Angus Energy Share Discussion Threads

[gasman10] 28/6/2022 12:21

Bye HITS28 June 2022Angus Energy Plc("Angus Energy", "Angus" or the "Company")Saltfleetby Commissioning UpdateAngus Energy (AIM: ANGS) is pleased to announce the conclusion of leak testing and the commencement of commissioning of the Saltfleetby Gas Field. The duration of commissioning is expected to take between one and two weeks with a target date for first gas export (ie sales) between the 7(th) and 12(th) July.The hedged volume for July to September inclusive is for 3.375 million therms. The expected output during that period from existing wells B2 and A4, assuming a start date of 1 July is approximately 5 million therms and comfortably exceeds the hedged amount.

[headinthesand] 28/6/2022 12:13

Gasman, info from when the field was first tapped back in Dec 1999 is of course completely irrelevant.

Why don't you take a look at the NTSA audited figures on Saltfleetby?

Just visit and then scroll down the page to the PPRS Spatial Dashboard

Left click on the map and zoom into Eastern England

The box underneath has details of all the the fields in view - if you zoom into so that the red dot representing Saltfleetby is the only field in view, then only officially audited SFB production data comes up beneath.

You can select your date range towards the top left of that screen and even output the audited data to a downloadable csv file.

To save you the bother, problems started at the Theddlethorpe processing plant in Aug/Sep 2017. In the 12 months prior to that (so Aug 2016 to Jul 2017), the officially NSTA audited average daily production from the field was 4.17 mmscf - or 1.285 million therms a month. Moreover, annual production from Saltfleetby has sharply declined year on year since first being tapped.

The above is called "actually bothering to do research". I'd recommend it to you.

[jtidsbadly] 28/6/2022 12:11

Mercuria would own the assets. If you’ve got 100% of the gas to sell at market prices and you don’t have to pay Anguish 41p/therm for it, you’re making even more money than if you had a hedge in place. If Mercuria has incorporated the Angus hedge contracts into a more complicated derivatives package, that may be different. But in that case, they’d keep Anguish going and tighten the loan terms. You really need to understand this stuff if you have an investment in Anguish. The jayhawker Silverlight is completely clueless, there’s quite a number on that site who need to educate themselves.

[weebun] 28/6/2022 12:05

To put the company in to administration as you clowns keep suggesting would mean the hedge would be lost it’s a gamble it’s not the same as the loan which would be repaid.

[gasman10] 28/6/2022 11:27

All on there Hits if you readhttp://saltfleetbyenergy.com/

[jtidsbadly] 28/6/2022 11:22

At 50mmscfd, I imagine Wingas would have taken the swift and cheap option and got Halliburton in to build them a gas plant as soon as they were told the Theddlethorpe refinery was closing down. You tell me what the well head pressure is now.

What part of my post do you describe as opinion, rather than fact? If it’s the part about Mercuria’s likely intentions, you’re correct. What would you expect them to do? Why do you think there’s been so many posts here for the past two days between the better-informed posters, concerning recent revelations at DDDD?

[headinthesand] 28/6/2022 11:21

Gasman, you're deranged... you claim that the field used to produce 50 mmscfd? FIFTY mmscfd??? That'd be over 15 million therms a month then... riiiiiight.

What the NSTA (the OGA as was) figures actually show is that the field's average daily production in the last 12 months before any problems at the Theddlethorpe processing plant started was actually around 4.3mmscfd - or 1.32 million therms a month - and slowly declining over time.

George is (desperately) hoping that a build-up in pressure over the last 4+ years will mean that the two existing wells produce at a level of 1.5 million therms a month (or 4.9 mmscfd).

[headinthesand] 28/6/2022 11:15

Weebun, with respect, that is crashingly naive. Business really isn't about happy clappy self-help groups.

First off, Aleph and (primarily) Mercuria lent ANGS £12 million at an eye-watering 12% + SONIA rate, secured against the entire gas field. No risk there... the field is worth much more than £12 million.

