Listen to our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode 'Uncovering opportunities with investment trusts' with The AIC's Richard Stone 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.
As BP says WG aka banned Joiler, soooooooooooooo you are a finance expert and now a drilling expert. Do let us all know if you have any other expertise that you haven't mentioned, you know like a paid troll eh!!
It was deemed viable on a cost of £2.5 million by Angus! What is it £50 million now?
The Russian federation (Wingas storage) decided it was unviable and looking at the actual cost to date proved correct in their sums!
Bubble. You seem to be agreeing with me again! Your analysis of what I’m saying leads you to them choking back! Wouldn’t the drop in production figures result from this?
Again WG, I don't particularly agree with your storage point.
Yes there will be some notable reconfiguration within the field & plant, BUT they already have compressors, which can be re jigged to send imported gas back to the reservoir, they have the rest of the essential plant for that imported gas to be produced back to surface and cleaned before entering the grid pipework.
They would not need producing compressors as the function of the compressors under storage conditions is to both fill the reservoir with imported clean gas and that drives up the reservoir pressure to well above pipeline to grid pressure.
I also strongly suspect Wingas were pricing it with "creativity" built in, whereas now it would be a significantly small fraction of that cost to convert.
I do maintain my view that "over" depleting of this reservoir, will take it too far out from the baseline reservoir pressure that makes conversion viable, meaning no one wants to have to spend a fortune pumping a lot of imported gas into the reservoir JUST to bring it back to the baseline/bottom line pressure needed. as that gas becomes unrecoverable at least until the end term of it as a "storage" facility.
All this dedication from paid negative uninvested posters, working all hours and 7 days per week, year after year must be heartbreaking. I bet when they look back on their sad meaningless existence, they will regret wasting all of those years not doing something more constructive.
WG,
There is a difference in what I am saying and what you are trying to portray, in that you make out that this 17.5 barg critical pressure (compressor limitation) is the be all and end all for production.
Yes it is a critical pressure if "nothing" is done to counter the "reason" for that lowering SURFACE pressure, which is predominantly all to do with liquids, not gas, and NOT the much greater reservoir DRIVE pressure available to them.
They have a significant window to work with, it is ALL about how to manage the liquids being brought to surface with the dry gas, and what they can do in the NEAR future to make an effective difference, and there are numerous ways, yes all cost time and money, but all doable.
The CPR is pretty clear on this.
Page 11,12 (Remaining uncertainty about reservoir quality and dynamic performance)
Point 2 seems confirmed by the NSTA figures. See then note 3. Then see note 6. Again confirmation by the NSTA figures. Note 7 confirmed. Note 8 interesting (we are just guessing really) Note 9 OMG we need the new compressor ASAP not October next year! Now they had said a couple of months ago that the new compressor was scheduled for the beginning of next year! Why has it been pushed back until October?
Page 49,50 and 85 give you an easy guide to follow on the pressure drop off.
Lastly if you read the Wingas FDP it gives figures for shut in periods they required until well end of life expectancy. SF4 didn’t have long to live according to those.
WG,
You cannot compare Wingas with current, the field was producing in its simplest form, meaning hyper basic in field set up, just wells, well heads with chokes, and a manifold to link the various wells to the outflow pipe line to Theddlethorpe, and it simply was a case of crack open the wells and let it all flow down the pipe line.
The current set up has barely any comparability to past efforts. along with how those wells were being produced by previous owners.
As for the requirement for the "booster" compressor, well if I were Angus I would be looking at production and string design, before I went down the "booster" compressor route, as the "booster" compressor is simply a bolt on option if they do little to nothing with current production well design.
I have to say Bubblepoint, your theories make more sense than those of WG's. As you point out reservoir control is one of the key factors of oil and gas production and since the issues being discussed are well known on this forum they are also well known to Angus and the onsite operating team. This is not the first reservoir in the world that needs to be careful managed in order to maximise production and nor is it the most complicated.
WG, you constantly act like your posts are revealing truths that have been hidden from the rest of us, including the Angus management team and the reservoir operating team, yet you seem to start with a fact and then work backwards from there to get to a narrative that fits you ongoing theory. I think Bubblepoint has discredited a lot of your points this morning and he clearly has the oil and gas knowledge to back up his arguments. Can I respectfully ask what your history in the oil and gas world is that should give greater credence to your arguments than to Bubblepoints?
WG818: well, with Mercuria having lent at least the bulk of the money covered by the Charge, even assuming that Aleph were parties to the Charge, Aleph can’t do anything in the way of forcing Angus into receivership without Mercuria’s approval, which means that Mercuria would need paying off promptly with the whole of their remaining part of the loan and would keep the royalty, or a capital sum in lieu of what they might have earned from it. This does alter the economics fundamentally of Aleph/Kemexon forcing a receivership.
