Member Info for Howey1927

MTFW, a very valid point. We are making more money for the same amount of gas and oi.

As long we holiday in the Peak District rather than The Rockies, we're good (other districts are available)!

It seems the baton has been picked up by others but WG/Mira, the point is that WG accused me of makng a point to "suit my position", something I didn't do as I was quite open about the fact that my figures may have issues.

At almost the same time WG, you quoted a Brockham production figure of 5.7 barrels. The ony issue with that being that production had only started again just a coupe of weeks earlier, after a 3 year absence. GL has stated on several occasions publicly that we have been producing 40-50 barrels a day. Are you yet again calling GL a liar (you history with this!)

What you did is EXACTLY what you accused me of except you did it knowing full well what you were doing (imo) and without pointing out an of the caveats involved.

DRB, I'm pretty sure it was 124 barrels, if you look carefully!

Part 3 (and the last you'll be pleased to hear).

Me - I want this to work and you don’t, that’s fine. I’ve been far more accepting of you than many on the board but please don’t try to patronise me, especially using points I directly addressed in my 2am, Moretti and Malbec riddled post. I am not trying to convince anyone else to invest. I’m not trying to artificially increase or decrease the share price. I am simply trying to address the fact that I arrived home on Friday to hours worth of pathetic posting. I added to it as I was so p1st off but I admitted I was out of order and I’ve tried to do something about it.

HITS - Just food for thought. Take on board or ignore at your choice.

Me - Taken on board, clearly. Will you do the same?

Part 2

HITS - Secondly, the Q1/Q2 2023 hedge indeed used to be 1.75 million therms a month. However, following deferment, 2.25 million therms of hedged gas has been added into this period, making the average monthly volume now required 2.125 million therms during that particular timeframe.

Me - What you’ve done there is point out what WG already pointed out. Thanks for that again. I included the deferred hedge over the shorter timeframe but failed to account for the fact that Mercuria MIGHT hold us to the spot price of gas during the period the hedge could not be met. I think WG made a fair point and I will try to calculate for myself (and share with others) what that could amount to. My calculations (probably whilst p15ted) will be caveated as I am not in possession of all the info needed! I will also include the deferred hedge being spread over just the peak months as you might be right that this is a condition. As I suggested, I don’t think that will be necessary but just my view.

HITS - Finally to the 17p of cost. I also have seen that figure bandied about before - and it solely represents the per therm opex cost of getting the gas out. What you also need to bear in mind is that over the next three years, ANGS is committed to paying out the following:-

c. £14 million on the l£12 million loan inc interest
£6.25 million in cash to FESL to pay off the 49% acquisition
£1.4 million to Knowe against the CLN.

So that's nigh on £22 million that needs to be found and paid within the next 34 months, completely irrelevant of and separate to the hedge (and completely additional to the 17p per therm opex cost).. You might wish to factor that in - and it's possibly also worth considering even at this early stage the import of the extra "8% revenue override" due to the lenders once the majority of the loan has paid off..

Me - Thank you for the additional info. I also addressed the 17p point directly in my other post so nothing underhand from me. I was simply playing with what I had seen posted. Trying to wrap the figures you have (I assume correctly) quoted above (I’ll try to check them out) is very difficult, I think you’ll agree. The gas price at the time, the volume of gas being extracted and the number of barrels of oil from Brockham (Hey WG?) all play a factor and are all variable. This is why I asked for people to chip in, provide extra info and to try to establish some useful info for everyone to draw on.

Part 1

HITS, I’ve just seen your reply and I love your style. I’ve tried to address your comments below.

HITS - Howey, first off, you won't see me ripping you and the fact that you've (at last) done some calcs to pieces. After all, knowledge is power - and actually trying to work out financial outcomes is only rational and what any halfway serious investor or potential investor should do. It also helps put the endless shrieking of "Absolute goldmine!" "10p by Xmas!" etc etc from the blinkered optimists and the short-term traders into clear perspective.

Me - Thank you for the vague compliments in this bit.

HITS - Hopefully you didn't work out your figures in pencil on the back of a fag packet in a Moretti-inspired haze and instead popped them into a spreadsheet, making them ever so easy to tweak on a "what if?" basis.... All in a spreadsheet of course.

