Member Info for JamesConroy

Stop posting nonsense about Angus having defaulted. Sharing this kind of rubbish is misleading.

Firstly, what’s clearly needed is someone from the Angus team to step forward and properly take charge. Markets can tolerate bad news and tough restructurings, but they struggle with a leadership vacuum. Clear accountability and visible control would go a long way toward restoring confidence.

Beyond that, much of the frustration here is understandable, but the situation isn’t as terminal as it’s often portrayed. What matters now isn’t labels like “default” but incentives. Trafi holds the leverage, and a creditor in that position typically prefers stabilising and extracting value rather than destroying it. The absence of aggressive enforcement suggests optionality is still being explored.

Operational underperformance is real, but the asset itself remains solid. These are fixable issues under tighter oversight, not a fundamental failure. Silence is uncomfortable, but in creditor-led situations it often reflects negotiation rather than abandonment.

This is no longer a blue-sky story, but it isn’t zero by default either. If leadership, restructuring and operational discipline come first, equity optionality still exists.

Exactly. The company didn’t suddenly end up over-leveraged — that was the result of of poor capital discipline. What’s different now is the approach. The current board seems focused on stabilising the situation rather than papering over cracks.

True, the past has been a mess, but that’s exactly why this RNS matters. If Trafigura wanted to pull the plug, they wouldn’t be authorising capital spend at all. They’d just sit tight and wait to enforce. Supporting a workover suggests they want Angus operational and cash-generating.

But the key takeaway from this RNS for me isn’t the mechanics of the workover, it’s the explicit confirmation that Trafigura are backing it. Given they effectively control the company’s destiny right now, that support changes the entire tone of the situation. This doesn’t read like a lender preparing to enforce — it reads like one trying to maximise value by keeping Angus alive and producing.

Agreed Ocelot

My posting history shows I’ve been invested across multiple stocks over several years, Angus being one of them. Trying to imply something sinister based on that is lazy and proves nothing. By the same logic, anyone could accuse you of being a paid deramper given you’ve been posting negatively on the same stock for years, often in step with the same small group of posters. I’m not making that accusation, because unlike you I don’t resort to baseless insinuations when the facts don’t suit me.

You keep retreating to the share price because you don’t want to engage with the underlying detail. Share price at suspension isn’t an operational argument. It reflects sentiment and legacy issues, not whether current assets generate cash.

Saying Brockham “may just be breaking even” and Saltfleetby “may make a couple of million” without referencing the actual numbers in the RNS is exactly the problem. The Wingas FDP and CPR set out decline profiles, remaining reserves and cash flow assumptions in black and white. If you disagree with them, challenge the assumptions with numbers instead of vague language.

Repeating historic drilling failures and costs from years ago doesn’t change the present asset base or the fact that workovers are aimed at improving existing production, not repeating past exploration mistakes.

If you want a debate, debate the facts in the RNS. If all you have is history trawling and innuendo about posters, it just reinforces the impression that you’ve run out of anything substantive to say.

This is pure conspiracy dressing up as analysis. Instead of addressing a single number or a single RNS, you jump straight to guilt-by-association and vague insinuations about “leaks” and “authorities”. If you have evidence, post it. If not, stop hinting.

People returning to a board after a period of time isn’t evidence of anything, and repeatedly name-dropping “lady of AIM” every time facts are posted doesn’t magically invalidate those facts. It’s a distraction tactic, nothing more.

What’s telling is that you still don’t engage with production figures, efficiency improvements, condensate output or the stated purpose of the workover funding. You never do. Instead you attack posters, motives and imagined coordination.

You’ve been deramping the same stock for years and every time the discussion moves back to actual data, you pivot to ridicule and suspicion rather than substance. That’s not exposing a ramp, it’s avoiding the debate.

If factual posts have “the opposite effect”, explain why using numbers. Otherwise this just reads as another attempt to shout down anyone who doesn’t share your permanently bearish position.

Mirasol This post doesn’t analyse anything, it just cherry-picks a historic share price peak and pretends that’s the sum total of the company. September 2022 coincided with extreme UK gas pricing that no longer exists. Quoting 2.7p from that period without mentioning the macro backdrop is deliberately misleading.

The suspension price tells you nothing about current operations or forward value because the shares aren’t trading. You know that, yet you keep repeating it as if it’s an argument. It isn’t.

You say “make two columns of good and bad events” but then don’t reference a single operational metric. No mention of Q1 production at 6.92m therms, no mention of efficiency improving from 87% to 92%, no mention of ongoing condensate output around 128 bopd. All reported in recent RNS, all ignored.

Reducing everything to “the SP was higher three years ago” isn’t analysis, it’s hindsight. By that logic, no turnaround ever succeeds.