I have no idea about the economics of using the depleted Saltfleetby gas field for gas storage but imagine it would be better for everyone if as much as possible of the remaining gas were got out before resort to this expedient. I dare say all options may be under discussion between the senior lenders. Kemexon, as equity holders and possibly junior parties to the senior debenture, are not in the driving seat, or if they are, they’ve got someone very smart riding shotgun.
So, it’s either an extremely low bid, keeping Angus intact but no longer quoted, or some rather pricey deal on receivership. I’d say the former is more likely, preceded by very bad news, a collapse in the share price and a rescue by the Aleph/Kemexon lot under which the terms of the senior loan, and the Mercuria royalty, remain intact.
JD
Really? I would remind both of you that BP’S history is available for all to see. Like this one from last week.
“In my opinion the rate of pressure decline, or should I say resulting increasing liquids over time make it imperative for them to act on their 2024 field plans for booster compressor and velocity tubing in at least well A4.
It should be noted, that the "booster" compressor does NOT do anything for the wells, pressure decline, flow etc, all a "booster" compressor does is it sits first in line before the main compressors, and basically takes the lowering pressure produced gas from all 3 wells and boosts it up to a pressure that is above the main compressor thresholds.
Currently ONLY the velocity tubing is planned as a counter to the effects of liquids production and the related effects on surface pressure.
Some other posts again warning about the pressure drop and the consequences.
BP seems to swing with the position he holds. Yes we both have theories nothing more.
My theory is backed by the CPR and NSTA data.
BP’s theory is backed by a hunch. When you look back that hunch it falls down as the drop of started before the new connection was in place. Secondly it would seem odd for them to postpone it for so long if they thought the scenario BP thinks was likely.
They are both only speculation, but as I pointed out lead to the same ultimate conclusion of the drop off.
BP . You can take the data from the Wingas FDP as a basis of opinion regarding the field however.
WG, there is NOTHING wrong with that post, other than people like YOU who seem to enjoy looking for ways to discredit others.
If you ALSO care to look through MY HISTORY (sad as you seem to find doing such things) you will find repeated point that RESERVOIR PRESSURE and also related speed of well pressure REPLENISHMENT, are the most important points, not your constant push for your 17.5 Barg COMPRESSOR critical levels.
As for position !! ZERO, no position held whatsoever, and no intention of doing so.
I have noted the "current" small drive upwards on the ask, which to me looks like market play, as the volume does not support it at all, but that is what has been done in the past and it was sold into by the likes of PF.
Now, if you want to play the discrediting game AGAIN then fine, it simply shows your level of immaturity and inability to restrain yourself from such childish ways.
YOUR CALL !!!
WG, thanks for the response, but that is not how I read it. BP's theory is backed from experience of working in the oil and gas industry on the very kind of projects that Angus are working on now.
The points that you have repeated in your last statement have all been more than adequately addressed in BP's responses to you this morning. There is no point in me repeating the responses here you can just read the thread.
Also, please could you answer my previous question about what your oil and gas industry experience is. Obviously, it is fine if you have none, as everyone is entitled to their opinion on these boards; but if you don't have any industry experience in this sector it does somewhat weaken your arguments when you come to discuss what is and is not possible to maintain pressure at Saltfleetby.
You are very vocal in your negative view on this forum and it would be helpful to me, and no doubt many others, to know if you are an industry professional. or merely a well researched investor.
Bp
I was simply pointing out your opinion seems to change like the wind.
In the space of a week you have gone from
It’s imperative
““In my opinion the rate of pressure decline, or should I say resulting increasing liquids over time make it imperative for them to act on their 2024 field plans for booster compressor and velocity tubing in at least well A4.”
To don’t worry it’s just a bolt on!
“As for the requirement for the "booster" compressor, well if I were Angus I would be looking at production and string design, before I went down the "booster" compressor route, as the "booster" compressor is simply a bolt on option if they do little to nothing with current production well design.
Are you sure you’re not back in?
JD .
I am of course the latter. As has been proven on many occasions and by BP himself actually, taking the advice of professionals on these BB can cost mug punters dearly……see my last post pointing out the””experienced expert “ change of hart in less than a week!
WG AGAIN, nothing wrong with those posts,
It is imperative that they do SOMETHING, they have options, among a few, THEY have noted Booster compressor, which is an action ONLY changing the pressure ARTIFICIALLY at surface so the main compressors can continue above the threshold.
IF they want to use the RESERVOIR drive, you know, the 70-80 BARG they have driving the gas and liquids to surface, then they almost certainly need to act on production string design to get the maximum use and improve the surface pressure, which "could actually reduce the NEED for the BOOSTER compressor for some time to come.
Seems you simply cannot stop yourself from your attacking ways, no problem with constructive discussion, but you always resort to making it more a personal attack rather than about the topic.