Looking at your calcs as presented, I'd draw your attention to the following:-

First, ANGS's insistence that 1 mmscf = 10.872.5 therms. I suggest you research the likely validity of this. As I stated to Yanis yesterday, I've not found one online resource that supports that mmscf to therm conversion metric - but at least half a dozen reputable websites which state that 1 mmscf = 10,282 therms. That's worth bearign in mind - and I am sure that I don't need to remind you that blindly relying on "Because ANGS/George said so!" hasn't proven to be the best course of belief in the past. That's a significant difference.

Me - I addressed this point in the first line of my post but thanks for pointing out what I pointed out. The other thing to bear in mind is, it’s the published info from the Valuation Statement and I used these figures for that reason. As they’ve published this, I think it is the safest assumption to work from, that this is the agreement they have with Mercuria, until a clarification is forthcoming. The other thing to bear in mind is that the figure quoted is to the detriment of ANGS because we have to produce more MMSCF to meet the hedged number of therms. But you argue away and please feel free to point it out to Mercuria!

To be continued!

Good evening everyone and apologies for being offline for a while. DIY and family time gets in the way of ANGS sometimes!

WG, thank you for this. I had found these figures but presumed there were more up to date ones. I'm assuming, but don't know for sure, that the figures are updated quarterly? So hopefully we'll see the last 3 months figures in the coming days.

You seemed very pleased and quite assured to say we'd produced just 5.7 barrels a day so I hope you weren't sharing these figures to "suit your position". Oh the irony!

Why didn't you mention that before? ;-)

WG, can you please post a link to the page on the NSTA website where you see the 5.7 barrels a day from Brockham? I've been scouring the site (admittedly on my phone) and I can't find production figures. Thank you.

DRB, I'll do some rework later and share in a new thread. I'll try to work out the worst case based on WG's point too if I can get the figures.

GL said we are aiming to push up towards 6MMSCF with the current set-up, so if that is the case, we are almost certainly good. No need for any worry at this stage as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks Noel. Very, very nearly 5.2MMSCF or 56,536.78 therms.

If we can keep that up whilst drilling the sidetrack, we should be ok.

No hangover WG, just you!

You may have implied no offence but you did accuse me of something underhand. I didn't state any of what i wrote as fact and I openly admitted that expected it to be ripped apart. It's stood up pretty well really.

If you can see my position from my history, yours is abundantly clear. You want this to fail so I'll take onboard the small snippets of useful stuff and ignore most of it.

Again, thank you for pointing out what I had overlooked.

WG, first of all, thank you for pointing that out as it is valid.

But then again you ruin it by being an a55whole at the end. I didn't do anything to 'suit my position'. I produced some figured based on info available, what I thought needed to be considered at the time and asked for input from others for anything I'd overlooked. Others pointed out where I'd left things out without accusing me of something underhand. I also didn't 'move a portion forward' as that was agreed by Angus and Mercuria. If I had that level of influence afforded to me, I'd scrap the hedge altogether and get you banned from this site but hey ho!

Also, to use your point about the deal that's been agreed, we don't know the detail so it's not safe to assume anything. At the point when the hedge was agreed the unit price was a fraction of where it is today so we could just as 'safely assume' that Mercuria are happy with £1.50/therm as that would almost certainly greatly exceed what they forecast.

I don't think that is that case (before you start) but I suspect they appreciate they are into a very good thing here and will do what they can to make sure a smooth 3 years of easy cashflow. Just my opinion.

Bendog, I feel an investor question coming on re: storage. I know it was covered in the first interview but GL seems to be focusing on Geo as the next big thing, to me. He glossed over the other assets to a degree. Possibly because he stated storage is 5 years or so away from being brought online so maybe not immediate focus but I'm sure it's something the government would be interested in!

Did you catch Baits' post about the possible prospects at Balcome? Very intriguing!

Thank you folks. I did that with a few Moretti and a bottle of Malbec in me too, so it was as much luck as judgement! But I've had a Jeff Goldbloom in Independence Day or Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men like rise from the booze!