If that Shylock-esque interest rate wasn't bad enough, the lenders then also insisted on 8% revenue over-ride payment, once the loan was paid off.

And they insisted upon ANGS maintaining a positive cash bank balance level at all times, amounting to a quarter of loan repayment (so that'd be c £1.2 million at least).

Finally, the lenders insisted that ANGS sing up to a three year hedge (and it's Mercuria, not Aleph that's on the other side of that).

ANGS being desperate for that £12 million and having nowhere else to go, had no choice but to sign up to all terms and conditions.

Now the hedge... at today's future gas pricing and looking at each of the 36 months on an individual basis, Mercuria is CONTRACTUALLY GUARANTEED a pay-out of over £86 million from ANGS over the next three years (for info, next month's hedge payment owed by ANGS to Mercuria is a modest £1.4+ million).

And remember, Mercuria is due that £86 million, utterly regardless of how much or how little gas ANGS may produce.

So... if ANGS cannot meet its many and various financial obligations already contractually tied to the field (whether loan- or hedge-related... and don't forget it also owes Forum £6.25 million for the cash part of the acquisition over the next three years as well), Mercuria and Aleph get full title to that field to flog off to whomever they like in order to get their loan plus interest paid back and in Mercuria's case, the many tens of millions contractually owed to them on the hedge.

NOW do you understand why the sidetrack is so crucial???

[gasman10] 28/6/2022 11:10

Your opinon not a fact. Whats the well pressure now? The field was producing figures exceeding 50 MMScf per day and produced gas, water, and condesnate before shutdown due to the local terminal shutting down.

[jtidsbadly] 28/6/2022 11:04

JA51: they need to produce gas in July. The stated purpose in raising £6mm was largely to finance the ongoing work (it’s overrun in terms of time and cash by a huge margin). They seem not to have received £3mm. of it. The Site B car park is swamped with vehicles, presumably technicians from the kit suppliers training three shifts of Anguish workers in how to use every piece of equipment, and presumably with HSE and NG looking on. Can one assume that the two Anguish staff members dedicated to liaising with the regulatory agencies have completed the several detailed manuals that are required? Even if they get to “first gas” by Friday, 1 July, it may be several more weeks before they’re ready to produce sufficient quantities at a regular pressure. It all looks way behind schedule, doesn’t it? There’s a surprisingly phlegmatic attitude on the other site, one might have expected panic to start to seep in by now. The boiler room doing their stuff, I suppose. Misdirection.

Weebun: repeating drivel doesn’t make it anything other than drivel. Aleph are not involved in the hedge contracts. Mercuria is. Mercuria is the senior Lender. They have a Charge on Anguish's assets. The terms are available on the Angus Companies House pages. The Charge is only 61 pages or so, it’s worth a flick through. As is the CPR as it discusses the hedge contract terms. As is the latest Anguish Report and Accounts, where the future cost of the hedges to Anguish at the prevailing gas prices are summarised. The Auditors have not found any agreement between Anguish and Mercuria whereby sums owing to Mercuria may be deferred or forgiven.

[weebun] 28/6/2022 10:52

The lender the hedge Mercurial and Aleph along with Angus Energy are all tied together willing to help each other to fulfil its obligations to each other,There is ,all being well Millions of pounds to be made and Aleph being the recipient of the hedge are obviously willing to keep Angus we’ll financed hence willingness to purchase 20% of the company if needed less percentage less dilution.Just makes common sense.

[3put] 28/6/2022 10:41

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.

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.

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.

The British Energy Security Strategy identifies, further infrastructure is required to establish energy independence from overseas countries.

Can you please confirm, if framework opportunities to license from local authority owned lands, to generate energy arose, would Angus Energy be interested in being considered as the operator? Asked on 6 May 2022
Yes and our engagement with local councils has greatly improved over the last few years. The range of projects has also grown with geothermal, assisted agriculture and energy storage being some of the main points of interest. With our engagement in geothermal, we have found local authorities to be particularly welcoming and helpful.

