Member Info for B2HS2L

Go to yesterdays IG video @ 09.50.

Lucan: 'would like to see dividends within 3 years, and I don't say that lightly'.

The presenter asks 'Are dividends likely from Production or from selling off assets?'.

Lucan's answer 'From Production, - From steady production benefits, - initially very very small'.

So I read that as when oil flows at Brockham, (he can't be talking about any other well), we will be proceeding very slowly.

Incremental increases in flow rate over a long period of time.

Ergo - I don't think we will know how much Brockham is capable of providing for quite a while.

Why does concentrating on oil delivery make so much sense to ANGS investors, but is just a distraction in the dash for gas and penury for the board?
Financial plans nowhere near strong enough, - must try harder.

Saltfleetby.

The big risk here is the cost and timescale of reconnection and testing of equipment required, - jumping through certification hoops. The board should request a price for the gas field reconnected and certified.

If it is much higher than the cost of reconnection and certification, they would know the value the seller would put on the field reconnected.

If it is not much higher, then that's why others in the gas industry are not apparently queuing up for the opportunity.

Note:

From 30.04.2019 RNS
'a short pipeline extension and new dewpoint control and compressor equipment (which could be funded with the monies from the Placing and Open Offer), reconnection to the nearby National Transmission Grid can be effected'. -

Costed at £1.7M without certification costs, according to page 19 of April 2019 presentation provided yesterday.

Also from the same RNS:

'Reasons for the Placing and Open Offer

The funds raised are to be applied, after provision for general working capital, approximately equally to support ongoing works at the Company's Brockham asset, forthcoming works at the Company's Balcombe asset, a seismic overview of the Company's Lidsey asset and to fund the exploration of potential acquisition opportunities.'

So the placing and OO only has room for the costs of exploring the potential acquisition here.

Lucan spoke of Saltfleetby not being a big enough project for larger companies, but I don't want this small oil company to choke on the opportunity to purchase for £1, the purchase price is £1 for a reason.

Also, if we are going to enter the gas market, doesn't it seem the board needs to acquire a gas professional, - someone that can manage the project and is experienced connecting to the National Transmission Grid? - more recurring cost. Gas industry safety and certification professionals will be looking for one on the ANGS board.

Saltfleetby would throw up many cashflow issues that would be absent without the project, and we have problems enough now.

Done properly Saltfleetby will be a big asset.
Done poorly the same opportunity will be a large millstone.

Open Offer

From the viewpoint of the ANGUS board, there has to be something they can give the market that gets the sp above 4.25p near the end of the OO period.

This week its a video and an April II investor presentation, which so far hasn't done the trick.
What else is in the locker?

I think the communications part refers to this:

RNS 7.00 am on 3 May 2019

Angus Energy Plc

("Angus Energy" or the "Company")

Brockham Operations Update

Angus Energy is pleased to provide an update on operations at its Brockham well site. The BRX4Z sidetrack has now been successfully re-perforated from 988 - 1044m MD, in order to establish the best possible communication with the fracture system present in the Kimmeridge Clay Formation.

The RARE ALERT story broke on the evening of 29th April, resulting in a confirmatory RNS next morning.
This presentation was ready, or had already been distributed to 'non-PI's'.

Plans for a placing were well advanced by 30th April, and the gas field story was added to the RNS. JMO.

I think this presentation was developed for the II's and HNWI's purchasing £3M shares on 30.04.2019.

Thanks Chas,
I had not realised that the date I received from HL was broker specific.
Appologies for any confusion caused.

I re-read the following RNS, and this time the word PRINCIPAL jumped out of the page.

RNS - Tue, 30th Apr 2019 07:00

Potential Acquisition

The PRINCIPAL acquisition over which the Company is currently performing due diligence and for which outline commercial terms have been agreed, is the acquisition of a 51% interest in a licence and operatorship of an existing UK onshore gas field (the "Proposed Acquisition"). Whilst there can be no guarantee that the Proposed Acquisition will complete, and it is still subject, amongst other things, to due diligence, regulatory consents, legal opinion and execution of legally binding agreements, the Proposed Acquisition cost under discussion is £1.00.