And I can assure you I hold zero, no angus stock at all, and have not done so for a number of months, and will almost certainly not be doing so for many months to come. I will let you know when or IF I do though !!! if that somehow meets to your approval that is lol....
WG, everyone knows you post on advfn using your banned lse user name Joiler, if anyone wants a laugh. OP aka Jtitsbadly and it doesn't take 3 guesses who 1347 is either BP.
The difference between what you keep pushing is that YOU want to convince people the field is imminently DOOMED, well if Angus do nothing and ONLY use choking back on the wells, which slows the velocity of the gas and liquids coming up from reservoir to surface and that slower velocity allows some liquids to drop out and fall back down to reservoir, so the pressure increases at surface but with a reduced gas flow too.
The problem with this technique is that it causes a snowball effect, if you don't produce the liquids that are within the near wellbore reservoir and the "reservoir section" of wellbore then slowly that liquid will cut off the gas that is trying to permeate into the well to flow out to surface, you basically eventually stall out the well.
So, they need to produce the liquids with the gas to keep the reservoir and well as clear as possible, that can only be achieved by intervention of the well, and application of production design, for which there are a number of options available, and that is what keeps the drive & surface pressure naturally higher at surface and counters the compressor critical 17.5 barg.
I suspect you are either incapable of understanding this industry standard, OR you prefer to simply discredit the industry ways to suit your impending DOOM approach !!! it is one or the other, but both show you to be nothing more than doom mongering.
Ok. So we will ignore your history then as it’s a little embarrassing as I’m sure you agree…..perhaps you can delete it again like you did as Push2when it tripsed you up?
I think the doomed term was one you used last week actually wasn’t it?
Anyway. I simply have a different expectation for the drop off from youselfs. If You deem to take this as some sort of Insult that’s your problem not mine. Again check your history to see who threw the first insult this morning.
WG,
I personally couldn't give a hoot about your opinion of me, as you obviously like to take the strongest to try and belittle them, so I take it as a form of compliment.
As for Push2 or BP, not in the slightest ashamed, embarrassed or bothered, I post in REAL TIME to how I see it, and that is the CORRECT way to do it, why ? Because as has been proven, when the outfit move the goal posts to what was planned or supposed to be being done, then that automatically changes the status, good or bad.
You keep barking about Drop off's, which is flawed. why, because any FLOWING pressure decrease at surface is virtually ALL associated to the amount of liquids being produced, design a way to bring the liquids to surface more efficiently/effectively and it should almost certainly notably increase the flow of gas and increase the flowing pressure.
Like I have said probably 100 X now, they HAVE 70-80 Barg reservoir pressure, if these wells ONLY produced dry gas then the surface flowing pressure would be up and above 50-60 barg fact.... it is purely liquids density being lifted with the gas currently that is weighting on that reservoir drive pressure, and that is why it is much lower at surface than it potentially could be, with a change in production string design as the simplest and cheapest way forward, or other more complex designs that "could" benefit notably more, and for longer.
To chip in here again, I have to say that I see nothing wrong with Bubblepoints posts on this issue. They make perfect logical sense and he agrees that the pressure will be an issue if Angus do nothing. Of course, Angus are not going to do nothing.
It's obviously an annoying problem to have to fix, but it is neither insurmountable nor unaffordable as far as I can tell.
Insurmountable? Agreed, IMO it's not. Unaffordable? Well... that's a different and more complex matter, given the company's current, large and looming short-term liabilities.https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.html?ShareTicker=ANGS&share=Angus-Energy&thread=A97BA0EF-2A45-4A31-B18B-8CF58749F791&reply=true#posting-rules
Headinthesand, I'm pretty sure that Angus are aware of their liabilities without needing you to point them out. I am equally sure that the experienced OG and finance team that are now on board will have been doing something about dealing with these issues, both the sorting of the reservoir the sort-term liabilities. It's like you and WG seem to think that you are the only ones who know what is going on and everybody else, including the board of directors, have no idea.
Regardless of all the smoke and mirrors put out on here Saltfleetby is a valuable asset and I have no doubt that Angus will both sort out the reservoir and deal with any funding required. They have a cash generating asset and that makes finding finance much easier than it was to develop the site in the first place, and they managed that didn't they.
JD
Perhaps you should change your perspective slightly?
People don’t post on here for the sake of the experienced executives sorting the finances, or those dealing with the rather obvious difficulties regarding the pressure drop and drilling. (Although their performance so far would suggest they should)
They post to those who have slightly less information or idea as to what’s going on.
Apparently you are fully clued up on this front. only Your history is also amusing though as you admitted you “couldn’t work out what was going on” last week!
Carry on talking the advice of those who literally change what they say 180 degrees in a week and complementing them on doing so.
Not really a surprise you don’t have a clue is it?
WG818 if Angus secure a good refinancing deal do you agree the price will rise significantly?..................