Firering Strategic Minerals: From explorer to producer. 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.
Should see a significant price rise on the shares on Monday due to rising price of gas.
The Namurian reservoir, which sits below the Westphalian from which the Company currently extracts natural gas, has produced 1.5 bcf to date but a very wide variation of gas in place exists between our own recent CPRs and internal estimates by previous Operators, Gazprom-Wintershall and Roc Oil. To date no detailed interpretation of the Namurian, independent from the Westphalian, has been undertaken and accordingly a full third party re-interpretation of both reservoirs is presently underway, expected to complete in October.
I wonder how much gas we really have??
Exactly Donek, and I think we all know what the report will show. That's why I previously mentioned that we would suddenly have more gas at SBY, surprise surprise lol!
Bang on BV
Its the first time they mentioned this new layer, after the sidetrack was pumping....
New wells and a New layer, this comes from comservative Richey Herbert who does not over promise and under deliver.
Excited times.
I've pull together some previous Investor Questions and answers re the possibilities of Saltfleetby:
1/ Is there any significant oil at SFB that you will be looking to extract at any point in the future? Asked on 23 November 2022
No plans as of yet. There is oil but we have never evaluated whether it has commercial significance.
2/ What is the geological & commercial chance of success for the 2 sidetracks at SFB Asked on 1 September 2022
Only one side track is immediately planned on well 7 and I refer you to earlier extensive answers already provided on these page – we view Chance of Success as extremely high.
A potential further side track into the southern hemisphere from another well has been carefully considered and planning and permitting work will begin shortly. The Chance of Success here is definitely good but harder to evaluate at this stage but this further side-track would open up considerable new resources whereas the immediate side-track is merely accelerating production of known resources by re-entering a part of the reservoir which was historically highly productive ( and the old well addressing it was shut-in only due to a technical failure of the well-bore unrelated to the productivity of the reservoir itself).
3/ Will there be further sidetracks at SBY in future to reduce the hedged gas at these high prices. Thankyou, and keep up the excellent work. Asked on 1 July 2022
Yes, although none planned for 2022. We would like to open up the southern lobe of the field in 2023 where we see low cost side tracks for high potential returns.
4/ When will the full remap images of Saltfleetby be available, and would you buy/lease further equipment to enhance production from other areas of the licence. Thankyou. Asked on 8 November 2021
We are waiting on input from partners on our interpretation and will update on that and discussions with neighbouring licence holders as soon as it is received.
RH said the permanent pipeline 3 months, so I’m expecting mid August or earlier :-))))))))) The
Oce, its clear now that they underplayed SFB from the beginning and so brought the 49% of paul forrest on the cheap.
I don’t think Paul Forrest has any regrets.
Gasprom paid him to acquire Saltfleetby, he handed over Gazprom’s cash and 51% of SFY to Angus, waited patiently whilst Angus developed SFY, and then sold his remaining 49% for over £14 million (since parts of the payment were in shares the exact amount depends upon the price at which he sells them - he’s done well so far selling many well above the issue price).
That said, I don’t think Angus shareholders should any regrets either. We’ve acquired a very valuable asset (gas now, storage in the future) for very little.
It’s true that Angus’ financiers will also make a great deal of money (although they got very lucky with the hedge), but then they took most of the risk. They’d have nothing if the processing plant hadn’t worked and we wouldn’t have that much, for now at least whilst the hedge is in place, if they hadn’t also funded the initial stages of the sidetrack (it’s a nuisance that it overrun in time and expense, but that was always a foreseeable risk and one that will become less important in time).
We are hearing about the Namurian reservoir now but the Southern lobe has become less prominent.
In exchange for selling his 49% stake, Paul Forrest gained an investment in a liquid asset, Angus shares.
He also managed to offload the £12.5 million de-comm costs listed in the Saltfleetby Energy accounts for the 8 mile pipeline onto Angus shareholders. A very sweet deal for him!
This is not specific to Angs, the junior markets in general are in a terrible mess. This is my 17th year investing and it's probably the worst I've seen it. Shorts will take full advantage hence GSA still hanging around.
Lol WG / Joiler still wanting Angus to disappear asap. Thanks for letting shareholders know that we will now save £12m ,due to the site being used for storage with the Hydrogen ready 8 mile pipe in future you numpty LOL!!!!!
... We had a great many questions around other assets (Brockham, Lidsey, Balcombe) and projects (Geothermal and Storage) as well a new seismic interpretation and a study on deliverability and volumentrics at Saltfleetby which will be informed a month or two’s flow and pressure data on the third well. We will update with a full presentation to shareholders over the summer on these initiatives whether singly or with a combined presentation online. (answer to Investor Question asked on 31/05)
WG818, Paul Forrest didn’t offload anything. Some posters seem to thing that he owned Saltfleetby for some time and didn’t know what to do with it, but that’s not correct. He was clearly negotiating with Gasprom and Angus simultaneously.