Now look at a Tidswell quote in a March 15th 2019 interview:

Jonathan Tidswell-Pretorius, founder and operations director at Angus Energy, has told the London Economic that “aggressive” development plans are underway in what looks set to be an exciting year for the energy company.

“The company is set to become a technical partner on several big and exciting ventures, we will unveil those details shortly."

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/lifestyle/my-business/energy-giant-founder-reveals-spectacular-blueprint-for-2019/15/03/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Oil has been found at Saltfleetby, but the stated oil reserves were not large when last estimated.

https://www.energy-pedia.com/news/general/roc-updates-saltfleetby-drilling-operations

My guess is that Saltfleetby due diligence is reviewing ROC's 2003 seismic model, and that the oil reserves could be larger than the last estimate.

However, Saltfleetby is the prospect we have been advised of, and the RNS and the LondonEconomic story highlight that there is possibly more than one new prospect being discussed I think.

Noon on Friday 24 May 2019 is the deadline for receipt of open offer applications.

I think it best to make a decision then.

We will know exactly the value of the offer on deadline day, - it might be a no brainer.

Its a shame its only 1:50, but better than a kick up the pants.

No early decisions necessary, - an early decision risks sp fall.

The company wanted to raise £3-5M recently, and only managed £3M.

I bet they wish the open offer was for > £1M now.

"12 to 15p last December-on expectation of Brockham flows - before the water debacle & boardroom battle
-both these are resolved now-can anyone think of a logical reason it shouldn't be 12 to 14p now"

RA - Decided to take you up on your challenge, - the situation is that:

1 little is happening on site
2 company has not confirmed the ordering of test equipment
3 company is in discussion with partners which is not scheduled according to the Brockham work programme.
4 There are a number of shares in issue now that weren't then.
5 David Lenigas has 8M shares he probably hasn't sold yet, as he's under water.
6 Up until yesterday at 3pm, people willing to sell shares at historically low prices, probably thinking they could buy in again cheaper.
7 Angus not quite as attractive as a long term investment until board explains themselves re proposed Saltfleetby purchase.

So with Patience, the sp may approach 14p again, but I think only when flowrate news is imminent.

How did I do? - atb.

http://www.angusenergy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Angus-Energy-Open-Offer-Circular-PDF.pdf

“We will now analyse the results with our partners before proceeding to the next stage which would involve
bringing on site full well testing equipment and commencing flow tests".

I think it more likely that partners wish to be satisfied that there is not going to be a recurrence of the following scenario, and may try to veto the ordering of test equipment unless satisfied.

From Brockham Well test update - 04.02.2019 RNS:

"The objective was to initiate instant flow by perforating with a maximum underbalance of pressure between the
reservoir and the well.
During operations several key completion components failed for a variety of reasons beyond the Company's control.
This also led to delays over the December and early January periods.
These long-lead items have not been re-installed but rather engineering work-arounds have been implemented,
including a resort to lifting by injection of N2."

"beyond the Company's control" - Hmmmm.

Clanwilliam needs to give Tidswell the day off if this is attempted again.

I have been on holiday last week, so I sat down today to research Saltfleetby,
and the reasons why Angus apparently has an interest in gas.

Appologies if the following has been discussed before, - but fairly sure it hasn't.

In 2003 ROC operated Saltfleetby, and were drilling gas well 7.

http://killajoules.wikidot.com/archive:drilling-underway-at-saltfleetby-gas-field-onshore-u

Extract follows:
The well has been designed also to appraise a potential oil reservoir in the
Brinsley Abdy sands, some 220 metres above the main gas zone. This oil reservoir was encountered at Saltfleetby 3 but until now, it has proved to be too difficult to define its areal location and quality and this had precluded any earlier appraisal attempt.

