We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
More to come IMO :)
I presume there would be a P/E ratio premium to the SP once Angus is a proven producer.
Balancedviewer – I agree with what you suggest and would far prefer that Angus held on to Saltfleetby as opposed to selling it. There is huge value in Saltfleetby and we would be far better in holding onto the asset and generating money out of it over the forthcoming few years than cashing in for £14 million now even if that did give them the required funding for Lidsey and geothermal projects.
By my calculations, even with the hedge still in place I would expect that Saltfleetby would generate between £17 million to £20 million by the end of 2022 dependent on whether they get first gas in April or June. This would obviously pay off all of the debt in 2022 alone and would mean that there would be a revenue of approx. £26 million per annum coming in of which Angus’ share would be £13 million per annum. This is enough to fund Lidsey and geothermal easily, even if it delays both by a year or so.
However, the important thing about this rumour IMO is (if it is true) is that it shows the value that others in the industry place on Saltfleetby. There are many on these boards who want us to think that it is not going to work but then there are others out there who would spend £40 million on it in order to make even more money. It just confirms everything that I have been saying during these last few months and shows how valuable Saltfleetby is going to be.
BV, fully agree mate. I do not believe that GL would even consider selling SFB. It Is his baby.
I believe that this is a rumour that somebody started hoping to help the SP … and looks like it is working.
Now that the rumour has been circulated around here and on twitter and @angusenergyplc has been copied in I expect we will be getting an RNS soon to deny the rumour.
Ech. The only rumour i'm interested in is the Album first track ( I DON'T WANT TO KNOW)
Hi Yanis. Who would want to sell SFY for a poxy 2p per share value when there isn't any other current income to take it's place. Angus are aiming to pay off the debt by September 2023 and would then be much more valuable to shareholders going forward. IMO selling an asset without any current income would be a stupid idea because the Geothermal could go wrong!
"Will Angus be updating the Saltfleeby build and delivery schedule due in November? Asked on 25 November 2021
Done. Incidentally the civil engineering works are relatively minor, as the site already benefits from good foundations, hardcore, a geotextile membrane and thorough ground investigations from previous piling operations. However work could not be commenced until each of the fabricators had finalised dimensions of each skid. We have ample time to complete these works."
BV, I hear you and wish us both good luck. I cannot say I am confident though since Angus has not done enough or said things to convince me that 1st gas will be achieved by the end of February. But, based on what I saw I am hopeful for 1st gas before end of March. Whether this can be met or not we will get an indication in January.
Firstly, let’s see the Civil Works contract awarded and works kicking off in the middle of December (as stated in the RNS).
Yanis. If Angus don't make SFY a success with all the experts they are hiring i would be amazed, I'm quite confident and i hope you get a nice return above your 2p level very soon mate ATB.
BV, and to answer your question about been happy, I wish I could say yes, let’s just now put it this way - I am hopeful.
There were a few things in the RNS that did not add up and did not make sense to me as they were inconsistent. I will not go in to it, let’s just put this down to an assumption that not only the RNS was rushed but whoever composed it is not exactly expert in this field - after all this is the first plant ever that Angus is trying to build.
Morning BV, Ress does not have the required expertise to understand the issues here. He stated a few things that indicate lack of design and engineering knowledge, he is a Commissioning Engineer with limited knowledge.
I doubt it very much as to whether Ress has ever been inside a Design and Engineering office working on the engineering and design of new plants, or modifications to existing plants, nothing he said so far points to this.
To the uninformed he sounds knowledgeable and that’s about it.
Good morning Yanis. Having in mind is just an idea and the markets don't have the technical knowhow like you and Ress. Are you happy with your investment now after having an indepth discussion with Ress which i found very educational.
A big drop today down to 0.70p Bid – the question is why? Why did the market react negatively to the RNS?
FWIW, my opinion of why the market reacted negatively, the reason is two-fold:
(A) Whilst the market focus in on SFB, announcing Lidsey seismic results at the same time and in the same RNS as SFB progress caused a distraction. Is seen as a diversion and induced doubts on SFB success. Lidsey seismic results should have been announced separately in a different RNS at a different time.
(B) The SFB content of the RNS is cloudy. We were told in answer to IQ that the SFB plan will be included in detail in an SFB investor presentation to be issued in November – where is the presentation? (IQ response: We have in mind a further presentation this month on precisely this level of detail with a list of all suppliers and their best estimates of timelines etc)
The RNS was issued in the last hour of trading on the last day of the month and appears to be rushed and not thought out in detail. The RNSs of 2 August 2021 & 11 August 2021 were much better in equipment description and content than yesterday’s RNS. Yesterday’s RNS does not address the equipment listed in the previous RNSs. Yes, it is still claimed that they will meet 1st gas at the end of February but the market did not believe this. The RNS failed to instil this confidence.