Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
BV so what you're saying is that you're okay with facts... but not if they're posted by certain people?
A fact is a fact is a fact, regardless of who posts it - it does not matter who posts it (or why they do, for that matter). A fact does not and cannot have an agenda (though it's more than clear that certain facts do not fit with your agenda, which no doubt explains the trite cheap shots).
I think you'll find your point of view is at best logically indefensible and at worst totally ludicrous. Good luck to you.
Sorry obvious, I was laughing whilst posting.
HO HITS that's anobvious fact, and 5 posters agree that you are one or the other or possibly both???????????
BV, that's both ironic and amusing .
Playing the man, not the ball is of course the only recourse for those with no valid argument. And how beautifully you demonstrate just that - thank you for making my point so perfectly for me.
.
HITS lol, if you want to waste another 5 years posting facts feel free, but not holding shares tells me you are paid per post in a boiler room. Nobody in their right mind would post from early morning until midnight up to 7 days a week unless they are getting something for the trouble or a sad lunatic.
Why go to so much trouble for a share you're not invested in? Out of interest, are you giving a balance view over on the 88e board for example?
I suggest you read the RNS again Mark. They need approval for the next £3 Million placing, £2.5million to satisfy the lenders and regulators!
It will be approved as they can’t drill the sidetrack without it!…….so hardly Fully funded until the next lot of dilution!
Fully funded and due to sell gas to Shell. Chin up Sandytrunks.
Sandytrunks you’re trying far to hard what’s triggering you?
Just pointing out facts BV, no matter how inconvenient people may find them.
asher that's a good sign, we should expect some news then lol.
Morning nico plenty of time to pay all debt back, with a healthy bank balance to go with it.
I see all the parasites are out early again this morning :-)
HITS lol, will you still be here in 2025 without having any shares to your name?
Well, let's take the period through to end June 2025 when the hedge finishes - and let's see what the nett profit is likely to be from Saltfleetby, given ANGS's existing obligations.
If ANGS only produces 1.5 million therms a month throughout that period, it generates £23.3 million of revenue for itself (and £66.4 million for Mercuria at current gas prices).
Out of that £23.3 million and within those three years, it has to pay back the loan (c. £14 million inc interest), pay Forum the cash part of the acquisition (£6.25 million), and pay off the Knowe CLN (£1.4 million).
That would leave ANGS with just over £1.6 million out of which to cover three years of field opex costs....
As has been clear for months and months, ANGS will struggle to make any nett profit out of Saltfleetby over the next three years, unless it drills a successful sidetrack. The recent acquisition of SEL has changed nothing about that... that sidetrack being successful is crucial.
Nicos, GL clearly said that the £12 mil SFB funding loan will be repaid by year end … this is by Dec 2022, within the next 7 months. So, why is it going to take until 2025 to repay half that amount?
through to 31 March 2025
£6,250,000 deferred consideration to be paid in instalments from net cash payments to Angus Energy from the Project
through to 31 March 2025
Debts to be paid out of cash flow.....
Yet again, at 1.5 million therms a month, ANGS generates a revenue of £6.2 million in the 12 months to end June 2023, after it's settled the hedge for that year.
One blatantly obvious error in those calculations is the assumption that any revenue ANGS manages to generate out of the field in June this year will be replicated every month.
Leaving aside the fact that ANGS now cannot possibly manage a full month of production in June (as the company itself has admitted), that is simply just not true.
But hey, I see the "Shell's gonna buy us outright!" rumour is being punted again, despite having been flatly debunked by the company...
"when Shell the offtake partner offers Angs a big lump."
GL last month:-
Q: "Would a project like this be simply too small for Shell?"
A: "I would think so yes."
Head in the sand keep it buried it’s gonna kill you when Shell the offtake partner offers Angs a big lump.
Is that including Brockham profits?
C&P, ANGS, BB, next door.....
john henry25 May '22 - 20:19
They will make £450,000 from the initial hedge plus approx £525,000 from the unhedged per month on 1.5 m/th
That’s £975,000 revenue p/month
A successful sidetrack of 1.5m/th will given revenue of £2.5m p/m
Total revenue £3,475,000 p/month
...and as per usual, people conveniently forget to mention that the first 1.5 million therms of monthly production doesn't deliver revenue at 137p per therm or 120p per therm... try 43p per therm.
At production of 1.5 million therms a month, ANGS's revenue out of the field would total just £6.2 million in the first 12 months, after it's made good on the swap contract differentials. What's more, an increasing gas price doesn't benefit ANGS even one tiny little bit at all unless it produces more than the quantities it has hedged.
P.S. mkt cap is not including any future oil or other income.