London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Sorry about that post. The system is all over the place on my iPad this morning, that was a reply to a post from days ago, I think, which popped up just now. Must be more circumspect. Do you know if Jonathan is circumspect, Michael?
Michael: not a Ham club sandwich then?
Not only was Lidsey ‘impaired ‘ a few weeks later, didn’t Angs prior to the Leningas payment announce an unsuccessful program to improve the well? I believe they did. Apples to oranges indeed. In any case an HH comparison on this point is irrelevant, given the facts, the situation and prior events.
I highly recommend this post. The game is about getting share price up, not whether this is a real business it seems. It is good we are on the same page.
Alan2017: I think again that this is a bit hard on the temporary CEO. He’s a very busy man with many calls on his time. He doesn’t want to spread himself too thin. So rather than prepare himself thoroughly for these meetings with county council functionaries, he’s clearly decided to apply himself and his time to the main chance. Maximising those losses and getting the share price up.
Yes, I read the conclusion of the Planning Officer's report in the Drill or Drop article published at the time.
Ocelot - I suggest you read the West Sussex Planning Officers (who were always oil friendly) remarks in their report when they refused Balcombe Planning Permission in March 2020. It doesn't matter how George Lucan phrases it with his English degree from Cambridge in a report....he is not the one who decides.
Remember his response to the question put to him in November 2019 meeting "If this is a cottage industry such as at Lidsey. Would you think it was unfair therefore to portray it as a strategic resource?" and the official response from George Lucan "No answer" Was that when Angus shot themselves in the foot?
“On balance, it is concluded that although there may be a need for onshore oil and gas development to contribute to national energy security, the need is not such that it represents exceptional circumstances, or that it is in the public interest for the proposed major development to be located in the High Weald AONB.”
“The proposal would establish a continued presence of industry which is not appropriate to the area and would not relate well to the landscape or character of its locality.
“It would therefore compromise the landscape qualities of the High Weald area of outstanding natural beauty.”
“There are alternative sources of hydrocarbon supply, both indigenous and imported, to meet the national need, there would be minimal benefit to the local economy from the development, and there is scope for meeting the need in some other way, outside of protected landscapes.”
“It is recommended that planning permission is refused.”
I think we are in danger of missing the wood for the trees. We all want to get the share price up. I know I do and I don’t own the shares. Let’s try to get back to the good news. This company has huge losses.
Michael - Yes I agree. I'm still waiting for Highroller to explain how Portland at Brockham will make Angus money....I'll be generous and repost if for him.
Highroller - "...your comment a pleasant surprise may be Brockham production from the portland. it should produce as much as ukog." is misleading on many fronts.
How many decades has Brockham been producing for compared to HH?
What was the average bopd at Brockham?
How many barrels of water was being produced at Brockham?
"Prior to being shut-in in January 2016, the Brockham and Lidseys fields were producing at a net 20bopd to Angus."
Brockham was producing 1,000bbls of water per month before it was converted in 2016. Where do you suggest the water can go without being trucked considering Angus cannot use their water injection well...hence why water is being trucked at Lidsey.
1,000bbls x £49 = £49,000 a month and what is Angus % of Brockham? 55% is it?
I will let you do the maths to work it out over a year, but its a huge amount...over £300,000.
... A preliminary finding by the Planning Officer at West Sussex County Council has prompted us to rethink aspects of our proposal, withdraw and we therefore shortly intend to resubmit our Planning Application for a shorter well test duration. We would still aim to be looking at operations and cashflow from this asset in this calendar year. (Half-year report RNS of 23/06)
Highroller - your comment "Angus should have made the revised application for Balcombe" is sadly a common frustration for investors due to the company being run by inexperienced people.
George Lucan is running the show, yet has zero oilfield experience.
But even George should be able to organise a Balcombe meeting or delegate it to an ex intern....well you would think that, but then you read the minutes you just shake your head. Is this one of the reasons for the Council not to pay ball with Angus as they have again failed to deliver what they promise?
"Environment Agency (only received the invite on the day of meeting so couldn’t send anyone)" Oh dear .....
"The agenda had only been sent out by Angus on the day of the meeting not 4 working days as per the terms of reference of the CLG" Oh dear......
A very telling question was asked "If this is a cottage industry such as at Lidsey. Would you think it was unfair therefore to portray it as a strategic resource?" and the official response from George Lucan "No answer"
"We have recently raised a £1m drawn down facility and we have used these funds to make abandonment reserves. We have set aside £650k for Brockham and Lidsey."
Embarrassing for Angus that they changed their stance on the duration of the well testing "3 years is an extraordinary length of time. At the last CLG meeting we asked what a well test meant and you said up to 90 days so to come back with an application for 3 years is extraordinary."