2 more references to well 7 findings appear below:

Saltfleetby well 7
https://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/8095/roc_oil_defines_saltfleetby_fld_with_new_appraisal_well/

https://www.energynewsbulletin.net/drilling/news/1052868/saltfleetby-7-has-3mmbbl-potential-for-roc?source=energynewsbulletin (~ Aug 2003 report)

ROC sold Saltfleetby to Wingas in 2004, but I have no information as to why Wingas has not followed up oil appraisal.

From the 30.04.2019 RNS it appears that gas is the interest from Angus's point of view.
However the presence of oil could also be of significant interest.

Could well 7 be modified to access oil?
How quickly / cheaply?

Who might have an interest in the other 49% if gas and oil are present?

06.03.2019 - Andrew Hollis and Carlos Fernandes appointed to the board.

It doesn't stack up for me either gkb47, but we can only make judgement on what we know.

I believe Clanwilliam knows much more, (as do the BoD now).

We cannot get further info on the gas prospect until due diligence etc has been completed.

However, we cannot get a strait answer to our question about why money is being spent appraising an area to the west of lidsey.

So when due diligence and other criteria are complete, I don't expect to immediately be any the wiser about the reasons why we raised money for gas.

Charlie, Andrew Hollis did make a video on a Dorset beach talking about rock strata in the cliffs.

I am not sure how good a job he would do for Angus talking about company strategy, but perhaps he should step up to the plate as a board member.

gkb47, I hear what you say with respect to ANGUS communications.

Lucan is a financier, so could not fill Vonks shoes talking technical in an interview.

So who else can be interviewed? - Clanwilliam or JT-P.

Since the latter is accident prone and not a board member, that leaves Clanwilliam.

Most investors would want him to discuss the gas field, but he won't be willing or able to do this with due diligence still pending etc.

He is the man who talked his way into the job by convincing the board the gas field was the way to go IMO, and we will need to remain patient to get answers to the massive number of gas questions we have.

Investors in ANGUS need to understand that the gas field 'opportunity' is the reason for Clanwilliams appointment, because I believe he shared his 'vision' and/or any inside information with the BoD before getting the job. He only needed to convince Lucan, and it would have helped his cause if JT-P was on-side.

We can't see value in the project with what we know so far, and I feel sure the BoD would not have been able to see value sufficient to install him as Vonk's replacement with the same information.

The gas industry does not appear to be falling over itself to pay £1 to own the opportunity.

So it is what Clanwilliam knows that is not in the public domain, that has captured the attention of the BoD for me.
As I say he is not available for comment about gas, but he could make himself available for interview about oil prospects at Balcombe, Brockham, and especially (since money is now to be spent on surveying) Lidsey.

'Why are we running before we can walk' is one question I have.

Oil first, then see how much money there is to play with.

It would seem that GL /JT-P/ Clanwilliam do occasionally view boards like this to gauge where their communications have not hit the target.

It would be a good rumour to start, - that ANGS BoD are always willing to clarify RNS wording / meaning issues via twitter.

That really would be a step forward in communication.

But suppose an RNS clarification was necessary and not forthcoming?

Investors would know there was an underlying problem, and BoD do not want to discuss it further.

So todays twitter clarifications will not be establishing a new status quo IMO.
(I would suggest the sp is to be supported until Open Offer done and dusted, - by twitter if necessary)

Where a clear unequivocal RNS message is not available, and no Twitter clarification is provided, - that's because the BoD are not willing to supply any other words.

That one hit the back of the net Masterbaker, - tells it exactly like it is.

Pete, I'll drink to 1000bopd.

"between the limestone layers is shale and that is what I think is causing the problem."

RNS:
"The BRX4Z sidetrack has now been successfully re-perforated from 988 - 1044m MD, in order to establish the best possible communication with the fracture system present in the Kimmeridge Clay Formation."

If Clay = Shale then I assume they wanted to reperforate the length in the Clay / shale.

Re todays RNS.
Could you please confirm (via twitter if possible), that we still have 195m of perforations at Brockham.
Could you also please confirm the length of perforation lost in isolating water ingress.
Many investors think we only have the length stated in todays RNS.