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.
Cuddo, you can carry on reposting the same lies as long as you like. However...
Re point 1, the planning application submitted by ANGS/Aecom into Lincolnshire County Council makes it clear that the sidetrack is estimated to take 16 weeks. That's what ANGS/Aecom's own application states. You may find the relevant document here:-
https://lincolnshire.planning-register.co.uk/Disclaimer?returnUrl=%2FPlanning%2FDisplay%3FapplicationNumber%3DPL%252F0073%252F21
The relevant Associated Document to view is the document is the Planning Statement itself and the relevant section therein is Section 4.1. Here's what it says:-
"4.1 Description of the Proposed Development
Angus Energy is proposing to drill a single side-track well from one of the existing Saltfleetby wells (SF-7) at the Saltfleetby B wellsite....
The Proposed Development will be temporary in nature; the total duration of the development is estimated to be 16 weeks."
Re point 2, ANGS's own answer to an investor question as given at the end of May this year makes it clear that the hedge relates to a volume of production. Here's what the ANGS answers states:-
"Most of these questions have been superseded by our recent announcements: in particular the hedge of c. 70% of target production is in place at 43p/therm..."
So... those are ANGS's own words. They've hedged about 70% of their target production - i.e. they've hedged a fixed production volume of gas that equates to approximately 70% of what they hope they're going to produce. This the hedge commitment is clearly volume-based.
Re point 3, nobody to my knowledge has claimed that the sidetrack is "compulsory". ANGS will presumably drill the sidetrack if it believes it is either commercially advantageous to do so or commercially necessary to do so. However on its own website, ANGS stated the following in an answer to an investor question just four months ago:-
"The side-track of SF7 is targeted for autumn but, in any event prior, to resuming production."
"Prior to resuming production" according to ANGS' own words. Now admittedly, the company's view may have changed since May, but certainly only 4 months ago, they were viewing the sidetrack as very high priority for whatever reason.
Re point 4, the statement regarding average monthly production figures from Saltfleetby being around the 2.5 mmscfd mark from when it was last in full production stands. That averaging (obviously) does not include months when there was no production. Unfortunately for you, anyone who can be bothered can go check those OGA figures themselves. This is particularly amusing since only yesterday JD Nau was claiming these figures didn't exist. Oops.
There's the back-up evidence for what's being put forward. The ramptastic squad claiming that all the above is just made up are looking ever more stupid. And ever more desperate for that matter.
Neo, you are saying I "fabricated" the AECOM report with its expertise-led estimate of how long a sidetrack would take?
You are saying I "fabricated" the words within ANGS Jun 3rd RNS, sketching out the terms of the hedge it has committed to?
You are saying I "fabricated" the freely viewable OGA monthly production figures from Saltfleetby during its last and most recent period of operation?
You really can't handle fully attributed and fully evidenced facts, can you?
'Im afraid your opinions have cost people money ... Those selling at 0.4p to 0.75p thanks mate... Your opinions have mugged investors to sell too low.'
If there is a discounted placing, will you feel you are to blame for people buying shares too high? Surely people should take responsibility for their actions?
I gave you full attribution for those details, Neo. Let me remind you.
The AECOM report.
The OGA prodsuction figures
ANGS's own June 3rd RNS.
Now unless you're claiming that AECOM, the OGA and ANGS themselves are all making falsehoods up...?
As usual, the cheerleaders simply cannot deal with inconvenient and fully evidenced truths. No surprise there, then.
Difference is - head in the sand you make up false details to try back up your deramps. But everyone sees through you and wg818
Neo, the difference between your posts and mine is simple.
You just shout "Liar". I provide source evidence.
Remind me... who should be embarrassed?
Market closed looks like the deramper shift is over lol
HEAD IN THE SAND literally everything you have written today has been false and moved to suit your agenda. You Should be embarrassed.
PS JD Nau, given you're ignoring the hard evidence which others have been kind enough to supply you with (Aecom, OGA etc) it's a tad ironic that you're claiming its others who are "poorly researched"...
1. Any sidetrack taking sixteen weeks... as mentioned in the Aecom report, a link to which has been provided to you and which you've chosen to pretend not to have seen.
2. Re the hedge relating to a volumetric rather than a mere percentile commitment, let me repost the answer I gave you yesterday, which again you've seemingly chosen to ignore:-
"Re volumetric rather than percentage commitments, I suggest you read the relevant ANGS RNS and pay careful attention to the language used. It's from June 3rd this year. I'll even quote the relevant snippet for you:-
"Simultaneous with drawdown, the Company has hedged (the "Hedge") approximately 70% of the Company's and its partners' share of future gas sales, estimated under a conservative projection, for three years beginning in July 2022"
If you believe this to be a percentage arrangement, simply ask yourself why the words "approximately" and "estimated" are used. No need for either, if it's purely a percentage deal."
I have never once said that production needs to be 10mmscf per day in order to meet the hedge commitments. I have however said that in my opinion only, it seems likely that a sidetrack will be needed - primarily based on the fact it'd be lunacy for ANGS to consider any delay to production start for any other reason. However and for clarity, this remains an opinion.
3. I have no idea what you're talking about re "compulsory". Presumably ANGS will drill the sidetrack if it is either necessary or on balance preferable to do so.
4. You've changed your tune. Yesterday you were claiming such figures didn't exist - and then you were pointed at the OGA website, where they clearly do - and independently audited at that. The statement regarding average monthly production figures from Saltfleetby being around the 2.5 mmscfd mark from when it was last in full production stands. That averaging (obviously) does not include months when there was no production. Unfortunately for you, anyone who can be bothered can go check those OGA figures themselves.
I think it's pretty obvious who's peddling the fake news here...
Great write up JD, unfortunately the paid naysayers with a vendetta will always try to mix up false info in facts to create confusion. Fact of the matter is SFB was a gamble and it has paid off, market cap should be 3 times on value of it right now alone. 3p within the next 4-5 months is very realistic.
There are several false narratives about Saltfleetby that are being peddled by some poorly researched posters as fact. So there is no confusion as to what they are the false narratives are as follows:
1. The Sidetrack Will Take 16 Weeks– The claim has been made that the sidetrack will take 16 weeks but no evidence has been offered for this. It would appear to me to simply be a conclusion that has been come too by assumption – ie some poorly researched person has gone “there are four months between February and July therefore this must be the amount of time that the sidetrack will take”.
2. The Hedge Needs The Sidetrack– It has been claimed repeatedly that there will not be enough gas production to pay for the hedge without the sidetrack. However there has been no evidence offered for this other than the OPINION of a single poster that the hedge must relate to a volume of production and that this volume must be 10mmscf per day.
3. The Sidetrack Is Complusory – It has also been claimed that Angus will be forced to drill the sidetract by Aleph / Mercuria etc as otherwise it will “cost them millions”. This is clearly nonsense as all they care about is their debt repayments. The sidetrack is a total irrelevance to them as long as they get paid.
4. That OGA Figures Show Saltfleetby Can Only Produce 2.5mmscf Per Day – This is a claim made by looking at an average of OGA figures when the field was not producing dee to technical issues. They even put this to the company on the website Q&A and were dismissed with the response that: “the actual deliverability now will exceed 5 mmscf/d.” However, these obviously false facts are still being peddled.
Please ignore these particular false bits of information. They are being peddled by those who are incapable of accurate research.
These same people used to claim that the project was unviable because the gas price was too low. Now the gas price is high they have come up with completely different reasons to cast doubt on a project which is clearly going to make millions.
GLALTH and be aware of those on here who only speak negatives no matter how good the news may be...