And just to show how poorly they are running the company was another telling question
"Transparency of results? We were promised results from previous tests – surface water, ground water, emissions results. These were agreed to be shared. We have been unable to find them anywhere. We were promised tours, site visits. When are these going to happen? Cuadrilla used to send letters around the village explaining what they were doing? Why have the letters stopped?"
Well im not overly sure I believe the information from the company at face value. The cpr for instance is rubbish against todays values.
Im also concerned that highroller is trying to make peopke think brockham will produce like horsehill when its a depleted field (wasnt that the whole point of moving on from portland to kimmeridge in first place)? Or have I got that wrong.
LancashireLife - you're kidding aren't you? You really expect investors to believe the notes you took from an investor forum rather than the official Angus 6 monthly posted on the internet?
"I recall what was stated at the investor presentation - it certainly wasn’t that high. I would have to go and find my notes."
Michael - who said "that they cant have a placement below 1p"? Thats rubbish....just look at UKOG.
UKOG just did a placement for 637,500,000 shares at 0.2pence a share to raise £1,275,000 pounds.
Seems some posters on here will bend the truth multiple ways
So glad you are still here gathering analysis. Seems we have a few on here taking the mickey still. However nice to see Veronica as that should get some excitement going here. Seems my croissant has gone soggy reading over some of these posts, but it is good that we can see the company out in the open now.
Someone said that they cant have a placement below 1p, but I cant find this written anywhere? The fact they can double the share issue isnt good either. Im sure some fool will come along and say it doesnt matter but of course it does.
What we need is a few more liabilities
Michael: in the event of a placement, at least you can be assured of the temporary CEO’s full participation on his own account. We seem to have been told that he will find the money for a good deal.
Michael: I can’t, no. Triple entry, in common with other book-keeping systems, only applies to assets (or in this case, liabilities) once they have been acquired. This seems to have been a judgment call.
Could somebody explain why the bod bought more of lidsey? Is this acting in shareholder interests because the maths doesnt stack up no matter what book entry valuation system is used.
No I didn't mention UKOG because it's the ANGS board here, but over on that board I have been very critical of Sanderson and the share dilution, via both placings and CLNs, that has also destroyed the UKOG SP, althought it's now bounced, whilst paying themselves over inflated salaries and bonuses. I regard both sets of boards as far too self interested and somewhat inept and regret getting involved with either. However I will be sticking around until I, at the very least, recoup some (paper) losses and will call them out as and when.
In any case it's appples and oranges since HH is actually producing circa 200 BOPD average and it may well may be more after they've finished their workover and both wells are flowing, although they are keeping stum on revised figures so far. It's certainly not been impaired just months after spending £ £467,377 to acquire extra interest, paid in shares that were then almost certainly sold down thus crashing the SP even before the Brockham debacle. UKOG have also managed not to get SCC and WSCC offside causing several delays and a reduction in SP of over 90% during Lucan's tenure.
GKB47- you dont mention that UKOG bought almost everyone out by issuing shares. Even their HH is bought from Angus. Oil exploration and production is a risky business and no one knows exactly what's exactly underneath until you drill .Even UKOG has not been able to master it over past 4 years and amazingly Angus is confronted with similar issue over the same area.
However, Angus should have made the revised application for Balcombe and sorted Brockham permission for Portland as well. Not doing so is grossly incompetent.
Since UKOG is making efforts to increase production, it should be expected that the same case will apply here. It is just not the priority. But I reiterate that angus should have submitted the applications in good time. the continuing incompetence is outrageous and unacceptable.
Yes - one of Lucan's early master strokes in building shareholder value not long after getting his fellow Earl on the board was to buy out Doriemus at over the odds for a field that was later impaired after producing only a few BOPD meantime, The man's obviously a genius.
I reckon you don't know how ANGS paid David Leningas to buy out his share of Lidsey, not only at an exorbitant premium but they were never obligated too as he was a partner therefore enjoyed the same risks. This cozy 'valuation' of Lidsey followed the boardroom coup and Mr Leningas' twitter support thereof. Paying Mr Leningas made no sense and had no explanation let alone solid business reasoning, I'm sure you can put 2+2 together as we wouldn't want the paid thought police to call foul on the true facts.
Have a good weekend!
Finance doesn't seem to be a problem: GL has said that, if an exceptional opportunity arose, he would find the necessary funds.
The key to ANGS's near future is the operational delivery of Saltfleetby, as close to the planned timetable as is possible.
Veronicastash: that cash figure includes the £2.5mm. they were paid up front when they acquired Saltfleetby for the decommissioning cost, doesn’t it? As I understand it, they’ve spent part of this already. I don’t know how this is accounted for under triple entry book keeping but hope the figures on Tuesday will elucidate.
Lancs - starting on me now eh - screw you!