Member Info for HeadInTheSand

BV if you'd only bother reading, instead of kneejerk seething like a petulant ten year old, you would have noted that I specifically stated...

"After all, it's still not generating any revenue from SFBY."

...and then you'd have possibly (only possibly, mind) not looked quite so ridiculous.

Re any placing, that all hangs on what working capital ANGS has left, versus what it needs to outlay. After all, it's still not generating any revenue from SFBY, it has ongoing opex to pay, G&A, various loan/financing repayments (on the £12 million plus Knowe's £1.4 million CLN), staged FESL acquisition payments, plus of course at some stage, it needs to fund a sidetrack.

From memory, the last £6 million megaplacing only raised £2.5 million for working capital (the rest had to be ringfenced to satisfy conditions of both the lenders and the regulatory authorities).

As for Mercuria? Yes, the hedged deal has turned out fabulously for them, but they have no risk, because the field's been put up as surety.

It's all about achievable flow rates. If they're say 5.5 mmscf/day or less, then I'd expect a fairly sharp retrace. If they're say 6.5 mmscf/day or more, then I'd expect a fairly sharp upward trend.

Hamsters, surely the recent sharp 2x rise in the SP represented the flag-waving moment? Cheerleaders out in force and a steep emotive spike in the ANGS SP... it all seemed pretty flag-wavy for sure.

Now the bunting and the party-poppers have been cleared away, the emotive side of things has worn off and the market's now looking for hard facts concerning the consistency of production volumes.

As you've said a categorical RNS regarding production that is worded in a way that cannot be misinterpreted (that'll be a first) is needed, if things are going to steady.

There's certainly a fair few here who are big fans of rinse n repeat...

Basic maths shows anyone who can work a calculator that 3.5 mmscf/day would categorically not cover the hedge for any of its 36 months.

3.5 mmscf/day = 1.08 million therms a month. Which is under the lowest hedged volume of any month under the 3 year hedge.

What is actually needed is a consistent 0.175 to 0.180 (in mcm, as per the System Entry Volume figures everyone keeps pasting), if ANGS is going to have any gas over and above the hedge to sell before end June 2023.

So about double what's being shown at this still early stage. Alternatively, drill a successful sidetrack.

It remains unarguably true that to exceed the entirety of the first 12 months of hedge and have surplus gas to sell at much higher open market pricing, ANGS has to produce more than 19.125 million therms (the hedged volume) by the end of June 2023. That's (a bit under) 10 months, now.

19.125 million therms is 1860 mmscf. So, basic maths... 1860 divided by 300 days... that's going to require a consistent production level of 6.2 mmscf/day to meet those hedged quantities. Only after that would ANGS have any gas to sell at spot market pricing.

...except it's not 8 mmscf/day, is it? It's a hoped-for 5.5 mmscf/day - and if that's the achieved rate, that won't in fact cover the first 12 months of hedge, since ANGS has 10 months left in which to produce those volumes, because of the deferment caused by the delayed production start.

Of course a successful sidetrack would be a game-changer, but if production is just 5.5 mmscf/day, then excess gas over and above the above the hedge doesn't start getting sold until year 2.

The market seems to be very well aware of this, hence the underwhelming reaction to today's flow rate RNS.

BV..."LOOOOL"? Seriously?

I find it staggering that anyone with such an obvious school playground mentality even posts here? But hey, each to their own, I guess....

A small point - but one that's just a tad important.

George's hoped-for flow rate of 5.5 mmscf/day equates to 56,553 therms a day. That's 1.75 million therms a month of production.

The entirety of the first year's hedged volumes totals 19.125 million therms... and ANGS has ten months in which to produce that.

By my reckoning, it's going to need to produce at more than 5.5 mmscf/day... in fact at around 6.2. Or drill a successful sidetrack. Otherwise it won't be producing any gas at all to sell at elevated market prices within the next 12 months.

A small point.
George's hoped-for flow rate of 5.5 mmscf/day equates to 56,553 therms a day. That's 1.75 million therms a month of production.

The entirety of the first year's hedged volumes totals 19.

SB congratulations on your gain. Very much deserved - all the best to you.

Correction. 240 mcm would be 87 million therms a day.

(Now you've got me started)

Baits, you have your decimal points wrong, so you're out by a factor of 1,000.

240 mcm = 240 MILLION cubic metres. That would be over 87,000 therms a day (!!!). Not even the likes of Lemonleaf would come up with something like that as a prediction.

I suspect you mean 0.24 mcm.

Baits was actually correct very first time around.

The figures that will (presumably soon) get displayed on the National Grid's "instantaneous flows" page are exactly that... the flow rates applicable at the time.

So... if the flow rate entered is (and holds at) 0.15 mcm (= 150,000 cubic metres) , then that would equate to 5.3 mmscf. If consistent, that would deliver about 54,700 therms a day, or 1.64 million therms a month.

For reference, the total quantity hedged in the first 12 months remains 19.125 million therms. ANGS now has 10 months in which to produce that quantity. To do so, it will need to produce around 63,700 therms a day, which would require a flow rate of 6.17 mmscf/day or 0.175 mcm.

I would suggest that 0.175 mcm is the number that people should be hoping to appear on the Nat Grid portal.

You can choose to pay attention the the inane burblings of "love for hire" Malcy if you wish... or alternatively wait to hear what the consistent production rate turns out to be once it's been "normalised" and/or "stabilised".

I'd suggest that one of those two things carries a whole shedload more significance than the other, but hey, each to their own.

It is indeed all about trust (and has been for months and months).

The only significant metric in the short-term is how much gas can be consistently produced from the two existing wells, once both are turned on and the flow rate from both has been (to use George's term) "normalised".

Where's the bashing, pray tell?

You have to laugh. A simple statement of fact and Adrian/Lemonleaf and the board's resident fantasist-in-chief both helplessly kneejerk into life.

Hamsters, the hedge hasn't changed at all. It remains at 52.175 million therms to be supplied at pre-determined and fixed pricing out of the field over the 36 months between Jul 22 and Jun 25. Previously both ANGS and FESL were jointly responsible for supplying those hedged volumes, for the risk of any shortfalls and equally, joint beneficiaries of any production that may be obtained over and above that.

The only change in things following ANGS acquiring 100% is that it is now solely responsible for supplying those hedged volumes, for the risk of any shortfalls and equally, the sole beneficiary of any production that may be obtained over and above that.