And let’s be honest, this isn’t new. You’ve been deramping this for years regardless of what the company reports. At some point it stops being scepticism and just becomes repetitive and frankly a bit pathetic.

Mirasol seems to have decided that he will criticise Angus regardless of how the company performs, and continues to label any poster with a positive view as a “ramper” whenever it doesn’t fit his narrative. It’s becoming increasingly disruptive, and I’m genuinely surprised the behaviour hasn’t been addressed by admin yet.

We need more information but so far we seem to be on the right track

Mirasol You’ve been consistently negative on Angus for years, so it’s hard not to notice when the same narrative is being pushed regardless of the facts in front of us.

No one is suggesting this RNS is some sort of silver bullet. What people are responding to is that this is exactly what a producing company is supposed to do: targeted, low-risk intervention on existing, proven wells to address clearly identified constraints. That is not routine box-ticking maintenance. It is remedial work designed to restore lost deliverability, which is a meaningful distinction you keep glossing over.

Yes, workovers are common. They’re common because they work often enough to justify doing them. Dismissing that as irrelevant doesn’t make it so. The reference to liquids loading and residual additives isn’t vague language either. It aligns with previously reported production variability, which points far more towards wellbore issues than simple reservoir exhaustion.

The absence of detailed cost guidance at this stage is normal and cuts both ways. What matters is that the programme is supported by Trafigura. Lenders like that don’t sign off funding on cosmetic projects. Their involvement tells you the economics have been stress-tested and deemed worthwhile.

Waiting until March for assessment isn’t a negative. It gives a defined timeframe and a clear data point, which markets generally prefer to open-ended uncertainty. Short-term downtime was explicitly flagged in the RNS and is a deliberate trade-off in exchange for improved uptime, stability and predictability thereafter.

As for financial restructuring, that’s a narrative you’ve been running for years and it doesn’t suddenly become more valid because a sensible optimisation programme has been announced. If anything, executing low-risk work with lender backing strengthens operational credibility rather than undermining it.

What stands out is that every development is framed in the most pessimistic way possible, while anyone who disagrees is accused of ramping. That isn’t balanced analysis, it’s a predetermined conclusion. Reasonable people can disagree on the eventual outcome, but presenting a clearly defined, lender-supported production enhancement programme as a negative says more about the poster than the RNS.

Now, as several have said, we wait for the data.

Still cautious, but this is the strongest RNS I’ve seen from them in a while. The Trafigura backing gives me hope that we’re going to come out of suspension and be fine.

I can agree with that. Credibility has been the missing piece.

What’s the realistic downside scenario?

The Trafigura support keeps being mentioned. Is it really that meaningful?

How confident are we that these wells are constrained rather than simply in natural decline?

Appreciate the detail, but we’ve heard “optimisation” language before. What makes this more than routine maintenance being repackaged?

I don’t see this as anyone looking to tax losses as a “saviour”, nor as a sign of desperation.

The core of the investment case is, and always has been, operational performance and cash generation from the assets. If that doesn’t materialise, the tax losses are meaningless. On that point there’s no disagreement.

Where I’m more constructive is that these losses sit behind real, producing assets rather than speculative projects. If the business executes and reaches a point of sustained profitability in the relevant subsidiaries, the losses then become a genuine, incremental benefit. They don’t create value on their own, but they can meaningfully improve outcomes once value is being created elsewhere.

That’s why I view them as upside optionality rather than something to rely on or model aggressively today. Success is driven by operations first; the tax position simply enhances the picture if and when that success is delivered.

I think most of the comments here are broadly right, but perhaps risk under-weighting the optionality embedded in the situation.

It’s clear the tax losses should not be treated as current value, and I agree they can’t sensibly be capitalised until there is sustained, demonstrable profitability in the relevant subsidiaries. Accounting prudence demands that. Equally, the subsidiary-specific nature of the losses is a real constraint and limits any “group-wide” narrative around them.

That said, I don’t think it’s necessary to swing to the opposite extreme and dismiss them as fantasy either. These losses sit alongside real, producing assets and established infrastructure, not exploration concepts. Brockham may be modest on its own, but Saltfleetby is a different scale asset, and if operational stability and cash generation there continue to improve, the probability of at least partial utilisation increases materially over time.

The right way to view this, in my opinion, is as contingent upside rather than something to model aggressively today. If management can reach a point where forward profitability is reasonably assured, then recognition of a deferred tax asset would be justified and would meaningfully strengthen the balance sheet. Until then, it remains off-balance-sheet optionality.

In short, the losses neither transform the investment case nor are they irrelevant. They sit in the background as a potential enhancer if execution improves, but the core valuation still comes down to operational performance, cash flow durability, and how the various stakeholder interests ultimately align.