Will the SFB sidetrack be drilled with continuous Gas production or will the gas production plant be turned off for the duration of the drill? Asked on 5 May 2022
Subject to final satisfaction of internal risk assessment SIMOPS are planned – i.e. simultaneous drilling and production. These is not an abnormal choice and indeed is common in far more restrictive areas such as offshore rigs. The plant when fully up and running benefits from a state of the art fire and gas leak detection, rapid blowdown and full set of monitoring and control instrumentation connected to a PLC as well as a full complement of alert operators.

Is there a forecast date for oil production at Lidsey oil field ?? Asked on 2 May 2022
We have been test producing at Lidsey and continue to encounter issues with the well-bore – including wax buildup and issues with pipe. We hope to update further on this field, including the possibility of side-track, when the team resources can be taken off Saltfleetby which is currently and rightly occupying our overwhelming attention.

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.

What would be a reasonable time frame for the steps for getting the Portland reperforated and producing oil? Asked on 1 May 2022
From Technical Director: “The work to recomplete the well to the Portland will involve abandoning the bulk of the well through the Kimmeridge to leave just the topmost part across the Portland. We would then perforate that section.

I am assuming 5-6 days work plus mob and demob and rig up and rig down. The perforated section may be fairly long as it is near horizontal which is good. The rig can be the small workover rig we used at Saltfleetby and we need little in the way of tanks and pumps etc, although achieving our targets on waste management on such an operation will involve additional cost.”

That is the “operationR21; but before that and in addition to local authority planning (obtained), HSE (BSOR) submission, NTSA notification (although agreed in our FDP), we will require the consideration of the EA. We do not believe that this should be a very complex affair as the well-bore was well-designed and recently spudded to modern standards, the hydrogeology of the area is thoroughly understood, not least by EA, and the target reservoir has been produced from for thirty years.

On current oil prices, and given a resulting flow of 100bbl/d, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the cost of the operation could be recouped within 5-6 weeks of flow. Operationally speaking, there would be no other upgrade to the site required.

Are there any revised updates for the Balcombe appeal please. P.S. I would like to congratulate GL for putting a very good case forward at the SCC meeting,well done! Asked on 30 April 2022
Having submitted our Statement of Case, WSCC submitted their Statement of Case during March and we responded with our rebuttal on 12 April 2022. The matter is now with the Inspector.

1. have the DSEAR Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 requirements been completed at Brockham?
2. will production from BRX2-Y resume at Brockham in May independent of the council decision regarding the portland perforations Asked on 25 April 2022
DSEAR regulations have an element of continuous assessment against ever higher standards but, yes, we are engaged in that assessment process and have achieved levels of compliance sufficient to continue safe operations and the production and export of of crude oil. As advised by RNS we will give further information on this in due course.

1.are they going to install a CHP? And never hopefully look at using the flare other then emergencies?,

2.are they going to look at investing in a AD plant so they always have a gas supply when the gas field Depletes?,

3. Would ANGS look at a investing in a CHP that can take natural gas?, and hydrogen?, maybe they need to speak to 2G as there at the top of there game in this Industry, and by having a a AD plant they would also get paid for the final cake dry matter and used as a fertiliser,,
Also I would be asking they could be getting paid from a local council to take food sate too!!, Asked on 31 March 2022
We won’t need to use the flare as part of normal operations although a tiny amount of gas is continuously burned in order to maintain a pilot light, much as on a traditional household boiler.

We do have gas fired generating plant on site to drive the compressors and provide site power. This is the most efficient way of producing and using off-spec gas which cannot be sold into the national gas grid and is an environmentally friendly solution in a remote location without an industrial scale connecton to the electric grid.

