The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen 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.
Scally, one further point - Bio methane plants produce tiny volumes , which helps keep connection costs down.
Scally, good link, national grid are looking to halve the cost from £2m and time from 3 years , which lines up with my earlier post ref the bod being too optimistic and needing a good gas consultant.
Thanks ben. Now I'm working in MCM. another measure. Blimey !! don't seem to get two the same with this gas stuff.
8Bn cubit feet was my startung point for Angus quoted by L.L.
since I started researching this, I feel it's Saturday morning and had far to much to drink on Friday.
atb
missed the first six months
01/11/2012 0.093266667
01/12/2012 0.028548387
01/01/2013 0.353580645
01/02/2013 0.331
01/03/2013 0.266419355
01/04/2013 0.261066667
Those are daily average production in MCM, 1 MCM is 371970 therms
01/05/2013 0.234419355
01/06/2013 0.245833333
01/07/2013 0.030225806
01/08/2013 0
01/09/2013 0.245833333
01/10/2013 0
01/11/2013 0
01/12/2013 0
01/01/2014 0.235225806
01/02/2014 0.253428571
01/03/2014 0.246
01/04/2014 0.1987
01/05/2014 0.229451613
01/06/2014 0.213333333
01/07/2014 0.214032258
01/08/2014 0.207354839
01/09/2014 0.045866667
01/10/2014 0.200322581
01/11/2014 0.158566667
01/12/2014 0.163
01/01/2015 0.171225806
01/02/2015 0.190142857
01/03/2015 0.143
01/04/2015 0.179
01/05/2015 0.183419355
01/06/2015 0.172033333
01/07/2015 0.176387097
01/08/2015 0.173709677
01/09/2015 0.032633333
01/10/2015 0
01/11/2015 0.0713
01/12/2015 0.178225806
01/01/2016 0.106580645
01/02/2016 0.173137931
01/03/2016 0.168806452
01/04/2016 0.134666667
01/05/2016 0.166677419
01/06/2016 0.157766667
01/07/2016 0.138709677
01/08/2016 0.153903226
01/09/2016 0.083566667
01/10/2016 0.15416129
01/11/2016 0.1593
01/12/2016 0.123354839
01/01/2017 0.128709677
01/02/2017 0.143785714
01/03/2017 0.124419355
01/04/2017 0.098066667
01/05/2017 0.137580645
01/06/2017 0.0432
01/07/2017 0.084193548
01/08/2017 0.015870968
01/09/2017 0
01/10/2017 0
01/11/2017 0.033833333
01/12/2017 0.012580645
01/01/2018 0
01/02/2018 0
Would really need to see the previous years, I notice there is less in the summer, far less demand for gas then.
You got a link that I can go to bensherb ?
Can't get excited about another jam tomorrow prospect... I bought into this company on the back of the Weald :-(
The field was declining rapidly in the last year it produced for 2017,
MCM Therms P/th Revenue
Jan 3.99 1484160.3 52.20 774673.7943
Feb 4.026 1497551.22 50.65 758556.117
Mar 3.857 1434688.29 45.55 653550.7302
Apr 2.942 1094335.74 39.00 426801.882
May 4.265 1586452.05 40.26 638745.2566
Jun 1.296 482073.12 36.85 177643.9447
Jul 2.61 970841.7 37.94 368376.1746
Aug 0.492 183009.24 38.60 70641.56664
Sep 0 0 45.80 0
Oct 0 0 46.95 0
Nov 1.015 377549.55 47.97 181097.6825
Dec 0.39 145068.3 57.40 83269.2042
£4,133,356.35
While it may of produced 4 million of gas in 2017 it was almost exclusively in the first six months of the year.
B2H
In a perfect world - yes - they want to be rid of the liability once and for all.
This was a serious issue 10-20 years ago in the N Sea as minnows started to buy old fields. National Authorities, like the OGA, made it very clear that if you sold a field to a minnow and they didn't abandon it they still had the legal right to come after the original seller. Now basically the big boys still underwrite the Ultimate liability but there are still advantages as it was explained to me.
Firstly you defer the cost of abandonment - maybe 10+ years at say Saltfleetby - the time value of money means that this is a serious advantage - even if you just stick the cash in a Building Society a£ 2 mm it will accumulate a lot of cash- and hey! when did it ever hurt to kick the can down the road?? You'll be long gone (personally) before some other schmuck in the company has to deal with it.........
Secondly costs of abandonment tend to fall in real terms (especially offshore) - specialist contractors, new, bigger, more efficient kit, mew methods. Most offshore fields are now abandoned in money of the day costs (totally ignoring inflation) that are 50% of the estimates made 10-15 years ago. Onshore.. maybe not but you can always hope.
