Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Negan, if you're looking for a dispassionate, objective and reasoned opinion on ANGS, those are sadly few and far between on this BB. You're much more likely to find the kneejerk playground-grade vitriol I see you've already attracted from a couple of founder members of the heavenly choir.

The situation with ANGS is simple. If either the 2nd compressor (allegedly kicking in sometime within the next month or two) or the sidetrack (currently being drilled) deliver meaningfully increased and sustainable daily production volumes over and above current levels, then ANGS will make a lot of money indeed and IMV the SP will react accordingly.

If however they don't, then ANGS's current levels of both debt and other commitments (e.g. the hedge for one) will mean that ANGS's generatable levels of profits out of Saltfleetby will be FAR more modest over the next 30 months or so.

It's no more complex than that.

The question really isn't "What would the SP be at a consistent production level of 14 mmscf/day?" Unsurprisingly the answer would be that the share would multibag many times over.

As it always has been, the question actually is "What effect will the sidetrack and/or the 2nd compressor have on consistently achievable production rates?"

(Or... "How much gas and by when?")

So... it's all about "How much gas and by when?" or "What will the 2nd compressor and/or the sidetrack actually increase current production volumes to?", then...

Gee, whoda thunk that?

Vii, as has been pointed out, the details on the deferment are not clear. ANGS has been asked for clarification, but to date has not chosen to give any further details.

My best guess? It's a volumetric deferment and as you astutely note, at the time Mercuria agreed to this, it looked like a no brainer for them. Jan/Feb/Mar gas futures prices were at the time way higher than Jul/Aug/Sep, so why not agree?

However, this is supposition, as it has to be, in the absence of candour from ANGS.

For clarity, certainly not aimed at you, Howey. You're aware of the detail, i.e. the deferred hedge quantity.

No I got mildly irritated at Jrlomax continuing to double down on his utterly wrong claim, whether through wilful or accidental ignorance, that's all.

For balance, it is of course equally true that, if a 2nd compressor and/or a successful sidetrack gets consistently achievable production up to hoped-for levels, ANGS will become highly profitable, regardless of the remaining 30 months of the hedge. Those preferring to deal in facts have never disputed this (because it's obvious). However the company and the field are not there yet.

Jrlomax, as has been pointed out to you several times by several people (and supported with direct reference to ANGS's own issued statements), the total hedged quantities for the six months from Jan to Jun 2023 are...

(1.75 million therms x 6) + (1.125 million therms x 2) = 12.75 million therms.

This is blindingly obvious to anyone who's done the barest modicum of research before shooting their mouth off.

I think you'll find that, to produce 12.75 million therms in six months and meet the hedge for that period, ANGS is going to produce a lot more gas than the 5.7 mmscf/day that you completely wrongly and at best ignorantly claimed.

The actual average daily production figure needed would be over 20% higher than you stated - in fact would need to be approx. 6.9 mmscf/day.

However, feel entirely free to carry on denying this blatantly obvious truth if you choose - after all, it is your inalienable right to appear as crushingly dumb as you like.

Correction... the deferred volumes were actually 2,250,000 therms. The rest stands.

It's good to see that a few here have bothered doing at least some minimal research.

I believe I'm right in saying that ANGS has said that the deferred Jul 22 and Aug 22 hedged quantities (totalling 2,125,000 therms) will be made up in H1 next year. If spread over the entire 6 month period, that would require 2,125,000 therms a month to be produced each month to meet the hedge... or approximately 6.9 mmscf per day.

Wise up, Jrlomax...

Really? You've clearly forgotten about the deferment volumes.

Re the hedge, though hard numeric details have not been given, it's pretty much nailed on that ANGS beat the Sep hedge, just squeaked over the Oct hedge and should exceed the Nov and Dec hedges with a reasonable amount of wiggle room.

Doing the same in Q1 and Q2 next year is going to require positive impact from the 2nd compressor and/or the sidetrack.

You're quite right, WG.

546 million minus 0.75 million minus 6.5 million minus 2 million = 536.75 million shares.

Remove that off-market transfer of 76.5 million shares and you get to that 460.25 million number you state.

By my reckoning, if he wished, Paul Forrest could dispose of a further 50.75 million shares in the quarter to end Nov.

The actual correct facts on Paul Forrest and his ability to sell shares are these:-

Forrest/FESL were given 91 million shares as part of the 49% acquisition deal (the "initial consideration shares"). These were all sold immediately.

Forrest/FESL were given a further 546 million shares as part of the acquisition deal (the "additional consideration shares"), but these were partially "locked in" with no more than 25% of those 546 million shares (so, 136.5 million shares) being allowed to be sold per quarter from Sept 1st onwards.

So far, all we've been told about via RNS is the sale of 9.25 million shares by Forrest/FESL out of the total of "additional consideration shares" they hold.

HUH???

There's someone in the happy clappy Telegram group who's decided to deliberately muddy things and deceive by choosing the same ID name as I use here?

Interesting (and if true, also amusing)... I wonder if I should be flattered?

For the categoric record, I am not and have never been a member of this or any other Telegram group. If for some insane reason I ever fancied getting brain-washed, I'd probably try the scientologists first.

Yes. Let the internet do it for you.

https://www.kylesconverter.com/volume/cubic-meters-to-million-cubic-feet

e.g the 0.1769 figure mentioned in the post that started this thread is in million cubic metres. That equates to 6.25 million cubic feet,

It's much trickier to convert that into an accurate therms number, because there are several variables that can be based upon (pure volume, calorific quality, energy supplied etc).

Seriously? Is the only way the heavenly choir can attempt to explain away less fawning opinion to pretend that anyone not as uber-positive on ANGS as they are simply must be a multi-ID? And (presumably) that only one person in the whole world is more conservative about ANGS? That is genuinely ridiculous.

Mind you, I'd expect exactly this sort of tripe from the helpless fanboi fantasist that is RT003 with his oh so amusing "I'll guarantee I'll leave LSE forever if the ANGS SP isn't 5p on first gas" promise that he's busily pretending he didn't post a few months back...

Not necessarily done.

Under the terms of the 49% acquisition and the "locked-in" shares issued as part of that, Paul Forrest is still permitted to sell a further c. 50 million shares before the end of November, if he so chooses. And a further 136.5 million shares in the 3 months between Dec 1st and Feb 28th, again if he so chooses.

Seriously? I was out by 10%... you by 1,000%.

Oops I mean 110,000 extra therms. Topside revenue for Oct therefore would be £1.15 million.

Even going by energy values (kwh), ANGS seems to have produced somewhere between 1.8 million and 1.86 million therms in October. Topside that'd give them 90k therms to sell on the open market.

Depending on whether they get the spot rate on those therms or the then forward price (c. £2.37p), that would give them a best case total revenue out of Saltfleetby for Oct of just over £1.1 million (plus any revenue earned from condensate production).

Tony, I see your estimate of additional therms produced over and above the hedge in Oct has come down by an eye-popping factor of 10 since yesterday, when you were telling anyone who'd listen that there were going to be 2.5 million extra therms produced in the month (!!!).

You're still too high, but at least that's a whole lot closer.