Brockham15 Jun 2022 10:53
is online and producing marginally less oil than HH (could be more as HH is 3 months delayed in reporting).
But Brockham has the advantage that they are already setup and injecting water on-site.
ANGS have Brockham (in my opinion a better asset than HH as there will be no further drills there and operational costs are minimal).
ANGS have Lidsey, which was producing albeit a small volume. They could pop it back on production, but they were talking about working with a partner in adjoining licence area to develop plans.
ANGS also have Balcombe, it's drilled. Needs some cash for EWT, but at least that is minimal compared to what UKOG face with cash calls at Turkey and at Loxley.
And then the big bonus, ANGS have Saltfleetby. Which is due to come online any day now. Sidetrack due in July which could push the production through the roof.
So on one hand you have ANGS with 4 assets and minimal future cash calls, 1 of which is of national significance, 1 is a steady producer and 2 are future prospects with limited cash calls.
In the other hand you have UKOG with 10* more shares, HH (which needs cash galore), Turkey (which is a duster), BB (which was a huge failure and needs to be Plugged and Abandoned), Loxley (which will be a duster), a half baked statement about some USA ventures and then a salt cavern that none of the big players wanted for storage. Huge cash calls needed, huge placings and dilution.
Then with ANGS you have a CEO that is doing regular investor calls and interviews and does online Q&A's, whereas with UKOG you have a CEO that is hiding in his apartment in the Bahamas for fear of being drawn into saying something that could put him behind bars.
Say no more!