If you have any questions for our guest speakers (Greatland Gold, Helium One and Poolbeg Pharma), please submit here.
Really? I think it unlikely that anyone of any persuasion would assign the slightest credibility to such a decidedly bizarre non-question.
What I find much more interesting is the fact that ANGS felt it appropriate to publish such a throwaway fawning comment on the section of their website reserved for investor questions? That's more than a little odd and frankly, smacks a bit of desperation.
As to the genuineness of the comment? Very obviously anyone considering increasing their holdings in any company to notifiable levels is hardly going to announce such intention publicly.
"However, 120p per therm is my estimate to really give serious revenue streams with only 2-5mmscfd. It is all there in the calculations."
Unfortunately, there's a potential large error in those calculations because of one very important unknown.
Say ANGS manages to consistently produce the midpoint of what you say, namely 3 mmscfd. All well and good - except if ANGS has also hedged the equivalent of 3 mmscfd for three years, then it really doesn't matter what the open market price is for gas at any time during that period, because their sell price is fixed at 43p per therm ( and one therm is equivalent to 100 scfd). It's only any volumes that might be produced over and above whatever the hedged amount is that would benefit from the capability of being sold at open market pricing.
I remain surprised that ANGS hasn't revealed the actual production volume that has been fixed under the hedge, because that strikes me as both crucial and material information.
BD, latest in a series of much revised estimates on first gas from ANGS is now Feb 22 as you say. However, a fair few (myself included) expect further slippages on this and thus that consistently achievable production volumes won't be known until Q2 next year.
Plus there's the whole horizontal question that remains unanswered. Would going for an early sidetrack be beneficial? ANGS has recently stated that it hopes a successful sidetrack would double its production volumes - so then it's a question of weighing up further production delays causing short-term pain vs the mid-term gain of increased production volumes.
Throw into that conundrum the possibility of a successful sidetrack actually being necessary in order for production to comfortably exceed the fixed amount hedged by ANGS and it's not at all a straightforward call.
Sounds like wait and see time to me?
EchDelta, credit where it's due. To me, that's the most reasoned portrayal of a more bullish case for ANGS that's been posted here in years - and the lunatic ramptastic cheerleaders with their endless squeaks of "Guaranteed money, nailed on, diamond hand 7x multibagger!" should take note.
There's plenty you posted that I agree with...
"The Board need to remain 100% focused on delivering Saltfleeby. There is plenty of Geothermal opportunities to 'Develop' than deliver once Saltfleeby production dates are well and truly behind us." --- Absolutely right. Unless Poundland delivers sufficiently, in my very firm opinion, there won't be a company around to pursue more mid-term rainbows.
"As for how much and when, this is important absolutely but there has been a nice spin-up Natural Gas Prices." --- Hasn't there just? Again entirely accurate.
"If, this is a very big if, if the Gas Prices remain elevated in the region of 120, that is 200% more than the hedge levels at 40p, I would say that negates low levels of production." --- Yes and no. Sure, that is indeed a big if (though gas pricing staying elevated looks likely). But far more important is the fixed quantity hedged by ANGS. If it only manages to produce not much more than this because of low levels of production, then currently high gas pricing would only have a minimal positive effect. (Side note:- if ANGS can't produce enough volume of gas to fulfil its hedged commitments, I honestly don't know what the downside effect of that would be? Nothing nice, I suspect... however, hopefully George has got his "conservative projection" numbers right and this won't come into play).
"If production per day is in excess of 4mmscfd consistently at 120p levels then I firmly believe the value-driven investment case goes up." --- I agree, - but only provided that ANGS has hedged a volume less than a 4mmscfd equivalent (as per above). Personally, I would guess this to be the case - but it'd be incredibly useful to know what daily production equivalent has been hedged.
"Q2 2022 is the real deal for Angus Energy and thats 5 months away." --- Absolutely. That's when things become much more clear and we'll know which way this one s going to break. Red or black?
"So I certainly can see warrants at the 1.2p level probably exercised around 1p." --- here I'll differ. Those warrants have a 2 year life span and thus don't need to be exercised at pre-defined pricing (if desired) until end Jan 2023. I can't see any compelling reason why the holders of said warrants would feel the need to exercise them early while the SP remains lower than the exercise price.
Roll on Q2 2022 next year - because that's when we'll get a clearer picture on "how much and by when?".
"We will be testing 1 p soon...."
Possibly - but by my calculations, the ANGS SP has "tested" (and indeed broken through) the 1p level about 12 times already over the last two years - only to fall back every single time.
So I honestly don't think that breaking through this level again and for the 13th time in 24 months would necessarily be anything to write home about.
Yes, EA permission is essential... but it's not the be all and end all .(Of course).
Presumably ANGS's "target" is and remains "gas as soon as possible". (Of course).
However, the only things that matter are how much gas can ANGS consistently get out of Poundland and by when? (Of course).
The answers to those two questions are in my very firm opinion pretty much a matter of life or death for ANGS. Which is why I personally don't expect any dramatic rerate until the answers to both are a whole lot closer to being known for sure.
The thing is, if people don't post nonsense, others won't feel the need to debunk it.
Despite the oft-repeated myth of the Evil Global Shorting Conspiracy (TM), clearly those of a more negative persuasion simply aren't inspired to post when the more lunatic fringe of the ramptastic squad are muted.
To be fair, TWB "another green day" does make it sound like there's been a whole succession of "green days".
But looking at UKOG's track record over pretty much any meaningful time period during at least the last three years, those "green days" have self-evidently been vanishingly rare and far FAR outweighed by those of a decidedly more red variety..
However, let's see what transpires next...