We also have been in touch with local landlords regarding the site’s potential to provide heat, CO2 and surplus electric to support vertical farming operations in neighbouring fields. This is likely to be a programme for consideration a year’s hence, alongside a relatively inexpensive geothermal power generation scheme using the Sherwood Sands reservoir.

[ja51oiler] 28/6/2022 10:37

I take it you don't want to answer the question as to when the drone pictures were taken then 3put? Has your group given you a warning by any chance?Fair to say it's from last week so still lots to be done before the independent commissioning team will start the wet commissioning presumably. That flare knock out construction seems a long way from complete. Can't see the OGA, HSE or the EA let them start producing without those gas generators to produce the power. you can actually see the cables snaked up waiting to be connected once they arrive.That pushes the sidetrack back again won't it?

[jtidsbadly] 28/6/2022 10:27

Weebun: incorrect in every particular. Similar drivel being posted elsewhere by the jayhawkers. The hedges will be enforced from the first month, or the Lenders will exact much tougher lending terms from Anguish. HITS is correct, it’s of no consequence for a Lender with a Charge on the totality of its borrower’s assets if the Lender fails to make a payment. The Lenders take the assets. Yes, a Receiver/Administrator will be appointed but the quantum owed by Anguish on the hedge contracts on the day the company is put into Administration will be what matters and they will have no chance of demonstrating that their assets net of the hedge obligations give Anguish a positive value. If Anguish can’t meet their debt obligations on time, I think that Mercuria will take Anguish lock, stock and barrel or it will exact even more usurious loan terms. Shareholders won’t make a cent. This is why the start date for Poundland and (possibly, if they get that far) the sidetrack matter so much. It’s why the apparently missing £3mm. from Aleph matters too.

Mercuria is not your friendly neighbourhood bank. It’s a privately owned firm of successful commodity traders.

[weebun] 28/6/2022 10:15

Could be they thought if gas with all the complications was going to be late that being we’ll financed was precautionary.This is possibly a positive for the company that things are on track and further extra dilution would not be needed.The company involved in purchasing 20% of the company is also involved in the hedge that seems 100% commitment to the furtherment of the Angus Energy.

[sincero1] 28/6/2022 10:08

hits you sold at 1p at a loss.......what is ODD is why you still post... on 2 forums every single day....and only negatively ... oh right , i correct myself ..it is not odd....it's duplicitous

[headinthesand] 28/6/2022 09:51

Okay let's decide we're not going to wonder why no TR-1 was issued re Aleph Fin C's acquisition of 7.19% of the company's current shares in issue (164 million shares out of 2,283 million), no matter how odd that is...

...and let's not bother wondering about the other 109 million shares that Aleph was meant to have taken in the first half of the two stage £6 million placing...

However, WHY has there been NO announcement about Aleph taking the second swathe of 273 million shares for £3 million, as ANGS announced it would in the May 24th RNS? All this needed was shareholder approval for the BoD to issue a shedload of new confetti - and that was granted two weeks ago?

There's very clearly been a delay for some reason. If the second half of this placing had occurred, there is no way that ANGS could fail to announce it - not least because it would take the number of shares in issue (currently 2,283 million as per the ANGS website) up to 2,556 million.

I wonder why Aleph and chums are baulking? It's very curious...

[sincero1] 28/6/2022 08:28

get those grey old stale urine smelling mutton chops ready ... an enormous slapping is coming .... tee hee....

[1347] 28/6/2022 07:33

Reminder for the unhappy few that today is the third anniversary of St. Brockham's day. So don't forget to raise a glass or two of mead at some point.

And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be rememberèd—
We few, we unhappy few, we band of investors;
For he to-day that lost his money with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in Poundland now a-bed
Shall think themselves lucky they were not there,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That were duped with us upon Saint Brockham's day.
Once more unto the breach, dear punters, once more;
Or close the well up, if Poundland be dead.

[ja51oiler] 28/6/2022 06:51

When was the picture taken 3put? It's a simple enough question.

[3put] 27/6/2022 22:48

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.
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.