This can easily be seen by looking at Companies House’s records for Saltfleetby Energy Limited at https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00953066/filing-history . They clearly show that Gasprom (which appears as the Russian Federation) gave up control on June 17th 2019 to Forum Energy. Angus then announced it acquisition of 51% of the company two days late on the 19th - see https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/angus_energy/news/rns/story/ry53g9w
Correct up to a point ab. The first deal was when Angus took 51% and that excluded £12.5million the gas pipeline de-com costs (see the relevant RNS).
Taking over Saltfleetby Energy Ltd, puts that cost onto Angus now when the field becomes uncommercial. So yes he did offload it I’m afraid.
The existing pipeline is not suitable for gas storage and a new one would be required with an estimated cost of £200 Million 15 years ago.
What’s the relevant RNS WG818? Angus put Saltfleetby’s decommissioning costs at £2.5 million at the time of the initial acquisition and had that confirmed by outsiders. That remains the provision in the accounts - see note 22 on page 69 of https://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Angus-Energy-Annual-Report-2021-2022-1.pdf (Saltfleetby’s total provision isn’t individually listed, but they increased the provision by £1,225,000 following the acquisition of the outstanding 49% indicating that the total is just under £2.5 million).
The one you gave a link for.
“ Saltfleeby Energy has agreed to retain the liability for all abandonment costs surrounding the subsurface pipelines from the two sites to the Theddlethorpe Gas Facility together with certain redundancy costs which would otherwise fall to be treated as expenses under the JOA.”
The cost of de-comm is available from companies house in Saltfleetby Energy Ltd Accounts. The year in question gave a figure of £12.5 million for abandonment.
Agreed that there are many puzzling questions surrounding why a one man band with £ 80k in the company at the time was even allowed to take over from the Russian federation? Then the fact that Wingas (formerly Saltfleetby Energy Ltd) and Angus shared the same address. Finally the joint directorships in other companies.
Look at note 7 on page 7 of Saltfleetby’s accounts for the period January 1st 2019 to May 31st 2020 (they were filed on July 27th 2021 and are available here: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00953066/filing-history ). The decommissioning provisions were reduced from £12.8 million to £750,000 (by May 22nd 2022 they’d been increased to £1.225 million). That reduction has been audited. In any event, Angus’ purchase of Saltfleetby has been a success: it’s producing about 10mmcf of gas, debts are being repaid, cash is being generated, plans are being made for expansion and production is being managed by experienced people.
Yes. But that was because the pipeline and sites were moved from a liability to an asset. Once the gas falls back to uncommercial levels they will be moved back into the liability column.
Hell hath no fury, like a wg scorned.
ab76, you have listed out why our wg/ruthy is so angry,
she predicted the complete opposite of all of these.
'In any event, Angus’ purchase of Saltfleetby has been a success: it’s producing about 10mmcf of gas, debts are being repaid, cash is being generated, plans are being made for expansion and production is being managed by experienced people'
When Angus acquired 51% of Saltfleetby Energy Limited on June 19th 2019 there was no certainty that it would have any producing assets.As the RNS announcing that acquisition stated, “Angus Energy has obtained quotes… to effect abandonment (£1.75 - £2.5 million), each of which fall below the sum of the proposed payment by Saltfleetby Energy. Saltfleeby Energy has agreed to retain the liability for all abandonment costs surrounding the subsurface pipelines from the two sites to the Theddlethorpe Gas Facility together with certain redundancy costs which would otherwise fall to be treated as expenses under the JOA.”
Therefore, at that stage Angus was responsible for the abandonment costs other than those concerning the subsurface pipelines, which remained the responsibility of Saltfleetby Energy. Saltfleetby Energy appears to have estimated those further costs at £1.225 million, taking the total abandonment costs to between £2.975 million and £3.725 million (Angus’ last account show abandonment costs of £4.36 million and that also includes its share of the various oil assets).
Although abandonment costs are estimates, Angus’ accounts make clear that provision for decommissioning is recognised on full installation of oil and gas production facilities and the amount recognised is the present value of the estimated future expenditure (see page 54 of the accounts).
In those circumstances the decommission costs of Saltfleetby are unlikely to be anywhere in the region of £12.5 million.
Although the production assets at Saltfleetby were correctly re-recognised as tangible assets as the field came back into production, the two pipelines to Theddlethorpe can’t have been included in that as there’s no gas facility there anymore.
Ab76
Angus bypassed the original threadnedlethorpe refinery by installing a 700metre pipeline straight into the national grid terminal. The 8 mile pipeline hasn’t gone anywhere or the eventual de-commissioning. It just has another 700 metres at the other end now.
If I could delete the last paragraph of my last post I would as you’re quite right WG818 the old pipe work is still being used with a new extension, but I don’t accept that Angus’ estimate of the decommission costs is incorrect.
However, even if I’m wrong about the decommissioning costs Angus still got a great deal. Saltfleetby has plenty of gas and will be an ideal storage site when it runs out/become uneconomical to produce.