof of success, or press on alone and indeed increase our stake in the asset. On this occasion we chose the latter.