So GAZPROM are still on the hook probably but I doubt it worries them
Mirasol, - I feel this is the present owners - Gazprom and Wintershall - making as sure as they can be that they are not found liable at a later date for any abandonment costs. Is this your interpretation of the situation?
https://www.nationalgrid.com/group/case-studies/connecting-gas-more-quickly-and-cheaply
* to the grid
If connecting too the grid might be a problem, I would expect the BoD to be aware of this. I think I would want some firm assurances from the National Grid people that they will look favourably on the connection application before signing on the dotted line.
Excellent point B2H
" conditional on the prior acquisition of the field and licence by a third party abandonment operator."
But in 30 years investing in UK Onshore and offshore I've never seen that phrase used. There are companies who specialise in offshore abandonment etc but they are never Operators on the Licence. You'd have thought Angus, as an OGA approved production operator would qualify themselves (UKOG wouldn't right now...) so that really leaves IGas or Egdon onshore UK - it's very much Egdon's back yard but what is in it for therm? 49% for a quid???
An alternative would be to bring in someone like PW Well test or Moorhouse - the contractors - but I heard that IGas tried to sell some old Midlands fields to PW and it fell through as the OGA weren't comfortable that PW could "operate" properly or something similar........
Fredd, try negotiating and then making a connection to the national grid network - it costs a fortune and takes forever.
I feel that posters (myself included) on the subject of the gas field have not given full weight to the information on page 15 of the April 2019 presentation.
Please read the quote carefully, particularly the RISK WARNING:
"*Figures quoted in this presentation with regards to the Gas Field represent gross capital
requirements and total production. Angus will be liable for 51%.
RISK WARNING:
The heads of terms (including exclusivity provisions) agreed note that completion of the
acquisition of 51% of the licence is conditional on the prior acquisition of the field and licence by
a third party abandonment operator.
Therefore, over and above operational risks, there exists the risk that the transaction will not
proceed to completion.
In addition, considerable due diligence is required prior to completion which is expected to
occur within 45 days."
++++++++++
In order for ANGS to acquire a 51% working interest in Saltfleetby:
1 The gas field and license must first be acquired by a third party abandonment operator from Gazprom and Wintershall.
ANGS must be working on this with such an operator, or a deal would not be as near as Lucan implies.
So Angus's partner on this project is the abandonment operator.
2 51% of the license is to be acquired from the partner.
3 51% of the following known costs to be the responsibility of Angus, the rest is the responsibility of the partner:
a £1M workover of existing wells
b £500-700K for new 10 inch flowline (1200m)
c £1M compression and dewpoint control installation.
4 Although not stated, once the field is supplying gas to the grid, the abandonment operator is a sleeping partner, responsible for 49% of running cost, and benefiting from 49% of profit.
So is the abandonment operator making abandonment funds available to ANGS, (£2M) in the form of a loan?
Nobody on the this BB can say how abandonment costs can be made available to an operator for uses other than abandonment.
*** For those not keen on this gas project, Angus highlights the risk that the transaction (gas field purchase by abandonment operator) might not proceed to completion. ***
It's very, very simple why ANGS has this opportunity. The gas field appears to be owned by Wingas. That's Gazprom and Wintershall. Two very large companies. The remaining gas reserves aren't even crumbs to those companies, but to ANGS, it represents a very simple, low risk, low cost way to bring in twenty million or so clear profit. Contrast that with the market cap of the entire company. It's a gift to be honest. I can fully understand why Lucan is quite excited about it. In terms of hardware, few bits of ten inch pipe and an off the shelf compression skid. You're in business. It really doesn't get much simpler or cheaper than this. I expect the expenditure to be less than the dowry they receive from Wingas. It looks a great low risk opportunity to me.
I see some derampers on here this evening. Typical recovery rates are 70-80% not 60%, it’s in the RNS. This could equate to roughly £20 million profit. Also the reason the current owner isn’t going to extend the pipeline themselves is because they are a massive gas company and for them it’s not worth the effort, however for a small company like Angus it’s well worth it.
If you want to know why the other company wants to sell it watch the fkin video instead of posting shit.
They only pay 51% on decommissioning do you not read anything.They get 51% for the £1 and 2 million towards the decommissioning.Which tree did you climb down off.
It was shutdown because they closed the theddlethorpe terminal. with no gas no coming in from the north sea via this route the asset became stranded
For sale for £1 plus decommissioning money?
I pay you to take it away?
I suppose that there may be a reason why the seller wants to walk away from the asset - but what is the asset?
But it was shut down for a reason?
Ok so they buy it for a pound they also get 2 million to decommission the plant,so it costs them nothing for the time being.They can sit on it till they get revenue coming in from Brockham if successful and from Balcombe and Lidsey.Then open it up at an appropriate time when revenue is coming in.It's a no brainer from where I am sitting.
The costs indicated are imho too low. The connection to the grid alone could cost £1m [ including metering] and the pipeline, depending on what the route involves £0.5m more than indicated. Furthermore, knowing how national grid work this project will take around 2 years . They do need a gas professional / reliable consultants because it seems to me they are being too optimistic with this project.