Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
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. 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.
Gkb47 ,
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.
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.”
https://westsussex.moderngov.co.uk/documents/g2032/Public%20reports%20pack%2024th-Mar-2020%2010.30%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=10
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."
http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Angus-Annual-Report-2016.pdf
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.
https://ogauthority.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=984eeea3b1664049b12c02a28478bdaa
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?"
https://www.frackfreebalcombe.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/CLG-Meeting-Minutes-bpc-notes-clg-5-angus-energy-4-nov-2019.pdf
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
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.
MGoodwill
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.
What I meant by settlement terms is in what proportions the payments for the kit will be staggered?
Alan2017 tells me it's in the CPR, so my question is apparently redundant.
Ocelot - its in the CPR...if you've read it.
LancashireLife - you do realise you've just contradicted yourself lol How on earth can you say its way too high when you haven't even look....sigh.
"Pretty sure that cash burn figure is way too high. I’m not going to spend anytime going through docs to determine true cash burn though"
What will be the settlement terms for the kit they are aiming to install in Q4?
Michael - I may have missed it, but has LancashireLife said why he has invested in Angus for Brockham? What does he know that the OGA / Annual accounts don't state?
So the more water they produce...the bigger the share value due to higher losses? Genius
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."
http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Angus-Annual-Report-2016.pdf
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.
https://ogauthority.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=984eeea3b1664049b12c02a28478bdaa
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.
Regarding the exorbitant increase for rent well the old days Angus just had a virtual office.
Angus now use the address Audley House, 13 Palace Street, SW1E 5HX which is nice if you need to borrow sugar from the Queen, but is it really good management to being paying such high prices for smack bang in the middle of London? George and the ex-interns could meet at a Starbucks.
I would imagine the Scottish address is just a virtual office or mailing address for the Scottish registered company.
Losing £400,000 in rent and a pay reduction of 20-30% equating to £200-£300,000 actually makes Angus a more viable company to survive Covid-19....your savings pay for 1 years salary (well thats before all the additional consultants are factored in...but at least its a start in the right direction).
gkb47 - Yes the £200,000 revenue at Lidsey does paint the whole story.
Sadly Lidsey revenue in 2019 at an average of $63 gave Angus very little, so imagine what will 2020 show with Corvid prices and the fact they have shut in the Field for maintenance and to heat some homes.
Lidsey Field produced a total of 1,941 bbl of water for the whole duration of 2019.
Lidsey Field produced gross 5,346bbl of oil for 2019.
https://ogauthority.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=984eeea3b1664049b12c02a28478bdaa
On slide 8 of the Angus Presentation costs water disposal at £49/bbl.
Sadly Lidsey is unable to dispose of its water at Brockham, so has to truck the water up North.
http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Saltfleetby-Gas-Field-Dec19.pdf
1,941bbls x £49/bbl = £95,000
Angus has 80% of Lidsey so:
£95,000 x 80% = £76,000
Lidsey made £200,000 in revenue at an average 2019 Brent price of $63 (that is before tax, expenses are deducted), so minus £76,000 leaves £124,000).
Angus have pre-agreed lease hold agreement for the Lidsey field of circa £40,000 per annum (2016 price) which leaves £84,000 left in the cookie jar. BUT don’t forget the Scholarship fund that also takes a big chunk out of that plus Angus still have to pay tax (if applicable) , expenses on the original £200,000 of Oil revenue, so its virtually £0.
Page 51 - Oil Revenue (pre tax, expenses etc).
Page 52 - Lease requirements
http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Angus-Energy-PLC-Annual-Report-2018-2019.pdf
Net assets at 31/03/20: 2.07p per share (£11.116m)
Net present value at 01/01/20 of the Saltfleetby CPR mid-case forecast (p53): 4.69p (£25.2m)
Even before we receive further updates re the progress of Saltfleetby and Balcombe, a case can be made imho for ANGS to be valued in the 2.50-4.00p range.
Rastuss,
There are 3 Investor Q's on the Angus website that they will also need to answer by month end on Tuesday. These will also give an indicator as to finance arrangements and timelines for activity and spend over the coming months.
I still feel focus will be on SF (my preference and they have said this themselves) with the others being progresses in the background.
For me, delivering o SF will )hopefully) be the source for funds for operations elsewhere, either through cash generation, ot with the CPR, alternative fund raising options, aside from placings.
Wasn't going to post unless news, but thought I would add this as it ties in with updates expected next week
As per page 47 of the Saltfleetby CPR:
AEWB No.3 Limited's tax losses at 30/09/19: £15.64m
At total tax rate of 40%, value to ANGS: £6.256m
= 1.16p per share
very disingenuous of you! made a meal of subsidiary company accounts and spreading false information about labilities. The obvious fact is that the subsidiary reflects the money owed to the parent company and this will be repaid to the parent TAX FREE when production starts (upto full utilisation of tax losses). The true liabilities of the company are reflected in the consolidated and audited company accounts which ignore intercompany balances.
Deliberate distortion of facts is deceitful at the very least. looks like I have to add you to my filter list. Its pleasant to see a long list of greens.
former/new shareholders will pile in on consistent delivery by the company. we are much closer to realisation of revenues and the barrage of negative, ill-informed and deliberately misleading posts confirms significant interest. Balcombe and SF will be producing this year.
Bring on the overdue news.
a pleasant surprise may be Brockham production from the portland. it should produce as much as ukog.