There's clearly a few separate individuals involved and there's clearly a degree of orchestration, though confusingly they seem to share control of various IDs. Did it not strike you as odd that most of the time, Cuddo couldn't spell or punctuate and generally ranted on incoherently - but now and then a post would appear (still allegedly from him) that was clearly written by someone with definitely more smarts?
Case in point - it would never in a million years occur to the incoherent version of Cuddo to use a word like "starkest".
Although very obviously a member of the squad (another suddenly appearing ID who joins yesterday claiming no doubt to be a "committed long-term holder who's been watching on the sidelines for years" - and just as Cuddo's endlessly repeated drivel gets him put on the naughty step), EchDelta isn't Cuddo. Well, not the person who's controlled the Cuddo ID most of the time. However, despite the claim of being one of "us ordinary investors", he certainly isn't that.
Two quick points. I would say that if we're talking about " wicked and vile" and people looking to "harm to ordinary investors", it's those who spend massive amounts of time and effort trying to convince anyone gormless enough to listen that ANGS is a "guaranteed, nailed-on, cast-iron, easy money, about to moon, diamond hand, 7x multibagger" - and purely for their own self-serving motives - that are a good deal more "wicked and evil".
I would also point out that yesterday, once Cuddo and his outlandish, disruptive and substance-free nonsense had been put on the naughty step, how much more civil this BB became. Simply because you're not going to get people countering ridiculous and unevidenced assertions if none are being made.
Yanis, I agree that, if ANGS has managed to get its production estimates reasonably accurate, then it should be able to meet the hedge commitments. However, sadly we all know that ANGS has proven itself repeatedly to be not at all good at making accurate estimates, a thing which causes a little wariness.
Plus, don't forget it has other already incurred liabilities aside from the hedge - those primarily being operational cost and particularly debt funding related (CLN, £12 million facility etc). Thus It needs to generate enough gas consistently a) to meet the hedge and b) to at least cover the costs of its already incurred liabilities - and sure, those two things are not discrete, because hedge revenue goes towards paying incurred liability costs.
Which is yet again why knowing how much gas can be consistently produced out of Poundland and by when is so unutterably crucial.
PS Gkb obviously still reads this site, because he's this morning posted on another share BB, asking for his regards to be passed onto yourself.
As stated elsewhere, although very necessary, I'm not expecting EA permission to be refused (though the speed with which any approval is given is clearly important).
Although an absolutely required stepping stone along the path of getting to where it needs to be, EA permission is not the biggest issue/question facing ANGS. Those remain (yet again):-
"How much gas and by when?"
Directly connected to that is the necessity of ANGS being able to fulfil its volumetric commitments under the hedge. And connected to the latter is the necessity and/or benefit of the company drilling an early sidetrack successfully.
Yanis, my understanding re gkb is that he lost patience with LSE's BB admin policy and the apparent ease with which those with more dubious agendas could get perfectly factual and politely expressed posts deleted. He therefore requested his entire account to be shut down.
(That's at least what he has said on another popular share BB where he now posts - up to you whether you set any store by this or not).
This discussion of EA permission is actually detracting away from Nom's originally posed question. RE the EA, all that's needed to be said is that ANGS needs the permission and as soon as possible. That's a given.
Here's Nom's question:-
"Does anybody know if Angus have insurance in case they are unable to meet the production they have hedged for next year? Things could get messy if they cannot deliver when gas prices are multiples of the price they have hedged 70% of the conservative estimate of production."
This has been raised a few times, both here and elsewhere - and it's one of the several extremely important details not publicly known about the terms of the hedge that ANGS signed up to.
Now... ANGS has continually assured one and all that the amount hedged (which let's not forget is a fixed amount) should be reasonably easily produceable, because that fixed amount correlates to roughly 70% of ANG's "conservatively projected" production volumes.
So, on that basis, one would hope that there would be no chance of it failing to meet its volumetric commitments under said hedge. However, its ability to fulfil its hedge commitments won't become known by ANGS until Poundland is actually in consistent monthly production.
Having said that, I've been interested in ANGS's at least superficially counter-intuitive eagerness to drill the sidetrack early, especially given that to do so a) does not deliver a guaranteed success and b) is inevitably bound to delay production start by some length of time. (and so potentially miss out on some or all of a pre-hedge period of 100% of produced gas sales at heightened prices).
ANGS has stated that it hopes that a successfully drilled sidetrack would double produceable gas volumes, which would of course be a good thing. On the same presumption, It would also therefore derisk the chances of falling short on any hedge volume commitments, should any transpire.
I suspect that this is why recently ANGS has finally started now pushing so hard for an early sidetrack, because I'd also presume that failing to fully deliver against the three year hedged volume commitments might get very nastily costly.
Separately, here's a much more reputable media outlet's take on the hugely inflated European gas futures market and the problems it and associated hedges are causing traders like Gunvor and Mercuria.
This is what Bloomberg has to say on the subject:-
Ocelot, we all know that.
The absolute core questions here remain "How much and by when?" Oktane is right to point out the potentially dire consequences of not being able to fulfil the fixed volume hedged.
This is why I've been so interested in the sidetrack and wonder if ANGS suspects it's needed to be able to fulfil volumetric hedge commitments. One would hope not, given that ANGS have assured repeatedly that the hedged volume was based on a conservative production projection .
However, if ANGS is also correct in its hope that a successful sidetrack might double production volumes, I can see several arguments for drilling this earlier, rather than later. And even if that meant missing out on two or three months of 100% of produced gas sales at today's notably inflated prices.
Unfortunately PI's are groping in the dark here even more than ANGS. Things will become far clearer a) when the amount of consistent production from Poundland becomes known and b) if/when detail on the hedge commitment becomes available.