Good point on the deferral DRB, can't believe I missed that. The overall figures include it but not the peak period breakdown, so I'll adjust in a bit when I'm on my laptop. I also failed to consider the downtime for trips/maintenance. @Yanis2005, do you have a view on what percentage the downtime should be? Would I be right in guessing, the trips are likely to have a far bigger impact as each piece of equipment is brought online, as the engineers balance things out? So I would expect we will get an inflated view in the set of figures we should get imminently and not panic if they look terrible.

Is there anything else that needs considering?

Everyone else in my house is asleep and I was running the risk of staying up all night binge watching The Boys (watch it on Prime if you haven't already) so I thought I would spend some time on this.

I've stopped being lazy and done some figures myself which I hope are as accurate as the details in the Valuation Statement allow. There is the obvious issue that there doesn't seem to be an absolute conversion factor for MMSCF into therms but ANGS have quoted 1MMSCF = 10872.5 therms. So let's use that. Do we agree?

Using that and the hedged therms over the course of the contract (52.125m) means we need to extract 4794.2MMSCF over the 3 years which averages out at 4.379MMSCF per day.

Taking into account the lack of production for July and most of August (let's call it all of August to paint the worst case scenario) means the daily average over the remaining course of the hedge is 4.641MMSCF per day.

The elephant in the room is the peak period for the hedge, October thru June, where we need to produce 1.75m therms. So for that period we need to be generating 5.306MMSCF per day.

Ignoring the fact that the 2nd compressor will increase capacity from the existing wells and the sidetrack will follow on (with a fairly high chance of success) we are stacking up pretty nicely against those numbers (we can take proper stock once the figures are released at the end of the month). I'm also strongly of the opinion that Mercuria are so elated at the deal they negotiated before the current state of world affairs, that the peak period can be negotiated and smoothed over the hedge as a whole, IF required.

We need to factor in the running costs of the Business. I've seen a few quoting 17p as a break even figure. Is that the break even for the Business as a whole (apologies, I should know but I was off school that day)?

If the 17p/therm covers the running costs of the Business and we were to only produce enough to hit the hedge bang on, this would mean that we would generate £12, 376.71/day or £4,517,499.15 each year for the next 3 years.

Barring any disasters, we will be producing extra over and above the hedged volumes and that is where the fun starts, given the gas prices. We also have the condensate and oil income which all adds up.

I look forward to waking up and having this ripped apart because I've made a major c0ckup somewhere, but I hope it's fairly accurate.

Goodnight ANGers.

DRB, I overreacted as I'd been out with my family for dinner returning to watch the interview only to find a flurry of playground style messages. My apologies.

Doesn't change my view entirely though. You are too much like Scot126, asimpleinvestor and to a lesser degree, HITS. It's not a good look!

In your short time here, you've managed to achieve what only Gideons has done before and p1s5 off Yanis! He really is one of the good guys and is very balanced. He's never ramped this.

In my view, all investors are trying to do is demonstrate that we are achieving or very close to achieving, the companies immediate goals. Yes, some get a little excited but hey, they're excited. Rather than belittle these efforts, constructively point out where they could be improved.

Just an idea.

Your attitude towards other posters plus that fact, that similar to HITS, you seem determined to point out the hedge can't be met with current flow. It can, it will and GL said so in his interview. You complained about Yanis using annual forecasts and then about him using a daily forecast. All you want to forecast is the peak hedge period, like HITS. See my reply to him.

If you are going to add something of value, I and many others will be all ears. Alas, you are like Scot126, asimpleinvestor and HITS.

I appreciate you aren't here to make friends but you seem hell bent on making enemies. Why is that (rhetorical)?

HITS, as well you know, the hedge can be adjusted. Let's take for example, July and August. What Yanis is saying is correct. At today's level we exceed the hedge over the 3 years.

You are hanging onto the peak hedge period and whipping up hysteria. Lest we forget that Mecuria are getting WAY more than they ever anticipated when they negotiated the hedge and I'm pretty sure they will play ball, especially given their wider, vested interest in this working.

So let's cut the bollucks and accept that ANGS have succeeded where many, including you, said they wouldn't.

Then there's the sidetrack and additional compressors. And the other assets to boot. Best you slip away quietly, I suggest. I've enjoyed some of our time together but you are looking ridiculous now.

Adekela, very well put.

I've been out this evening for dinner so I'll watch it shortly. Looking forward to it. ????